Hi all! In the excitement before the culmination of this year’s WCS finals, we think it’s a good opportunity to revisit the proposals made earlier in the month with a fresh perspective. Special thanks to Wardi and his Balance Test Mod Invitational, which showcased these new changes in action. After further watching games and following feedback, below are a few changes we’d like to make to the testing queue:
ADJUSTMENTS TO OLD CHANGES:
• Reverted: Viking health increased from 135 to 150.
Based on feedback, we’d like to pull this change back for now due to concerns surrounding the Viking’s subsequent increased power in TvT as well as its increased strength in earlier parts of the game. If the Viking has any deficiencies, we believe they exist later on when end-game units and area-of-effect abilities start coming into play. Thus, if necessary, we’d like to instead tackle the Viking’s strength in late-game with alterations to end-game units from other races—such as Tempests—rather than to the Viking itself.
• Reverted: Battlecruiser Tactical Jump cooldown increased from 71 seconds to 86 seconds. • Reverted: Removed the Research Neural Parasite upgrade. Infestors now come with Neural Parasite by default. • Altered: Tactical Jump now stuns and puts the Battlecruiser into a 1 second vulnerability phase before it teleports.
Last update, we tested a variety of Battlecruiser-related changes aimed at broadening counterplay options against the unit. At the same time, we believe the ways in which Battlecruisers are currently used are overall pretty cool. After feedback, we’d like the prune and alter our changes such that we improve the feeling of fairness when fighting against Battlecruisers and, at the same time, preserve the core of current Battlecruiser play.
Thus, we’ll be removing changes to Tactical Jump cooldown and reinstating the Neural Parasite upgrade. We’ll also be keeping the vulnerability phase on Tactical Jump with one key alternation: “stun” effects such as Interference Matrix, Fungal Growth, and Abduct will no longer be able to cancel Tactical Jump and put it on cooldown. This change brings the behavior of Tactical Jump to be more similar to both Strategic Recall and Mass Recall.
• Reverted: New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Sundering Impact-Grants Zealots the ability to deal +8 damage to enemies on Charge impact. • Reverted: Adept health increased from 70 to 80. • Reverted: Adept shields decreased from 70 to 60. • Reverted: New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Amplified Shielding-Increases the Adept’s shields from 60 to 80.
We’d also like to put a pause on these changes for in favor of some alternate proposals. For Zealots, we hear concerns regarding Protoss’s resulting overall power level after this change. For Adepts, we hear feedback that this upgrade isn’t impactful enough, so if it were reintroduced, we would do so with slightly altered stats.
NEW CHANGES:
Creep • Active Creep Tumors may no longer be canceled.
Last year, we made some changes to creep spread in order to promote the gameplay surrounding creep denial. This year, we’d like to try to take it a step further with this change, aimed at the dance we typically see between Hellions and Queens. We believe the change will increase both the interaction between players and the skill cap for all parties involved.
Overlord • Pneumatized Carapace research cost increased from 75/75 to 100/100.
When we initially made the change to reduce the cost of this upgrade, we had been receiving feedback that the different variations of various PvZ Immortal all-ins were too difficult to differentiate and scout. Since then, we’ve received additional feedback that Zerg have gotten better at defending these all-ins and that the changes to the Warp Prism in the same patch were alone sufficient at dealing with this issue. Additionally, we believe the upgrade is currently too omnipresent in both ZvT and ZvP, leading to players feeling less able to surprise their Zerg opponents. Thus, we’d like to revert this previous change, which we believe will lead to more thoughtful decision making regarding when to research this upgrade.
Infestor • Removed the Infested Terran ability. • New Ability: Microbial Shroud • Creates a shroud that obscures ground units below, reducing the damage they take from air units by 50%. • Lasts 11 seconds. • Energy cost: 100. • Cast range: 9. • Radius: 3. • New upgrade found on the Infestation Pit: Evolve Microbial Shroud Requirement: Hive • Research cost: 150/150. • Research duration: 79 seconds.
While we’re not completely shelving the previously proposed changes to the Infested Terran, we’d like to try an alternate proposal. This new ability is designed to replace the anti-air role that the Infested Terran ability occupied. A key difference, however, is that Microbial Shroud acts as more of a force-multiplier rather than a standalone spell with lethal potential. This means that mass Infestors will be significantly less powerful than before and that other Zerg ground units would have to be mixed in for maximum effectiveness.
Our first iteration of this ability has it gated on Hive, as we believe having this ability unlocked on Lair tech restricts mid-game air play too much. In addition, as this is one of the most experimental and unique abilities we’ve ever introduced, we expect many alterations to its stats if it goes live.
As a point of clarification, the first iteration of this spell will not protect buildings nor Colossi. Nor will it protect against Oracles attacks, Colossus attacks, or Yamato Cannon. It can also not be cast while the Infestor is burrowed.
Nydus Network/Worm • Nydus Worm cost increased from 50/50 to 75/75.
We generally enjoy the increased usage of Nydus Worms this year, and we believe one of the keys to its increased usage is its decreased Worm cost of 50/50, compared to 100/100 last year. However, at the moment, we believe that Nydus Worms are slightly too cheap, specifically in the early and mid-game stages after a Nydus Network is built. At this fragile economic timing, a failed Nydus Worm might not be punishing enough, and just the threat of the Nydus could pin too much of an enemy army at home.
As we already have two proposed changes to the Nydus Network/Worm, we will be evaluating which of the changes should go through, including the possibility of having all three go live. At the same time, however, we want to ensure we preserve a certain percentage of the Nydus’ power, as we believe it is key to encouraging map-wide multipronged attack options for Zerg and pulling apart turtling enemies in the late-game.
Zealot • The Charge upgrade no longer provides Zealots with +8 damage on impact. Instead, it increases Zealot movement speed from 3.15 to 4.72, up from 4.13.
A concern we’ve had regarding the Zealot is its raw frontal power, especially when compared to its ease of use and the relative difficulty of defending against them. Thus, we’d like to try this change that aims to exchange its direct power in favor of increased mobility. This change would also restore the age-old relationship between weapon-upgraded Zealots and carapace-upgraded Zerglings. Because an exchange of damage for speed moves its power into a drastically different area, we categorize this change as very experimental. We’ll especially be looking at how the increased speed impacts their relationship against kiting Stimmed units.
Adept • Resonating Glaives reworked. Instead of increasing attack speed of the Adept by 45%, it will increase the attack speed of the Adept by 60% for 6 seconds after completing a Psionic Transfer.
We view Adepts as having two primary problems: its role overlaps that of the Zealot, and it’s viewed as having low utility in late-game, which we believe is due to the Zealot overshadowing it. Not only do Zealots and Adepts have similar matchups against enemy units, they both control and function similarly by being strong front-line attack-move units (Internally, we call these units “pushers”). This is especially exacerbated by the previous version of the Resonating Glaives upgrade, which highlights the raw frontal power of the Adept and draws away from its distinctiveness and coolness, which we believe comes from its Psionic Transfer ability.
Thus, the new direction we’d like to take with the Adept is to rework the Resonating Glaives upgrade into one that moves it away from the direction of being a strong pusher and towards one that highlights the Adept’s defining characteristic: Psionic Transfer. With this newly designed upgrade, Adepts will achieve only 92% of its previous upgraded damage when used optimally in a frontal fight in the long term. However, it will become much more effective at burst damage, for example, after a shade in for surprise worker harassment or when you need to break a Marine/Tank push. At the same time, it will still have obvious counterplay, such as Banelings, Widow Mines, building walls, or running away until the attack speed bonus runs out. In addition, this new upgrade could add a back-and-forth dance where both players attempt to engage during their preferred Adept state. Hopefully, after this change, Adepts will be more pointed and overlap less with the Zealot, especially in mid and late-game. As with other experimental changes, the stats of this ability are subject to change.
Mothership • Added Heroic tag. • Neural Parasite can no longer target Heroic units.
Due to the increased power of the newly improved Time Warp, we have concerns that the power swing gained from Abducting and then Neuraling a Mothership might be too high. With this change that heavily leans into its gameplay fantasy, a Mothership will always be able to contribute to the fight in favor of the Protoss player.
BUG FIXES
• The Thor’s High Impact Payload will now receive proper upgrade values. • Oracle, Void Ray, and Sentry weapons updated to prevent weapons from firing slower than intended. These units are NOT intended to fire slower when switching targets compared to the live game. • Void Ray, Sentry weapon icons and upgrade levels now show properly in the info panel. • Fixed a bug where the Lurker had less range than intended.
These changes will be published to the Testing Matchmaking Queue shortly. As always, we’d like to reiterate that these changes are not final, and we’ll be actively looking at your feedback. Finally, below is our full list of changes for your convenience.
Each year, we take a step back to evaluate what improvements we could make to the game for a post-BlizzCon design patch. As we come closer and closer to stability with each passing year, for 2019, we’ll be focusing more on tweaks and refinements to existing units. Some themes in this year’s patch include:
Introducing new upgrades designed to gate the full power of certain units and improve late-game usage for others.
Strategically reducing ranges of key units and abilities to encourage greater interaction in late game.
Before we start, please bear in mind that this update contains many experimental changes that we’d like to try and test, and we’ll do our best at highlighting which ones we’re especially wary of.
Terran
HELLION/HELLBAT
Infernal Pre-Igniter research cost decreased from 150/150 to 100/100.
In the summer of 2011, the legendary SlayerS Terrans unleashed a revolutionary “Blue Flame Hellion” build upon hapless Zerg players around the world, and the balance team had no choice but to act, cutting the bonus provided by the Infernal Pre-Igniter upgrade in half. Since then, the upgrade has acted more as a time-gate to the Hellion/Hellbat’s mid-game combat power rather than a core upgrade for matchup-defining openers. As such, we’d like to reduce the cost of this upgrade to encourage earlier and more meaningful Hellion/Hellbat power spikes.
THOR
High Impact Payload damage decreased from 40 (+15 vs Massive) to 25 (+10 vs Massive).
High Impact Payload weapon cooldown decreased from 1.7 to 0.9.
A common complaint we’ve heard regarding the Thor is its ability to be controlled in late-game fights. Because the Thor’s anti-ground and anti-air attacks have such drastically different cooldowns, it can often feel unresponsive in these engagements. Thus, we’d like to try an experimental change that brings the High Impact Payload’s cooldown to the same as that of its anti-ground weapon, Thor’s Hammer. The primary purpose of this change is neither to increase nor decrease the Thor’s power, but rather to improve the responsiveness without hurting its fantasy. Of course, there are tradeoffs to this change; while this new Thor has lower burst damage, it will tend to overkill its targets less frequently. Because we view the lower burst damage to be slightly more impactful than the lower overkill potential, we’ll also be slightly raising the DPS of this weapon to start off.
VIKING
Health increased from 135 to 150.
We’d like for the Viking to be a stronger counter to the units it’s intended to fight. After this change, Vikings will generally take additional shots to kill from Corruptors, Stalkers, and Tempests. Perhaps more importantly, it’ll be more resilient against area effects such as Fungal Growth, Parasitic Bomb, and Psionic Storm.
Some concerns we have for this change include the strength of individual Viking in the early game, the potency of timing pushes against Colossi in TvP, and its general power level in TvT. We’ll also be careful to evaluate how impactful this change will be considering other changes proposed, especially those involving the Infestor and Tempest.
MEDIVAC
Moved the Rapid Re-Ignition System upgrade from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core.
In addition to reducing the Medivac's Ignite Afterburners cooldown by 5 seconds, this upgrade will also increase the Medivac's base movement speed from 3.5 to 4.13. However, this upgrade will not affect Medivac’s movement speed during the Ignite Afterburners effect. In the past, our goals with various Medivac upgrades has always been two-fold: first, to introduce an upgrade that improves mid- or late-game multipronged Medivac harassment. And secondly, to ensure this upgrade does not greatly improve potentially game-ending doom drops.
Previous Medivac upgrades have seen little use as they were viewed as unimpactful and at an awkward position on the Terran tech tree. We’d like to start off by introducing this new, more visibly impactful upgrade on the Fusion Core, a building that often finds itself idling. We believe this could be a potentially powerful upgrade either researched in the late game or from Battlecruiser openers.
LIBERATOR
Advanced Ballistics upgrade moved from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core.
Likewise, the transition to ranged Liberators can also be awkward and, in more than one matchup, lead to a period of inactivity on the Terran’s part. We’d like to try to smooth this transition by transplanting the upgrade to the Fusion Core, and we feel confident we can safely do so with the following change:
Advanced Ballistics upgrade now increases the range of Liberators in Defender Mode by 3, down from 4.
We’d like to reduce the range of a few key units and abilities, including fully upgraded Liberators, in order to promote more unit interaction in the late game. This range reduction is meant to be viewed as a package with the changes to Neural Parasite and the Tempest as they are two units/abilities that often interact with the Liberator.
RAVEN
Interference Matrix energy cost increased from 50 energy to 75 energy.
Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds.
We believe the Raven is slightly too powerful in early-game TvT, leading to a low level of diversity in this matchup’s openers. As Interference Matrix is key to the Raven’s strength in TvT, we’d like to make some adjustments to divert its power from disabling Siege Tanks. As early-game TvT engagements are characterized by quick exchanges of Tank volleys, we believe an energy cost increase in favor of increased duration would constitute a bigger change in TvT than the other matchups.
Raven movement speed increased from 3.85 to 4.13.
We’d also like to place more of the Raven’s power into the unit's body. When the Raven was potentially lethal with previous iterations of Hunter-seeker missile and Anti-armor missile, the slower movement speed was a necessary counterbalance. Now that the Raven occupies more of a support role, we believe it’s no longer necessary to exercise such restraint, and a higher movement speed could allow it to be more useful at harassment and creep-clearing.
Our goals with these set of changes is to decrease the Raven’s early-game power in TvT while either maintaining or increasing its power in other matchups. If this set of changes fails to achieve either of these goals, we’ll be ready to make tweaks.
BATTLECRUISER
Tactical Jump now stuns and puts the Battlecruiser into a 1 second vulnerability phase before it teleports.
While we enjoy the increased Battlecruiser usage over the last year, we think it’s a bit too easy for them to escape unfavorable situations, so we’d like to make this change to encourage Battlecruiser players to think twice before committing their fleets into risky predicaments. After this change, Interference Matrix, Fungal Growth, and Abduct will be able to cancel Tactical Jump and put it on cooldown during the Battlecruiser’s vulnerability phase.
Tactical Jump cooldown increased from 71 seconds to 86 seconds.
An alternate potential change we’d like to try is simply to increase Tactical Jump’s cooldown, which would temper its ability to constantly harass and perform hit-and-run tactics on enemies, especially in the late game. When considering options to tweak the Battlecruiser, we’re interested in some combination of the above two changes, but perhaps not both.
Yamato Cannon will no longer cancel itself if a target enters a transport or becomes cloaked/burrowed. Instead, the Yamato Cannon will miss, and the ability will go on cooldown.
In addition, we’d like to introduce some counter-play options against Yamato Cannon.
MULE
Duration decreased from 64 seconds to 63 seconds.
After this change, Mules will still mine the same number of Minerals if left undisturbed. However, they will no longer expire while holding minerals from certain patches.
Mules now always attempt to spawn on the side of minerals closest to a town hall.
This general quality of life change also helps ensure undisturbed Mules always mine their maximum potential.
Zerg
INFESTOR
Infested Terran energy cost increased from 25 to 50.
Infested Terran health increased from 50 to 75.
Infested Swarm Egg health increased from 70 to 75.
The Infested Terran’s Gauss Rifle damage increased from 6 to 12.
The Infested Terran’s Infested Rockets damage increased from 14 to 24.
Infested Rockets now gain +2 per ranged weapon upgrade, up from +1.
Infested Rockets attack period decreased from 1.14 to 0.95.
We’d like to redesign the Infested Terran ability with the following goals in mind: First, to make each Infested Terran feel like more of a commitment. Secondly, we want to provide players with more clear counters-play options against Infested Terrans.
Our proposal is a more expensive and powerful Infested Terran that is still vulnerable to key Terran and Protoss units and abilities. With this redesign, while Infested Terrans will have higher damage density, they’ll be more vulnerable to Psionic Storm, Disruptors, and Liberators.
Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 8.
On the theme of reducing the ranges of key late game-oriented units and abilities, we’d like to reduce the range of Neural Parasite in order to ensure that the Infestor must put itself in greater danger when casting this potentially game-ending ability.
Removed the Research Neural Parasite upgrade. Infestors now come with Neural Parasite by default.
One piece of feedback we’ve heard regarding Battlecruiser openers in TvZ is that while they’re not necessarily too powerful, they often result in a few minutes of inaction on the part of the Zerg player due to the heavy investment required to punch through an army involving any number of Battlecruisers. On the Terran side, we’ve heard feedback that Battlecruiser openers are used so often because they are the best and most stable opener that can be used to transition into mech. This feedback is a bit concerning since we like that Battlecruiser openings are viable, but we nonetheless feel they might be crowding out other cool Terran openers.
This very experimental change could theoretically provide Zerg a more direct option to be aggressive against Battlecruiser openings and open them up to a potential weakness. For now, we believe this change is safe to try given both the Neural Parasite range decrease and the relative low importance of the upgrade’s research duration and time when considering late-game situations. We will also take care to note how the other proposed Battlecruiser changes, designed at changing Battlecruiser interactions in the mid-to-late game, interact with this change, designed at influencing early-game interactions.
LURKER
Lurker Den build time decreased from 86 seconds to 57 seconds.
Lurker range decreased from 9 to 8.
New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines
Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10.
Requirement: Hive
Research cost: 150/150.
Research duration: 57 seconds.
Increased research duration of Adaptive Talons from 54 seconds to 57 seconds.
We’d like to provide Zerg a strong, dynamic counter against Immortal/Templar-based armies that isn’t Brood Lords. We believe that unit should be the Lurker as it is already close to fulfilling that role. Our first try will attempt to do so in two ways. First, we’d like to smooth out the transition to Lurkers, while at the same time lowering their initial strength to smooth out their power curve as a concern for Lurker-based timings. We’d also like to add a late-game upgrade geared towards fighting Immortal/Templar-based Protoss ground armies.
Finally, increasing the research duration of Adaptive Talons brings it more in line with other upgrades in the game.
BROOD LORD
Broodling leash range decreased from 12 to 9.
Without getting too deep in the weeds, the Broodling’s current 12 leash range allows the Broodlord to attack from 13 range with an attack-click order. By reducing leash range to 9, the Broodlord will always be limited to 10 range regardless of command.
NYDUS NETWORK
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm initial unload delay increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm load period increased from 0.09 to 0.18.
Nydus Network and Nydus Worm unload period increased from 0.18 to 0.36.
New upgrade found on the Evolution Chamber: Secreted Coating
Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s initial unload delay from 0.36 to 0.18.
Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s load period from 0.18 to 0.09.
Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s unload period from 0.36 to 0.18.
Requirement: Hive.
Research cost: 100/100.
Research duration: 57 seconds.
While we love the experimentation with Nydus Networks and Worms over this past year, we think there are opportunities to temper its power in key situations. For one, we believe the early-game all-in potential is a bit too strong, so we’d like to take the opportunity to delay some of the Nydus’ early- and mid-game power to reapply it at the Hive level. In addition to reducing all-in strength, we’d also like to provide greater opportunity for players to punish Zergs who overcommit their units—for instance, in the case of retreating Swarm Hosts.
Summon Nydus Worm ability cooldown increased from 0 to 14.
Currently, Nydus Networks are able to queue up Nydus Worms one after the other; if a Nydus Worm is destroyed during constructing, its corresponding Nydus Network can then immediately build a new Worm at another location on the map. This has led to situations where players defending against an early Nydus all-in would be hastily ping-ponged between bases. It also created strange instances where it was actually optimal to kill a building Nydus Worm at the very last second in order to delay the subsequent Nydus worm.
Therefore, we’d like to add a cooldown on the Summon Nydus Worm ability equal to the build time of the Nydus Worm. If your Worms finish construction, there’ll be virtually no difference in Network uptime. But if a Worm is killed in the middle of construction, its Network will go on cooldown equal to the remaining build time of the destroyed Worm. Another result of this change is that players will no longer be able to queue Worms back-to-back, meaning the onus of attention will shift more in favor of the defender.
Protoss
ORACLE, SENTRY, VOID RAY
Fixed an issue where beam attacks could deal more damage than intended.
With this change, players will no longer be able to micro these units to deal unintended extra damage to a single target. However, these units will still retain their previous behavior in all other situations.
ZEALOT
The Charge upgrade no longer provides Zealots with +8 damage on impact.
New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Sundering Impact
Grants Zealots the ability to deal +8 damage to enemies on Charge impact.
Requirement: Charge researched.
Research cost: 100/100.
Research duration: 100 seconds.
We believe the power spike gained from researching the Charge upgrade could be a bit too high for its cost and comes a bit too early in the game, therefore crowding out other gateway options. With this change, we’d like to smooth out that power curve. After this change, we believe Protoss will have a more difficult time defending early third bases against Terran, as well as pursuing all-in strategies against Zerg and Terran mech with Chargelots.
ADEPT
Adept health increased from 70 to 80.
Adept shields decreased from 70 to 60.
New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Amplified Shielding
Increases the Adept’s shields from 60 to 80.
Research cost: 100/100.
Research duration: 100 seconds.
In the recent past, we’ve been very careful at managing the strength of the Adept due to its historical potential when paired with Phoenixes in TvP. But now that Terrans have a clear and powerful counter to Adepts in the form of EMP, we feel more confident that we can safely scale this unit a little better into the mid-to-late game.
With the previous two changes, our goal is to bring the Zealot and Adept together as more comparable options for a core mid-game unit.
OBSERVER
Observer movement speed decreased from 3.01 to 2.63.
Gravitic Boosters upgrade now increases movement speed by 1.31, down from 1.51.
We’d like to revert this change we made earlier in the year, as we feel the frustration caused by barely not catching Observers did not make up for the benefits of the speed increase.
VOID RAY
New upgrade found on the Fleet Beacon: Flux Vanes
Increases the Void Ray’s movement speed from 3.5 to 4.65.
Increases the Void Ray’s acceleration from 2.8 to 3.76.
After the upgrade, the Prismatic Alignment ability will still reduce the Void Ray’s movement speed to 2.625.
Research cost: 100/100.
Research duration: 57 seconds.
Early in Wings of Liberty, Flux Vanes was removed because it led to some undesirable game states, allowing Void Ray to easily maneuver into the opponents’ base where it could charge up and potentially camp indefinitely. The Void Ray was also disproportionately powerful at lower skill levels, and Flux Vanes compounded this issue.
Now that the Void Ray has an active Prismatic Alignment ability instead of the passive Prismatic Beams ability, we feel more comfortable reintroducing Flux Vanes in order to push the unit into a potentially new role.
TEMPEST
Kinetic Overload (anti-air) range decreased from 15 to 14.
This is another change designed to rein in the ranges of key late-game units. In combination with the Liberator change, we believe this set of changes will retain the relationship between Liberators and Tempests while allowing lower tier units such as Stalkers and Vikings to interact more easily.
Health increased from 150 to 200.
Shields decreased from 125 to 100.
We’d like to tweak the Tempest’s life stats, both to compensate for the range decrease and to be more resilient against EMP Round, which we believe is currently too effective against this capital ship due to its relatively low health-to-shields ratio.
MOTHERSHIP
Time Warp now affects air units in addition to ground units and buildings.
Time Warp delay reduces from 3.57 seconds to 1.79 seconds.
Even after last year’s changes, we still believe that Time Warp’s current power level is not suitable for such an imposing and awe-inspiring unit. We’d like to try some tweaks, but are especially wary that the delay reduction could be too oppressive.
Once again, this is our first pass of changes for our post-BlizzCon update coming in late November. As with previous design updates, these changes are balanced towards being more noticeable; expect new changes to be added or some being removed as we progress through the testing period. Starting on Tuesday, you’ll be able to hop into the Testing Matchmaking queue and try out the changes. Be sure to let us know what you think. Good luck and have fun!
Some of these changes sound really weird. Bad even. We'll see how it plays out because surely there's gonna be iterations here. But for now it looks like they're just about removing Protoss from the game (at the highest level).
This game has become way too upgrade bloated. There's a design problem ? make a new upgrade ? Something too strong, too weak, upgrades there, upgrades everywhere.
Just compare how clean most of the Broodwar upgrades are compared to this.
Usually we get big and refreshing changes after Blizzcon since we should be making up for new datadiscs... but these seem so "meh". A nerf here, a buff there and then a bunch of new upgrades.
That is so frustrating to read because especially now the meta is figured out and soooo stale.
Well, talking about the changes themselves - infestor should be redesigned, not tweaked over and over so it jumps from being OP to being horrible. Nydus changes were necessary and so many Twilight Council upgrades will be very confusing. But we'll need to see all of this in action of course...
Overall nice changes IMHO, but it's something I'd expect in a mid-year patch rather than after-Blizzcon patch. Every TvZ will still go into late game super early, Protoss will try to kill Zerg before lategame and while it seems Terran will have more chances in PvT, the games are going to look very similar anyway. Nothing exciting.
"We believe the Raven is slightly too powerful in early-game TvT"
"Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds."
Bruh.. Wut?
Also..
ZEALOT The Charge upgrade no longer provides Zealots with +8 damage on impact. New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Sundering Impact Grants Zealots the ability to deal +8 damage to enemies on Charge impact. Requirement: Charge researched. Research cost: 100/100. Research duration: 100 seconds.
Thats just reverting the damn buff in the first place. Now it's back to how it was.. 200/200 with more time researched. WHAT?
So many Protoss Nerf's, yet so much Buffs on the other races. I rarely say stuff like this, but this really sucks.
The most important changes (Nydus, BL, Battlecruiser) seem a step in the right direction at the very least (or intended to step in the right direction), but a bunch of the rest seem very odd. Who ever asked for that observer change? Why do we need so many upgrades? Hasn't Blizzard realized after all these years that speeding everything up (in this case Medivacs, Ravens, Void Rays) doesn't make things better?
If we're going full nostalgia why not bring back vortex lol. I'm not smart enough to know how this will affect everything but I do like that Blizzard is trying to make units that are not heavily used (VR, Lurker, Mothership, Hellbat etc) more viable. It will take time to see how everything works itself out.
I do believe the zealot upgrade time is huge especially bc it already takes charge so long to upgrade. If they want to add another upgrade then I think the new charge research time should be reduced to around 60 seconds ish and then the damage upgrade can then take another 100 seconds afterward.
On October 04 2019 05:30 Jimmon wrote: "We believe the Raven is slightly too powerful in early-game TvT"
"Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds."
Bruh.. Wut?
Also..
ZEALOT The Charge upgrade no longer provides Zealots with +8 damage on impact. New upgrade found on the Twilight Council: Sundering Impact Grants Zealots the ability to deal +8 damage to enemies on Charge impact. Requirement: Charge researched. Research cost: 100/100. Research duration: 100 seconds.
Thats just reverting the damn buff in the first place. Now it's back to how it was.. 200/200 with more time researched. WHAT?
So many Protoss Nerf's, yet so much Buffs on the other races. I rarely say stuff like this, but this really sucks.
In what way did Zerg get buffed, all I’m seeing are nerfs across the board.
Well that was a surprising set of changes. Feels like these combined will make zerg late game much more powerful, while making abusive adept builds in the mid-game stronger as well. Terran just feels much weaker after these changes.
I feel like they did exactly the opposite of what I was expecting in most cases.
