|
On July 17 2019 09:46 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2019 07:38 Wombat_NI wrote:On July 17 2019 07:17 Nakajin wrote:
These p change seems more reasonable, wonder how it will go.
As for the infestor, I honestly think should just remove it and balance zerg around the viper, maybe buff spores even, IDK but the units just seems impossible to get right, it ocsilate between useless and match up breaking + it makes for shitty games.
The balance team can do miracle (never thought I see a nicelly balanced raven) but maybe it's time to start in new on this one
I’d worry of a few things if we’re to go down this rabbithole, although I do agree on the infestor. Without the infestor filling its current niche BCs get pretty insane to deal with. Maybe airtoss as well. The infestor is a bit like the prism to me, in isolation it’s way too bloody good, equally the race kind of needs it to stay competitive without sweeping changes elsewhere. Outside of practicalities such as actually getting them and in good numbers BCs are a pretty broken unit in their current state. As a terran player I would tend to agree about bcs, I think that they are not necessarily overpowered since getting them in large and abusive numbers before dieing is prity hard. But conversely I don't think infinite value trading units are good for the game, swarmhosts are bad for the game, infestors are bad for the game, old ravens were bad for the game, bcs are bad for the game. Units that trade nothing for something consistently, and reliably are bad for the game in general. .
I'm not sure I understand your logic in putting BCs in that group with the others. Yamato trading is hardly free, there's a big wind up on the spell, and it has a significant cooldown. Yamato + Tactical Jump has a big cooldown. Those two things are very different from Swarm Hosts and Infested Terran spam. Also as you rightfully pointed out, there is the massive cost in both resources and supply that go into making the Battlecruiser, which makes its power scaling fundamentally different from a caster like the Raven or Infestor.
Besides, even with BCs being as strong as they are right now, Corruptors still eat them for lunch. You can't just trade forever with them and not get punished for it like you can with Infestors.
BCs vs Zerg would need to be looked at again if Infestors are nerfed, but it won't be because of "free trading" it'd be more along the lines of how well can a Zerg stop a maxed out fleet of Battlecruisers/Ravens and Vikings which is a balancing act I'm sure they run in testing all the time. End game army balance always needs to be tight, but like I said already ,BCs are the most expensive unit in the game already aside from the Mothership. If they aren't strong then they aren't worth spending the money on.
|
Good balance patch by Blizzard. Just a reminder that 7 out of 8 players in the GSL Super Tournament quarterfinals were Protoss, the first time that 7 out of 8 players were the same race for a premier Korean Tournament for SC2 and BW, and BW pro tournaments go back to 1999.
Think of that, we have never had 7 out of 8 players as the same race in the quarterfinals of a SC2 or BW premier Korean tournament before, for some 20 years since the start of pro Korean Starcraft, until the last GSL Super Tournament.
Then you have PvsT ladder win rates for GM at 59.44%: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/bx1yuq/pvt_ladder_winrates_per_league_since_the_last/
Then you have PvsT win rates at 57.44% for Premier Tournaments this year: https://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/c7s2bv/2019_premier_tournament_winrates_updated/
Then you have more Protoss qualifying than other races for the GSL Super Tournament, and GSL Season 1 and GSL Season 2, making the GSL become the GPL = Global Protoss League. This is a well needed patch to balance the game. Good patch Blizzard.
|
Well. Maybe neural parasite coats energy per a second is better.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
As protoss, I think 1st versuion of WP change is better then 2nd. While 1st kills some early game builds, its still adaptable and can be restored with good upgrade, but now its cost nerf (all game duration affected), range nerf (early-mid game effect), and zealot nerf included (core battle unit for early game).
