|
2017 was a terrible year, they then changed game ending moments by changing disruptors, burrow fungal, and widowmines; to nerf game ending moments. They also changed shoot while moving ferrari cyclones because they feel too one sided for the micro battle. And theyre too easy to control imo. Whats easier than a-move? Move command shoot while moving.
2018 they go back on their design goals and bring back game ending moments by reverting disruptors and widowmines mostly ( they make faster than in 2017 but need drilling claws to be invisible, which makes them better overall than ever, but worse in early drops). They also bring back shoot while moving cyclones, make tempest super fast ( who thought this would be good?) and make the most imba unit against zerg ever seen, the new battle cruisers.
2018 was the best year ever for sc2, and they decide to go back to 2017, which was terrible, with even worse changes?
Did they secretly change balance team recently? Or is their balance team literally contradicting themselves and doing the opposite of what they told us they wanted?
This balance team is horrible, im sorry but it seems they have no vision or goals and just do random changes.
|
On January 18 2019 15:41 Snakestyle11 wrote:
2017 was a terrible year, they then changed game ending moments by changing disruptors, burrow fungal, and widowmines; to nerf game ending moments. They also changed shoot while moving ferrari cyclones because they feel too one sided for the micro battle. And theyre too easy to control imo. Whats easier than a-move? Move command shoot while moving.
2018 they go back on their design goals and bring back game ending moments by reverting disruptors and widowmines mostly ( they make faster than in 2017 but need drilling claws to be invisible, which makes them better overall than ever, but worse in early drops). They also bring back shoot while moving cyclones, make tempest super fast ( who thought this would be good?) and make the most imba unit against zerg ever seen, the new battle cruisers.
2018 was the best year ever for sc2, and they decide to go back to 2017, which was terrible, with even worse changes?
Did they secretly change balance team recently? Or is their balance team literally contradicting themselves and doing the opposite of what they told us they wanted?
This balance team is horrible, im sorry but it seems they have no vision or goals and just do random changes.
lol, I personally liked 2017 the most. But I'm an INnoVation, Stats and Dark fan so that's probably why.
Edit: On a more substantive note, I feel like 2018's games felt shorter and I personally prefer watching longer games. Not to take anything away from 2018 but I also enjoyed the SSL in 2017 a lot so I think that made a big difference in my perception of it. I also liked that Maru and Serral didn't win everything lol.
|
On January 18 2019 08:49 yht9657 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 06:34 WhiteSPiriT wrote:On January 18 2019 05:39 yht9657 wrote:Personally I don't understand most of these changes, the warp gate and blink change don't make sense. But it's always fun to see a few Terran players crying for not being able to counter other races' entire tech tree with one certain production building for some reason  Fully upgraded army with supports of medivacs/tanks/WM/liberators is for sure only coming from one building and considered T1 Maybe you should actually first learn how the game works before trying to taunt terran players right ? Or maybe you guys should learn to MECH it happen
The more funny part with this argument, beside late-game bio being in fact high-tech (medivacs, 3/3, ghost, (upgraded)libs, upgraded mines, etc. ), and beside the fact the same situation actually happens in every MU (cracklings harcounter thors, banes counter ghosts, zelots do stuff late-game, etc. ), is when terrans have something else than bio that woks late-game (warhouds, cyclones, mass libs, mass raven, etc, etc ), everyone whine to death and it get nerfed to ground.
Except under-gold players who struggles to hold some marines with stim, everyone decent knows instinctively SC2 is at best when we see beautiful, multi-tasking, super high skill ceiling, micro intensive, bio play.
SC2 mech is nearly always lame, either camping into 1 timing or some ridiculous high-mobility F2 play. Exception are few. (Marus's speedshee/cyclone, some Gumi plays, etc. )
|
On January 18 2019 14:21 Anc13nt wrote:
My problem with the constant balance as a philosophy is that it makes it less likely for new builds to develop that counter existing builds. If Broodwar were balanced after BIsu vs Savior MSL final, there's a good chance that they would nerf the corsair, which would prevent builds like 5-6 hatch hydra from developing. Zergs would probably still play Savior 4 hatch lair style and the meta would be a lot more static. Of course they could change balance in order to forcibly change the meta and I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. Overall, I'm not against occasional minor balance changes but I don't really like the idea of a major year end patch or a patch that greatly affects the viability of a certain build.
Agreed, it's the LoL patch syndrome where the players aren't being pushed to figure out a counter to an effective strategy because they can just say it's OP.
|
Bio play is high mobile with big diapason of strategys, to low mobile ultras be hard counter vs them is totaly fair for me.
|
Bio keeps getting weaker and weaker because of mech, I really don't get it. Bio is nearly playable atm, the matchup is +-50% because BC and cyclone/hellion is op af, so Blizzard nerf bio through the ultra buff, I don't think they play their game ( same for the tl posters there, if you say that bio is t1, it s because you don't know anything about this game ). Even though bio is under 50% (I'm 100% confident about it).
|
Imo they really buff protoss too much with Blink, stalkers, warpgate, robo bay.