I'm not so sure about those infestor changes. I don't think 1 range is going to solve the issues with neural parasite. The infested Terran changes also are pretty crazy. Now each infestor can only cast 4 infested Terrans max, but each of those units does twice as much damage roughly and attacks about 20% faster. Given that often when ITs get spammed, some of them can't attack because they get blocked by other ITs, this might actually have the effect of making ITs even better since there will be less "overkill" on the number of ITs cast while still doing a huge amount of damage. It will also harassment with ITs even better because they will kill workers or targeted buildings faster with far fewer ITs needed.
edit: I also disagree with reverting the observer speed stuff. Given how big the maps have been the last few seasons, the increased speed seemed quite appropriate.
I do think the Nydus changes are good. This prevents the horrible abusive builds while still letting them be used lategame effectively.
I don't really like the extra 8 damage from Zealots, especially when you see that clip where Zealots hit units that they aren't even slashing. Also we haven't seen an Upgrade that needs another Upgrade as a requirement, so that is a bit weird. Instead maybe give Zealots back it's 60 Shield points? Overall it's still a nerf, but at least Zealots won't be a total joke in the early game. 100 seconds is also a lot, especially when there now is 5 upgrades on the Twilight Council.
Love the Flux Vanes. Love the Adept change. Tempest change is one of those that will be retracted because people realise Tempest have 2 armour and this Health change will really change it's survivability a whole lot. I hope instead of retracting this change when that time comes that they instead decrease the anti air range to 10, equal to that of it's other attack. Give it 40 dmg equal to that of it's other attack, so the anti air essentially becomes it's anti ground attack, but with the +vs massive. Tempest playstyle has always been a bit dull and I think this suits the unit better, also maybe then we don't have to have 150 hp Vikings, lol.
Also I wasn't sold on the cooldown on Nydus when it was mentioned by the community, but this post really made a good case for it, it's kinda stupid that if you kill the merging worm that the successive one comes even quicker.
Why the heck is the liberator change being suggested? the idea of it is nice but to lose 1 range for the grand total of not having to also buy a second starport and a tech lab is really really not worth it - this is such a bad way to implement such an amazing idea - cause this actually makes the fusion core also function as a science facility/academy from BW which is super cool. The thor change is not good because we don't have thors fighting heavy units in the air for sustained fights we want them to burst the opposing army as quickly as we can so stuff like tank friendly fire doesn't smash our thors too greatly from brood lords or so that a B.C can get its extra few seconds in for a TP away. The charge change while nice is basically reverting it back to 200/200 from before 2017 only making it take longer for no reason, and the raven change is the worst of all just remove interference matrix and give us something like PDD or seeker missile back (Not both though) and the movement speed for lower league Terran plays I guarantee you their ravens will just go even further forward ahead of the rest of the army and just die - It already happens in some games. And finally the worst change of all - The Viking change why in God's name would you want to give it another +15 hp... TvT is already mass Viking and the hp of the Viking is not the reason it loses to units like the corruptor or carrier. The Viking losses those fights because those options are either Tankier, Faster or outright do significantly more damage. Reducing the speed of corruptors while allowing Vikings to focus carriers instead of all shooting the same interceptor would be a better way to go about improving the Viking. But giving it more HP just makes TvT way more cancer than it already is - Especially when you realize that we don't have a great answer to Viking vs Viking like we did when it was raven Viking vs raven Viking (Sometimes the smaller army would win if they got the right missiles off) But static fights of har har I had 1 more Viking shooting I win now! Are really boring not to mention early game if all this goes through what's to stop people from skipping raven and just going marine tank Viking across the map and landing their Vikings on your stuff. The balance team I can tell is trying and all the other suggestions they did put forth (On the fence about the Infestor) are genuinely good ideas and cool add-ons but they are still not addressing issues of variety in gameplay, creating more fair lategame situations and allowing players to win the game outside of methods of coinflipping every game (Like Terrans did when they proxied every TvP in 2018)
I would really like to know what metrics the balance team uses in order to decide what they change. Some of these decisions really boggle my mind...
In my opinion there is barely no game design reflection here, mostly minor patching with the aim of seeing if said changes will somehow balance things out, using upgrades as bandaids that just temporarily stop the slow bleeding this game suffers from.
When are these people going to come up with actually thoughtful ways of addressing the game state and whether the mechanics they allow or implement are going to be healthy for the competitive scene?
I like the proposed changes to nydus, BC, and infestors. I miiiight like the voidray change, as VR is pretty underutilized past early game, though I would prefer the upgrade to give +1 range rather than the proposed speed buff. Not sure about the other proposed changes.
I like the shifting of where some upgrades are researched. That's pretty much the limit of nice things I can say about these changes. I have no problem with adding additional upgrades, but they should apply to units that don't have many or any upgrades and shouldn't just be something removed from the unit or an upgrade.
I guess they've given up on the post-Blizzcon patches being redesigns rather than just balance changes. Sadly, the race that has been a consistent design problem is the one that never really had significant design changes.
On October 04 2019 06:59 spectreusmc wrote: I don't see how they think they've weakened the infestor at all...
If the Zerg is on the defensive, Protoss can engage, force the Zerg to pop infested terrans, then retreat. The problem is you'd have to do that half a dozen times and if you're on the defensive, you're even more screwed because Storm is even less effective against them than previously.
I like that the suggested changes are not too ground-shaking. Don't even feel like a typical end-of-year patch. This means, SC2's gameplay future could be rather stable. Instead of stirring things up once a year, I would prefer an overall fixed balance, with patches only when necessary.
Zerg seems to be a little too powerful in the lategame, what is the move? Buff infestors....... Really? Terran uses BCs and zerg cant kill them for free with neural early enough, remove the upgrade. Buff the infested terrans so they are fewer but does double damage, this is pretty much a buff since their huge numbers often makes it so only a few of them can attack at a time. This is done to make them more susceptivble to splash but you buff their hp at the same time? That makes them less weak to aoe since they are tankier.....
The tradeoff between one less range on neural for not needing to research it can be either a buff or a nerf depending on the situation. This is not what was needed, neural needs a much more clear nerf.
I like the terran changes and the protoss changes seems... a mess? Zealots need double upgrades, that is just a bit too messy and convoluted (but maybe good for overall balance), adepts are fine because of EMP? Wtf, what does that even mean, are they saying that if protoss adepts all in the terran its fine because terran should obviously already have built ghosts AND finished upgrading enhanced shockwaves? How about buffing marines because zerg has chitinous plated ultras now...... That how crazy that line of thinking is.... Absolutely insane
On October 04 2019 06:59 spectreusmc wrote: I don't see how they think they've weakened the infestor at all...
The problem is you'd have to do that half a dozen times and if you're on the defensive, you're even more screwed because Storm is even less effective against them than previously.
They have overall less HP per energy spent. This allows you to much more easily wipe them out before they inflict their previous damage. It doesn't have to be just by storms, either.
I think zerg is strong right now, but I wonder how much of this issue could be ameliorated by mixing more small maps into the pool with more exposed expands. Players reach late game so fast these days, making it less safe to quickly expand/drone and having tighter defenses in general might help balance without adding a million upgrades.
They forgot that they wanted the power of offensive warp ins with the warp prism. I thought that would have been a good decision design wise (defender's advantage etc) but as a toss player I should be happy.
On October 04 2019 07:17 Shuffleblade wrote: adepts are fine because of EMP? Wtf, what does that even mean, are they saying that if protoss adepts all in the terran its fine because terran should obviously already have built ghosts AND finished upgrading enhanced shockwaves? How about buffing marines because zerg has chitinous plated ultras now...... That how crazy that line of thinking is.... Absolutely insane
It's not about allins but maxing out on pure adept phoenix like in the good old days. Which emp definitely does very well against.
Very bold suggestions, it seems they are wanting to speed up parts of the game a little more. I imagine these changes will go through intense testing before going live.
Honestly, decent changes, I don't understand why people are complaining. Apart from the infestor, which will definitely help Protoss but Terran doesn't have the AoE to benefit from the change. I think the infestor changes on a whole are a bit misguided.
I think all the fusion core changes are really good and a long time coming. Observer speed buff should've never gone through so it's a minor, but good revert. With hallucination being as good as it is now, Protoss doesn't need that fast observer so much.
A lot of gating through upgrades is kinda weird and clunky, but it's actually not a terrible idea if it works.
Anyone complaining about the adept upgrade is dumb, who the hell is going to get both upgrades for an adept all-in, and pre-new upgrade they basically function the exact same. If you're losing to double upgraded adept all ins, something is wrong with your play. Likewise, the charge change seems decent as long as it doesn't completely ruin Protoss against timings. Chargelots gain so much defensive and offensive power in the midgame, it'd be nice if their power spike is smoother, allowing Terran a bit more freedom.
In their totality they’re relatively radical changes though, if nothing else it does seem the dev team are still actively involved in such matters, which is probably a good sign if nothing else.
On October 04 2019 07:42 travis wrote: I feel like this patch "nerfs" zerg in small irrelevant ways, and then "rebalances" protoss in ways that will drastically nerf them.
Also those lurker changes look hilariously extreme to me. And do lurkers really need to be able to get 1 more range?
lurkers are useless in live apart from zvz, they need to be changed.
On October 04 2019 07:42 travis wrote: I feel like this patch "nerfs" zerg in small irrelevant ways, and then "rebalances" protoss in ways that will drastically nerf them.
Also those lurker changes look hilariously extreme to me. And do lurkers really need to be able to get 1 more range?
lurkers are useless in live apart from zvz, they need to be changed.
They're quite strong against Protoss. You just don't see them as often recently since hydras aren't as popular as before and going straight to Broodlord/Infestor is even better.
On October 04 2019 06:59 spectreusmc wrote: I don't see how they think they've weakened the infestor at all...
If the Zerg is on the defensive, Protoss can engage, force the Zerg to pop infested terrans, then retreat. The problem is you'd have to do that half a dozen times and if you're on the defensive, you're even more screwed because Storm is even less effective against them than previously.
How is storm less effective? Infested terrans are so slow that they'll eat the whole storm and die like before, but now killing the same area's worth of infested terran is worth twice as much infestor energy.
I like the idea of the changes that they're going for this time. It's cool to see them try to improve that sort of super late game dynamic with more late game upgrades.
The second adept upgrade looks a bit weak though, 20 shield doesn't really seem like a lot especially when adept upgrades are mostly used for timings.
It would be cool to see the stalker get an upgrade, maybe even something like Phase Reactor in the co-op where the ability would restore some shields after they blink, to increase their late game anti-air viability (not the cloaking part though cause that would OP)
Apparantly people dont really like some of these changes but I am loving it. I think I agreed with like every change they suggested. I kept expecting there to be some weird misplaced changes near the end but the good stuff just kept coming.
Love the terran changes. Helion change makes sense, would be lovely if there are possibly blue flame openers. Thor changes sounds great - they do seem a little unresponsive. Viking buff is nice and I think its something terran lategame needs. Liberator range changes are fine, especially combined with brood/infestor/tempest changes. I like nerfing battlecruisers, the bc style just felt boring to me.
Zerg changes are a bit mixed. The infestor changes seem really risky and I'd prefer the unit being used as little as possible. But its hard to tell how it will work out. Love the lurker buff, I think lurkers are a cool and fun unit. Love the broodlord nerf, the broodlord range made it impossible to ever take a fight with the zerg deathball which led to boring games. Nydus changes seem necessary. Personally I think it'd be more fun if zerg lategame focussed on ultras and lurkers instead of broodlord infestor, so I mostly like these changes. I'd prefer buffing the ultras and turning the broodlords into more of a siege unit that you get to secure a win rather than a core deathball unit. But hey, these are steps in the right direction.
For protoss I think a midgame nerf to zealots is reasonable. The adept upgrade is fine to me, although lategame adepts shading around is definitely going to be annoying as hell. It seems good to buff a unit's lategame strength when it is basically only used in all ins otherwise. Tempest range nerf is good given the broodlord, infestor and liberator nerfs. The air vs air fights should stay the same, but now maybe ground armies have some sort of chance. Other small changes are fine with me too.
Overall I like the direction of this patch. New infestors could be scary but it might also be weaker, we'll have to wait and see. Otherwise Im loving it.
I think these are mostly quite smart and well reasoned changes.
A couple of things seem a bit off and the protoss changes overall are a bit underwhelming. I agree with people voicing amazement on the weird speed changes, and the viking change seems a bit crazy too but the infested terran changes and the adept and tempest changes make senses.
I wonder a bit about the voidrays... but since protoss is generally lacking in mobility and speed this might make sense somehow.
But what I really think should be done in addition: - the first charge upgrade needs to be cheaper and faster, so that zealots can be become semi useful sooner - zerg cocoons should take additional damage (similar to warping in units) instead of having extra armor. Cocoons from larvae might be exempt, but if you find broodlords, banes or ravagers morphing you should be awarded by easily killing them instaed of almost killing them and having full HP units jump out and laugh in your face.
Lastly I think that the proposed warpin change from the previous patch is still a good idea (slow warpprism warpin), but only if balanced by stronger gateway units, especially a higher dps/lower hp stalker, and/or greater dps sentry.
On October 04 2019 07:42 travis wrote: I feel like this patch "nerfs" zerg in small irrelevant ways, and then "rebalances" protoss in ways that will drastically nerf them.
Also those lurker changes look hilariously extreme to me. And do lurkers really need to be able to get 1 more range?
lurkers are useless in live apart from zvz, they need to be changed.
Unless things have changed significantly, Lurkers hard counter their Protoss counter in Immortals if there are enough Lurkers (and there pretty much always are unless the Protoss is massively ahead). Giving them more range makes it even harder to Storm them or to engage without Tempests.
On October 04 2019 06:59 spectreusmc wrote: I don't see how they think they've weakened the infestor at all...
If the Zerg is on the defensive, Protoss can engage, force the Zerg to pop infested terrans, then retreat. The problem is you'd have to do that half a dozen times and if you're on the defensive, you're even more screwed because Storm is even less effective against them than previously.
How is storm less effective? Infested terrans are so slow that they'll eat the whole storm and die like before, but now killing the same area's worth of infested terran is worth twice as much infestor energy.
Seems like a pretty huge buff for protoss to me.
Storm is less effective because it takes longer to kill them. Storming and retreating only works if you can run from a fight. It does you no good if an important Nexus is under attack.
Most changes at least make sense. Nerf queens please and I will be happy. Banshees/Libs can do close to nothing now against zerg, with BC nerf it's a problem.
Love the lurker buff, love the BC nerf also a fan of the Viking buff. Would like to see bigger infestor and bl nerfs.
Would like to see toss get more changes especially targeted at pvz.
I think it would be fine for nydus upgrade to require lair not hive tech. Would like to see that tried. I would have liked to see supply changes to the tempest instead if range, I think if tempests were a bigger supply investment it would be fine for them to have the same range they now have since they would be weeker in direct engagements as a result.
On October 04 2019 08:44 washikie wrote: I would have liked to see supply changes to the tempest instead if range, I think if tempests were a bigger supply investment it would be fine for them to have the same range they now have since they would be weeker in direct engagements as a result.
Tempests are really bad in direct engagements currently...
On October 04 2019 08:49 serendipitous wrote: Protoss is gonna be really bad after this imo, maybe a bit better vs Zerg, but they'll have a hard time vs early terran pushes.
I like the changes, they add more dept to tech desicions of both terran and protoss and I like that they seem to encourage using ground mech vs protoss.
I do agree that 2 base bio pushes would be strong but hopefully that means they revert the stim buff, wich IMO was a bad change that only streamlined terran even more.
On October 04 2019 08:44 washikie wrote: I would have liked to see supply changes to the tempest instead if range, I think if tempests were a bigger supply investment it would be fine for them to have the same range they now have since they would be weeker in direct engagements as a result.
Tempests are really bad in direct engagements currently...
well kind of, Outside of the BC telipporting on top of them strat, I dont think they are restricted enough. It would be nice if we can reach a happy medium with The tempest were it performs its role of dealing with siege units and massive air units, while not being good enough that you want to make a whole lot of them. I think a supply nerf serves this better than a range reduction, keeps the utility of the unit but lets your opponent pounce on your army if you built more of them than you needed to counter what your opponent is up to.
Although I think the direction bliz is going to decrease the range of all ranged siege units is an alright approach, better than what we have now.
Zerg changes are a bit mixed. The infestor changes seem really risky and I'd prefer the unit being used as little as possible. But its hard to tell how it will work out. Love the lurker buff, I think lurkers are a cool and fun unit. Love the broodlord nerf, the broodlord range made it impossible to ever take a fight with the zerg deathball which led to boring games. Nydus changes seem necessary. Personally I think it'd be more fun if zerg lategame focussed on ultras and lurkers instead of broodlord infestor, so I mostly like these changes. I'd prefer buffing the ultras and turning the broodlords into more of a siege unit that you get to secure a win rather than a core deathball unit. But hey, these are steps in the right direction.
Overall I like the direction of this patch. New infestors could be scary but it might also be weaker, we'll have to wait and see. Otherwise Im loving it.
I agree I would love it if bliz would keep zerg late game strong (becuase with zergs design it needs to be) but make it less about the bl infestor death ball and more about leveraging your bank, nydus network and powerful ground based options to crush your opponent.
I agree with others who have said too many abilities are becoming upgrades. Like, really, an upgrade to give adepts 20 more shields? It's almost self-parody.
I was hoping for some radical re-designs, maybe to the immortal, infestor, etc.
Some of this stuff seems good but a lot of it doesn't seem to hit the core problems. Feels more like over-complicating and cluttering up the game. We'll see, though.
Dissapointed, this is meant to be the biggest patch of the year (what I was waiting for to help the game get out of its current bad game state). Zerg are currently dominant and Protoss don't look like they are set up to compete. Protoss don't get anything that would help. Zerg look like they will be able to keep winning with the same stuff. Terran get some nice buffs and QOL stuff.
INFESTOR Infested Terran energy cost increased from 25 to 50. Infested Terran health increased from 50 to 75. Infested Swarm Egg health increased from 70 to 75. The Infested Terran’s Gauss Rifle damage increased from 6 to 12. The Infested Terran’s Infested Rockets damage increased from 14 to 24. Infested Rockets now gain +2 per ranged weapon upgrade, up from +1. Infested Rockets attack period decreased from 1.14 to 0.95.
We’d like to redesign the Infested Terran ability with the following goals in mind: First, to make each Infested Terran feel like more of a commitment. Secondly, we want to provide players with more clear counters-play options against Infested Terrans.
Our proposal is a more expensive and powerful Infested Terran that is still vulnerable to key Terran and Protoss units and abilities. With this redesign, while Infested Terrans will have higher damage density, they’ll be more vulnerable to Psionic Storm, Disruptors, and Liberators.
I don't see how this addresses the IT problem at all. they claim this will make each IT more of a commitment, but nothing will change. they will be spammed from 100 % to 0 energy the same way they are now; now they are just fewer and stronger. i am very disappointed to see them make this arbitrary change rather than changing the design of the infestor.
On October 04 2019 08:44 washikie wrote: I would have liked to see supply changes to the tempest instead if range, I think if tempests were a bigger supply investment it would be fine for them to have the same range they now have since they would be weeker in direct engagements as a result.
Tempests are really bad in direct engagements currently...
well kind of, Outside of the BC telipporting on top of them strat, I dont think they are restricted enough. It would be nice if we can reach a happy medium with The tempest were it performs its role of dealing with siege units and massive air units, while not being good enough that you want to make a whole lot of them. I think a supply nerf serves this better than a range reduction, keeps the utility of the unit but lets your opponent pounce on your army if you built more of them than you needed to counter what your opponent is up to.
Although I think the direction bliz is going to decrease the range of all ranged siege units is an alright approach, better than what we have now.
Nobody wants to make a lot of Tempests. People make a lot of Tempests because you need 600 of them to do anything.
That infestor change is a buff btw not a nerf I hope you realize that, I don't think zergs care if it costs 50 energy when they have mass infestor in the late game already and since you compensate the energy cost increase with better infested terrans hardly anything is gonna change in super later game and you might actually make infested terran spam even stronger then before as a result of the insane stats on infested terrans. I have to say I find it quite shocking to see this even posted as a suggestion.
The infestor is just to strong and Zergs should be forced to use their big banks in long games not fight with free units making it near impossible to trade well even with better engagements.
You have Protoss players in the complete opposite side of the spectrum where every unit is as precious as gold and Zerg are throwing around free units that are really strong. Terrans are also in similar situation altough not as bad as protoss.
On October 04 2019 10:11 StasisField wrote: There are so many upgrades on the twilight council that it might actually be worth it to open double twilight council. What universe am I in?
At this rate they could remove the forge, add the forge upgrades to twilight council and make cannons require twilight to appease the haters of cannon rush.
On October 04 2019 07:42 travis wrote: I feel like this patch "nerfs" zerg in small irrelevant ways, and then "rebalances" protoss in ways that will drastically nerf them.
Also those lurker changes look hilariously extreme to me. And do lurkers really need to be able to get 1 more range?
lurkers are useless in live apart from zvz, they need to be changed.
Unless things have changed significantly, Lurkers hard counter their Protoss counter in Immortals if there are enough Lurkers (and there pretty much always are unless the Protoss is massively ahead). Giving them more range makes it even harder to Storm them or to engage without Tempests.
On October 04 2019 06:59 spectreusmc wrote: I don't see how they think they've weakened the infestor at all...
If the Zerg is on the defensive, Protoss can engage, force the Zerg to pop infested terrans, then retreat. The problem is you'd have to do that half a dozen times and if you're on the defensive, you're even more screwed because Storm is even less effective against them than previously.
How is storm less effective? Infested terrans are so slow that they'll eat the whole storm and die like before, but now killing the same area's worth of infested terran is worth twice as much infestor energy.
Seems like a pretty huge buff for protoss to me.
Storm is less effective because it takes longer to kill them. Storming and retreating only works if you can run from a fight. It does you no good if an important Nexus is under attack.
Storm taking 1.79 seconds vs 2.68 seconds to kill an IT is not significant, and that goes double when it comes to storming eggs.
-If you want the mothership to feel less like a flying pile of trash, why not just make it immune to abduct/neural?
-I can't properly envision the nydus changes without trying it out... but the effect I'd like to see is not feeling like the nydus spam is costing us equally to attempt/defend until it costs me everything the one time I don't react perfectly. I don't know how balanced it is, but it's just not fun.
-I'd be down to try a more lurker centered matchup. I'm not very good against it, but maybe it's interesting at least?
So, the infested Terran damage is 24, the range is 12, and the attack period is 0.95. And the Thor damage is 25, the range is 11, and the attack period is 0.9. Why not change the "Infested Terran" to "Infested Thor"?
Disgusting and careless. Completely. I start hating balance team and it's my common sense. Infestor change... it's a one big mess. More upgrades. Welcome on board. You need to upgrade everything. Literally you need to upgrade everything. UpgradeCraft II. Just read the comment about the reason why "Infernal Pre-Igniter" research cost must be decreased from 150/150 to 100/100. It's not even related to the topic. It's not even related to current issues that we have today. And STILL, you need to research it from tech lab. They change thors every 6 months. Every 6 months. Cyclone was changed 9 times already. And now we need to change thor again. Thor is clumsy as hell. And he has only 1 armor. 6 supply unit has 1 armor. You have spending 300/200 to build a useless mech thing with 1 armor. And it's even more useless now with buffed infestors and nerfed liberators. Jesus, they have nerfed a protoss since early 2019. And they even can't figure out why they are doing it. Let's revert obs speed. Great. The reason: " the FRUSTRATION caused by barely not catching Observers did not make up for the benefits" Are you crazy? How about THE FRUSTRATION to play late game vs Zerg? or disruptors disco dance as a terran?
Guys, I'm very sorry but this is bullshit and you know it.
I like these changes a lot, I'm currently having fun with all the races and this proposal addresses few of the frustrating things I've encountered while not really breaking any of my playstile. The nerfs have corresponding buffs in different areas, plus we get few new fun options (speed voids, fast medivacs and 10 range lurkers ).
What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
I just want to add that these changes are nothing. We will have the same problems in 2020. If we stomp around like this we only make it worse. We wander the maze. Liberator and disruptor, they don't fit the starcraft aesthetic. We need to delete them. And we need to make infestors like ravens. As a support unit. You just can't neuralize the whole fcking mothership or battlecruiser. It's dumb. You just can't kill the whole air protoss/terran army with free units. It's nonsense.
I don't think the game is imbalanced as people make it out to be and I like the direction they are going with things.
I don't want to see broodlord leash range reduced though, it's a fun micro trick. If it's OP that's fine, but I wish they wouldn't get rid of a neat micro ability.
Don't like the battlecruiser nerfs either. Cool unit abilities and micro tricks should stay in the game, they are fun. I don't mind the cooldown increase but not a fan of the 1 second vulnerability.
these threads are the same shit every single time, gold leaguers theorycrafting patches that aren't even past R&D and people repeating the same inaccurate claims like "blizzard doesn't talk to pro players about balance" lol what's the point
On October 04 2019 13:59 MockHamill wrote: Too many changes making the result almost impossible to predict. Bettter to just:
1. Increase Infestor supply to 3. 2. Fix Broodlord range bug. 3. Make Nydus load and unload slower.
They're trying to drastically change the game after each Blizzcon, probably to give newer players a chance to catch up with more experienced players. I don't personally like this approach, but it is what it is.
On October 04 2019 13:46 brickrd wrote: these threads are the same shit every single time, gold leaguers theorycrafting patches that aren't even past R&D and people repeating the same inaccurate claims like "blizzard doesn't talk to pro players about balance" lol what's the point
Talking to them isn't enough, since pros don't necessarily agree on many things. It needs to be more direct; Blizz needs to pay some high-level pros to come together in several (virtual) conferences to hammer out practical ideas. This is the most efficient approach.
God, i knew they are clueless, but this, this is beyond any reason. What these changes are? Some random stuff w/o any context and no connection to the meta. No, really, this is not funny. Fire them somebody.
So many little changes... I like the amount of changes but they are all so small that the meta might not change too much, except for late game. I'd ike to see more meta-shifting changes. At first glance, T is buffed, Z is nerfed, P is reckt'd. Nothing new...
On October 04 2019 11:32 WenHe wrote: So, the infested Terran damage is 24, the range is 12, and the attack period is 0.95. And the Thor damage is 25, the range is 11, and the attack period is 0.9. Why not change the "Infested Terran" to "Infested Thor"?
I mean, why the hell are they buffing infested terrans to begin with. It's not eeven needed.
it seems that blizzard don't know how to balance so they just do some random buff and debuff, then they will have ideas about how to adjust the new system between 3 races. It's really irresponsible and funny.
Actually I feel the changes is nice for every race. Only issue is why observer speed nerf? They buff the overlord speed because what then?
By I wish if they buff lurker range, Disruptor can be buffed too, because I like the interaction between lurkers and Disruptor. Now it favors lurker too much.
On October 04 2019 15:13 Xamo wrote: So many little changes... I like the amount of changes but they are all so small that the meta might not change too much, except for late game. I'd ike to see more meta-shifting changes. At first glance, T is buffed, Z is nerfed, P is reckt'd. Nothing new...
I only agree with the last sentence, although I think Z will be nerfed much harder than P, according to these proposals. I think this will change the meta plenty. Less frequency of BC opener, and nydus spammage. Higher frequency of blue flame harassment. Less BL/Inf lategame, and more lurker/Inf lategame.