PS. Summary: these changes are good if no zerg race existed. PvZ unplayable/
|
This looks a bit better to me. Im really not sure how big the minus 1 range will end up being on WP but hope it will be more than making the units warp in slower to the fight. Killing / Forcing retreat of the prism is the only way to really stop these all ins..u just die slower to slower warping in units if u dont kill it . I think the infested terran nerf (or bug fix call it what you want but its a nerf relative to how the game has been presently) along with the interceptor change will help balance out late game PvZ about as much as I think the -1 range will help out zerg early game vs clown all ins (juggling). Not a whole lot in either case .. I would have liked to see bigger changes in both regards but this is in the right direction. I'm really not a fan of the overlord speed openers regardless of whether they cost 100/100 or 75/75. All this is doing is putting even more meta gaming into the matchup since there are openings from Toss that counter OS openings from Z. The infestor change for tvz tho worries me some especially with a ghost buff. The cyclone mech styles will have plus 3 armor super early and IT / neural is such a huge part of dealing with the late game transition into thor liberator ghost BC. Less damage on IT and bonus radius on emp could end up in a horror show. Ill cease and desist commenting on PvT bc Im sure its a broken record at this point. The matchup is bad. These changes wont fix it.. the matchup needs a complete reset.
|
I'm so disappointed that Blizzard is once again backpedaling on an admittedly bold proposed change. The warp prism is a fundamentally badly designed unit with a reinforcement mechanic that breaks defender's advantage as well as introduce low risk/high rewards scenari. Nerfing warp-in speed would address both of those problems.
Instead of that, we're now facing a completely useless 50 minerals cost increase, a pick-up range nerf that won't do much to discourage protoss all-ins but will make roach/ravagers timings even more difficult to hold for protoss, and a charge nerf that, combined with the stim buff, could completely throw PvT balance out the window.
Even more disappointing is that most people seem to agree that the second set of proposed changes is better as it is more "reasonable". Unreasonable units and mechanics require unreasonable changes. Protoss matchups were plagued for years with terribly designed mechanics such as the mothership core and the nexus overcharge. I think we can all agree that shield batteries are a more elegant solution and the game is now better for it.
To me the 3 biggest problems in the game design-wise (and not balance-wise) are the warp prism, nydus and BCs. First two nullifying defender's advantage and being a low risk / high reward decision, BCs for the reasons people mentioned earlier. BCs are not OP per se but the ability to snipe units and retreat for free with almost no counter play is bad design. Problem is terran is not favored in both tvp and tvz and BCs are a crutch for terran's late game problems.
Now balance-wise, I still think tvp is slightly protoss favored, but nerfing charge and buffing stim is most certainly not the way to fix it when the core issues are economy discrepancy and late game. Regarding pvz, infestor is obviously a joke at the moment and needs to be nerfed, and pretending that fixing the armor bug on the infested terran and buffing interceptor build time will fix the matchup is foolish to say the least.
This last update killed my remaining hopes to see a better designed game before the end of the year patch. If Blizzard is not ready to introduce meaningful design changes in a middle of the year patch, then don't get people's hopes up and just buff bunker's build time instead!
|
On July 17 2019 12:51 fastr wrote:
I'm so disappointed that Blizzard is once again backpedaling on an admittedly bold proposed change. The warp prism is a fundamentally badly designed unit with a reinforcement mechanic that breaks defender's advantage as well as introduce low risk/high rewards scenari. Nerfing warp-in speed would address both of those problems.
Instead of that, we're now facing a completely useless 50 minerals cost increase, a pick-up range nerf that won't do much to discourage protoss all-ins but will make roach/ravagers timings even more difficult to hold for protoss, and a charge nerf that, combined with the stim buff, could completely throw PvT balance out the window.
Even more disappointing is that most people seem to agree that the second set of proposed changes is better as it is more "reasonable". Unreasonable units and mechanics require unreasonable changes. Protoss matchups were plagued for years with terribly designed mechanics such as the mothership core and the nexus overcharge. I think we can all agree that shield batteries are a more elegant solution and the game is now better for it.
To me the 3 biggest problems in the game design-wise (and not balance-wise) are the warp prism, nydus and BCs. First two nullifying defender's advantage and being a low risk / high reward decision, BCs for the reasons people mentioned earlier. BCs are not OP per se but the ability to snipe units and retreat for free with almost no counter play is bad design. Problem is terran is not favored in both tvp and tvz and BCs are a crutch for terran's late game problems.