Cannot understand that
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On January 18 2019 18:44 xongnox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 08:49 yht9657 wrote:On January 18 2019 06:34 WhiteSPiriT wrote:On January 18 2019 05:39 yht9657 wrote:Personally I don't understand most of these changes, the warp gate and blink change don't make sense. But it's always fun to see a few Terran players crying for not being able to counter other races' entire tech tree with one certain production building for some reason Fully upgraded army with supports of medivacs/tanks/WM/liberators is for sure only coming from one building and considered T1 Maybe you should actually first learn how the game works before trying to taunt terran players right ? Or maybe you guys should learn to MECH it happen The more funny part with this argument, beside late-game bio being in fact high-tech (medivacs, 3/3, ghost, (upgraded)libs, upgraded mines, etc. ), and beside the fact the same situation actually happens in every MU (cracklings harcounter thors, banes counter ghosts, zelots do stuff late-game, etc. ), is when terrans have something else than bio that woks late-game (warhouds, cyclones, mass libs, mass raven, etc, etc ), everyone whine to death and it get nerfed to ground. Except under-gold players who struggles to hold some marines with stim, everyone decent knows instinctively SC2 is at best when we see beautiful, multi-tasking, super high skill ceiling, micro intensive, bio play. SC2 mech is nearly always lame, either camping into 1 timing or some ridiculous high-mobility F2 play. Exception are few. (Marus's speedshee/cyclone, some Gumi plays, etc. )
Naming warhounds just shows how much you played back then. Warhounds was, literally, the only unit, that would ALONE win any early game, mid game or late game battle. It was the definition of FUBAR. It's not our problem Blizzard didn't do the proper balancing and right dismissed the unit. But c'mon, that unit was heavily broken and that's where the whine was at a proper place.
There was a reason why warhound returned to the game during April 1st
On January 18 2019 21:32 bObA wrote:
Imo they really buff protoss too much with Blink, stalkers, warpgate, robo bay.
Cannot understand that
let's recap the last year. Rogue, Serral, Maru. They probably feel the need! The need for speed a Protoss champion
|
They won both GSL ST, isnt that enough ?
|
So this patch is already live?
|
Czech Republic12134 Posts
On January 19 2019 04:06 DieuCure wrote:They won both GSL ST, isnt that enough ?
Obviously isn't!
|
On January 19 2019 04:09 GGzerG wrote:
So this patch is already live?
On January 17 2019 03:27 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
Our current plan is to release this update, along with the new ladder season, on January 22nd
Is it January 22nd?
|
In my experience it is hard to take a 3rd on time in TvP. Protoss can attack/posture while expanding and Terran has to expand later then Protoss or risk dying on the spot.
Will not this be an ever larger problem now when warpgate is faster and blink is cheaper? Am I missing something?
|
About oracle change to armored, "We’ll also be monitoring how this change impacts PvT." Can someone explain me? o_O
|
I think phoenix is a bit overpowered against ground army e.g. phoenixes vs stalkers. I would suggest to either increase graviton beam cost to 75 energy or decrease initial energy to 25 or alike this may resolve issues seeing air vs air constantly.
|
I don't know what to think of these changes. Playing ZvT (M3) is really strange atm. I'm really struggling against BC / hellbat / cylone stuff, but if a terran goes bio, I'm almost always winning. Turtle mech still is a thing, but it has always been. It's a war of attrition with ever changing details.
|
Does Blizzard ask pro gamers to test changes before community feedback updates? It seems that they change too many things at once and that should be such an obvious mistake to make for balance designers, so there has to be a good reason, right?
|
Testing changes is for the most part pointless in a game with starcraft's complexity, something completely OP might be totally worthless 30 seconds later and there are too many different scenarios to test and judge if its over the top or not. Better to paralelize the process with people and if something breaks the game act reasonably quickly and turn it down a little.
There is also hardly any incentive for the pros to test things when they are constantly focusing on winning money of the live version.
|
On January 19 2019 03:36 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2019 18:44 xongnox wrote:On January 18 2019 08:49 yht9657 wrote:On January 18 2019 06:34 WhiteSPiriT wrote:On January 18 2019 05:39 yht9657 wrote:Personally I don't understand most of these changes, the warp gate and blink change don't make sense. But it's always fun to see a few Terran players crying for not being able to counter other races' entire tech tree with one certain production building for some reason Fully upgraded army with supports of medivacs/tanks/WM/liberators is for sure only coming from one building and considered T1 Maybe you should actually first learn how the game works before trying to taunt terran players right ? Or maybe you guys should learn to MECH it happen The more funny part with this argument, beside late-game bio being in fact high-tech (medivacs, 3/3, ghost, (upgraded)libs, upgraded mines, etc. ), and beside the fact the same situation actually happens in every MU (cracklings harcounter thors, banes counter ghosts, zelots do stuff late-game, etc. ), is when terrans have something else than bio that woks late-game (warhouds, cyclones, mass libs, mass raven, etc, etc ), everyone whine to death and it get nerfed to ground. Except under-gold players who struggles to hold some marines with stim, everyone decent knows instinctively SC2 is at best when we see beautiful, multi-tasking, super high skill ceiling, micro intensive, bio play. SC2 mech is nearly always lame, either camping into 1 timing or some ridiculous high-mobility F2 play. Exception are few. (Marus's speedshee/cyclone, some Gumi plays, etc. ) Naming warhounds just shows how much you played back then. Warhounds was, literally, the only unit, that would ALONE win any early game, mid game or late game battle. It was the definition of FUBAR. It's not our problem Blizzard didn't do the proper balancing and right dismissed the unit. But c'mon, that unit was heavily broken and that's where the whine was at a proper place. There was a reason why warhound returned to the game during April 1st
warhound was stupid and OP and low skill af and un-terran, i agree 100%. FYI it was included in the "ridiculous high-mobility F2 play". I was simply citing historical non-bio play that worked in terran. And yep, nine times out of ten, it was garbage design. so maybe we should accept SC2 terran is mainly bio play, and it is for the best. Since years now we have this "nerf bio, buff non-bio" strategy to balance T and the result is not good.
Btw i play a lot and near continuously since WoL release, thanks.
|
On January 20 2019 04:13 SC-Shield wrote:
Does Blizzard ask pro gamers to test changes before community feedback updates? It seems that they change too many things at once and that should be such an obvious mistake to make for balance designers, so there has to be a good reason, right?
Too many drinks after a bad ladder day explains many things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