The biggest bitching of this year by far has been zerg lategame, and these nerfs ARE definitely nerfs. -1 range on neural is very substantial, considering how vulnerable infestors were when they didn't have the 9 range. Neural was much less often used. This is 100% a lategame nerf. Allowing it to be used for midgame isn't such a big deal, considering: how vulnerable it now makes the infestor; the inf already is expensive; and it takes a little while to build up energy for a neural.
The IT nerf is in fact a goddamn nerf. With pathogen gland, inf could upon hatching cast 3 ITs. Now, only 1. Infestors that have already depleted most of their energy bank will now have to wait longer to be at all useful, and the few IT that they can spawn may quickly get killed, perhaps even before they spawn. A 90 energy inf currently can cast 3 ITs, but in the future only 1. The implication of this is that, on average, a group of infestors will not be able to use as high a proportion of their energy on ITs at a given time as they can currently; also, EMPs will hurt infestors' ability to cast ITs more than before. This is also a big deal when the zerg decides to spam them in a massive engagement. But for the sake of argument, let's say there are infestors with max (200) energy and can spam 4 ITs per inf; a storm/disruption/liberator may now potentially kill twice as much energy worth of spellcast unit. Anti-light/bio units like blue-flame hellions, ghosts, archons, colossus, and adept, and generally high-dps units like tanks and marines, can more quickly kill ITs, because the amount of HP per energy spent will have been reduced by effectively 25%. Not to mention: the IT cocoon's HP will be practically unchanged, which huuugely buffs (almost doubles) the value of killing them before they hatch.
All in all, if you combine these zerg nerfs with the viking buff, lategame Z will be significant weaker than it is now. If anything, it may completely obliterate the lategame advantage zerg now enjoys.
On October 04 2019 13:02 tigon_ridge wrote: What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
Because pro's are just as prone to balance whining and bad game design as the rest of us. There are some form of meetings that Blizzard hosts where they gather a bunch of pros to discuss balance, though.
On October 04 2019 13:02 tigon_ridge wrote: What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
Because pro's are just as prone to balance whining and bad game design as the rest of us.
That might only be if they get too creative, and start inventing new gameplay mechanics. When it comes to fine-tune adjustments, I'm sure they're far more equipped with experience to judge than the vast majority of us.
These are all great, smart changes. People complaining about infestor getting a buff just don't understand how it will actually play. Every infested terran you kill removes that much more power. single target power is more strong against them now. Libs will get tied up fighting IT's for less time. Protoss splash is much more efficient at clearing them. -1 range to neural. Fantastic changes for the infestor. The change to charge almost reverts it back to hots era 200/200, but lets you increment out the power, which should open up more early mid game options for other races. Love the change. Few of the changes aren't particularly sexy or exciting, and I'd really like to have way more done since this is an end of year patch. Shake it up, make big changes, then be hands off for a while and see how it works. It saddens me that blizzard will probably listen to a bunch of people who have a kneejerk reaction to this stuff and back off some of the better changes they have here. Blizzard, don't listen to gold league players, please.
On October 04 2019 13:02 tigon_ridge wrote: What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
what makes you think they don't do that. They frequently ask pros for opinions, and I don't think what people write here matters much.
On October 04 2019 13:02 tigon_ridge wrote: What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
what makes you think they don't do that. They frequently ask pros for opinions, and I don't think what people write here matters much.
It's possible they only publicize these potential changes, and ask the community for our opinion, as merely a PR move. If they are as competent as I hope they are, they would definitely ignore >90% of the posts in this thread.
Asking for opinions and doing a proper focus group are two different things. The latter has been known to be so extremely effective that companies have literally paid somewhat random people big cash to participate in a focus group. Replace "random people" with experts who are highly involved in the industry, and you get the gravity of it.
IMO all these changes make for bad design, adjusting small things when the big picture is broken and basically trying to shift attention to areas that are not so important so the discussion on hard issues stops. I stopped reading half-way through, this is really unfortunate.
On October 04 2019 05:08 TL.net ESPORTS wrote: Hey everyone,
Each year, we take a step back to evaluate what improvements we could make to the game for a post-BlizzCon design patch. As we come closer and closer to stability with each passing year
On October 04 2019 05:08 TL.net ESPORTS wrote: Hey everyone,
Each year, we take a step back to evaluate what improvements we could make to the game for a post-BlizzCon design patch. As we come closer and closer to stability with each passing year
On October 04 2019 05:08 TL.net ESPORTS wrote: Hey everyone,
Each year, we take a step back to evaluate what improvements we could make to the game for a post-BlizzCon design patch. As we come closer and closer to stability with each passing year
lmao
Well they got only 1 korean terran for blizzcon so far, they are almost there!
The changes are too numerous for me to process if it'll be good or not, but they seem quite subtile compared to previous post-blizzcon patches. It's probably for the best, hopefully they manage to get something good.
A lot of changes and at a time where I think all that needs to be done is change Infestor to 3 supply and Nydus unload speed and cooldown slightly nerfed.
I also am not a fan of the whole “make everything an upgrade” strategy. But we’ll see how this works out, glad it’s after Blizzcon
On October 04 2019 17:58 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: IMO all these changes make for bad design, adjusting small things when the big picture is broken and basically trying to shift attention to areas that are not so important so the discussion on hard issues stops. I stopped reading half-way through, this is really unfortunate.
It's been like this since the game's beta. Bandaids everywhere.
So the infestor has clearly been a problem, but I really don't get the feeling from reading this that it will actually fix the issues. The only real nerf is that the energy cost for ITs is doubled, but the for example the fact that infestors still take the same amount of supply make them very massable, especially since the IT itself was buffed so much. And now you don't even need to upgrade Neural.
Infestors with Neural Parasite by default it's a straight buff. DPS same or even higher vs air T/P with smaller number of infested terrans so it's a straight buff too. HP increased it's a buff. 'cause you can't storm them and with weaker thor/ nerfed liberators range it's a buff. Weird.
I’m not sure why people are so overwhelmingly negative given Blizz said this is effectively their ‘rough ideas’ stage.
I would say we’re potentially entering a weird spot where there are too many upgrades for some units, and not enough for other units.
With the caveat I don’t say BW > SC2, but in there basically everything is an upgrade and it’s consistent. Builds factor this in.
Protoss have to research storm, which gives them their only useful spell outside of morphing, and gives Protoss AoE if they haven’t gone Robo Bay options. This gives a period of vulnerability where the initial investment needs time to pay off.
Contrast with the Infestors which already pop with really useful abilities and now neural might potentially not require an upgrade?
What? Part of the problem with Infestor is they’re strong out the box so you can morph a bunch and transition to the lategame comps, this will only make this worse.
I like the base idea of giving later game upgrades to give stock units more utility to be honest, as a general practice.
It just seems very haphazard, Protoss gateway units basically need their Twilight upgrades to not suck outside of the early game, which is OK, but at the same time the catch-all Infestor is having upgrades removed? :S
these rough ideas don't make a good impression. Nothing in their ideas is innovative or even clever. Just tweaking small things here and there instead of looking for creative ways to improve game design and change the way matches are played. Seems lazy and uninspiring.
On October 05 2019 00:25 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: these rough ideas don't make a good impression. Nothing in their ideas is innovative or even clever. Just tweaking small things here and there instead of looking for creative ways to improve game design and change the way matches are played. Seems lazy and uninspiring.
Bigger changes would require more man-hours put into SC2. They just dont have that many people working on starcraft. Probably less than 3 I would guess.
I think that 99% of SC2 users just wants good game design rather than good balance. With all the new upgrades, the game is unnecessarily complicated, poorly designed, and therefore less enjoyable. That's definitetly not how you want to revitalize a declining game.
I think it is better to lower the life and movement speed of the crushers before bringing the Vikings to life. I also see that the speed of movement of the MEDIVAC is still bad because the landing of Marine delays the opponent a lot and that must have a risk. I don't think that the observer's movement speed should be lowered because of how big the maps are and that the proto depends a lot on echos
- Infernal Pre-Igniter research cost decreased from 150/150 to 100/100 OK. - High Impact Payload damage decreased from 40 (+15 vs Massive) to 25 (+10 vs Massive). - High Impact Payload weapon cooldown decreased from 1.7 to 0.9. Another massive buff to the amove thor ... With the brood lord nerf this will be really funny ... The real question is: why this thing has 2 types of anti air attack? Just remove the AoE anti air attack already. Mutas need to be usable again! - Health increased from 135 to 150. Funny. Another massive anti air buff to the terran ... What about corruptors? They are already trash compared to vikings! Noone cares ... - Moved the Rapid Re-Ignition System upgrade from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core. Ok, but this is an another reason to bring back mutas to TvZ. Advanced Ballistics upgrade moved from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core. OK. - Interference Matrix energy cost increased from 50 energy to 75 energy. - Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds. - Raven movement speed increased from 3.85 to 4.13. This unit needs redesign. - Tactical Jump now stuns and puts the Battlecruiser into a 1 second vulnerability phase before it teleports. - Tactical Jump cooldown increased from 71 seconds to 86 seconds. 1 second is not enough. Instead the cooldown nerf, you should merge the yamato and the jump cooldown together. So you can use 1 ability in every 71 sec. - Duration decreased from 64 seconds to 63 seconds. - Mules now always attempt to spawn on the side of minerals closest to a town hall. MULES need restrictions but you made them even easier to use, ROFL. - Infested Terran energy cost increased from 25 to 50. Infested Terran health increased from 50 to 75. Infested Swarm Egg health increased from 70 to 75. The Infested Terran’s Gauss Rifle damage increased from 6 to 12. The Infested Terran’s Infested Rockets damage increased from 14 to 24. Infested Rockets now gain +2 per ranged weapon upgrade, up from +1. Infested Rockets attack period decreased from 1.14 to 0.95. Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 8. Removed the Research Neural Parasite upgrade. Infestors now come with Neural Parasite by default. You just changed the infestor, instead of nerfing it. LOL Lurker Den build time decreased from 86 seconds to 57 seconds. Lurker range decreased from 9 to 8. New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds. Increased research duration of Adaptive Talons from 54 seconds to 57 seconds. LOL .Random lurker buff. Buff the trash brood lord instead. - Broodling leash range decreased from 12 to 9. Trash range, trash speed, no dps, no hp, high tech, high cost, no anti air. THX Nydus Network and Nydus Worm initial unload delay increased from 0.18 to 0.36. Nydus Network and Nydus Worm load period increased from 0.09 to 0.18. Nydus Network and Nydus Worm unload period increased from 0.18 to 0.36. New upgrade found on the Evolution Chamber: Secreted Coating Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s initial unload delay from 0.36 to 0.18. Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s load period from 0.18 to 0.09. Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s unload period from 0.36 to 0.18. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 100/100. Research duration: 57 seconds. Summon Nydus Worm ability cooldown increased from 0 to 14. Nydus is the only zerg early game agressive option vs other races. Dont nerf it.
On October 05 2019 01:05 Spirit_HUN wrote: - Infernal Pre-Igniter research cost decreased from 150/150 to 100/100 OK. - High Impact Payload damage decreased from 40 (+15 vs Massive) to 25 (+10 vs Massive). - High Impact Payload weapon cooldown decreased from 1.7 to 0.9. Another massive buff to the amove thor ... With the brood lord nerf this will be really funny ... The real question is: why this thing has 2 types of anti air attack? Just remove the AoE anti air attack already. Mutas need to be usable again! - Health increased from 135 to 150. Funny. Another massive anti air buff to the terran ... What about corruptors? They are already trash compared to vikings! Noone cares ... - Moved the Rapid Re-Ignition System upgrade from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core. Ok, but this is an another reason to bring back mutas to TvZ. Advanced Ballistics upgrade moved from the Starport Tech Lab to the Fusion Core. OK. - Interference Matrix energy cost increased from 50 energy to 75 energy. - Interference Matrix duration increased from 8 seconds to 11 seconds. - Raven movement speed increased from 3.85 to 4.13. This unit needs redesign. - Tactical Jump now stuns and puts the Battlecruiser into a 1 second vulnerability phase before it teleports. - Tactical Jump cooldown increased from 71 seconds to 86 seconds. 1 second is not enough. Instead the cooldown nerf, you should merge the yamato and the jump cooldown together. So you can use 1 ability in every 71 sec. - Duration decreased from 64 seconds to 63 seconds. - Mules now always attempt to spawn on the side of minerals closest to a town hall. MULES need restrictions but you made them even easier to use, ROFL. - Infested Terran energy cost increased from 25 to 50. Infested Terran health increased from 50 to 75. Infested Swarm Egg health increased from 70 to 75. The Infested Terran’s Gauss Rifle damage increased from 6 to 12. The Infested Terran’s Infested Rockets damage increased from 14 to 24. Infested Rockets now gain +2 per ranged weapon upgrade, up from +1. Infested Rockets attack period decreased from 1.14 to 0.95. Neural Parasite range decreased from 9 to 8. Removed the Research Neural Parasite upgrade. Infestors now come with Neural Parasite by default. You just changed the infestor, instead of nerfing it. LOL Lurker Den build time decreased from 86 seconds to 57 seconds. Lurker range decreased from 9 to 8. New Upgrade found on the Lurker Den: Seismic Spines Increases the Lurker’s range from 8 to 10. Requirement: Hive Research cost: 150/150. Research duration: 57 seconds. Increased research duration of Adaptive Talons from 54 seconds to 57 seconds. LOL .Random lurker buff. Buff the trash brood lord instead. - Broodling leash range decreased from 12 to 9. Trash range, trash speed, no dps, no hp, high tech, high cost, no anti air. THX Nydus Network and Nydus Worm initial unload delay increased from 0.18 to 0.36. Nydus Network and Nydus Worm load period increased from 0.09 to 0.18. Nydus Network and Nydus Worm unload period increased from 0.18 to 0.36. New upgrade found on the Evolution Chamber: Secreted Coating Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s initial unload delay from 0.36 to 0.18. Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s load period from 0.18 to 0.09. Reduces the Nydus Network and Nydus Worm’s unload period from 0.36 to 0.18. Requirement: Hive. Research cost: 100/100. Research duration: 57 seconds. Summon Nydus Worm ability cooldown increased from 0 to 14. Nydus is the only zerg early game agressive option vs other races. Dont nerf it.
I gotta say splitting everything into upgrades just feels kinda shitty. Especially when they’re basically just being stripped from the unit to begin with. Would be more interested in seeing an effort made to scale back on infinity upgrades as a solution.
Especially for Protoss I’d rather see changing HP/Shield values over just moving a chunk of Shield onto an upgrade. Especially since there’s a discrepancy between how armor upgrades effect each Heath value that could impact the way the unit works at multiple phases of the game in a more fluid way.
It’d probably be trickier to do it this way but it’d feel a lot more elegant.
Ditto to just making the Infestor more supply inefficient, much simpler change.
On October 05 2019 00:25 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: these rough ideas don't make a good impression. Nothing in their ideas is innovative or even clever. Just tweaking small things here and there instead of looking for creative ways to improve game design and change the way matches are played. Seems lazy and uninspiring.
Why should they make bigger design changes if the game is great the way it is?
Right now, it looks like the Mothership serves a relatively weak role in PvZ matchups. A singular viper with a singular abduct can yoink that 400/400 massive unit over with ease and then shoot it down with 2-3 volleys using corruptors or even neural it with an infestor to cloak your own zerg army. The Mothership should be at the back end of the army to stay alive and cloak that army, but also it needs to go to the front to cast its spells, so the Mothership doesn't seem to have a place. The protoss is having its bank depleted that way and the zerg doesn't get punished for it too much.
I suggest a new change: abducting a Mothership only abducts it somewhere between 30-50% of the distance that a normal unit gets abducted (exact value yet to be determined). That way, the zerg needs a bit more micro and commitment if they really want to get the Mothership, and the protoss has more of a chance to save that unit and to also punish the zerg for that maneuver. That should even up the trades a bit and gives the Mothership more chance to shine.
On October 05 2019 02:56 Vazalemma wrote: Right now, it looks like the Mothership serves a relatively weak role in PvZ matchups. A singular viper with a singular abduct can yoink that 400/400 massive unit over with ease and then shoot it down with 2-3 volleys using corruptors or even neural it with an infestor to cloak your own zerg army. The Mothership should be at the back end of the army to stay alive and cloak that army, but also it needs to go to the front to cast its spells, so the Mothership doesn't seem to have a place. The protoss is having its bank depleted that way and the zerg doesn't get punished for it too much.
I suggest a new change: abducting a Mothership only abducts it somewhere between 30-50% of the distance that a normal unit gets abducted (exact value yet to be determined). That way, the zerg needs a bit more micro and commitment if they really want to get the Mothership, and the protoss has more of a chance to save that unit and to also punish the zerg for that maneuver. That should even up the trades a bit and gives the Mothership more chance to shine.
Thoughts?
Pretty good idea. I would just add it to the massive tag, since pulling any of those units out of position by 3-4.5 tiles, while not being a free kill, makes them a lot more vulnerable. Maybe slow the yoink speed by a certain amount as well, and have concurrent yoinks(unsure on current interaction) interrupt movement so you can't just stack 2 vipers and instantly pull 9 tiles.
Forces Zerg to stop going hatch first nine out of ten games and start moving to something like six out of ten games which significantly reduces their average midgame economic advantage and by extension delays transition to hive tech.
Allows P to take spread out expansions in the late game without being cold to ling run bys. You need to build the cannons and invest in defense, but if you do, that defense will do something.
Plus, the public wants to watch more cannon rushes.
This is awesome, good changes Blizzard I look forward to seeing it in action. I personally love the period immediately after big changes - lots of innovation
So if zealot is a core unit, why is it nerfed? Didn't Blizzard say they rarely change core units such as lings, marines, etc? Why is protoss an exception?
On October 05 2019 00:25 fLyiNgDroNe wrote: these rough ideas don't make a good impression. Nothing in their ideas is innovative or even clever. Just tweaking small things here and there instead of looking for creative ways to improve game design and change the way matches are played. Seems lazy and uninspiring.
Why should they make bigger design changes if the game is great the way it is?
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
Maybe we are underestimating the effect of the range changes of lategame units. This is almost as if all other ground units get a lategame +1 range upgrade. For example in TvZ in every fight you will take much less damage, your ghost snipes will go off more frequently, your thors get to shoot more and even stuff like sniping infestors with marauders will be better. Basically every move terran can do is going to be stronger. Even if it isnt much, this is going to add up if it affects basically every single lategame interaction.
Just report that I found a few bugs of the new balance patch:
1.Mothership’s Time Stop still does not decrease enemy beam-type weapon’s attack speed, including sentry, oracle, void ray and enemy mothership. They attack at exactly same speed inside the Time Stop bubble. Originally Time Stop only decrease enemy ground units and structures’ attack speed, so the bug only affect enemy sentry in verse mode. With new patch it will affect more units, though all of them are also Protoss units.
2.Raven’s AAM bug is still not fixed. It still does not decrease affected units’ armor at all, instead just add 3 damage taken from melee or range attack, but not splash damage.
3.Battlecruiser’s Tactical Jump adds 1 second of stun time with the new patch. The balance team believe “Interference Matrix, Fungal Growth, and Abduct will be able to cancel Tactical Jump and put it on cooldown during the Battlecruiser’s vulnerability phase.” Actually, only Fungal Growth will put it on cooldown. Though Interference Matrix and Abduct also stop Tactical Jump successfully, the BC may still use Tactical Jump immediately after Interference Matrix expire of abducted.
4.Thor’s High Impact Paylord damage bonus from weapon upgrade does not decrease according to its reduced damage. Right now Thor’s High Paylord does 40 + 15 Massive damage, and receives +5 damage per upgrade, and it would becomes 55 + 15 Massive if maxed. With new patch, the weapon upgrade still gives +5 damage per upgrade, which means 25 +10 Massive will become 40 +10 Massive at max upgrade, at a weapon cooldown of 0.9 second.
On October 04 2019 13:02 tigon_ridge wrote: What I don't understand is: why doesn't Blizzard just hire and organize a committee consisting of English-speaking pro players to work on balancing the game, instead of relying on some TL randos who are more opinionated than experienced? I'd much rather have Serral, Neeb, and Bunny come together to brainstorm ideas in private, and submit them to Blizzard's balance team, than have the people in this thread influence the state of the game. Democracy means a bunch of idiots get to decide the direction of their community. Stop trying to democratize SC2. Let the most competent people handle the all-important task of balancing the game.
Pros are interested in keeping the meta stale and predictable. As someone who wants to watch good Starcraft with an interesting meta, this is the last thing I want. There is more to balancing the game than satisfying the pros.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
It has become pointless. "Free units" must be restrained. It must be done. More or less energy. More or less HP. It's still free. You just waiting for a while and here we go again. Meanwhile, protoss/terran mineral/gas bank starts melt. Frustration.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote: A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
how tho ? this unit only goes out of control when zerg players make over 20 infestors while still be able to harrass P/T naturals and that secures them a very healthy eco for another instant 20-25 units remax 20 infestors for 60 supply will definately hold thier ground no problem like the current one but zerg players must work harder in drone count and thier hit squads.Late game was never just about all out direct engagement
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
uncle blizz wants every unit has a role ,not every army comp! post blizzcon patch is for shaking up the meta and give the balance team another reason to keep doing balance change. just like a MOBA game hell yeah moba philosophy is gud also,it fits the modern gaming moar
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Full on Sky Terran and Sky Toss are extremely difficult to get to. If the Zerg player just sits back and lets it happen, they deserve to lose. Zerg cannot have overly aggressive early game options because their production makes those overpowered, but the design philosophy that Zerg just gets to defend defend defend and then auto win is absurd.
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
yeah man i too wish the game were fucking 5 minutes slower for no reason
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
yeah man i too wish the game were fucking 5 minutes slower for no reason
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Your acting like an infestor nerf would happen in a vacuum. Obviously zerg needs something to give them not just an even playing field but an edge late game due to the way the game is balanced. We just want that edge to not come from the most static boring and grinding army in the game. I want to see more games like the one Ragnorok had vs Maru where he used nydus mobility and his bank to take the fight to the terran in the late game. That's a way more exciting premise for late game than zerg sitting on their unengageable static d+ infestor+ bl comp while trying to slowly bleed their opponent to death. Id be more ok with infestor bl if it was more like mech where it was counterable with clear weaknesses and strengths. and although efficient could be traded against and worn down over time due to its inability to hold far flung basses effectively. The problem with bl infestor is that its so efficient that its weaknesses are just not relevant enough. Who cares that its hard to hold far away basses if your army is so extremely strong that it takes 3 to 4 fights where your opponent losses everything to wear it down? Who cares that you cant mine as much as your opponent when you have a 3k 4k bank due to the design of your race and the efficiency of your late game.
Give zerg better tools to leverage a big bank into a win. But make them spend that bank, take risks and play aggressively to do so. Take away the tools to camp on their static d and wait for the map to run dry. This would lead to a way more interesting and engaging late game.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
I agree with you. Would like to see more fundamental change to the late game air deathball problem. I think bliz is trying with the range changes, but I think until you address the core problems that lead to air deathball we will have late game issues.
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
No, the game is fine as it is with worker start. There are bigger problems which make the game annoying such as swarm hosts, nydus worms, broodlord/infestor, protoss air (team games only), etc.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Full on Sky Terran and Sky Toss are extremely difficult to get to. If the Zerg player just sits back and lets it happen, they deserve to lose. Zerg cannot have overly aggressive early game options because their production makes those overpowered, but the design philosophy that Zerg just gets to defend defend defend and then auto win is absurd.
sounds like the current state of PvZ from the Protoss side. So you just want to reverse it?
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Full on Sky Terran and Sky Toss are extremely difficult to get to. If the Zerg player just sits back and lets it happen, they deserve to lose. Zerg cannot have overly aggressive early game options because their production makes those overpowered, but the design philosophy that Zerg just gets to defend defend defend and then auto win is absurd.
sounds like the current state of PvZ from the Protoss side. So you just want to reverse it?
Except with Pvx it's defend defend defend auto lose.
Mind you in PvX it's also attack attack attack auto lose
Or Defend Attack Defend Auto lose
Basically what I'm saying is the only way to win as Protoss is never play.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
Agreed but then it's need to be quiet an impactful nerf, not the bs we have in compensation for sh nerf in late hots.
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
yeah man i too wish the game were fucking 5 minutes slower for no reason
Yeah I mean why go back to the times when early cheeses were actually scoutable and did not hit 20 secs after you realized what was going on, you could tell what build order the opponent was doing by the absence of certain information and was not forced to always probe scout in the case of protoss. I mean that era when tech and upgrade choices were actually a meaningful strategical commitment and you actually had more varied game compositions, timings and strategies was definitely the worst starcraft has ever had to offer...
There is an article on this very site called A Eulogy for the Six Pool, maybe you and the rest of those that have this basic and unrefined way of discussing the sc2 economy should read it.
LoTV had less players at release than the last season of HoTS, a lot of people left (including some pros) because they believed that the new economy was badly designed and would make the game into a more streamlined, weaker version of what had come before. The only reason this game now has more players than it did at release was because of going free to play, quite a few times on ladder I find people that are dragged back into playing because of the nostalgia but they leave soon after because they enjoyed the slower worker start more, some of them find the fact that you are forced to expand during the first minute and a half of the game an aberration, there is barely no early game anymore.
The game would benefit from an overall slowing of pace, so dont go and say that there is "no reason" for making sc2 a little bit slower, this is the same unprofessional way of thinking that David Kim provided and was by available metrics proven wrong. I love this game, it had and still has a lot of potential, but it was bleeding back in HoTS and it still bleeds in LOTV because Blizzard employees are either too lazy, too slow or too unprepared to fix their mistakes and actually make sc2 the best version of what it could possibly be.
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
yeah man i too wish the game were fucking 5 minutes slower for no reason
Yeah I mean why go back to the times when early cheeses were actually scoutable and did not hit 20 secs after you realized what was going on, you could tell what build order the opponent was doing by the absence of certain information and was not forced to always probe scout in the case of protoss. I mean that era when tech and upgrade choices were actually a meaningful strategical commitment and you actually had more varied game compositions, timings and strategies was definitely the worst starcraft has ever had to offer...
There is an article on this very site called A Eulogy for the Six Pool, maybe you and the rest of those that have this basic and unrefined way of discussing the sc2 economy should read it.
LoTV had less players at release than the last season of HoTS, a lot of people left (including some pros) because they believed that the new economy was badly designed and would make the game into a more streamlined, weaker version of what had come before. The only reason this game now has more players than it did at release was because of going free to play, quite a few times on ladder I find people that are dragged back into playing because of the nostalgia but they leave soon after because they enjoyed the slower worker start more, some of them find the fact that you are forced to expand during the first minute and a half of the game an aberration, there is barely no early game anymore.
The game would benefit from an overall slowing of pace, so dont go and say that there is "no reason" for making sc2 a little bit slower, this is the same unprofessional way of thinking that David Kim provided and was by available metrics proven wrong. I love this game, it had and still has a lot of potential, but it was bleeding back in HoTS and it still bleeds in LOTV because Blizzard employees are either too lazy, too slow or too unprepared to fix their mistakes and actually make sc2 the best version of what it could possibly be.
Ok, let's see what others think about less workers.
Poll: Should there be less workers at start?