Now balance-wise, I still think tvp is slightly protoss favored, but nerfing charge and buffing stim is most certainly not the way to fix it when the core issues are economy discrepancy and late game. Regarding pvz, infestor is obviously a joke at the moment and needs to be nerfed, and pretending that fixing the armor bug on the infested terran and buffing interceptor build time will fix the matchup is foolish to say the least.
This last update killed my remaining hopes to see a better designed game before the end of the year patch. If Blizzard is not ready to introduce meaningful design changes in a middle of the year patch, then don't get people's hopes up and just buff bunker's build time instead!
Are you serious Yamato is the biggest problem? Snipe for free and retreat? What is Swarm host? What is Disruptors? What is viper Abduct? What is Infested terrans? What is Tempest range? Whole sc2 late game interactions revolve around sniping units for free and thats the units you build or you lose. So terrans builds bc/ghost/vikings/libs, zerg builds bl/infestor/queen/viper/spore, toss builds tempest/carrier/ht/disruptor. The problem is that balance is favored into zerg side without counter play. Every unit in Z army is as fast as stimmed marines except BL, you must fight the army, they also have the nydus just in case...
|
On July 17 2019 12:51 fastr wrote:
I'm so disappointed that Blizzard is once again backpedaling on an admittedly bold proposed change. The warp prism is a fundamentally badly designed unit with a reinforcement mechanic that breaks defender's advantage as well as introduce low risk/high rewards scenari. Nerfing warp-in speed would address both of those problems.
Instead of that, we're now facing a completely useless 50 minerals cost increase, a pick-up range nerf that won't do much to discourage protoss all-ins but will make roach/ravagers timings even more difficult to hold for protoss, and a charge nerf that, combined with the stim buff, could completely throw PvT balance out the window.
I agree. I had issues with their last version of the proposed patch, but the one thing I agreed on was the warp prism warp-in speed change. That change made a lot of sense. It slowed down all-ins to be more manageable but didn't kill the utility of the unit.
Warp prism micro is key for situations like holding all-ins or doing harass. With one less pickup range, queens now will be able to comfortably target warp prisms when someone opens with archon drop. This reason was why they decided not to change warp prism pickup range before when they previously proposed this exact change in a previous patch. Reducing pickup range while not dealing with fast warp ins reduces available harass and defence options but doesn't actually do anything to solve the all-in problem.
Likewise, nerfing one of the only basic core gateway units that has any utility past the 10 minute mark seems like a bad idea. This relates to something I pointed out in the previous thread. Of the 4 core gateway units, only zealots, and to a lesser extent stalkers, consistently get used at all past the early-mid game. Sentries and adepts are seldom if ever used once the third is established and higher tech is started. It'd be great to see some lategame upgrades to make these unused units more viable, especially adepts. Anything to make Protoss less reliant on storm, immortals, and mass air. I'd happily take nerfs on any of those things in exchange for there to be the chance of there being more variety in the lategame.
I still think it's going to take much bigger changes to fix lategame PvZ. This infestor change isn't enough. Neural and fungal are both quite potent too because of inability for Protoss to actually deal with infestors.
|
On July 17 2019 12:29 Couguar wrote:
As protoss, I think 1st versuion of WP change is better then 2nd. While 1st kills some early game builds, its still adaptable and can be restored with good upgrade, but now its cost nerf (all game duration affected), range nerf (early-mid game effect), and zealot nerf included (core battle unit for early game).
PS. Summary: these changes are good if no zerg race existed. PvZ unplayable/
The nerf only affects Zealots with Charge. By the time Charge comes online you're already out of the early game. It's a mid and late game nerf.
|
On July 17 2019 12:51 fastr wrote:
, BCs for the reasons people mentioned earlier. BCs are not OP per se but the ability to snipe units and retreat for free with almost no counter play is bad design. Problem is terran is not favored in both tvp and tvz and BCs are a crutch for terran's late game problems.
What other unit is Terran supposed to rely on as a late game unit? Thors?