(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Fine with either option
On October 05 2019 13:19 AssyrianKing wrote: I will start playing Starcraft on one condition, bring back 8 worker start or at least reduce to 10 worker start
yeah man i too wish the game were fucking 5 minutes slower for no reason
Yeah I mean why go back to the times when early cheeses were actually scoutable and did not hit 20 secs after you realized what was going on, you could tell what build order the opponent was doing by the absence of certain information and was not forced to always probe scout in the case of protoss. I mean that era when tech and upgrade choices were actually a meaningful strategical commitment and you actually had more varied game compositions, timings and strategies was definitely the worst starcraft has ever had to offer...
There is an article on this very site called A Eulogy for the Six Pool, maybe you and the rest of those that have this basic and unrefined way of discussing the sc2 economy should read it.
LoTV had less players at release than the last season of HoTS, a lot of people left (including some pros) because they believed that the new economy was badly designed and would make the game into a more streamlined, weaker version of what had come before. The only reason this game now has more players than it did at release was because of going free to play, quite a few times on ladder I find people that are dragged back into playing because of the nostalgia but they leave soon after because they enjoyed the slower worker start more, some of them find the fact that you are forced to expand during the first minute and a half of the game an aberration, there is barely no early game anymore.
The game would benefit from an overall slowing of pace, so dont go and say that there is "no reason" for making sc2 a little bit slower, this is the same unprofessional way of thinking that David Kim provided and was by available metrics proven wrong. I love this game, it had and still has a lot of potential, but it was bleeding back in HoTS and it still bleeds in LOTV because Blizzard employees are either too lazy, too slow or too unprepared to fix their mistakes and actually make sc2 the best version of what it could possibly be.
Ok, let's see what others think about less workers.
Poll: Should there be less workers at start?
(Vote): Yes (Vote): No (Vote): Fine with either option
I don´t think this is a good system of polling, consider that the sample you will take from here will be heavily influenced by the fact that those that don´t like the 12 worker start might have already left the game and the discussion boards on tl, so the results you will have regarding the LOTV economy side will be overrepresented. Some of us that hate the LOTV economy still stay mainly due to inertia or just to keep an interest to where the balance discussion goes. Still, if you would like to settle such a decision through voting there are more ways you could discriminate in order to reach a better conclusion.
First you should probably allow only high diamond players + to participate since it usually is at this point where balance and technical game knowledge start to somewhat matter, then actually see what players from each race and skill differential vote (zerg players might prefer 12 worker start more than members of the other two races). Also maybe you should allow for a middle ground choice of 9 workers (not as slow as HoTS nor as fast as LOTV)
However, this is entirely hypothetical since I heavily doubt that at this point Blizzard is willing to do anything other than try to patch the current iteration of the game, redesigning seems like a big no to them even when blatantly obvious problems run amok.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Full on Sky Terran and Sky Toss are extremely difficult to get to. If the Zerg player just sits back and lets it happen, they deserve to lose. Zerg cannot have overly aggressive early game options because their production makes those overpowered, but the design philosophy that Zerg just gets to defend defend defend and then auto win is absurd.
sounds like the current state of PvZ from the Protoss side. So you just want to reverse it?
I want them to bring back March 2018 TvZ which from a design perspective was the pinnacle of how an RTS should work. The onus on aggression shifted as the game went on. Both players were constantly teching as the game went on rather than hitting a mid game composition then sticking on it until they won or lost.
Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
On October 05 2019 16:30 Mun_Su wrote: soo infested terran are too strong so they buff them?
yes a "buff but double energy per infested terran. So we will see half as much infested terrans. I don't think this is a buff in general but this change is great for fps (especially for lategame).
On October 05 2019 16:30 Mun_Su wrote: soo infested terran are too strong so they buff them?
yes a "buff but double energy per infested terran. So we will see half as much infested terrans. I don't think this is a buff in general but this change is great for fps (especially for lategame).
If I was to guess I think it’s a buff for Infestor harassment squads potentially, ITs will hit harder initially so might do more damage before you can pull workers etc.
I think it’s a slight nerf for lategame engagements, there are fewer ITs so they’re more vulnerable to being taken out quickly by AoE, there are fewer ITs for your units to auto-attack etc
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
I wish Blizzard would do something extremely radical like adding some broodwar units or something to really stir up the meta... am I alone in that? It wouldn't hurt to at least test.. just buffing the infestor over and over is getting boring xD
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal.
The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame.
A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units.
I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote: A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
how tho ? this unit only goes out of control when zerg players make over 20 infestors while still be able to harrass P/T naturals and that secures them a very healthy eco for another instant 20-25 units remax 20 infestors for 60 supply will definately hold thier ground no problem like the current one but zerg players must work harder in drone count and thier hit squads.Late game was never just about all out direct engagement
I agree that infestors can be out of control.
I'm not saying this unit should NOT be nerfed
I'm saying that making them 3 supply is too drastic. Zerg needs a strong infestor to contend.
I dont see why Blizzard doesnt look into buffing protoss lategame. I agree with wombat in that 2018 lategame pvz was very close to balanced, at least ocmpared to 2019 after carriers lost graviton catapult, tempests got nerfed, and feedback got nerfed.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
Your acting like an infestor nerf would happen in a vacuum. Obviously zerg needs something to give them not just an even playing field but an edge late game due to the way the game is balanced. We just want that edge to not come from the most static boring and grinding army in the game. I want to see more games like the one Ragnorok had vs Maru where he used nydus mobility and his bank to take the fight to the terran in the late game. That's a way more exciting premise for late game than zerg sitting on their unengageable static d+ infestor+ bl comp while trying to slowly bleed their opponent to death. Id be more ok with infestor bl if it was more like mech where it was counterable with clear weaknesses and strengths. and although efficient could be traded against and worn down over time due to its inability to hold far flung basses effectively. The problem with bl infestor is that its so efficient that its weaknesses are just not relevant enough. Who cares that its hard to hold far away basses if your army is so extremely strong that it takes 3 to 4 fights where your opponent losses everything to wear it down? Who cares that you cant mine as much as your opponent when you have a 3k 4k bank due to the design of your race and the efficiency of your late game.
Give zerg better tools to leverage a big bank into a win. But make them spend that bank, take risks and play aggressively to do so. Take away the tools to camp on their static d and wait for the map to run dry. This would lead to a way more interesting and engaging late game.
I dont think a drastic infestor nerf would happen in a vacuum
however, a drastic infestor nerf would lead to a drastic buff elsewhere, and that will destroy the dynamics of the game that is already almost 5 years old (LOTV).
Again - I am not saying that infestors shouldnt be nerfed
I am saying that 3 supply infestors would be too drastic of a nerf.
On October 05 2019 16:57 deacon.frost wrote: So no BL-infestor quick fixes before Blizzcon? Yeah, at least I know my lost hope wasn't wrong...
Theres no way they could just hot fix BL infestor b4 blizzcon. They will need to add compensation and that will take testing and iterations to get right its not realistic.
On October 05 2019 16:57 deacon.frost wrote: So no BL-infestor quick fixes before Blizzcon? Yeah, at least I know my lost hope wasn't wrong...
Theres no way they could just hot fix BL infestor b4 blizzcon. They will need to add compensation and that will take testing and iterations to get right its not realistic.
The God damned GSL champion said Zerg is OP and you think that Zerg would get "compensation" as if the change would be purely one of design. Stop huffing Terrazine.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal.
The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame.
A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units.
I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons.
If it’s for the better it will benefit the game, radical or not.
HoTS Protoss ‘needed’ the mothership core to be viable at certain times.
Instead of just accepting that, Blizzard removed it, gave Protoss shield batteries and the game improved. When Ravens were extremely strong and massable they got nerfed too.
Sure you have to change a lot potentially, change a lot. fine by me personally.
Blizzard want these mass air balls to be viable, Infestors must be strong so Zergs can deal with them. Why? Air balls are boring, they circumvent terrain and generally aren’t microable or interesting to watch.
Tone down air balls across the board, give units a niche to fulfill by all means but not be so potent when masses.
On October 06 2019 06:13 gulii wrote: I'm the only one that thinks BL range decrease will make a difference?
I mean wouldn't it be easier now to EMP them or feesback/storm them now? Or yeah, just kill them cuz brooding can't protect them as good anymore?
+spamming infested terran and not getting damge done can now hurt zerg even.
While the Broodlords are important, they are not what makes the composition work. That's the infestor. If Broodlords become too weak, Zergs will just pair the Infestor with something else like Lurkers or Swarmhosts.
On October 06 2019 06:13 gulii wrote: I'm the only one that thinks BL range decrease will make a difference?
I mean wouldn't it be easier now to EMP them or feesback/storm them now? Or yeah, just kill them cuz brooding can't protect them as good anymore?
+spamming infested terran and not getting damge done can now hurt zerg even.
While the Broodlords are important, they are not what makes the composition work. That's the infestor. If Broodlords become too weak, Zergs will just pair the Infestor with something else like Lurkers or Swarmhosts.
Wouldn't that mean that tempest would become a viable counter, maybe even carriers?
On October 06 2019 06:13 gulii wrote: I'm the only one that thinks BL range decrease will make a difference?
I mean wouldn't it be easier now to EMP them or feesback/storm them now? Or yeah, just kill them cuz brooding can't protect them as good anymore?
+spamming infested terran and not getting damge done can now hurt zerg even.
While the Broodlords are important, they are not what makes the composition work. That's the infestor. If Broodlords become too weak, Zergs will just pair the Infestor with something else like Lurkers or Swarmhosts.
Wouldn't that mean that tempest would become a viable counter, maybe even carriers?
I'm confused as to how not using Broodlords would make Tempests or Carriers better.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote: A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
how tho ? this unit only goes out of control when zerg players make over 20 infestors while still be able to harrass P/T naturals and that secures them a very healthy eco for another instant 20-25 units remax 20 infestors for 60 supply will definately hold thier ground no problem like the current one but zerg players must work harder in drone count and thier hit squads.Late game was never just about all out direct engagement
I agree that infestors can be out of control.
I'm not saying this unit should NOT be nerfed
I'm saying that making them 3 supply is too drastic. Zerg needs a strong infestor to contend.
I dont see why Blizzard doesnt look into buffing protoss lategame. I agree with wombat in that 2018 lategame pvz was very close to balanced, at least ocmpared to 2019 after carriers lost graviton catapult, tempests got nerfed, and feedback got nerfed.
3 supply is too drastic ? will it become a nail in da coffin ??? or you are just simply overthinking ? welp....you gotta elaborate to us instead of saying it many times tho.3 supply infestor isnt a must, its just our suggestion in case the current proposed changes dont go well and there should be better options while i find your opinion about 2018 skytoss is purely biased but nvm...buffing late game toss aint bad either,may be the balance team think its better to nerf every stuffs they ve done right now ?
On October 05 2019 07:49 Boggyb wrote: [quote] Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal.
The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame.
A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units.
I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons.
If it’s for the better it will benefit the game, radical or not.
HoTS Protoss ‘needed’ the mothership core to be viable at certain times.
Instead of just accepting that, Blizzard removed it, gave Protoss shield batteries and the game improved. When Ravens were extremely strong and massable they got nerfed too.
Sure you have to change a lot potentially, change a lot. fine by me personally.
Blizzard want these mass air balls to be viable, Infestors must be strong so Zergs can deal with them. Why? Air balls are boring, they circumvent terrain and generally aren’t microable or interesting to watch.
Tone down air balls across the board, give units a niche to fulfill by all means but not be so potent when masses.
mass air is fine.its all about mass air vs mass air... well me saying this doesnt mean ground units should be allowed to destroy the whole sky army for free tho
Some of the changes are kind of out there, but I like the weakening of end game air armies, ground units I feel like always create more dynamic and interactive play.
Stop with the upgrades though, this game is already so upgrade heavy.
Also replace Charge with Zealot speed like brood war, allow better Protoss players to differentiate themselves by having more control over their tier 1 bread and butter unit, much like great ling/marine control, I think it would be a good breath of fresh air. Would also allow more micro counterplay to banelings and widow mines. -
On October 06 2019 06:13 gulii wrote: I'm the only one that thinks BL range decrease will make a difference?
I mean wouldn't it be easier now to EMP them or feesback/storm them now? Or yeah, just kill them cuz brooding can't protect them as good anymore?
+spamming infested terran and not getting damge done can now hurt zerg even.
While the Broodlords are important, they are not what makes the composition work. That's the infestor. If Broodlords become too weak, Zergs will just pair the Infestor with something else like Lurkers or Swarmhosts.
True!
I do though feel optimistic about the changes. Even if it's kinda strange to buff the Infested Terran, after Rouge Trap game.
I guess we'll see.
Edit: + nerfing neural range must count for something?
On October 06 2019 14:51 Beelzebub1 wrote: Some of the changes are kind of out there, but I like the weakening of end game air armies, ground units I feel like always create more dynamic and interactive play.
Stop with the upgrades though, this game is already so upgrade heavy.
Also replace Charge with Zealot speed like brood war, allow better Protoss players to differentiate themselves by having more control over their tier 1 bread and butter unit, much like great ling/marine control, I think it would be a good breath of fresh air. Would also allow more micro counterplay to banelings and widow mines. -
And how do you suggest to counter play with speed zealots the marauders? Just saying THEY are the reason WHY the charge exists in the first place.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D .
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D .
You have a separate ladder MMR for Protoss, not PvZ. Thus you (as a P player) play against Z/R/T/P with similar MMR. In a big enough numbers it will result in 50/50 PvZ on ladder bellow masters because you will play some ZvP masters and some ZvP losers. Because despite what people think(ZvP broken, Zerg OP) it doesn't hit until you're high enough so there will be some Zerg losers who will tank the ZvP w/r You can't go much out of the way. And on the top of that you have unranked players messing things even more up(and offracing players). Ladder can't show anything and will show 50/50, it's built this way to show this, the only exception is the top where people play each other all the time and we're out of the big sample
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that.
On October 05 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D .
You have a separate ladder MMR for Protoss, not PvZ. Thus you (as a P player) play against Z/R/T/P with similar MMR. In a big enough numbers it will result in 50/50 PvZ on ladder bellow masters because you will play some ZvP masters and some ZvP losers. Because despite what people think(ZvP broken, Zerg OP) it doesn't hit until you're high enough so there will be some Zerg losers who will tank the ZvP w/r You can't go much out of the way. And on the top of that you have unranked players messing things even more up(and offracing players). Ladder can't show anything and will show 50/50, it's built this way to show this, the only exception is the top where people play each other all the time and we're out of the big sample
Your overall w/l rate is 50/50, if PvZ is one sided, that percentage will be lower for the weaker race and higher for the other matchups. If lategame of one of the races in PvZ is favoured, again, the percentage of wins in longer games against that race, something blizz can easily view, will be out of balance as well. This is not even lack of understanding of statistics, since these numbers are in your profile and in your opponents profiles. All you have to do is look and see that even for people with thousands of games, the numbers are far from 50/50 for all matchups. The advantage that blizz has is the ability to take all the players and filter through them as they see fit.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that.
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D .
Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this.
On October 05 2019 07:49 Boggyb wrote: [quote] Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal.
The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame.
A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units.
I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons.
If it’s for the better it will benefit the game, radical or not.
HoTS Protoss ‘needed’ the mothership core to be viable at certain times.
Instead of just accepting that, Blizzard removed it, gave Protoss shield batteries and the game improved. When Ravens were extremely strong and massable they got nerfed too.
Sure you have to change a lot potentially, change a lot. fine by me personally.
Blizzard want these mass air balls to be viable, Infestors must be strong so Zergs can deal with them. Why? Air balls are boring, they circumvent terrain and generally aren’t microable or interesting to watch.
Tone down air balls across the board, give units a niche to fulfill by all means but not be so potent when masses.
The game is nowhere near as popular as it was during HoTS. At the end of HoTS, a complete new expansion was imminent. Right now, LoTV is the last of the trilogy and SC2 is struggling to stay afloat.
Whether or not the game improved from HoTS is debatable , as well. I, for one, do not think it has.
The difference between the Raven and the Infestor is that Terran does not need a powerful raven to contend in the lategame. Zerg needs a powerful infestor to contend.
I am not saying Infestors should not be toned down. 3 supply is insane though. It's like instead of nerfing BC's TJ, they just make BCs 9 supply.
On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote: Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this.
W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors. Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control.
On October 05 2019 04:32 pissinmyhand wrote: how about we just make it so mothership cant be pulled or neuraled
Or better yet just delete Abduct and Neural Parasite.
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
On October 05 2019 12:19 BerserkSword wrote: A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
how tho ? this unit only goes out of control when zerg players make over 20 infestors while still be able to harrass P/T naturals and that secures them a very healthy eco for another instant 20-25 units remax 20 infestors for 60 supply will definately hold thier ground no problem like the current one but zerg players must work harder in drone count and thier hit squads.Late game was never just about all out direct engagement
I agree that infestors can be out of control.
I'm not saying this unit should NOT be nerfed
I'm saying that making them 3 supply is too drastic. Zerg needs a strong infestor to contend.
I dont see why Blizzard doesnt look into buffing protoss lategame. I agree with wombat in that 2018 lategame pvz was very close to balanced, at least ocmpared to 2019 after carriers lost graviton catapult, tempests got nerfed, and feedback got nerfed.
3 supply is too drastic ? will it become a nail in da coffin ??? or you are just simply overthinking ? welp....you gotta elaborate to us instead of saying it many times tho.3 supply infestor isnt a must, its just our suggestion in case the current proposed changes dont go well and there should be better options while i find your opinion about 2018 skytoss is purely biased but nvm...buffing late game toss aint bad either,may be the balance team think its better to nerf every stuffs they ve done right now ?
I am not overthinking.
It is simple math. Increasing the supply of a unit by 50% is a massive nerf when you consider the fact that the infestor is the one thing allowing Zerg to contend against air comps of Terran and Protoss.
My opinion about 2018 skytoss is biased in what way? The fact of the matter is that Skytoss was gutted, and Feedback was nerfed in half, and all of a sudden you see Protoss literally unable to do anything against Infestor BL. It's cause and effect.
the solution imo is to buff protoss lategame but i agree with you. that will never happen.
Until Blizzard realizes that it has made mistakes in the past, I don't have high hopes for this game.
By the way, this balance patch literally told us that they do NOT want Protoss ground to be able to contend with Zerg ground in the late game. The lurker got an insane late game buff against protoss ground units that forces Protoss to go air or die.
On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote: Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this.
W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors. Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control.
On October 06 2019 22:32 kajtarp wrote: Can anybody tell me why does Zergs need Infested terrans? And if their supposed role is to beef Zerg anti air against late game airballs, why can't they make the unit to only be able to shoot only air units? That way they would still fullfill their role as anti air, but wouldnt be massable/spammable to massacre entire bases or late game ground armies. I'm a zerg fan, so i'm not trying to hate on zergs, i just can't get my head wrapped around this.
W/o IT 2 marauders/stalkers would just be able to massacre your out-positioned infestors. Honestly, I think it would make more sense to remove IT and give infestors an attack, it sure would make them easier to control.
That seems quite a weak reasoning to me.
It's not really a reasoning (if you are referring to "why infestors have IT" part), just experiences I've had. Throwing IT, turrets or morphing to archons have saved my bacon so many times, because these units are really easy to move somewhere by accident. I hate viper for this reason, since all I can do is throw the unstackable bomb, so I can't even throw it in panic.
On October 05 2019 08:18 ZigguratOfUr wrote: [quote]
Deleting abduct would have... interesting effects on ZvZ.
Also is there anyone that's against the idea of increasing the supply cost of infestors?
Too big of a nerf - the proposed nerfs should be enough to make infestors reasonably strong.
What nerfs?
Ok I’ll concede in practice basically giving Infestors half the number of ITs who are individual 2x as strong is a functional nerf, in that opponents can kill them a bit easier.
Giving Infestors neural by default is a buff, and a pretty big one IMO. They are still way too good at way too many different things and the synergy with Brood Lords is still entirely intact.
A supply change is long overdue IMO. By all means make them potent, but to have 10+ or whatever negatively impacting the strength of your other army seems a no-brainer
Despite many other disagreements, if there’s one general common thread across Protoss, Terran and even Zerg it’s that BL/Infestor is too strong, and just boring.
These proposed patches do a lot of other things, some I find interesting but they don’t address that composition at all really.
I think people are really underestimating the massive nerf a change to 3 supply would be.
Without a globe of Infestors, Zerg is virtually helpless against Terran and Protoss late game compositions. Only being able to build 67% of the infestors for the same supply is devastating. Infestors below a critical mass cannot contend with Skytoss + massive splash + warp ins, or the insane efficiency and firepower of a 200/200 Terran. Infestors are the equalizer for Zerg late game, as the rest of their units do not compete. BLs and Ultras are not strong enough. Herein lies the problem since there is a very fine line between Zerg's late game being helpless vs overpowered and it's all really based on the capabilities of infestor. 3 supply infestor would massively shift that balanced towards the helpless end of the spectrum.
Barring mass Infestors, Zerg AA simply does not hold up to maxed out capital ship-based armies. Hydras die to everything, Corruptors will get shredded by support units if they get into range of BCs/Carriers/Tempests, and vipers are too easy to kill/neutralize for them to be a reliable and cost effective AA
I think you underestimate how much people hate mass infestor. If increasing the supply cost makes mass infestor a thing of the past so much the better. Getting to nerf skytoss/skyterran armies afterwards for balance reasons sounds like a bonus to me.
A 3 supply infestor is such a huge nerf that sky protoss and sky terran would have to be massively nerfed too. That sets everything out of whack, as Terran and Protoss ground units would need to be heavily changed to maintain balance. For example, if you heavily nerf the infestor and skytoss, then Zerg just wins by virtue of the fact that Protoss comps that are heavily ground based are straight up trash against zerg in the lategame. Protoss also heavily relies on skytoss for late game anti air. You significantly nerf skytoss and then you need to significantly buff Protoss ground to air capabilities and that screws with PvT.
There is literally no point in significantly nerfing an equalizer unit like the infestor. It just creates more balance problems than it solves. You saw what happened when the Protoss lategame backbone was heavily nerfed - you get a disaster of a PvZ where protoss desperately tries to end the game before Zerg lategame can kill maxed out armies several times over.
Zerg is designed around a powerful infestor. There's really nothing anyone can do about it at this point unless you want to redesign the game from scratch. Changing the supply to 3 is insane. It's like changing the battlecruiser's supply to 9...
Which is fine?
Late game Skytoss got nerfed til it largely sucked, even though IMO PvZ was in its best state ever, albeit still not perfect when Skytoss was good
Zerg has other advantages in that matchup and can win by other means. Can make a few tweaks if not the case.
Likewise Terran and mass BCs teleporting everywhere, which was cool for about 10 minutes for novelty’s sake and is just a bit silly.
Blizz don’t have to make every composition competitively viable, I think their mistake is trying to do so.
Most players and spectators don’t like big late game air balls, certainly don’t like BL/Infestor in its current state, and most think the Infestor is way too good, there’s few drawbacks in massing them etc.
It feels like this patch is just a whole bunch of changes meant to rebalance the game while keeping those two factors largely intact, instead of toning those things down and rebalancing to give other options to compensate.
Completely changing the game, essentially from scratch, will kill SC2, which is why I don't think it's fine. Despite the fact that I do think that ideally, heavy redesigns everywhere are ideal.
The elephant in the room is that Protoss ground is severely outclassed in the lategame. Which is why Skytoss deathball has to be viable. Protoss ground simply doesnt scale well, has poverty AA capabilities, and gets eviscerated in the lategame.
A 3 supply infestor would make lategame balance HEAVILY in favor of protoss (and Terran, but I'm one of the few who believe that terran lategame actually beats zerg lategame). To balance this skytoss would require further nerfs, essentially turning it from the garbage it is now to a pile of crap. Because of these nerfs Protoss ground to air capabilities would have to be buffed, and they'd probably turn the immortal into a mini thor, since buffing stalkers would make them broken - whatever the case protoss ground would become broken as they now are capable of handling air units.
I can go on and on, but the point is that drastic changes in units lead to drastic metagame changes, and that is a death knell for an already dying game. It should not happen for a variety of reasons.
If it’s for the better it will benefit the game, radical or not.
HoTS Protoss ‘needed’ the mothership core to be viable at certain times.
Instead of just accepting that, Blizzard removed it, gave Protoss shield batteries and the game improved. When Ravens were extremely strong and massable they got nerfed too.
Sure you have to change a lot potentially, change a lot. fine by me personally.
Blizzard want these mass air balls to be viable, Infestors must be strong so Zergs can deal with them. Why? Air balls are boring, they circumvent terrain and generally aren’t microable or interesting to watch.
Tone down air balls across the board, give units a niche to fulfill by all means but not be so potent when masses.
The game is nowhere near as popular as it was during HoTS. At the end of HoTS, a complete new expansion was imminent. Right now, LoTV is the last of the trilogy and SC2 is struggling to stay afloat.
Whether or not the game improved from HoTS is debatable , as well. I, for one, do not think it has.
The difference between the Raven and the Infestor is that Terran does not need a powerful raven to contend in the lategame. Zerg needs a powerful infestor to contend.
I am not saying Infestors should not be toned down. 3 supply is insane though. It's like instead of nerfing BC's TJ, they just make BCs 9 supply.
Perhaps, does that make it worse than WoL or HoTS?
Personally I prefer the current iterations of LoTV, but tastes do differ.
Looking at the market around, what other RTS is doing half decently? I presume a lot of people persevered with SC2 for quite a period, only to move on for whatever reason.
Myself I do like the game, but I only really stick around because it’s too hard to get good at BW nowadays, and there’s basically no other option for an RTS fix.
I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
Personally I find the state of the game immeasurably better than those times, equally I think my frequent breaks from the game and even the scene entirely maybe give me a slightly different perspective.
I really, really disliked HoTS as a Protoss player who was a (relative) PvT sniper in WoL. My strengths were in splitting and positioning my army well, then boom Mothership core negated all my strengths in that matchup and was dumb. And my off-race T whose best matchup was TvP fucking sucked at it in HoTS.
On October 04 2019 05:16 Noocta wrote: This game has become way too upgrade bloated. There's a design problem ? make a new upgrade ? Something too strong, too weak, upgrades there, upgrades everywhere.
Just compare how clean most of the Broodwar upgrades are compared to this.
I can only second this. The game already has a lot of units and almost every unit has at least one upgrade altering its stats or abilities. This does not only make the game way too complicated for new players, but also puts way too much focus on getting these upgrades than making decisions for experienced players. I almost feel like removing most of these upgrades would keep the game pretty balanced, because you take upgrade-based power spikes from both parties in a match (I didn't really think about if it would actually be like that). It could also make the advantages of one player less drastic if he can get these upgrades earlier. I think a game should be won by getting multiple small wins and not because of one single clash which it looks like is the case today.
On October 07 2019 07:14 Wombat_NI wrote: I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
This describes me too. I left at roughly the same points. When I came back I was surprised how much better the game is now and I've ended up playing rather frequently on and off the last couple years. Most of the changes made sense and nothing seemed completely broken in the way those two issues in WoL and HoTS were.
The current status of PvZ is the first thing I've played that has felt like those eras. Even a few months back, most PvZs I played were compositions like ling/bane/hydra against immortal/archon/HT or other compositions that make for fun, dynamic games. Now most PvZs that aren't nydus nonsense seem to be the zerg speedrunning for hive again like in WoL while spamming mass static defence at their bases rather than building an actual army then going straight to infestor/broodlord/corruptor. Combine this with maps that aren't particularly great for protoss all-ins due to the lack of chokes for forcefields/preventing surrounds and we're left with a matchup as bad or worse than WoL PvZ was. I'm not convinced this new patch in its' current state will fix this problem.