The BC is the ONLY late game unit that Terran has. It HAS to be strong, or else Terran late game devolves into what it was before BCs got buffed, not really a late game at all, just a turtle fest with midgame units.
That's what it comes down to. The Battlecruiser is the ONLY late game Terran has. If it's a crutch of the match up in the late game, that is by the race's design. The only way you're going to fix that is to fundamentally change the Terran tech tree to make the Raven more powerful and come online later similar to Brood War's Science Vessel, but that would require a complete redesign of the unit.
Not saying that it's not a nice idea, but it's a drastic change that can't be done in the middle of a year patch. For now BCs do what Terran needs them to do, they give the race an ACTUAL late game army composition, when for years it never really had one.
|
On July 17 2019 05:44 Z3nith wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2019 05:40 MockHamill wrote:On July 17 2019 05:15 SHODAN wrote:On July 17 2019 04:15 MockHamill wrote:
The changes are reasonable and I think better compared the first version. What is missing is:
1. Forge requires gateway in order to discourage cannon rushing.
2. Disruptor range decreased by 1 in order to make the relationship between tanks and disruptors more even.
3. Nydus worm cost changed to 100/75 so that spamming 4-5 worms in your opponents base actually have a drawback.
4. Neural parasite cost changed to 150 energy to better reflect how strong this ability is. man, you play terran. why are you losing to cannon rushes?? I do not I just consider cannon rushing a joke, it should not even be in the game. It is also close to broken in PvP. Why shouldn't it? It's just as viable a strategy as any other that perfectly embodies the high risk high reward of cheesy play.
it should be in the game, but it is a little bit silly in pvp. the amount of practiced responses it requires at the start of the game is kind of insane compared to any other early cheese. however what actually causes the problem is adepts. the most obnoxious modern lotv cannon rushes have to do with abusing the 2gate ramp block, which is a counter to adepts.
|
I'm happy, overall a great patch. The only thing i disagree is the zealot charge change.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
On July 17 2019 14:28 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2019 12:29 Couguar wrote:
As protoss, I think 1st versuion of WP change is better then 2nd. While 1st kills some early game builds, its still adaptable and can be restored with good upgrade, but now its cost nerf (all game duration affected), range nerf (early-mid game effect), and zealot nerf included (core battle unit for early game).
PS. Summary: these changes are good if no zerg race existed. PvZ unplayable/ The nerf only affects Zealots with Charge. By the time Charge comes online you're already out of the early game. It's a mid and late game nerf.
late game toss has no need for zealots in main army. this change doesnt affect harass (warp-forget).
charge is early-mid game grade for battles.
|
I think bugs should be fixed immediately and balance adjustments can be made accordingly afterwards. The oracle bug staying in the game is something I cannot agree with therefore.
|
The one change I agreed with and made sense to me was the one that completely gutted Protoss gameplay, eliminated most of their builds and aggressive options while giving nothing in return.
I'm an objective sc2 spectator who doesn't have a bias towards either race and I'm very disappointed Blizzard decided against removing 1 race from the game just because of community backlash.
|
Come one, PvZ unplayable because zerg can see where attack come from and position right always...and now almost free scout
|
I wholeheartedly support the zealot nerf, i dont even care about the rest.
|
Zerg OP. Yesterday, States had 7bases, 14k rest mineral, and almost 30 carriers. Zerg player just use infected marines clear all of the interceptor. Then States ran out of his money and lose this game.