I quite literally just finished playing a game on Acropolis where the zerg had 24 infestors. The entire game was basically fighting against spammed infested terrans. That 48 supply of units was more or less fighting a 100+ supply air/HT army on its own at times. It was stupid.
edit: I agree with the sentiment of the posts about there being too many upgrades as well. It's getting silly.
On October 04 2019 05:16 Noocta wrote: This game has become way too upgrade bloated. There's a design problem ? make a new upgrade ? Something too strong, too weak, upgrades there, upgrades everywhere.
Just compare how clean most of the Broodwar upgrades are compared to this.
I can only second this. The game already has a lot of units and almost every unit has at least one upgrade altering its stats or abilities. This does not only make the game way too complicated for new players, but also puts way too much focus on getting these upgrades than making decisions for experienced players. I almost feel like removing most of these upgrades would keep the game pretty balanced, because you take upgrade-based power spikes from both parties in a match (I didn't really think about if it would actually be like that). It could also make the advantages of one player less drastic if he can get these upgrades earlier. I think a game should be won by getting multiple small wins and not because of one single clash which it looks like is the case today.
I have mixed feelings about this. I think upgrades add a nice layer of strategy to the game. Yes an rts can deffinity work without them, but im not sure one like starcraft can. Things are so asymmetric the upgrades really help gate the power of units so they are not to strong to early. Its just to fundamental to how the game works.
Does anyone think the reason Zerg is dominating so much besides the infestor/brood death ball is because of how many units they have that create "free units?"
The last time I remember Terran dominating zerg late game, terran had the splash anti-armor missiles which was essentially another "free" unit and Maru would dominate Serral late game.
It seems like between swarm hosts, brood lords and infestors Zerg can just be so efficient late game and eventually the other race just runs out of money. Case in point - if terran tries to counter by "zoning out" with nukes - terran will be bleeding money while zerg continues using free units cost effectively. If Terran tries to go Thors, and then loses them to neurals, terran is bleeding money while Zerg just used mana.
Just some food for thought. I'm not sure if the new patch quite fixes this..
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
PvZ on a ladder is sitting around 50 %. Do you know why? Because match making! That makes the ladder bellow high master 50 %. So, uh, Blizz has nothing out of ladder because their own system is placing the players together so both have equal chanca to win...
That is not how ladder works. Yes, we do have individual MMR for each race (though random players don't even have that), but is still the same MMR for each matchup and each gamestate. So when PvZ lategame is protoss favoured in dia and lower, blizz can very clearly see that.
On October 05 2019 23:54 Wombat_NI wrote:
On October 05 2019 23:24 MrFreeman wrote: Some ppl should really try to play all races, nerfing something to the ground just because it makes you lose sometimes is not a great idea. Infestor is essential when Z has to deal with big unit centric army. It can be certainly beaten by terran, it can be beaten by toss on lower lvls, so logical fix high level balance should be a new protos high tech micro intensive unit.
Late game toss is pretty easy to control in battle and I have pretty high win rate against late game zerg armies, while with Z, I often lose, cos I misread the P army and my composition is out of balance or because I just mess up the micro. Blizz has the low lvl data, they know the exact win rate of PvZ late game in dia and lower and I'm pretty sure it is P favored, they can't just nerf Z and call it good, because pros are balanced.
Z have Viper and Infestor, units that are both super strong and nobody below 5k MMR can use them at the same time. And not even semi-pro can add BL positioning, queen support, creep re-spread, static D repositioning and corruptor zoning to that. Toss needs something that is as difficult as that. It will even make for a great watching experience.
What late game Toss composition in PvZ is easy to control?
Zerg lategame is extremely difficult to control to the level of a Dark or Serral too, I do agree that observers aren’t aware of that when they’re complaining.
I don’t think there’s 100% consensus, most people concede that in the current state of the game that Zerg need really potent Infestors, but would prefer the game change to alter this in some way.
Well, most of them, as long as you don't mix in disruptors. I usually try to mix in carriers and mothership, because interceptors and invisibility really messes with auto targeting and my opponents even tend to set their detection forward in panic. Another gr8 thing about carriers is that when they get neuraled, the remaining units just insta kill their interceptors and leave them be, so I don't lose them and they don't cause havoc. To add to that, I have some pretty gr8 options that are easy to control, even a few HTs are gr8 against clumpy compositions like Vikings, Corruptors, Hydras, voids and Marines, storms are easy to cast with HTs on 1 control group, storm's range and instant cast and the small hit boxes HT's have, plus when I fail to control them properly, they turn to archons quickly and then I just a-move them for buffer. Immortals are good for cleaning the ground if they have mostly air, like infestor, tank, cyclone, disruptor, plus they don't take air targeting priority. When they have a lot of corruptors or vikings, I add a few voids, they work gr8 when A-moved and when they r on same control group as carriers, they show up first so I can prismatic align them easily. It sure is much easier than when I'm trying to juggle T or Z late game compositions :D .
You have a separate ladder MMR for Protoss, not PvZ. Thus you (as a P player) play against Z/R/T/P with similar MMR. In a big enough numbers it will result in 50/50 PvZ on ladder bellow masters because you will play some ZvP masters and some ZvP losers. Because despite what people think(ZvP broken, Zerg OP) it doesn't hit until you're high enough so there will be some Zerg losers who will tank the ZvP w/r You can't go much out of the way. And on the top of that you have unranked players messing things even more up(and offracing players). Ladder can't show anything and will show 50/50, it's built this way to show this, the only exception is the top where people play each other all the time and we're out of the big sample
Your overall w/l rate is 50/50, if PvZ is one sided, that percentage will be lower for the weaker race and higher for the other matchups. If lategame of one of the races in PvZ is favoured, again, the percentage of wins in longer games against that race, something blizz can easily view, will be out of balance as well. This is not even lack of understanding of statistics, since these numbers are in your profile and in your opponents profiles. All you have to do is look and see that even for people with thousands of games, the numbers are far from 50/50 for all matchups. The advantage that blizz has is the ability to take all the players and filter through them as they see fit.
Uh, wrong, but doesn't matter. (BTW if you check my profile you will se 0 % wr in all matchups )
Why would Blizz balance anythign based on the lower leagues anyway? Like - I play mass speed banshee and have 50 % success rate (thanks ladder). If I start losing does this mean anything? It means total nonsense because I am not in the high masters and I can play - literally - anything I want and get 50 % w/r with it. If I start losing more does this mean anything for the overall balance? if so, it means speed banshees needs moar hp, moar damage and moar speed You can't balance the game around people who cannot build a pylon on time and are in frequent supply blocks. And I am still in the higher parts of the ladder with my troll builds... There's a reason why so many people will say that up until medium masters you can play anything and the balance doesn't matter to you...
Also you can't balance the game based on pure numbers as - e.g. what is PvZ lategame? Game which ended at 20th minute mark or after it? If so - what does it mean if I do a successful cannon rush and then prolong the game while playing with the Zerg who refuses to leave? Or vice versa - the Zerg makes successful push and is just unable to finish the game and I just prolong the inevitable. Such games say nothing about the lategame PvZ as the game was decided BEFORE the lategame even begun. (although considering my league everything's possible, especially when my Terran is tanking my Protoss MMR )
On October 07 2019 07:14 Wombat_NI wrote: I’ve had a fair few big hiatuses from the game, personally I find myself burnt out and re-energised when I return, perhaps others don’t return though. My two main ones were towards the end of WoL and BL/Infestor, and HoTS when mass swarm host became prevalent even on ladder.
This describes me too. I left at roughly the same points. When I came back I was surprised how much better the game is now and I've ended up playing rather frequently on and off the last couple years. Most of the changes made sense and nothing seemed completely broken in the way those two issues in WoL and HoTS were.
The current status of PvZ is the first thing I've played that has felt like those eras. Even a few months back, most PvZs I played were compositions like ling/bane/hydra against immortal/archon/HT or other compositions that make for fun, dynamic games. Now most PvZs that aren't nydus nonsense seem to be the zerg speedrunning for hive again like in WoL while spamming mass static defence at their bases rather than building an actual army then going straight to infestor/broodlord/corruptor. Combine this with maps that aren't particularly great for protoss all-ins due to the lack of chokes for forcefields/preventing surrounds and we're left with a matchup as bad or worse than WoL PvZ was. I'm not convinced this new patch in its' current state will fix this problem.
I quite literally just finished playing a game on Acropolis where the zerg had 24 infestors. The entire game was basically fighting against spammed infested terrans. That 48 supply of units was more or less fighting a 100+ supply air/HT army on its own at times. It was stupid.
edit: I agree with the sentiment of the posts about there being too many upgrades as well. It's getting silly.
I found it’s a combo of things for me, but I’ve always felt PvZ is by a distance the worst Protoss matchup to play, bar a few sadly short lived periods.
Not enjoying a matchup personally doesn’t make it bad necessarily, there are personal tastes at play.
PvT is pretty stable, there’s a bunch of valid styles and you can play a macro game where you’re active on the map constantly. PvP is weird and can be wonky, but micro really shines in the relatively low supply skirmishes and pushes you see, there’s a lot of comeback potential and strategic improvisation you can do.
PvZ of late feels fast expand into some kind of harassment tech, into some kind of allin that you hope your opponent misreads. There’s not really an active back and forth midgame generally where you can gain advantages through positioning and fighting over territory like in PvT, TvZ or TvT. Partly due to the maps really not having much terrain you can even use to push out.
Protoss can’t compete with the scale of Zerg forces in all these open areas, it’s stupidly risky to be sharking much in this pool.
Not mentioned enough either but really obvious, Zerg stuff is also way faster than that of Protoss. Combined with wide open spaces, creep, Protoss’ relatively low DPS and small forces are just waiting to get surrounded and wrecked. Protoss could really have done with something to fulfil the hellion role, something speedy and can be out on the map separate from main forces.
If Protoss had a consistently viable way of playing an aggressive midgame to keep Zerg honest, or could even vaguely go toe to toe in the real lategame the matchup would be a good deal better, we don’t really see either really being the case currently.
Hopefully these changes and future ones will gradually see an improvement to the matchup anyway. I feel PvT and PvP have much improved over the years, but Protoss and Zerg just don’t mesh all that well
I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote: I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL )
BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs (Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved)
On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote: I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL )
BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs (Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved)
Disruptors emerging from the fog from the same range as tank fire fills me with horror.
I don’t see how WoL was any less hard counter based than what we have now. Outside of a Khaydarin amulet augmented San/Man Zenith PvT was Stalker/Colossus vs bio/Viking for aeons until Parting came into prominence with Templar first. Stephano won tournaments building almost entirely roaches, then Protoss started going hardcore blind Immortal builds.
Plus units like Colossus were so much more potent so you saw a ton of stalker/collosus, or at least other units + collosus in all 3 Protoss matchups. Outside of its specific counters, the colossus was a soft counter to everything that existed on the ground.
Now it’s toned down you see more varied/balanced Protoss ground compositions
I feel like the game design is deeply flawed when stuff requires this much gimmicky upgrades and changes. An upgrade to give adepts 20 more shield...? The units have been changed so much now it's crazy. Stuff feels unnecessarily complex. To many units doing similar things with wacky abilities and upgrades. Disappointing.
Please nerf infestors! Nerf neural. Nerf FREE units. Infested terran DPS is almost as thor dps! what? YES new thor dps and new infested terran dps is almost same! But one is 300-200 and other one is energy. Thor - damage 25 (+10 vs Massive) cooldown 0.9. Inf terran - damage 24 cooldown 0.95.
So a full energy Infestor can just spawn 4 Thors vs air. Seems legit
I actually quite like a lot of these changes, at least in theory.
Bar the lack of a hefty Infestor nerf, which is probably the most in-demand one from many in the community.
Splitting charge I like for TvP. Zealots are so tanky plus have that punch that it’s really hard for Terran pushes to do appreciable damage to Protoss thirds. However Zealots are further upgradeable, which is good as they do have to be good at the same time.
Perhaps that will slightly slow Protoss powering in that phase of the game too.
I like shifting some HP and shield values around so the shield is less heavily weighted and EMP is less devastating. It does also alter interactions with shield batteries, make that slow lategame Tempest pushing a little harder to sustain without taking hull damage.
Please nerf infestors! Nerf neural. Nerf FREE units. Infested terran DPS is almost as thor dps! what? YES new thor dps and new infested terran dps is almost same! But one is 300-200 and other one is energy. Thor - damage 25 (+10 vs Massive) cooldown 0.9. Inf terran - damage 24 cooldown 0.95.
So a full energy Infestor can just spawn 4 Thors vs air. Seems legit
It's really hard to not write the obvious post when this is revelead...
On October 07 2019 19:34 MockHamill wrote: I think LotV is in a much better state than WOL or HOTS.
Mech is viable in all matchups, you are not forced to use bio in TvP anymore. Apart from Broodlord range bug and infestors being too good, there are no blantant broken things that dominates matchups any more.
I would really like a range nerf on the Disruptor though. Now when Liberators lose 1 range Disruptors will outrange every single Terran unit which could, I suspect, move mech back into the unviable category again.
If Blizzard really want to improve interactions between units I think Disruptors should have the same range as tanks. That would also improve the PvP matchup.
See, I think it's the exact opposite, with every iteration the WoL seems to me better and better and the new product worse and worse. But that's just me. (although I accept the issue WoL had and some balancing would have to be done I loved that there were less hardcounters, try responding to mass muta in PvZ with storm/blink nowadays. You could at WoL )
BTW Disruptors having the same range as tanks means that tanks sitting behind a terrain cover can freely shoot at them, IMO it should stay the way it is or give the balls ability to walk the cliffs (Edit> to be fair I hate disruptors but I believe they're now part of the game and cannot be esily ermoved)
Disruptors emerging from the fog from the same range as tank fire fills me with horror.
I don’t see how WoL was any less hard counter based than what we have now. Outside of a Khaydarin amulet augmented San/Man Zenith PvT was Stalker/Colossus vs bio/Viking for aeons until Parting came into prominence with Templar first. Stephano won tournaments building almost entirely roaches, then Protoss started going hardcore blind Immortal builds.
Plus units like Colossus were so much more potent so you saw a ton of stalker/collosus, or at least other units + collosus in all 3 Protoss matchups. Outside of its specific counters, the colossus was a soft counter to everything that existed on the ground.
Now it’s toned down you see more varied/balanced Protoss ground compositions
The variety of composition and hardcounters aren't the same. And I even gave the best example. Nowadays you either have phoenixes or you're dead to mutalisk. You can stall for phoenixes with archon micro. Or you go for the basetrade. Back in WoL you could go for phoenixes, or you could defend with blink and move into storm(viable defense used in pro matches!!). The only problem was that the transition from mutas was BL/infestor
In WoL you had less "you either have this unit or you're dead" issues. Sure, it needed tweaking but generally to me it seemed there was less hardcountering. At least on the Protoss side of things
But this is not the place for this, if you want to discuss this more create a nostalgy thread or pms
I think the Terran changes are the most interesting and hope they make it through (that said Blizzard's reasoning for the BC changes and neural parasite changes is months behind the pro meta). They could have done more for Zerg (e. g. reduce overlap between the role of the viper and the infestor).
They absolutely need to do more for Protoss. Protoss is already not performing all that well in tournaments. I'm sure cannon rush into Flux Vanes void rays will be a great build on ladder in some MMR region. But on the pro level, with the charge nerf Protoss loses some of its last remaining power. And that's not even considering the state of PvP, where every game is either players 1-basing for up to 15 minutes or playing a macro game where both use the exact same composition every time.
After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
After watching IN DEPTH this week, I would love if Blizzard just looked at all the units in the game that use and rely on energy, consider re-working them entirely, and perhaps buff other units in the race's arsenal to compensate.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
I would nerf warpgate production cycles considerably, buff gateways a bunch in terms of production output. Maybe change chrono a little so it’s akin to an inject cycle.
It’s a real bugbear of mine not that warp gate exists at all, but that it’s so much better than regular gateways.
It’d be nice to have a trade off, pure macro output vs the mobility and reinforcement options of warpgate.
Chrono thing is I just enjoy macro cycles and the Protoss one feels a bit, meh to execute.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
I would nerf warpgate production cycles considerably, buff gateways a bunch in terms of production output. Maybe change chrono a little so it’s akin to an inject cycle.
It’s a real bugbear of mine not that warp gate exists at all, but that it’s so much better than regular gateways.
It’d be nice to have a trade off, pure macro output vs the mobility and reinforcement options of warpgate.
Chrono thing is I just enjoy macro cycles and the Protoss one feels a bit, meh to execute.
100% agree. The design around warpgates and gateways bothers me in the same way. I would love for their to be a critical decision or tradeoff between the two building styles. The fact that Blizzard auto converts your gateways into warpgates is a clear sign that gateways are never necessary past that upgrade.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
I think it becomes awkward when some units can use warpgate and some can't, resulting in some gateways and some warpgates. i never liked warp gate but it was the huge mechanic introduced to sc2, so it'd be hard to imagine blizz's removing it in favor of BW-esque production.
I prefer the dragoon to the stalker, in general--as an idea--but I feel like once you go down that road you end up wanting to make sc2 more like BW across the board, which is something i feel blizzard doesn't want, for good reason.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
I would nerf warpgate production cycles considerably, buff gateways a bunch in terms of production output. Maybe change chrono a little so it’s akin to an inject cycle.
It’s a real bugbear of mine not that warp gate exists at all, but that it’s so much better than regular gateways.
It’d be nice to have a trade off, pure macro output vs the mobility and reinforcement options of warpgate.
Chrono thing is I just enjoy macro cycles and the Protoss one feels a bit, meh to execute.
100% agree. The design around warpgates and gateways bothers me in the same way. I would love for their to be a critical decision or tradeoff between the two building styles. The fact that Blizzard auto converts your gateways into warpgates is a clear sign that gateways are never necessary past that upgrade.
I make a point to make a post to that effect at least once a year!
I also think there would be potential to diversify Protoss players even more via their use of gateways/warp gates too which would be cool.
In truth I’m not at all suited for the ballsy, risk-taking swagger that Protoss requires, more of a mechanical robot, but godamnit I’ve played Protoss for the coolness factor since I was 7 years old
Would be cool if there could be a Protoss equivalent of Innovation parade pushing or something
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
make warpgated units warp in without shields and mana (it uses it to "warp of location" bla bla bla")
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
make warpgated units warp in without shields and mana (it uses it to "warp of location" bla bla bla")
problems solved!!!
That does not sound like clean game design. Pretty frustrating to play, hard to balance and probably making warpgates useless.
The old issue is that the DPS of gateway units has to be so low to balance the presence of forcefield and warpgate. It is far too late to change now, though, and I am ok with Protos being the time/space manipulating race.
I think the issues of warpgates are compensated by the intriguing midgame tech options.
Fungal growth Fungal growth no longer does damage over time.It only slows units. Change mana cost to 50 and allow infestors to cast this spell burrowed.
Infested terrans Add 1 second cooldown on infested terran to prevent abuse of rapid fire.
Adepts New upgrade would make shade invisible. You would need stealth detection to see where adepts are shading.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
Please no.
So constructive, thanks for the post...
You want something constructive?
This is not bw, go for bw to bw. Let's start with the obvious. (edit> this is not me hating on you for this, this is a very different game with different units and you won't get the BW in this)
Also, this would result in 4 pruduction buildings on 4 different hotkeys unless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom goes for warpgate + gateway can be on a same hotkey and units will be prioritized(same as barracks). I don't think this will work properly(considering you can build all those units from gateways). Current Protoss gateway design resulted in some big nerfs in the units - your buffs are not enough to operate around this if we're thinking about late game - e.g. anti-air of stalkers is weak because they can be warped any time you need them and anywhere, buffing them results in really heavy hitting combo with colossi. Leaving them be means they will still be laughed at by speed banshees.
Without the warp in mechanic you won't get what you saw in the Parting v TY game because without the warp in the units have to walk from the main(not even from the 4th, from the main). The last time they made Stalkers more dragoon like(same DPS, bigger CD on shots, bigger shot damage), they reverted it back quite fast because TvP got fucked up with proxy stalkers. Why do you think this time it won't be reverted right away? Also there's a reason why stalkers are not massed in the lategame, they're trash against everything and a slight buff of HP won't change this, they're trash because they're at best mediocre at dps and their model is so big they have bad scaling(you need a huge arch). It gets better with blink but not much.
Also they're quite easy to hardcounter with EMP. (even with the HP buff)
And now the fun part. Marauders? Tanks with smartfire?
This is not BW, if you want gateway compositions, we had that before. It was named archon/chargelot/templar. Now you can't go this because 1) Mines 2) Hellbats(if we talk about mech) 3) Liberators(and you need tempests if the game goes to this stage, this alone should tell you how garbage stalker is)
And we're at just the TvP.
Now to the ZvP. Lurkers? Mutalisks? Fungals?
Edit> TL, DR - we need much more changes in all 3 races to make this viable, not just Protoss. It is a big game redesign.
most of it pretty bad and mostly hitting on the Terran and their endgame is already pretty bad and saying it as a Protoss player. Late game protoss and zerg can trade so efficiently against terran thats its crazy like back in the day seeker missiles almost..
would be nice to see some new units from time to time to freshen the meta, like 2/race/year would be nice cuz most of terran units are pretty wacky and not supporting diversity for them
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
Please no.
So constructive, thanks for the post...
You want something constructive?
This is not bw, go for bw to bw. Let's start with the obvious. (edit> this is not me hating on you for this, this is a very different game with different units and you won't get the BW in this)
Also, this would result in 4 pruduction buildings on 4 different hotkeys unless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom goes for warpgate + gateway can be on a same hotkey and units will be prioritized(same as barracks). I don't think this will work properly(considering you can build all those units from gateways). Current Protoss gateway design resulted in some big nerfs in the units - your buffs are not enough to operate around this if we're thinking about late game - e.g. anti-air of stalkers is weak because they can be warped any time you need them and anywhere, buffing them results in really heavy hitting combo with colossi. Leaving them be means they will still be laughed at by speed banshees.
Without the warp in mechanic you won't get what you saw in the Parting v TY game because without the warp in the units have to walk from the main(not even from the 4th, from the main). The last time they made Stalkers more dragoon like(same DPS, bigger CD on shots, bigger shot damage), they reverted it back quite fast because TvP got fucked up with proxy stalkers. Why do you think this time it won't be reverted right away? Also there's a reason why stalkers are not massed in the lategame, they're trash against everything and a slight buff of HP won't change this, they're trash because they're at best mediocre at dps and their model is so big they have bad scaling(you need a huge arch). It gets better with blink but not much.
Also they're quite easy to hardcounter with EMP. (even with the HP buff)
And now the fun part. Marauders? Tanks with smartfire?
This is not BW, if you want gateway compositions, we had that before. It was named archon/chargelot/templar. Now you can't go this because 1) Mines 2) Hellbats(if we talk about mech) 3) Liberators(and you need tempests if the game goes to this stage, this alone should tell you how garbage stalker is)
And we're at just the TvP.
Now to the ZvP. Lurkers? Mutalisks? Fungals?
Edit> TL, DR - we need much more changes in all 3 races to make this viable, not just Protoss. It is a big game redesign.
i know uncle blizz doesnt want to admit this but because of the warp in mechanic,protoss cant have strong gateway units while still being able to instantly warp them.putting thier power spike behind an upgrade looks bandaid and confusing at first but i am sure protoss players will thank the balance team later for not straight up trashing them so yeah i d think protoss can have strong stalkers just like last year
I find so many of these changes are incredibly late.
The problems with this game are not going to be fixed by requiring upgrades as a form of nerfing units, Game design problems have existed for so long and were just never addressed. Late game death ball armies, or units that produce units for free are the problem.
The rational side of me is curious to see how the meta evolves around these new changes - could be interesting.
The irrational side of me has a deep-seated hatred of infestors dating back to 2012 and wants to see the unit removed entirely from the game. Make Zergs rely more on mutas and lurkers, which are more interesting and balanced units anyways
On October 08 2019 05:11 fds wrote: I would like to propose following ideas:
Fungal growth Fungal growth no longer does damage over time.It only slows units. Change mana cost to 50 and allow infestors to cast this spell burrowed.
Infested terrans Add 1 second cooldown on infested terran to prevent abuse of rapid fire.
Adepts New upgrade would make shade invisible. You would need stealth detection to see where adepts are shading.
All three actually sound pretty cool! These are the kinds of ideas I wanna see from Blizz.
Honestly, I think the proposed changes from Blizz are not good overall. I really like the Nydus change and lower brood lord range but that's about it. Infestors starting with Neural is pure madness. That's still a kind of spell I would completely remove from the game. It can turn the tide nearly as fast as the old motherships' vortex ... and that one is gone for good.
I guess with my mmr this is good changes but I want to watch good finals again. I don't care about balance in diamond. I want the pros to be able to play good games.
Please just try out Arbiters rather than the silly mothership. It doesn't make sense to have a unit that you can only produce one of in a game like Starcraft, especially when there are abilities like abduct, neural, and interference matrix. This is not a balance problem, its a design problem.
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
Please no.
So constructive, thanks for the post...
You want something constructive?
This is not bw, go for bw to bw. Let's start with the obvious. (edit> this is not me hating on you for this, this is a very different game with different units and you won't get the BW in this)
Also, this would result in 4 pruduction buildings on 4 different hotkeys unless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom goes for warpgate + gateway can be on a same hotkey and units will be prioritized(same as barracks). I don't think this will work properly(considering you can build all those units from gateways). Current Protoss gateway design resulted in some big nerfs in the units - your buffs are not enough to operate around this if we're thinking about late game - e.g. anti-air of stalkers is weak because they can be warped any time you need them and anywhere, buffing them results in really heavy hitting combo with colossi. Leaving them be means they will still be laughed at by speed banshees.
Without the warp in mechanic you won't get what you saw in the Parting v TY game because without the warp in the units have to walk from the main(not even from the 4th, from the main). The last time they made Stalkers more dragoon like(same DPS, bigger CD on shots, bigger shot damage), they reverted it back quite fast because TvP got fucked up with proxy stalkers. Why do you think this time it won't be reverted right away? Also there's a reason why stalkers are not massed in the lategame, they're trash against everything and a slight buff of HP won't change this, they're trash because they're at best mediocre at dps and their model is so big they have bad scaling(you need a huge arch). It gets better with blink but not much.
Also they're quite easy to hardcounter with EMP. (even with the HP buff)
And now the fun part. Marauders? Tanks with smartfire?
This is not BW, if you want gateway compositions, we had that before. It was named archon/chargelot/templar. Now you can't go this because 1) Mines 2) Hellbats(if we talk about mech) 3) Liberators(and you need tempests if the game goes to this stage, this alone should tell you how garbage stalker is)
And we're at just the TvP.
Now to the ZvP. Lurkers? Mutalisks? Fungals?
Edit> TL, DR - we need much more changes in all 3 races to make this viable, not just Protoss. It is a big game redesign.
i know uncle blizz doesnt want to admit this but because of the warp in mechanic,protoss cant have strong gateway units while still being able to instantly warp them.putting thier power spike behind an upgrade looks bandaid and confusing at first but i am sure protoss players will thank the balance team later for not straight up trashing them so yeah i d think protoss can have strong stalkers just like last year
Why would we thank the balance team for not straight up trashing us when they ARE straight up trashing us?
On October 08 2019 02:08 BisuDagger wrote: After watching Parting vs Ty and being such a huge BW fan I've been thinking about how to prop up Gateway-centric play with a big change to how gateways work. I would love to hear what ideas anyone might have. Here's one of mine.
1. Only zealot, sentry, adepts can utilize warpgates (still available in all gateway states) 2. You must use normal gateways to build all other gateway units
Take a page from campaign: * Buff health of stalkers to make them more like dragoons or make it so blink will replenish a portion of their shields. * Templar Amulate upgrade returns. Starting with storm available would clearly be weakened by travel distance. * Decrease recall time slightly
This maintains the early aggression and harassment options throughout the game and strengthens the core of the gateway army while giving it a spawn disadvantage.
Please no.
So constructive, thanks for the post...
You want something constructive?
This is not bw, go for bw to bw. Let's start with the obvious. (edit> this is not me hating on you for this, this is a very different game with different units and you won't get the BW in this)
Also, this would result in 4 pruduction buildings on 4 different hotkeys unless Blizzard in their infinite wisdom goes for warpgate + gateway can be on a same hotkey and units will be prioritized(same as barracks). I don't think this will work properly(considering you can build all those units from gateways). Current Protoss gateway design resulted in some big nerfs in the units - your buffs are not enough to operate around this if we're thinking about late game - e.g. anti-air of stalkers is weak because they can be warped any time you need them and anywhere, buffing them results in really heavy hitting combo with colossi. Leaving them be means they will still be laughed at by speed banshees.
Without the warp in mechanic you won't get what you saw in the Parting v TY game because without the warp in the units have to walk from the main(not even from the 4th, from the main). The last time they made Stalkers more dragoon like(same DPS, bigger CD on shots, bigger shot damage), they reverted it back quite fast because TvP got fucked up with proxy stalkers. Why do you think this time it won't be reverted right away? Also there's a reason why stalkers are not massed in the lategame, they're trash against everything and a slight buff of HP won't change this, they're trash because they're at best mediocre at dps and their model is so big they have bad scaling(you need a huge arch). It gets better with blink but not much.
Also they're quite easy to hardcounter with EMP. (even with the HP buff)
And now the fun part. Marauders? Tanks with smartfire?
This is not BW, if you want gateway compositions, we had that before. It was named archon/chargelot/templar. Now you can't go this because 1) Mines 2) Hellbats(if we talk about mech) 3) Liberators(and you need tempests if the game goes to this stage, this alone should tell you how garbage stalker is)
And we're at just the TvP.
Now to the ZvP. Lurkers? Mutalisks? Fungals?
Edit> TL, DR - we need much more changes in all 3 races to make this viable, not just Protoss. It is a big game redesign.
i know uncle blizz doesnt want to admit this but because of the warp in mechanic,protoss cant have strong gateway units while still being able to instantly warp them.putting thier power spike behind an upgrade looks bandaid and confusing at first but i am sure protoss players will thank the balance team later for not straight up trashing them so yeah i d think protoss can have strong stalkers just like last year
Stalkers are trash. Even with blink. Why do you think you need tempests in the lategame TvP? Why do you think you need immortals/tempests in the lategame ZvP? Stalkers are trashy early to mid game unit. There's nothing wrong about it. Similarly reaper is an early game scout and cheesy option, that's it. Blink doesn't change that, blink just changes their value for midgame otherwise they would be just like reapers, trashy early game unit That's their role, many Protoss are fine with that, but saying power spike behind upgrade and write stalkers in the same sentence Have you seen how powerful they are against strong liberator position with some siege tanks and emp?
The real problem is that these changes still don't fix foundational problems. Balancing the game is made much harder by having absurdly broken stuff in it, and making small tweaks to hp etc doesn't get to the heart of the problem. Once the issues are solved, that is when numbers should be played about with. I'd start with this kind of stuff;
Abduct and neural should not work against massive units. It's neither fun nor reasonable to pick off big units like that. There's no counterplay.
Air units need a collision radius to limit clumping or a fast, forced splitting that overrides fungal slow. Fungal and parasitic bomb counter light air units way too hard as it is. I think a collision radius would be best, so the power of clumped air units is also nerfed, because balancing mass voids has been impossible because of it.
Mothership should not be a hero unit. It should be cheaper, weaker and massable so it doesn't contribute to the deathball issue. Smaller msss recalls around the map would make the zerg spine forest less ridiculous to deal with without having to be all or nothing assaults. Non massive, cheaper arbiters could also be abducted or neuraled without making toss want to uninstall.
Warp gate should be more expensive to research and have longer unit build time compared to gateways. This would give a defenders advantage back in PvP and allow small buffs to gateway units to be possible to keep them viable into the late game (since toss would have to make more gateways for the same reinforcement capabilities, which means smaller armies / slower maxs).
Sure, some numbers would need to be tweaked after. Maybe fungal would need more dps against air units if they didn't clump. But the point is is that even with an e.g. 50% DPS increase, it would never lead to that ridiculous scenario where you lose 10 expensive air units to a single spell because you clumped, got hit and couldn't retreat. It would still suck, but it wouldn't feel completely unfair.
On October 09 2019 00:26 totalpigeon wrote: Air units need a collision radius to limit clumping or a fast, forced splitting that overrides fungal slow. Fungal and parasitic bomb counter light air units way too hard as it is. I think a collision radius would be best, so the power of clumped air units is also nerfed, because balancing mass voids has been impossible because of it.
I was thinking about a similar solution, but my problem was that i would like to have clumped mutas, corruptors, phoenixes, oracles, banshees, vikings in the game. Maybe make that it is a bit harder to make these air units group up, and increase other air units collision radius greatly, so that we will never see clumped up broods/voids/carriers/tempests/bcs again. This would nerf these heavily.
On October 09 2019 00:26 totalpigeon wrote: Air units need a collision radius to limit clumping or a fast, forced splitting that overrides fungal slow. Fungal and parasitic bomb counter light air units way too hard as it is. I think a collision radius would be best, so the power of clumped air units is also nerfed, because balancing mass voids has been impossible because of it.
I was thinking about a similar solution, but my problem was that i would like to have clumped mutas, corruptors, phoenixes, oracles, banshees, vikings in the game. Maybe make that it is a bit harder to make these air units group up, and increase other air units collision radius greatly, so that we will never see clumped up broods/voids/carriers/tempests/bcs again. This would nerf these heavily.
It's a broken part of the game. The interaction between aoe spells on ground units and aoe spells on clumped air units is just so different that it is impossible to balance in a manner that feels fair to everyone, especially when there is no realistic way for the owner of the air units to keep their units from clumping. It worked in BW because you could only have 12 units on a hotkey, so things could never be too densely packed in. It's a problem for SC2 because you can have 200 supply on a hotkey, so the dps of the army can be absurdly dense. Overkill from using all of these units to attack the same target is a thing, which helps a little to keep things in check, but the fact that everything can be on the front line means that the dps / area is still extremely high - something like mass muta or voids can be very strong in a straight up fight if you have no aoe to deal with it, and utterly useless if you do. If units didn't clump then the dps would be lower and aoe would be both less effective and less necessary.
I think it would be a sensible direction to go, anyway. It's not a change that will balance things in and of itself, but removing the ridiculous possibility of ultra stacked air units will make the game easier to balance in the long run, since the range of potential interactions that aoe damage can have reduces dramatically.
I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated.
Just some brief thoughts on a few things:
1) Infested Terran Change
Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2.
One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well.
While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point.
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now.
At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are.
2) Battle Cruiser Warp Jump 1 Second Delay
Finally, I'm a Terran but that should have been obvious and there from the start.
3) Nydus Changes
Hurray again that the starting load/unload time is slightly nerfed. In pro games it seems as if an entire army can just go through it almost instantly, like teleporting around the map, which is obviously not what it should be (both lore wise and gamplay wise, as it makes it less unique compared to simply teleporting).
So, I do like that it takes longer to unload/load. What I don't like though, is that for only a 100/100 upgrade you can boost it back to the current speed for the rest of the game. You shouldn't be able to transfer your army between huge points nearly instantly, it should take some time for your army to move through. You should be able to reinforce a position with an army coming through, but there should be more of a hidden cost to it (it should take a bit longer for the rest of your army to go through to fight, instead of your maxed out army being there almost instantly). If you bring a big enough army and are in position already, you should be able to have a strong advantage vs the army that is trying to come out, enough to discourage the player to go through the Nydus with the rest of their army unless they have a much bigger army.
I believe it would be much better and more unique for them to simply tweak the Nydus in a way that involve the load/unload time increase, and force players to spawn MULTIPLE Nydus for each position later in the game if they want to move a huge army quicker. Nydus is not very expensive as it is, I think an upgrade is unnecessary. A Nydus Network is 150/150 that you can use throughout the whole game, and spawning a Nydus Worm is a measly 50/50.
If you want to move your 130 supply army through to the opponent's base, then you should just be encouraged to spawn 2 Nydus for that one position to get it through faster as a commitment. It would be very Zerg-like and more interesting than Zergs only using 1 Nydus for 99% of situations like it is now.
It would also be much less volatile. Right now it's like, if you don't finish off the Nydus, then their whole army comes through suddenly and it's over. But if the slower unload/load changes are passed, and there is no upgrade to buff it back to the current speed, it would mean Zergs would need to spawn 2 Nydus Worms to get their army through for a slightly higher price. It would also indeed mean you would need to kill both Worms as opposed to 1 to stop their army from coming through, but it would be more interesting this way, as if you killed only 1 of the 2 Worms, if the Zerg wanted to still come through the remaining Worm, it would be much more expensive to do so anyway as much more of their army would be killed due to the slower unloading. So it's an option for the Zerg but much much less cost efficient. If needed, the Worm durability could be reduced to to help balance this out.
Basically I think they should nerf the unload/load time for Nydus Worm a little to make it less scary early and mid game. And late game, it would be better for the design and gameplay if Zerg needed to spawn more than 1 Worm to get a big army through quickly. It's weird to me that in almost all situations, 1 Worm is enough whether you want to move a small force through or your maxed out army. It's wrong when you see pro matches where a defending player already has their whole army in their main base, failing to kill the Worm but is fighting the units spewing out, but yet the attacking player is able to commit and just send the rest of their army through it with little disadvantage. There needs to be a little more of a defender's advantage here, lest the attacking Zerg wants to spend a little more to spawn more Worms.
Props to them for the 14 second thing, that was well thought out.
4) Mech
It's great that they haven't forgotten about TvP mech, which was very weak last I tried (way weaker than Mech in HOTS which is very sad as it actually was pretty solid in HOTS). Nerfing the Chargelot by removing the +8 damage will help Mech take their third which is really crucial with how many bases Protoss can take in LOTV, and had been incredibly difficult to defend with the LOTV Warp Prism and other buffs (Charge +8 damage, existence of Adepts, Immortal Shield change "nerf" which only actually made it harder to counter in mid-game it made EMP much less useful, etc).
And the Cyclone revert made it even harder to tech to Mech while getting a 3rd because they no longer had a jack-of-all-trades solid unit they could open with to scout, harass, and defend, while working up to other Mech units. I don't know how significant the +8 damage initially even was, but if it means getting a near extra full volley of tank shots off during the fight, that would be quite helpful.
Also it was cool to see them remind us and give props to SlayerS for that BFH drop build. That was an amazing time and it was so cool to see all their Terrans coordinate together and dominate a tournament like that with a new build.
I have an interesting idea: give the battlecruiser cargo capacity like a medivac, maybe 16 slots. Lore wise, it makes sense that a capital ship can carry troops inside it. This would allow the rest of the Terran army to come along when a battlecruiser tactical jumps to a new location and opens up for some exciting tactics.
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated.
Just some brief thoughts on a few things:
1) Infested Terran Change
Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2.
One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well.
While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point.
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now.
At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are.
2) Battle Cruiser Warp Jump 1 Second Delay
Finally, I'm a Terran but that should have been obvious and there from the start.
3) Nydus Changes
Hurray again that the starting load/unload time is slightly nerfed. In pro games it seems as if an entire army can just go through it almost instantly, like teleporting around the map, which is obviously not what it should be (both lore wise and gamplay wise, as it makes it less unique compared to simply teleporting).
So, I do like that it takes longer to unload/load. What I don't like though, is that for only a 100/100 upgrade you can boost it back to the current speed for the rest of the game. You shouldn't be able to transfer your army between huge points nearly instantly, it should take some time for your army to move through. You should be able to reinforce a position with an army coming through, but there should be more of a hidden cost to it (it should take a bit longer for the rest of your army to go through to fight, instead of your maxed out army being there almost instantly). If you bring a big enough army and are in position already, you should be able to have a strong advantage vs the army that is trying to come out, enough to discourage the player to go through the Nydus with the rest of their army unless they have a much bigger army.
I believe it would be much better and more unique for them to simply tweak the Nydus in a way that involve the load/unload time increase, and force players to spawn MULTIPLE Nydus for each position later in the game if they want to move a huge army quicker. Nydus is not very expensive as it is, I think an upgrade is unnecessary. A Nydus Network is 150/150 that you can use throughout the whole game, and spawning a Nydus Worm is a measly 50/50.
If you want to move your 130 supply army through to the opponent's base, then you should just be encouraged to spawn 2 Nydus for that one position to get it through faster as a commitment. It would be very Zerg-like and more interesting than Zergs only using 1 Nydus for 99% of situations like it is now.
It would also be much less volatile. Right now it's like, if you don't finish off the Nydus, then their whole army comes through suddenly and it's over. But if the slower unload/load changes are passed, and there is no upgrade to buff it back to the current speed, it would mean Zergs would need to spawn 2 Nydus Worms to get their army through for a slightly higher price. It would also indeed mean you would need to kill both Worms as opposed to 1 to stop their army from coming through, but it would be more interesting this way, as if you killed only 1 of the 2 Worms, if the Zerg wanted to still come through the remaining Worm, it would be much more expensive to do so anyway as much more of their army would be killed due to the slower unloading. So it's an option for the Zerg but much much less cost efficient. If needed, the Worm durability could be reduced to to help balance this out.
Basically I think they should nerf the unload/load time for Nydus Worm a little to make it less scary early and mid game. And late game, it would be better for the design and gameplay if Zerg needed to spawn more than 1 Worm to get a big army through quickly. It's weird to me that in almost all situations, 1 Worm is enough whether you want to move a small force through or your maxed out army. It's wrong when you see pro matches where a defending player already has their whole army in their main base, failing to kill the Worm but is fighting the units spewing out, but yet the attacking player is able to commit and just send the rest of their army through it with little disadvantage. There needs to be a little more of a defender's advantage here, lest the attacking Zerg wants to spend a little more to spawn more Worms.
Props to them for the 14 second thing, that was well thought out.
4) Mech
It's great that they haven't forgotten about TvP mech, which was very weak last I tried (way weaker than Mech in HOTS which is very sad as it actually was pretty solid in HOTS). Nerfing the Chargelot by removing the +8 damage will help Mech take their third which is really crucial with how many bases Protoss can take in LOTV, and had been incredibly difficult to defend with the LOTV Warp Prism and other buffs (Charge +8 damage, existence of Adepts, Immortal Shield change "nerf" which only actually made it harder to counter in mid-game it made EMP much less useful, etc).
And the Cyclone revert made it even harder to tech to Mech while getting a 3rd because they no longer had a jack-of-all-trades solid unit they could open with to scout, harass, and defend, while working up to other Mech units. I don't know how significant the +8 damage initially even was, but if it means getting a near extra full volley of tank shots off during the fight, that would be quite helpful.
Also it was cool to see them remind us and give props to SlayerS for that BFH drop build. That was an amazing time and it was so cool to see all their Terrans coordinate together and dominate a tournament like that with a new build.
I really like the nydus discussion here.
A slightly different take on what you said, it would be interesting if spawning a nydus worm cost 10 supply. That would make it really hard to mass multiple worms and a great counter to nydus worms would be to snipe overlords. I'm the late game there would be a big trade off on being maxed versus saving supply to spawn worms.
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated.
Just some brief thoughts on a few things:
1) Infested Terran Change
Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2.
One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well.
While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point.
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now.
At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are.
2) Battle Cruiser Warp Jump 1 Second Delay
Finally, I'm a Terran but that should have been obvious and there from the start.
3) Nydus Changes
Hurray again that the starting load/unload time is slightly nerfed. In pro games it seems as if an entire army can just go through it almost instantly, like teleporting around the map, which is obviously not what it should be (both lore wise and gamplay wise, as it makes it less unique compared to simply teleporting).
So, I do like that it takes longer to unload/load. What I don't like though, is that for only a 100/100 upgrade you can boost it back to the current speed for the rest of the game. You shouldn't be able to transfer your army between huge points nearly instantly, it should take some time for your army to move through. You should be able to reinforce a position with an army coming through, but there should be more of a hidden cost to it (it should take a bit longer for the rest of your army to go through to fight, instead of your maxed out army being there almost instantly). If you bring a big enough army and are in position already, you should be able to have a strong advantage vs the army that is trying to come out, enough to discourage the player to go through the Nydus with the rest of their army unless they have a much bigger army.
I believe it would be much better and more unique for them to simply tweak the Nydus in a way that involve the load/unload time increase, and force players to spawn MULTIPLE Nydus for each position later in the game if they want to move a huge army quicker. Nydus is not very expensive as it is, I think an upgrade is unnecessary. A Nydus Network is 150/150 that you can use throughout the whole game, and spawning a Nydus Worm is a measly 50/50.
If you want to move your 130 supply army through to the opponent's base, then you should just be encouraged to spawn 2 Nydus for that one position to get it through faster as a commitment. It would be very Zerg-like and more interesting than Zergs only using 1 Nydus for 99% of situations like it is now.
It would also be much less volatile. Right now it's like, if you don't finish off the Nydus, then their whole army comes through suddenly and it's over. But if the slower unload/load changes are passed, and there is no upgrade to buff it back to the current speed, it would mean Zergs would need to spawn 2 Nydus Worms to get their army through for a slightly higher price. It would also indeed mean you would need to kill both Worms as opposed to 1 to stop their army from coming through, but it would be more interesting this way, as if you killed only 1 of the 2 Worms, if the Zerg wanted to still come through the remaining Worm, it would be much more expensive to do so anyway as much more of their army would be killed due to the slower unloading. So it's an option for the Zerg but much much less cost efficient. If needed, the Worm durability could be reduced to to help balance this out.
Basically I think they should nerf the unload/load time for Nydus Worm a little to make it less scary early and mid game. And late game, it would be better for the design and gameplay if Zerg needed to spawn more than 1 Worm to get a big army through quickly. It's weird to me that in almost all situations, 1 Worm is enough whether you want to move a small force through or your maxed out army. It's wrong when you see pro matches where a defending player already has their whole army in their main base, failing to kill the Worm but is fighting the units spewing out, but yet the attacking player is able to commit and just send the rest of their army through it with little disadvantage. There needs to be a little more of a defender's advantage here, lest the attacking Zerg wants to spend a little more to spawn more Worms.
Props to them for the 14 second thing, that was well thought out.
4) Mech
It's great that they haven't forgotten about TvP mech, which was very weak last I tried (way weaker than Mech in HOTS which is very sad as it actually was pretty solid in HOTS). Nerfing the Chargelot by removing the +8 damage will help Mech take their third which is really crucial with how many bases Protoss can take in LOTV, and had been incredibly difficult to defend with the LOTV Warp Prism and other buffs (Charge +8 damage, existence of Adepts, Immortal Shield change "nerf" which only actually made it harder to counter in mid-game it made EMP much less useful, etc).
And the Cyclone revert made it even harder to tech to Mech while getting a 3rd because they no longer had a jack-of-all-trades solid unit they could open with to scout, harass, and defend, while working up to other Mech units. I don't know how significant the +8 damage initially even was, but if it means getting a near extra full volley of tank shots off during the fight, that would be quite helpful.
Also it was cool to see them remind us and give props to SlayerS for that BFH drop build. That was an amazing time and it was so cool to see all their Terrans coordinate together and dominate a tournament like that with a new build.
I really like the nydus discussion here.
A slightly different take on what you said, it would be interesting if spawning a nydus worm cost 10 supply. That would make it really hard to mass multiple worms and a great counter to nydus worms would be to snipe overlords. I'm the late game there would be a big trade off on being maxed versus saving supply to spawn worms.
Pretty good post there Yoshi, hadn’t actually considered that IT DPS would be more locally concentrated.
Specifics aside, just introducing more trade-offs as a general principle is definitely a direction I wish Blizzard would explore.
As per previous discussions on the warpgate mechanic, I’m ok with potent things being in the game but, introduce more risk or difficulty of execution, or a strategic dimension to it.
Introducing a supply cost I quite like actually, have a more mobile but slightly smaller army than you could otherwise have. Would also make the allins hit slightly less hard.
I’m just sick of nydus play because the balance feels so far off in the lategame. When Rogue threw down 25 or something in one game against Dark, just silly.
If they entered the mass nuke zone where you could still keep pumping them out, but lose because of it, cool. I can recall offhand plenty of games where a Terran has bled himself out with inefficient overnuking and you can point to it as a contributory factor.
I really can’t think of a game that goes late where I’ve ever felt, ‘oh he made too many nyduses that game, that was bad strategically and cost him the game.’
I really cannot think of a mechanic in a game that is easy to execute, difficult to defend in a stretched lategame and has legitimate game winning potential if it comes off once, that you can just keep repeating over and over again with little cost.
Or at least a mechanic in a good game anyway. Silver lining I guess is for once by theorycrafting of many moons ago that lategame Nydus was mystifyingly underused has been validated of late if nothing else :p
I feel that in late game nydus is a nice tool to break a defensive opponent.
One other way to stop or tone down mid game nydus to require creep for exit (as someone already mentioned) before the hive time upgrade. So the Z would have to fly a (slow) overlord over the base, quite visible, drop creep, then plant the nydus exit. The hive upgrade would revert to the vision is enough behavior, as it is currently.
On October 09 2019 04:20 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I like the direction of some changes but some of the changes are weird and don't seem that well geared towards the intended goal that was stated.
Just some brief thoughts on a few things:
1) Infested Terran Change
Infested Terrans being 25 energy were nice and unique. They were weak individually but massed together it could do something. This being buffed reminds me of the Autoturret change to being a more high damage density unit. Everything in the game keeps being buffed to move faster or do more damage faster, which is something we've wanted to avoid (and go in the other direction when possible) throughout SC2.
One thing about ITs being 25 energy is that it was difficult to get a ton of them to actually shoot the intended target, like sniping a base from a cliff. Now that they can be clumped more easily, it will be more volatile and harder to deal with in a way as well.
While it's true that you could now kill a group of clumped ITs with splash easier, did the balance team not realize and think that the Zerg could simply spam click the ITs in a slightly more spread out area, taking up about the same amount of space as when they were 25 energy?? It would basically nullify the intended purpose of buffing splash's effectiveness vs ITs, and is a near straight up buff for most situations as long as the Zerg spam summons ITs in a slightly spread out area instead of clicking 1 point.
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
You could say that if you were to try to spread out the new 50 energy ITs, that it would also be a natural balancing mechanic and require the Zerg more time to setup a large amount of ITs, similar to how spawning a ton of 25 energy ITs takes a ton of clicks. If these roughly equal out, then the new IT changes basically is a straight slight DPS buff. AND, in situations where the other player does not yet have much splash, will allow the ITs' higher damage density (and higher dps) to be able to snipe bases even more effectively than now.
At best, the IT changes are not clean enough for what the intended goals are. At worst, the IT change could buff them overall and make things even more volatile than they already are.
The IT change is nowhere near a buff in direct engagements. It's a straight up nerf.
First of all, despite costing double the energy, it only gets a 50% buff in HP. This is huge, especially considering the fact that 75 HP is enough to be OHKO'd by liberators, psionic storm, and disruptors. This means that Infested Terrans now take half as many liberator shots and half (maybe more, since, like you said, they can be spread out) as many disruptor and psionic storms to kill. Overall less firepower is needed to contend with a full spawn of ITs.
On the other hand, ITs got a slight DPS buff, taking the double energy into consideration. However, it must be noted that ITs are now more susceptible to overkill.
Finally, the amount of space 25 energy ITs take up cannot be understated. With 50 energy ITs, a Zerg player cannot just flood the space beneath Protoss and Terran air units with ITs and zone their ground units out to the same extent they did before. ITs will take up less space and will be surrounded by Protoss and Terran ground units easier as well.
Overall ITs were massively nerfed in direct engagements. It will be significantly harder to employ the same tactics to break a Terran position or dive on a Skytoss death ball.
You are right that the new IT is a buff in indirect engagements/harassment like sniping a base from a cliff like you mentioned. But that is not where mass infestors are insanely powerful. Their insane strength occurs when they are massed in death balls and participate in direct engagements.
Amount of clicks needed to deploy infestors is basically a nonfactor at the highest levels of play.
+ Reduce workers at start to ~8-10 Nerf WGate and move it to TC + buff GW units Replace MShip by MSC as a normal unit with all MS abilities Bring back Ultralisk speed upgrade Add some new upgrades
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
AFAIK progamers do this with the mousewheel, therefore no clicks needed. You spin the wheel which basically accounts for 100s of clicks in a sec
On October 09 2019 12:18 bela.mervado wrote: I feel that in late game nydus is a nice tool to break a defensive opponent.
One other way to stop or tone down mid game nydus to require creep for exit (as someone already mentioned) before the hive time upgrade. So the Z would have to fly a (slow) overlord over the base, quite visible, drop creep, then plant the nydus exit. The hive upgrade would revert to the vision is enough behavior, as it is currently.
Honestly, I've always wondered whether a nydus worm just shouldn't spread creep, taking the creep buffs away, the ability to spread tumors, and possibly take up important space even after it's gone. Being able to fight 'on creep' from an effective nydus seems like an unfair offender's advantage taking into account how important creep is, and I've never really seen that discussed before.
Also, it was harder to spawn a hundred ITs to snipe a base, because it took longer to click. This was also a natural balancing mechanic that will now be reduced.
AFAIK progamers do this with the mousewheel, therefore no clicks needed. You spin the wheel which basically accounts for 100s of clicks in a sec
Either that or you can also bind left click to an unused key in the hotkey settings (I have it set to space). With that, you can hit the IT spell cast key, hold down shift, then hold down the key you set to be left click and it will cast the spell far faster than you could ever click. Even worse, you don't even need to move your mouse since it will automatically spread out the ITs in an increasing radius around where your mouse pointer is for you. You can technically use this method for any spell, but the IT spell is the only spell it's actually good for other than maybe creep spreading. Protoss players also use it for warping in units fast (I learned it from Parting's stream).
I would love for games to require more midrange units for longer peiords of time. There are a lot of ways to go about this, but just as an example, this is what I would change to zerg
Zerg: move upgrades for units to be completed at the Hatchery / Lair / Hive.