|
On July 17 2019 04:36 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2019 04:32 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 17 2019 04:28 Elentos wrote:On July 17 2019 04:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On July 17 2019 04:19 Elentos wrote:
Zerg players are just laughing to themselves in a corner here honestly. Worries about the state of TvP have undermined Protoss well enough that the only thing they're willing to do for PvZ is a 2 second change to interceptor build time and to make infestors work as intended. That bugfix is actually pretty big, it would explain why Infested Terrans shred Carriers so badly. If that gets adjusted then it could add up to a pretty significant nerf to the Infestor's biggest problem. It might still need tweaking but it does help the area of PvZ that is very Zerg favored. Scaling with armor upgrades is gonna be less impactful than the flat damage nerf. The ITs will still shred interceptors and void rays to bits since there's no base armor on them, leaving the cleanup to corruptors. There's also the problem that there's no real counter play to mass infestor anymore. Feedback doesn't kill them and is outranged by fungal either way. Only other long range ground unit Protoss has is the disruptor which is a play that I'm pretty sure doesn't even qualify as a Hail Mary. So Toss goes into air where they're disadvantaged against Zerg. Does anyone remember what the reasoning behind the Feedback nerf was? Was it because of Medivacs or was it due to Infestors? I know it had nothing to do with Ghosts. Just saying, it might be worthwhile to undo that nerf if Infestors are still a problem. The buffs Terran is getting in TvP might offset the impact that Feedback on Medivacs has, which to be honest is THAT big of an issue in the first place IMO. Medivacs only die to Feedback if they have like 70% energy in the first place. https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/22372713Show nested quote +When the Ghost’s Snipe ability was changed to Steady Shot, the Ghost lost the ability to instantly kill a High Templar, but Templars remained very lethal to Ghosts. This change should move this relationship to focus more on energy denial/casting rather than outright lethality. Reducing Feedback’s damage also means that Medivacs will also no longer be instantly destroyed, which promotes more multipronged play in late-game scenarios. Against Zerg, this makes Vipers slightly less fragile, which should allow Zerg a few more chances to try and pull apart a Protoss player’s late-game armies.
I think the Feedback change at that time was pretty necessary. It's a pity though that Feedback is now pretty useless and not worth any APM.
Maybe it would be cool to add a 50% slow to any Feedbacked target? This way the target wouldn't insta die, but be pretty exposed
|
On July 17 2019 09:06 washikie wrote:
[
Im not sure it’s possible without breaking tvz but I would really like to see the overall power level of both Protoss and Zerg late game air+caster deathballs scaled down so that we would see more midgame interactions. I would much rather see hydra lurker vs stalker disruptor for instance than skytoss vs infestor broodlord. Sc2s lategame is just not that fun in my opinion after playing 10k games of it many in masters. But I’m not sure how this ever gets fixed. Sc2 has always been at its best when the game is about midgame armies, muta ling bane,roach ravager, 4m, marine tank,blink stalker collosi, crazy Protoss bullshit ect. It just slows down a lot late game into these long turtles games. I can respect players like TY, Serral, ect that are good at playing these situations out but from a viewer perspective I would much prefer a long drawn out midgame in literally evrey mu in the game.
I really agree with this, put the emphesis on midgame, thats when the game is most fun to play and most fun to watch. The problem is that the race that is favored in late game will try to get there while the race that is not will try to kill the opponent before that point. I don't know how they would do it but if sc2 would be more midgame focused it would improve the game greatly in almost all respects. Maybe nerf the late game units of all races?
On July 17 2019 17:48 Harris1st wrote:
I think the Feedback change at that time was pretty necessary. It's a pity though that Feedback is now pretty useless and not worth any APM.
Maybe it would be cool to add a 50% slow to any Feedbacked target? This way the target wouldn't insta die, but be pretty exposed
This is a great idea, feedback should obviously be worth the apm but the previous feedback was too much vs terran and I don't think having the old feedback would be good for the game.
I've been thinking about theses changes and what jumps out at me is the buff to zerg scouting, buffing zerg scouting is incredibly risky. We are talking about the race that can adapt to any situation and build any number (limited by larvae) of units. Zerg is the race that gains the most from scouting well, is it safe? Drone, is it danger? build whatever units are needed.
Both protoss and terrans are limited in what they can do, if they scout a roach/ravager allin there it is still only possible to make one tank at a time and one immortal at a time. If they scout a safe opening from the opponent they cant speed up worker production (I guess protoss can chrono) but either way no race get as much from scouting as zerg. Buffing zerg scouting is very risky and to that because of zvp together with these proposed changes? That is just bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