This would make the following changes. Lingspeed: the upgrade can be completed at a hatchery. Roach movement speed/burrow movement. upgrades moved to lair. Hydra den: Require Hatchery. Hydra upgrades can be completed at Lair. (Hydras attack range = 4, range upgrade now gives +2)
Spire: Requires Lair. attack / armor upgrades still at spire. Infestation Pit: upgrades for infestor are done at the Hive. Infestor Changes: Reduce unit size by 0.25 Fungal Growth: able to cast while burrowed. Units take damage and slow movement speed, but the fungal should cover the ground, and allow units to move out of it / blink etc. Area of fungal growth increased by .25 Neural parasite removed. Neural Inhibition added: Requires upgrade at hive. Costs 100 energy. Sends microspores at an enemy unit that is capable of disrupting it's neural / electrical network and disables the units similar to that of the raven's interference matrix. The only difference is that the unit will be unable to be given a new command. for example, if a mothership is moved forward slightly and during this time period before it stops moving, it is hit with neural inhibition, it will continue moving forward until it wears off. If the mother ship is stationary when hit with the spell, the MS will be unable to perform any new commands. If the mothership is attacked moved forward towards another specific building/creature it will continue to move towards that unit until it reaches that unit at which time it will stop moving until the spell wears off. (personally I think this is one of the better changes of all of these that should be considered, it will allow good counterplay on both parts and won't completely punish a retreating player nearly as bad as neural parasite would, but can be used to punish an aggressive player who moves to far forward.
Hive: Require Infestation pit Lurker Den: Requires Hive. Lurker upgrades to be done at the hive Greater Spire: Requires Hive. * make broodlords initially have attack similar to guardian. Upgrade at hive attack changes to broodling. Ultralisk Cavern: Requires Hive. Ultra Upgrades are done at Hive.
This should drastically add to the amount of time it will take a zerg player to move all the way up the tech tree and extend the mid-game. At the same time, it would allow for strategic decisions such as making more than 1 lair to hit certain upgrades, and will create more strategic choices in determining how many queens to build, when in the build order to build them since the lair / hatchery / Hive will need to also be performing upgrades. With the queens you do build, you will have to decide if they should do larvae injections or creep spreading. At the same time, Hydras can come out sooner to help defend. Some of the units would need the base stats altered to be balanced to account for the change in pace that will happen to the zerg economically. I think this would help the zerg brood feel more similar to it's BW counterpart where it slowly builds up and then overwhelms an opponent and is capable of playing on a level playing field with a smaller army supply until the end game when it overruns an opponent.
Obviously such a drastic change would need to be balanced in a similar fashion for terran / protoss as well. one of the ways this can be done is by increasing the costs and timings of certain upgrades for units, and by adding in some late game upgrades for the Tier 1 units. This would allow all 3 races to have late game low tier armies that can be supplemented by higher tier units instead of a large mass of high tier units that completely dominate the lower tier compositions.
Just as a few quick examples. Increase build time for Twighlight council, Robo Bay, and Fleet Beacon
Add a stalker upgrade that gives small amounts of splash damage to it. at the same time reduce the strength of storm. this upgrade would require DT tech Give immortal / disruptors a useful upgrade. This would cause Protoss to commit more to a specific robounit. Disruptors + 0.25 nova range explosion Immortals + 1 range attack
For Terran. Move Bio Upgrades to the Ghost Academy. (Stim, Combat shields, concussive shell). Ghost Academy Costs reduced to 150 minerals / 0 gas Give Bio an antisplash upgrade such that if a marine is hit with splash damage, it reduces it's life to 1 instead of killing it if it's currently being healed by a unit. (requires an upgrade at the ghost academy) Give medivacs the ability to heal 2 units at the same time - upgrade at the fusion core. Ghost Cloak upgrades / Nuke now require a fusion core.
Siege Tanks: Siege ability now requires an upgrade. Fast Siege: Siege tanks now siege faster, requires an upgrade, requires armory Widow Mines: By default do not do splash damage Can get splash damage by an upgrade
Terran mech upgrades should require an armory but are completed with a tech lab addon
Similar to zerg tech tree being slowed down, this will also slow down the advancement of the Terran and protoss tech trees by requiring more of a commitment to certain units. The examples of Protoss and Terran changes are not all the changes I would make, but it is more of a theme of slowing down the progression of the game and making the late early game and midgame last longer and require more commitment to tech choices while also allowing flexibility to respond to what you are scouting your opponent doing.
On October 09 2019 12:18 bela.mervado wrote: I feel that in late game nydus is a nice tool to break a defensive opponent.
One other way to stop or tone down mid game nydus to require creep for exit (as someone already mentioned) before the hive time upgrade. So the Z would have to fly a (slow) overlord over the base, quite visible, drop creep, then plant the nydus exit. The hive upgrade would revert to the vision is enough behavior, as it is currently.
Honestly, I've always wondered whether a nydus worm just shouldn't spread creep, taking the creep buffs away, the ability to spread tumors, and possibly take up important space even after it's gone. Being able to fight 'on creep' from an effective nydus seems like an unfair offender's advantage taking into account how important creep is, and I've never really seen that discussed before.
Even if i think you re probably right in terms of game design, Zerg race has always been favoured from creep tumours advantages.. That s why i think it s not mandatory for Blizz team. Further, to me the problem remains from spreading creep since Beta of SC2, the creep tumors isn t like a "building" cause it s invisible, and it s a huge advantage cause Zerg can handle fight behind and near his border creep line and other races has to pay attention, standing far from the creep. Of course, if Blizz (or me) could do a test map, some other buff will be required to help start of the Zerg game
I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
This has been a complaint of pro terran and protoss players for years now, even back in the old days. Once a Zerg gets enough creep spread on a map, they can't really be surprised by attacks anymore and the combination of the vision and speed boost from creep makes it so getting a positional advantage against lategame zerg is quite difficult. I've always thought even a reduction in vision for the creep tumours would be more than enough. Make it equivalent to a burrowed unit or something along those lines.
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Don't forget ovies on the sides of the maps. That's why I love to play as Zerg. I don't have to build 6 or so observers I don't know, I find it neat, but at the same time it's stupid, IMO only the active creep tumors should give vision, dead ones should just keep the creap there and that's it.
Neural Parasite upgrade removed... RIP Thors and Mothership. The Infested Terran patch is more interesting though, making it more like Raven's turrents rather than BL's lings.
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Agree and don't agree.
That would make scans quite OP in late game?
Better to make tumors cost more energy imo and/or make the range of expanding tumors shorter. Or remove that cheap overlord speed.
Not sure. I like that you don't have to die with your supply as much as you could in BW just for scouting.
I guess I like the design of creep. It's a cool feature and I would happily see other nerfs as listed above.
If you open 1-1-1 with an expansion can a infestor be out when you teleport your BC to their base (or very shortly after)? If yes that means that BC openings are dead since if you lose your first BC you lose the game.
On October 11 2019 17:53 MockHamill wrote: If you open 1-1-1 with an expansion can a infestor be out when you teleport your BC to their base (or very shortly after)? If yes that means that BC openings are dead since if you lose your first BC you lose the game.
If zerg got an infestor out for that time, you wouldn't lose because the zerg would have literally no economy or units. They'd just have an infestor.
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Don't forget ovies on the sides of the maps. That's why I love to play as Zerg. I don't have to build 6 or so observers I don't know, I find it neat, but at the same time it's stupid, IMO only the active creep tumors should give vision, dead ones should just keep the creap there and that's it.
I’m not sure what nerfs would hit a sweet spot where Zerg isn’t terrible and creep isn’t so potent. Zerg is really reliant on that early warning system to morph units plus set up flanks.
Increase the cool down a little on tumours maybe so the spread isn’t quite so insane? Or some kind of vision nerf, etc.
It’s a big change to start messing with but is really overdue in being something to look at.
The way Legacy flows with its eco and tech Zerg can push it out really aggressively and quickly, and Terran and Protoss don’t have an equivalent boost in windows to push the creep back or delay it.
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Don't forget ovies on the sides of the maps. That's why I love to play as Zerg. I don't have to build 6 or so observers I don't know, I find it neat, but at the same time it's stupid, IMO only the active creep tumors should give vision, dead ones should just keep the creap there and that's it.
I’m not sure what nerfs would hit a sweet spot where Zerg isn’t terrible and creep isn’t so potent. Zerg is really reliant on that early warning system to morph units plus set up flanks.
Increase the cool down a little on tumours maybe so the spread isn’t quite so insane? Or some kind of vision nerf, etc.
It’s a big change to start messing with but is really overdue in being something to look at.
The way Legacy flows with its eco and tech Zerg can push it out really aggressively and quickly, and Terran and Protoss don’t have an equivalent boost in windows to push the creep back or delay it.
Zerg has a unit for 0.5 supply. It's not like they have to sacrifice so much for an early warning system once you know they're coming(because the edge of the creep would keep the vision). It would need some testing, but the current - I can see the whole map - system is wrong(IMO)
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Don't forget ovies on the sides of the maps. That's why I love to play as Zerg. I don't have to build 6 or so observers I don't know, I find it neat, but at the same time it's stupid, IMO only the active creep tumors should give vision, dead ones should just keep the creap there and that's it.
I’m not sure what nerfs would hit a sweet spot where Zerg isn’t terrible and creep isn’t so potent. Zerg is really reliant on that early warning system to morph units plus set up flanks.
Increase the cool down a little on tumours maybe so the spread isn’t quite so insane? Or some kind of vision nerf, etc.
It’s a big change to start messing with but is really overdue in being something to look at.
The way Legacy flows with its eco and tech Zerg can push it out really aggressively and quickly, and Terran and Protoss don’t have an equivalent boost in windows to push the creep back or delay it.
Zerg has a unit for 0.5 supply. It's not like they have to sacrifice so much for an early warning system once you know they're coming(because the edge of the creep would keep the vision). It would need some testing, but the current - I can see the whole map - system is wrong(IMO)
No I totally agree with the system feeling wrong to me, much like my dislike of Warp gates in their current form.
With borderline maphack across large portions of the map it feels super constricting, for Protoss especially. It’s super risky to be out on the map outside of actually pushes/fake pushes, Zerg get time to ascertain your strength and can pounce on you, if you shave off a bunch of Zealots to hit outlying bases they can see you coming a mile off.
There’s also the small/large factor of not knowing what your opponent has actually seen too. A Terran scan is a rather big giveaway, or if I catch and obs. With creep you have to assume the possibility that everything you’re doing is seen, which forces cautious play even if your opponent hasn’t seen you, or the tumours are positioned so they didn’t grant vision to a location.
There’s plenty to experiment with, you and others have mentioned some other ideas too. Even if the spawned tumours spread creep at a bigger radius, but were on a higher cool down period might do something. You get the same equivalent spread of creep but with fewer tumours, so they give less of a vision bonus, plus fewer tumours are easier to clear so pushing the creep back is more viable.
It’s such a large part of the game that I’m struggling to instinctively get a fell of how much changes would affect it and to what degree, but I absolutely feel it’s an area worth looking at.
On October 11 2019 06:05 True_Spike wrote: I decided to play a few games as zerg and one thing that immediately stood out to me (especially ZvT, mid-game and onwards) is how much vision a Z player has throughout the game.
Creep tumors seem downright stupid, especially with how much access to cheap and reliable scouting a Z has (in the forms of lings and overlords).
This got me to think - how big of a deal would it be if a creep tumor had 0 vision (that is it wouldn't be able to see itself) and wouldn't give alerts when attacked? Spreading creep wouldn't be that much harder than it is now (because of speedlings and overlords), but it would be a tad harder to do it perfectly, especially when pressured. Zergs would have to be slighty more mindful of unit placement throughout the game, akin to other races, since creep alone would no longer be enough to notice incoming attacks / unit positioning (which I feel is a big deal in the mid game; it seems like it's impossible to catch the zerg unprepared anywhere on his side of the map because of the vision creep tumors give).
Don't forget ovies on the sides of the maps. That's why I love to play as Zerg. I don't have to build 6 or so observers I don't know, I find it neat, but at the same time it's stupid, IMO only the active creep tumors should give vision, dead ones should just keep the creap there and that's it.
I’m not sure what nerfs would hit a sweet spot where Zerg isn’t terrible and creep isn’t so potent. Zerg is really reliant on that early warning system to morph units plus set up flanks.
Increase the cool down a little on tumours maybe so the spread isn’t quite so insane? Or some kind of vision nerf, etc.
It’s a big change to start messing with but is really overdue in being something to look at.
The way Legacy flows with its eco and tech Zerg can push it out really aggressively and quickly, and Terran and Protoss don’t have an equivalent boost in windows to push the creep back or delay it.
Zerg has a unit for 0.5 supply. It's not like they have to sacrifice so much for an early warning system once you know they're coming(because the edge of the creep would keep the vision). It would need some testing, but the current - I can see the whole map - system is wrong(IMO)
Which is exactly why I think creep tumors should not give vision at all. The edge of the creep is the problem here, since this is what gives you ample time to prepare (and mid-game you always have tons of active creep tumors due to queens pretty much re-spreading creep after every engagement).
Even without creep it seems like Zerg has the best scouting potential out of all the races (in terms of investment cost vs efficiency). Scouting would require more thought than just spamming creep tumors whichever direction you want, even if it's just as simple as sending a ling somewhere on a map (and re-sending it every time it dies; the same way the other 2 races have to scout, losing resources in the process, too).
Injects aren't exactly hard or tedious now with rapid casting prevalent in the game either, so forcing zergs to slightly focus on something else every now and then doesn't seem like a huge deal.
I already thought to remove vision of creep tumours but i think it s better, in term of game design, to let the vision and remove invisibility --- Like that, ennemies of Zerg will continue to struggle against the borderline of creep (T often get caught, P can struggle a little bit imo)
Then add hit points and armor, buildings priority, plus some welcome upgrade/buff to help defence against among others hellions,
On October 11 2019 21:24 Vision_ wrote: Of course it s THE problem since the Beta...
I already thought to remove vision of creep tumours but i think it s better, in term of game design, to let the vision and remove invisibility --- Like that, ennemies of Zerg will continue to struggle against the borderline of creep (T often get caught, P can struggle a little bit imo)
Then add hit points and armor, buildings priority, plus some welcome upgrade/buff to help defence against among others hellions,
I don't think that's the way to go, because it would be downright impossible to spread any creep in the early game (and having *some* creep is essential, especially vs terran).
On October 11 2019 21:24 Vision_ wrote: Of course it s THE problem since the Beta...
I already thought to remove vision of creep tumours but i think it s better, in term of game design, to let the vision and remove invisibility --- Like that, ennemies of Zerg will continue to struggle against the borderline of creep (T often get caught, P can struggle a little bit imo)
Then add hit points and armor, buildings priority, plus some welcome upgrade/buff to help defence against among others hellions,
I don't think that's the way to go, because it would be downright impossible to spread any creep in the early game (and having *some* creep is essential, especially vs terran).
I agree that it is not the way to go, but creep is way too powerful for defensive purposes, it feels like having a maphack. Additionally, it is an anti-comeback mechanism.
An intermediate alternative would be that creep tumors do not grant complete vision, but only reveal opponent units like the sensor tower does.
On October 11 2019 02:55 Riner1212 wrote: would merging hellbats upgrade with bio upgrade be viable? i mean medivacs do heal hellbats so the are technically bio units is it not?
I've always think that the change that makes most sense about hellbats is to remove the bio tag and add a passive ability that allows them to be healed by medivacs.
It will make no impact in anything but the interaction betwen them and archons, wich would help terran do more conservative mech styles vs protoss without really changing much of anything.
On October 11 2019 02:55 Riner1212 wrote: would merging hellbats upgrade with bio upgrade be viable? i mean medivacs do heal hellbats so the are technically bio units is it not?
I've always think that the change that makes most sense about hellbats is to remove the bio tag and add a passive ability that allows them to be healed by medivacs.
It will make no impact in anything but the interaction betwen them and archons, wich would help terran do more conservative mech styles vs protoss without really changing much of anything.
Glad to see blue flame finally get buffed. I think it was a long time coming. I think they could have made this change all the way back since the queen range buff in 2012 and the game would be fine.
People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Creep was literally just nerfed after last Blizzcon. For the first time in SC2's history, creep recedes faster than it spreads (it used to be equal). Transfuse was nerfed too. Zerg will become dead in the water to timing attacks if these are nerfed any further without massive buffs (like making hydra a T1 unit) since garbage roaches dont cut it otherwise
What is the deal with trying to blow up a race with a barrage of nerfs? Look what happened to Protoss. The results of "balancing OP Protoss" were disastrous. The race is a complete and utter joke now and will become even more of a joke when Stats and Classic are gone.
This whole thing is really upsetting. No one is blind to the current state of the game, everyone agrees on the late game balance issues, and it feels like they didn't really address them. Protoss are getting screwed again, Zerg get more buffs... it feels like the primary focus was the TvZ matchup this time
On October 11 2019 21:19 Harris1st wrote: I would not change the vision itself but CD of Creep Tumors as well as energy cost of the initial tumors.
How many games have you seen where T/ P kills 4-6 tumors just for the zerg to plant 15 new ones
Your solution doesn't solve your problem. An increased CD doesn't matter at all when you have 8 queens.
This right here.
So, increase the supply cost of queens. Maybe now Zergs can’t just mindlessly spam them without reducing the quality of their army.
This will be a subtle change that won’t completely create new mechanics for the players, but will softly adjust the power of queens.
With cheaper overlord speed and warp-prism range nerfed, there’s no rationale for keeping queens this strong for defensive purposes. Zergs will have to actually respond with varying units and techs as needed.
idk if its been suggested in here yet, but if the adept shield upgrade was available on cyber core it would actually make the 2 upgrades really interesting. it would give the toss the ability to choose between faster WG, or a stronger adept timing from normal gateway production. it has pros and cons, the timing would be stronger, but it would be relatively easy to identify if the toss doesnt have WG by a certain timing, would pretty much require a certain amount of damage for any continuation or transition from the toss, would allow both upgs for adepts to be used relatively early game etc.
not sure if it is a perfect resolution, but +20 shields for the upg time and cost being on twilight will make the upgrade go unused because it is literally always better to get glaives first, and then by the time you need a 2nd upg zealots are better.
On October 13 2019 10:56 DanceSC wrote: This whole thing is really upsetting. No one is blind to the current state of the game, everyone agrees on the late game balance issues, and it feels like they didn't really address them. Protoss are getting screwed again, Zerg get more buffs... it feels like the primary focus was the TvZ matchup this time
What Blizzard is doing to protoss is disgusting. Protoss is not allowed to have strong units it seems. Not even a core unit like the zealot is untouchable.
Blizzard's idea of Protoss lategame buffs are a 2 second faster interceptor build time (lol) and a random upgrade that gives useless adepts 20 shield bonus....all of the juicy buffs like are saved for Terran and to a lesser extent Zerg.
I have a feeling the same thing is about to happen to zerg. The same thing I saw happening to Protoss over the last two years (PROTOSSED memes spammed on twitch and reddit + Blizzard burying the race in nerfs) seems to be happening to Zerg....all I see on twitch, reddit, and youtube is anti-zerg trolling followed by ham fisted nerfs. A few months ago everyone was talking about how protoss was OP just because of some over representation in a single ST Ro8....after Protoss was crushed it's Zerg's turn? Is Blizzard even taking this seriously?
The game is in the worse state Ive ever seen it. Legendary Protoss players like Zest, sOs, Parting, and hero are written off as jokes/cheesers. Macro gods like Zest, Stats, and Classic are cannon rushing on the brink of elimination in the GSL. Classic and Stats are practically gone thanks to Military. None of the elite young talents are choosing protoss. Who is the reynor, clem, time of Protoss? All that's left is trap, who cannot seem to win a trophy, and neeb who just farms his NA region. The race was completely defanged.
On October 13 2019 04:57 BerserkSword wrote: People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Don't do the same thing to Zerg.
Zerg needs to be nerfed, and nerfed hard. Protoss is already weak, as you say (mainly against Zerg) and Terran is hardly winning much lately (particularly weak in TvP and late game vs Zerg). You seem to be ignoring the fact that balance is based on the relative strength of each race. A nerf to one is effectively a buff to the others. Nerfing Zerg will help bring Protoss back to viability in PvZ (which is absolutely needed) and will help Terran in late game scenarios. Bringing Zerg down to Protoss' level is absolutely needed. Protoss buffs are not the answer as TvP is already too hard for Terran.
The current proposed changes are completely inadequate. The evidence of Zerg's strength against both other races is clear and major nerfs are needed, especially to the Infestor and I wouldn't at all mind further nerfs to creep - it's insanely powerful and suffocates the opponent. The existing nerf barely affected the real in-game speed of creep spread - look at any pro game and the map with be mostly covered by 10 minutes (and that's with the opponent constantly clearing it).
On October 13 2019 04:57 BerserkSword wrote: People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Don't do the same thing to Zerg.
Zerg needs to be nerfed, and nerfed hard. Protoss is already weak, as you say (mainly against Zerg) and Terran is hardly winning much lately (particularly weak in TvP and late game vs Zerg). You seem to be ignoring the fact that balance is based on the relative strength of each race. A nerf to one is effectively a buff to the others. Nerfing Zerg will help bring Protoss back to viability in PvZ (which is absolutely needed) and will help Terran in late game scenarios. Bringing Zerg down to Protoss' level is absolutely needed. Protoss buffs are not the answer as TvP is already too hard for Terran.
The current proposed changes are completely inadequate. The evidence of Zerg's strength against both other races is clear and major nerfs are needed, especially to the Infestor and I wouldn't at all mind further nerfs to creep - it's insanely powerful and suffocates the opponent. The existing nerf barely affected the real in-game speed of creep spread - look at any pro game and the map with be mostly covered by 10 minutes (and that's with the opponent constantly clearing it).
Agree 100%. I still don't get why Blizzard seems to not want to admit the imbalance of Z vs T/P, this needs to be adressed. Unfortunately the proposed changes nerf toss even more while Z looks quite the same. It's pretty strange to me how this could be the case.
Also, why do they plan to have 100 updates in one building? This is stupid imo
On October 13 2019 04:57 BerserkSword wrote: People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Don't do the same thing to Zerg.
As as Protoss player the MSC was the worst thing that ever happened. Photon Overcharge took no skill. It is why I stopped playing.
The bigger issue is that Protoss lost the MSC, but the other races didn't lose their defensive crutches. So Protoss was forced to build more units early just to survive, slowing down builds.
I think Protoss early units should be buffed to force the other races to build units early if Blizzard doesn't want to equalize the defensive potential of the races.
I still think that WOL always had the early game right (save the 1-1-1 and Soul Train) and it was the late game that was the problem. You had to earn an expansion in WOL with skilled defensive play, now they are basically free. Might as well start every game with two bases. Blizzard ruined the early game in an attempt to make the late game better, and failed.
On October 13 2019 04:57 BerserkSword wrote: People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Don't do the same thing to Zerg.
As as Protoss player the MSC was the worst thing that ever happened. Photon Overcharge took no skill. It is why I stopped playing.
The bigger issue is that Protoss lost the MSC, but the other races didn't lose their defensive crutches. So Protoss was forced to build more units early just to survive, slowing down builds.
I think Protoss early units should be buffed to force the other races to build units early if Blizzard doesn't want to equalize the defensive potential of the races.
I still think that WOL always had the early game right (save the 1-1-1 and Soul Train) and it was the late game that was the problem. You had to earn an expansion in WOL with skilled defensive play, now they are basically free. Might as well start every game with two bases. Blizzard ruined the early game in an attempt to make the late game better, and failed.
THey have to be free when you start with 12 workers
On October 13 2019 04:57 BerserkSword wrote: People want creep tumor vision to be gone now....make it stop
We already know what happens when you remove a defensive foundation from a race - look no further than Protoss losing its mothership core at the end of 2017. Protoss hasn't been a real trophy viable race since.
Don't do the same thing to Zerg.
Zerg needs to be nerfed, and nerfed hard. Protoss is already weak, as you say (mainly against Zerg) and Terran is hardly winning much lately (particularly weak in TvP and late game vs Zerg). You seem to be ignoring the fact that balance is based on the relative strength of each race. A nerf to one is effectively a buff to the others. Nerfing Zerg will help bring Protoss back to viability in PvZ (which is absolutely needed) and will help Terran in late game scenarios. Bringing Zerg down to Protoss' level is absolutely needed. Protoss buffs are not the answer as TvP is already too hard for Terran.
The current proposed changes are completely inadequate. The evidence of Zerg's strength against both other races is clear and major nerfs are needed, especially to the Infestor and I wouldn't at all mind further nerfs to creep - it's insanely powerful and suffocates the opponent. The existing nerf barely affected the real in-game speed of creep spread - look at any pro game and the map with be mostly covered by 10 minutes (and that's with the opponent constantly clearing it).
Agree 100%. I still don't get why Blizzard seems to not want to admit the imbalance of Z vs T/P, this needs to be adressed. Unfortunately the proposed changes nerf toss even more while Z looks quite the same. It's pretty strange to me how this could be the case.
Also, why do they plan to have 100 updates in one building? This is stupid imo
I'll repeat my question from another thread - when was the last time this year Blizzard reacted fast in SC2? SC2 isn't exactly a priority for Blizzard it seems. (at least based on their reaction, e.g. BL range fix and how long it took them)
Starcraft players love their hyperbole and the whole doom and gloom thing.
The infestor change is quite significant for PvZ. If anyone has actually played it (but lol does anyone here even play the game), you can actually feel the gravity of this change. Now that we often go both storm and disruptor, you can still destroy the infested terrans but now it actually feels like it's doing something. Blah blah blah energy units are free units blah blah, yes, but energy is still a resource that zerg needs to win a fight, so any extra drain on this actually does make a difference. Couple that with some Drogo feedback drops and you might actually get somewhere. As always, get caught out in a bad spot and it's gonna go downhill very quickly, but I learnt from Harstem the importance of having both mothership and nexus recalls available at all times.
If they rethink the charge change and the neural research removal, I think we have a very good patch on our hands. But they really do need to revisit the charge change. Changing a core unit that has such significant play in every single matchup is gonna mess with the balance way more than all of the other proposed changes combined.
While I can get behind complaints that Z seems too strong this P has been removed from the game bullshit is just not true. Sure ZvP seems to be in an especially bad place and has been for a lot of this year but what about PvT? That matchup isn't so bad. Since the problems is in one matchup, specifically against Z maybe the problem is Z and not P, seems like a reasonable conclusion.
In general any time protoss late game isn't stronger than T and Z late game P whines, when P has the strongest late game its called just stop us from getting there but when its reversed then their race got deleted?
Also Blizz would notice if protoss would get deleted, because winrates would not be even. lol
On October 18 2019 07:56 Shuffleblade wrote: While I can get behind complaints that Z seems too strong this P has been removed from the game bullshit is just not true. Sure ZvP seems to be in an especially bad place and has been for a lot of this year but what about PvT? That matchup isn't so bad. Since the problems is in one matchup, specifically against Z maybe the problem is Z and not P, seems like a reasonable conclusion.
In general any time protoss late game isn't stronger than T and Z late game P whines, when P has the strongest late game its called just stop us from getting there but when its reversed then their race got deleted?
Also Blizz would notice if protoss would get deleted, because winrates would not be even. lol
What protoss players seem to take issue with, is that when they do find effective ways to actually stop them from getting there, they are drowned in public outrage and their units get nerfed. The most recent example being the 2019 gsl supertournament.
On October 18 2019 07:56 Shuffleblade wrote: While I can get behind complaints that Z seems too strong this P has been removed from the game bullshit is just not true. Sure ZvP seems to be in an especially bad place and has been for a lot of this year but what about PvT? That matchup isn't so bad. Since the problems is in one matchup, specifically against Z maybe the problem is Z and not P, seems like a reasonable conclusion.
In general any time protoss late game isn't stronger than T and Z late game P whines, when P has the strongest late game its called just stop us from getting there but when its reversed then their race got deleted?
Also Blizz would notice if protoss would get deleted, because winrates would not be even. lol
No, they can't just watch winrates, they need to observe the games. Winrates are not reflected in how people win, If winning lategame is nearly impossible, then you try rushes or hard timing attacks. A lot of balance will be hidden behind statistcs this way. Also statistics can hide balance at different levels. I much rather sacrifice a little balance in the lower leagues to have it balanced at the top, sadly I'm not so sure Blizzard thinks the same way. I for one don't wan't a balance where races are identified by different times during the game. all races should be as close to equal during the different timesegments of a game. Having unbalance in WHEN races are strong or week also makes games much less intresting to watch and over time the "lategame race" will learn to scout and identify different rushes/timings cause they only have to survive until a certain point to get a overwhelming advantage, this is especially true at the top I believe. The reality of the game right now, if Zerg survive to lategame they win most of the time, this is simply not fair. The game don't fully allow for macro-protoss or macro-terrans. Also, for a long time I've wondered how the game would look if you have the "macro-race" also the strongest lategame-race, now I know, not fun to either play or watch.
Sadly Blizzard is not famous to act fast or hard, the "wait and see" -approach seems to the most common, and "small tweaks to get there" is the usual remedy. So sad that "the world championship" this year will be stained by Blizzards hesitance when they should have acted a long time ago, I don't understand what they have to loose the game is unfair and unbalanced in so many ways at the moment that it can hardly be worse...
Imagine a Hockey game were one team have to score first and the other team automaticly wins if they reach the third period even score or in the lead... That's the current ZvP/T.
On October 18 2019 07:56 Shuffleblade wrote: While I can get behind complaints that Z seems too strong this P has been removed from the game bullshit is just not true. Sure ZvP seems to be in an especially bad place and has been for a lot of this year but what about PvT? That matchup isn't so bad. Since the problems is in one matchup, specifically against Z maybe the problem is Z and not P, seems like a reasonable conclusion.
In general any time protoss late game isn't stronger than T and Z late game P whines, when P has the strongest late game its called just stop us from getting there but when its reversed then their race got deleted?
Also Blizz would notice if protoss would get deleted, because winrates would not be even. lol
No, they can't just watch winrates, they need to observe the games. Winrates are not reflected in how people win, If winning lategame is nearly impossible, then you try rushes or hard timing attacks. A lot of balance will be hidden behind statistcs this way. Also statistics can hide balance at different levels. I much rather sacrifice a little balance in the lower leagues to have it balanced at the top, sadly I'm not so sure Blizzard thinks the same way. I for one don't wan't a balance where races are identified by different times during the game. all races should be as close to equal during the different timesegments of a game. Having unbalance in WHEN races are strong or week also makes games much less intresting to watch and over time the "lategame race" will learn to scout and identify different rushes/timings cause they only have to survive until a certain point to get a overwhelming advantage, this is especially true at the top I believe. The reality of the game right now, if Zerg survive to lategame they win most of the time, this is simply not fair. The game don't fully allow for macro-protoss or macro-terrans. Also, for a long time I've wondered how the game would look if you have the "macro-race" also the strongest lategame-race, now I know, not fun to either play or watch.
Sadly Blizzard is not famous to act fast or hard, the "wait and see" -approach seems to the most common, and "small tweaks to get there" is the usual remedy. So sad that "the world championship" this year will be stained by Blizzards hesitance when they should have acted a long time ago, I don't understand what they have to loose the game is unfair and unbalanced in so many ways at the moment that it can hardly be worse...
Imagine a Hockey game were one team have to score first and the other team automaticly wins if they reach the third period even score or in the lead... That's the current PvZ.
Didn't know it was a GM-reqirement to be allowed to post an opinion. I don't even play atm. I have never been higher then Masters if that should matter. I have been a persistent watcher of both pro BW and SC2. Starcraft has not been so uninteresting to watch as it is now, even the BL/infestor era during WoL was more interesting cause then there were at least "hail mary" options like the archon-toilet who made the games at least a bit tense.
On October 18 2019 07:56 Shuffleblade wrote: While I can get behind complaints that Z seems too strong this P has been removed from the game bullshit is just not true. Sure ZvP seems to be in an especially bad place and has been for a lot of this year but what about PvT? That matchup isn't so bad. Since the problems is in one matchup, specifically against Z maybe the problem is Z and not P, seems like a reasonable conclusion.
In general any time protoss late game isn't stronger than T and Z late game P whines, when P has the strongest late game its called just stop us from getting there but when its reversed then their race got deleted?
Also Blizz would notice if protoss would get deleted, because winrates would not be even. lol
No, they can't just watch winrates, they need to observe the games. Winrates are not reflected in how people win, If winning lategame is nearly impossible, then you try rushes or hard timing attacks. A lot of balance will be hidden behind statistcs this way. Also statistics can hide balance at different levels. I much rather sacrifice a little balance in the lower leagues to have it balanced at the top, sadly I'm not so sure Blizzard thinks the same way. I for one don't wan't a balance where races are identified by different times during the game. all races should be as close to equal during the different timesegments of a game. Having unbalance in WHEN races are strong or week also makes games much less intresting to watch and over time the "lategame race" will learn to scout and identify different rushes/timings cause they only have to survive until a certain point to get a overwhelming advantage, this is especially true at the top I believe. The reality of the game right now, if Zerg survive to lategame they win most of the time, this is simply not fair. The game don't fully allow for macro-protoss or macro-terrans. Also, for a long time I've wondered how the game would look if you have the "macro-race" also the strongest lategame-race, now I know, not fun to either play or watch.
Sadly Blizzard is not famous to act fast or hard, the "wait and see" -approach seems to the most common, and "small tweaks to get there" is the usual remedy. So sad that "the world championship" this year will be stained by Blizzards hesitance when they should have acted a long time ago, I don't understand what they have to loose the game is unfair and unbalanced in so many ways at the moment that it can hardly be worse...
Imagine a Hockey game were one team have to score first and the other team automaticly wins if they reach the third period even score or in the lead... That's the current ZvP/T.
I agree with your discussion on assymatrical balance design when it comes to different phases of the game. I believe the differences in strengths depending on the phase of the game in non mirror matchup is way to big, there can be differences but they need to be closer than they are now.
However most posters underestimate the complexity of assymatrical balance design, if you want races that are different but yet balanced what dimensions of the game should be absolutely balanced and which should be assymetrical? It is isn't so easy as to just balance the game at all phases, then the game either becomes stale or it needs to be more differences between the races in some other way. The standard example is counters, the other clear option besides different power spikes based on the phases is that there are clear cut counter units. It turns into a rock papper scissors game, I don't like that either and then there isn't many options left. The game turns into different races that play the same but look different, what we would call a flat strategy game lacking depth.
One example would be terran bio, they are so different from what zerg has (upgrades and units) making stim+combat shield+medivacs into a very strong phase in the game for a terran player in most situations. If you dont want terran to have a power spike there you either need to give zerg similar options or remove some of the terran units strengths, which means you are ironing out the defining differences between the races and making them more similar to each other. That is the option you need to choose if you want absolute balance in different phases of the game.
My argument was that if protoss would be deleted, in other words so unplayable no one chooses the race then it would show in the winrates. Blizz looks at winrates across the board but also each league individually, of course there can still be imbalance but no races is bloody deleted. Maybe they have 0.5% lower winrate, oh noes my life is over.
Well imagine if hockey was assymatrical and thus played in the way that the teams were so different from each other that one team for example had 8 legged 1 armed players that used ping pong rackets instead of clubs. How would that look
On October 18 2019 13:26 Majk wrote: Didn't know it was a GM-reqirement to be allowed to post an opinion. I don't even play atm. I have never been higher then Masters if that should matter. I have been a persistent watcher of both pro BW and SC2. Starcraft has not been so uninteresting to watch as it is now, even the BL/infestor era during WoL was more interesting cause then there were at least "hail mary" options like the archon-toilet who made the games at least a bit tense.
And yet when Rogue said Zerg OP people are ignoring it. It appears you can be only GM who's not good enough to win any big tournament to write here
On October 18 2019 13:26 Majk wrote: Didn't know it was a GM-reqirement to be allowed to post an opinion. I don't even play atm. I have never been higher then Masters if that should matter. I have been a persistent watcher of both pro BW and SC2. Starcraft has not been so uninteresting to watch as it is now, even the BL/infestor era during WoL was more interesting cause then there were at least "hail mary" options like the archon-toilet who made the games at least a bit tense.
And yet when Rogue said Zerg OP people are ignoring it. It appears you can be only GM who's not good enough to win any big tournament to write here
He said Zerg was too strong against Protoss which is what the statistics reflect, and what other pros seem to agree on.
On October 18 2019 13:26 Majk wrote: Didn't know it was a GM-reqirement to be allowed to post an opinion. I don't even play atm. I have never been higher then Masters if that should matter. I have been a persistent watcher of both pro BW and SC2. Starcraft has not been so uninteresting to watch as it is now, even the BL/infestor era during WoL was more interesting cause then there were at least "hail mary" options like the archon-toilet who made the games at least a bit tense.
And yet when Rogue said Zerg OP people are ignoring it. It appears you can be only GM who's not good enough to win any big tournament to write here
He said Zerg was too strong against Protoss which is what the statistics reflect, and what other pros seem to agree on.
Considering the original post it was about PvZ, wasn't it?
@Shuffleblade You are correct, there need to be diffrences, I agree on that. But giving Z the strongest lategame should at least now be proven (twice) the worst design. My main concern is whats fun to watch. The current state of the ZvX is horrendous. The only storyline atm is if Z will reach lategame, thats it. Look at NationWars, the teams strengths are decided by how many strong Z they have. And the BlizzCon will either be a ZvZ madness or a ZvX stomping in the end...
I ve just watched the TvT match up stream by wardi, and these patch is pretty exciting (only for mirror match for now)
For TvT
- +25 cost for interference matrix is what we need to go out of this mess - thor changes are awesome and synergize with reduce range of liberators - medivacs changes was needed since a long time imo - i think they were afraid of strenght of vikings against thors (and BC) but the results seems good - liberators upgrades in fusion core is a good design decision - blue flame is ok even if i think it was already strong
Finally only the battlecruisers teleport seems a bit boring (like nydus, obviously not fair in diamond league), and the timing cast looks too short (maybe 1,5 sec)
For TvZ
- I always find neural parasite interesting and strong and for now the timing of the spell doesn t seem to break Terrans - Infested terrans will be more used but they seems to lack something (maybe they can pop faster or walk a little bit faster to chase their prey. - Nydus summons timing is ofc needed
For P - Good to see the zealots charge coming back, even if the timing research seems deadly for a thrird base.. - I hope to see more voyd rays, hope the new design works
Only the upgrade of adept seems weird, it doesn t seems a good design - and the research is not so powerfull.. But i m not against new upgrades cause Protoss doesn t have so many SPELLS Upgrades. This upgrade could be stronger with research time a bit longer OR this kind of upgrades could required glaives
In definitive, it s a good adaptation patch it remains to my mind : - creeps tumors number must really depends of Queens number and the strategy from zerg players opening - New design of bunker has never been used.. Terrans can always spam planetary forteress and it s not worth it to invest in bunker near the creep or near a siege front line.. - Battlecruiser teleport could make an alert when an ennemy unit teleports into your base...
Something I just realized about this many changes this late in a games life span..
I'm not trying to be hateful against blizzard but how are they making changes to some of these units that have been around since WOL and they still cant get it right? I find this to be the most frustrating part because the community has always been vocal about the issues with the game, they just refuse to budge on (invincible nydus worm). They acknowledge the strength of it and still refuse to remove invulnerability? It just doesn't make sense. It literally advertises the fact that they have no clue what theyre doing.
They try to balance terran by giving or removing strength to upgrades...really? This is really lazy and shows that they have no vision.
Protoss changes? Some of them seem like they were thrown in as filler...an observer speed nerf? Still cant get the zealot right???
For the amount of time they take to put these changes out you would think there would be more thought put into it. I have read interesting ideas from people in the community before and the balance team wont give them a 2nd thought.
On October 19 2019 08:50 RandomPlayer416 wrote: Something I just realized about this many changes this late in a games life span..
I'm not trying to be hateful against blizzard but how are they making changes to some of these units that have been around since WOL and they still cant get it right? I find this to be the most frustrating part because the community has always been vocal about the issues with the game, they just refuse to budge on (invincible nydus worm). They acknowledge the strength of it and still refuse to remove invulnerability? It just doesn't make sense. It literally advertises the fact that they have no clue what theyre doing.
They try to balance terran by giving or removing strength to upgrades...really? This is really lazy and shows that they have no vision.
Protoss changes? Some of them seem like they were thrown in as filler...an observer speed nerf? Still cant get the zealot right???
For the amount of time they take to put these changes out you would think there would be more thought put into it. I have read interesting ideas from people in the community before and the balance team wont give them a 2nd thought.
Part of what one does have to understand is that WoL and LotV have had significant changes in between them. Some strategies that worked well in WoL don't work at all in LotV. In addition, the way creators make maps has changed significantly as well. Map design has a massive impact on balance, and for instance, the relatively easy second and third that we see more often now did not exist in WoL. Or take the reaper. It was used early in 2010 and 2011, but until its redesign, the unit was not as common in most matchups. Now, it's a mainstay in every matchup.
Second, oftentimes, it's just tweaks and minor map changes that are needed to change balance. Look at the Blink era in 2014. A large part of the imbalance was caused by maps having an exposed natural that blink stalkers could abuse. Blizzard overcorrected and swung the winrates in the opposite direction until we had the same number of TvT finals as we did PvP finals.
Also, I would like to add that the vocal SC2 community is very often wrong about balance. Or at least they're not getting the whole picture. Again, back in WoL, people complained that the colossi were imbalanced....and they were not. I remember quite clearly how people thought colossi/voidray was an unstoppable composition.
This isn't to say that the balance team hasn't made mistakes (and pretty massive ones at that). The Broodlord/infestor days, although not quite as imbalanced as people make it out to be, should have been changed earlier. The Swarmhost meta in HotS was extremely cancerous and should have been fixed.
TL;DR: WoL and LotV have some significant differences that make equating balance illogical, and the map pool has always affected balance, and sometimes minor tweaks are needed more than major design swings.
i honestly think zerg needs a heavy nerf. with terran they overdid it by making ravens useless, that was more than a nerf, it would be the same as if they removed neutral, and removed the dmg from fungal. . lastest patch did nothing towards zerg late game. i dont think this will fix zergs OPness in late game. with guys like rogue and serral being super honest about zerg being overpowered in late game its even more reason to do something with it.
4 zerg champs compeared to 1 T+1 P is horrible, that means Zerg is op, if it was just 1 guy being above everyone else like maru was it was ok. if serral was winning everything while we had 2 zergs in ro 16 and 1 in ro8, it would be fine, but with zergs overperforming like this they shouldnt nerf zergs with their gloves on. just remove the gloves, like they did with terran and ravens. for some reason they are super careful when nerfing zerg, and i do not know why. i honestly cant figure it out.
also a race being overpowered in late game is way worse than being overpowered in early or mid game, because you can turtle while being slightly behind in economy, and still get to late game.
I think all these forum discussion about Zergs comes from a misunderstanding in the lecture. While viewers are writing what they would like to see instead of OP late game Zergs, they didn t get the whole picture as it was said..
The main problem is deep but everybody can clearly understand it, it s just a question of phrasing between Blizzard and casual players. For now, it seems taboo to discuss about End game Zergs unless it was done separetly from queens, creep spreading mechanics and the OP army composition, .. I don t remmenber Blizzard talking about this synergy in just one of his patch. So of course, you understand Bliz fear to change "the heart of the swarm", losing a big part of his viewers and players.
All these things was done slowly and it s great.. Now i would be happy to hear Serral or Dark explaining what could be done like changes, which parts of the mechanics has to be study between in every features of the game.
To me, the only "change issue" is to force Zerg to make a gamble on their number of queens which will give a creep spread more or less faster. Actually, it should be like that but also in diamond league, generally Grand Masters players know every timing of push so they are always aware of an attack.. And they can spend time to create tumors.
If i was in charge of balance i would study this part of the game untill the mid-game (then see consequences on the End game) :
- the first idea could be to deal with visible tumors - the second idea is to calculate a cooldown and a new energy cost between injections/tumors.
On October 27 2019 13:01 greenturtle23 wrote: Ugh ZvP is so gross right now. Watching Elazer vs Trap right now, lategame zerg just roflstomps +3 air upgraded protoss.
I agree. I play Terran and think ZvP seems kind of unfair late game.
On October 19 2019 08:50 RandomPlayer416 wrote: Something I just realized about this many changes this late in a games life span..
I'm not trying to be hateful against blizzard but how are they making changes to some of these units that have been around since WOL and they still cant get it right? I find this to be the most frustrating part because the community has always been vocal about the issues with the game, they just refuse to budge on (invincible nydus worm). They acknowledge the strength of it and still refuse to remove invulnerability? It just doesn't make sense. It literally advertises the fact that they have no clue what theyre doing.
They try to balance terran by giving or removing strength to upgrades...really? This is really lazy and shows that they have no vision.
Protoss changes? Some of them seem like they were thrown in as filler...an observer speed nerf? Still cant get the zealot right???
For the amount of time they take to put these changes out you would think there would be more thought put into it. I have read interesting ideas from people in the community before and the balance team wont give them a 2nd thought.
Second, oftentimes, it's just tweaks and minor map changes that are needed to change balance. Look at the Blink era in 2014. A large part of the imbalance was caused by maps having an exposed natural that blink stalkers could abuse. Blizzard overcorrected and swung the winrates in the opposite direction until we had the same number of TvT finals as we did PvP finals.
This is one thing I still have regret in my mind over. I really wish they reverted some of the changes that were almost exclusively due to map issues in the past. For example, small maps made stim scv timings too strong. Or, the blink issue you mentioned. Well finally terran saw a revert in some way to the stim timing, but blink is something that hasn't even been looked at for YEARS due to the above issue mentioned.
I really wish we saw blink at least considered in the changes for reduced research time. It doesn't have to be anything huge, but the time it takes now feels like forever in comparison to things like charge or normal upgrades.
On October 27 2019 17:21 Parcelleus wrote: If you keep adding and taking away from a mess, then you still have a mess (bad foundations of design).
Just start again, fresh , and do it properly this time.
They don't have the resources as it looks like. At least that's what i think based on how long they "analyze" the issues before doing something about them.
Yeah this set of changes isn't going to cut it I don't think. I've been surprised before but ZvP needs a lot more than this infestor change, especially if they're nerfing some protoss stuff as well.
On October 27 2019 20:36 FBTsingLoong wrote: Do we know who is the chief developer in balance team?
Maybe someone from them: Rob Bridenbecker, Michael Scipione, Kevin "Mong" Dong? I believe there is no sc2 balance team. They are all working on different projects like W3:R but occasionally doing something in starcraft 2 too.
I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
I think I am going to stop following sc2 after blizzcon. The game isn't balanced and it hasn't been for a long time, but the imbalance has widened because good zergs have learned to abuse the broken strategies better.
I don't enjoy watching most of these games, they are unfair and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yeah, yeah, I know. "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well I actually care and this is really disappointing to me. Hopefully they'll fix this shit but I don't think it will happen remotely fast enough, in fact between balance problems and age and potentially waning interest in esports from the business side of sc2 - I'm not sure this game will last much more than 1 more year.
i've unfortunately stopped watching as well. the state of the game is shameful and kind of embarrassing. I want a complete overhaul at this point. Can't stand to watch the game i've loved for nearly a decade turn into this.
I agree that the global finals has been pretty rough to watch in terms of the zerg matchups. I do think think this map pool is making issues seem a lot worse in some cases. Thunderbird in particular seems to have produced a lot of bad games. It's just too difficult for protoss and terran to take 4ths and 5ths on it versus zerg. In several games so far the zerg has essentially starved out their opponent on 3 bases while expanding by targeting down the 4th, and there isn't much the opponent can do once they are at a bit of a disadvantage. Likewise with Triton, which is far too open and makes engaging zerg quite difficult. It was fine in the last map pool to have Acropolis because there were other maps that offered different advantages, but this pool is essentially 4-5 Acropolis-like maps that are huge with wide open expansions.
That last Reynor vs. Hero game showed why the 10 range lurker upgrade is a bad idea. Even with the current range, once enough lurkers are out they essentially begin to be like mass seige tanks and end up countering their counters. With 10 range you wouldn't really ever be able to storm them without having to sacrifice high templars, and groups of immortals would die before they would ever have the chance to actually kill more than one or two lurkers. It would force protoss to go air the same way broodlords and mech do.
I agree with the above posts that there needs to be substantially bigger changes than they've proposed if they want to solve the current issues the game has. Even with the infested terran changes, protoss still doesn't have the means of countering infestor/broodlord/corruptor/viper with static defence since fungal/neural + abduct can essentially whittle down an entire 3/3 protoss air army. Tempests are the theoretical solution but they attack too slow to ever be effective.
They need to revert the feedback nerf. Either that or make infestors have half the health they currently do so feedbacking a full energy infestor kills it or so other units have hopes of picking them off. There is still no protoss counter play to mass infestor other than hoping the zerg makes a mistake with micro.
I think the problem exists even before BL/Infester at this time at least in terms of PvZ. The timing for Protoss to even have a shot is to disrupt the economy enough before the Zerg can go into Nydus, because once Nydus is in place you cannot leave your base ever because the zerg literally reinforce faster than you as the defender, and this is completely ignoring Queen and Swarm Host abuses. Protoss simply has too low single target DPS per supply that you can't really split up your army and still finish off building Nydus reliably, and if you split up your forces to try to spot for Nydus and fail to kill them, you'll get snowballed by the huge army supply that can be instantly unloaded. Once you are pinned in your base, the Zerg just need to trade evenly or even slightly disfavored because they can expand all they want and slowly tech up into that BL/Infestor comp.
As others have said, large maps with big open areas also favored zerg's mechanics with numerous speedy but fragile zerglings and scouting information with creep tumor granting vision, but as far as the biggest issue I still think Nydus is the culprit.
On October 27 2019 23:00 travis wrote: I think I am going to stop following sc2 after blizzcon. The game isn't balanced and it hasn't been for a long time, but the imbalance has widened because good zergs have learned to abuse the broken strategies better.
I don't enjoy watching most of these games, they are unfair and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yeah, yeah, I know. "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well I actually care and this is really disappointing to me. Hopefully they'll fix this shit but I don't think it will happen remotely fast enough, in fact between balance problems and age and potentially waning interest in esports from the business side of sc2 - I'm not sure this game will last much more than 1 more year.
As a Protoss, 2019 has been really brutal. Like, really unreasonably brutal. PvZ was always a hard matchup, with the onus on the P to make things happen, but nowadays PvZ is just plain garbage. PvT was pretty bad too, but they made some headway with the EMP change...
Personally, I remember you being around this forum for a long time, and it would sadden me to see you peace out completely before the new patch can take effect. I actually think the new patch will have a great and positive impact on gameplay.
Overall it looks good, I'm definitely liking the style of this patch, units are nerfed but can be buffed back to their normal state.Hopefully this will slow the game down a bunch because in its current state early game is pretty much non-existent and mid game consists of one battle before late game units start coming out. Another 3-4 minutes onto the mid game would be good, adding a couple minutes to the early game might be good as well. I've always hated the huge speed increase that came with lotv.
I'm a bit sceptical on some of the changes. I'm not a big fan of the battlecruiser and raven nerf. They get limited exposure in pro games, nerfing them more could potentially make them even less used. Nydus could be overnerfed, but I guess a 50/50 mineral nydus on layer tech was kinda silly. Other changes seem reasonable, but I would've liked more terran buffs, then nerfing the other 2 races, but I guess it's easier to balance it that way...
The biggest problem seems to be around balancing protoss, I can't tell what it is, but watching the other match-ups even if you make smaller mistakes you could potentially bounce back with a defensive posture, when I watch protoss play PvZ you either attack the zerg and kill him or get rolled and die. Maybe it's because protoss units are slightly overpowered, but extremely slow and you either roll the opponent or pray to the recall to save your units, if you try to retreat slower expensive units die outright. I don't mind a slight speed increase of the HT and or something. Also I don't know why but protoss are not depending on cannons + tech units to protect their bases for some reason instead they make batteries and die or get harrassed by relatively small amout of units...
And yeah zerg which I can't even tell how it should be balanced, but at least watching top terrans struggle to outplay zergs is entertaining to watch. ZvP if it gets to late game is also entertaining, but Protoss just eventually dies in the end, which I think is do to zerg having vastly superior versatility and movement speed benefits that protoss can't match. Zerg on creep and with nydus just moves units around the map at 1-2 seconds time, while Protoss and Terran are forced to invest more in static defences in all their bases, when they skip on it they normally lose the economy and die.
I wonder if one of the ways to make Protoss viable in the late game would be by giving gateway units late-game upgrades. The Blizzard team seem to want to move towards this as evidenced by the adept changes but maybe if they gave a similar upgrade to the stalker which could be locked to say, the dark shrine, which would make it a viable unit in the late game could actually cause some really interesting changes design wise.
I think it's important to note that some changes are considered as more "experimental" than others.
Specifically, I noticed such wording on the Viking health buff, the battlecruiser nerf specifics, and the neural upgrade requirement change. I hope that neural without researching it doesn't make it through.
On October 27 2019 23:00 travis wrote: I think I am going to stop following sc2 after blizzcon. The game isn't balanced and it hasn't been for a long time, but the imbalance has widened because good zergs have learned to abuse the broken strategies better.
I don't enjoy watching most of these games, they are unfair and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yeah, yeah, I know. "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well I actually care and this is really disappointing to me. Hopefully they'll fix this shit but I don't think it will happen remotely fast enough, in fact between balance problems and age and potentially waning interest in esports from the business side of sc2 - I'm not sure this game will last much more than 1 more year.
thank you for saying this out loud. that someone of your reputation is comfortable with saying it how it is.
i have the same sentiment, watching these games and thinking to myself, this is'nt balanced.
Team liquid readers and posters have been thoroughly conditioned to grab the pitchforks when someone says 'Imbalance' and dismiss you as a wood league balance whiner, so thanks, again.
On October 27 2019 23:00 travis wrote: I think I am going to stop following sc2 after blizzcon. The game isn't balanced and it hasn't been for a long time, but the imbalance has widened because good zergs have learned to abuse the broken strategies better.
I don't enjoy watching most of these games, they are unfair and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yeah, yeah, I know. "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well I actually care and this is really disappointing to me. Hopefully they'll fix this shit but I don't think it will happen remotely fast enough, in fact between balance problems and age and potentially waning interest in esports from the business side of sc2 - I'm not sure this game will last much more than 1 more year.
It sounds a bit silly, these are all top players of course. It’s felt that Protoss are really pushing the absolute limits of their race just to keep vague parity for a while, while Zergs hadn’t been.
The nydus, has been a potent tool but only abused relatively recently to its full potential in this arms race, and it feels Protoss has kind of exhausted its arsenal.
On October 27 2019 23:00 travis wrote: I think I am going to stop following sc2 after blizzcon. The game isn't balanced and it hasn't been for a long time, but the imbalance has widened because good zergs have learned to abuse the broken strategies better.
I don't enjoy watching most of these games, they are unfair and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Yeah, yeah, I know. "don't let the door hit you on the way out". Well I actually care and this is really disappointing to me. Hopefully they'll fix this shit but I don't think it will happen remotely fast enough, in fact between balance problems and age and potentially waning interest in esports from the business side of sc2 - I'm not sure this game will last much more than 1 more year.
It sounds a bit silly, these are all top players of course. It’s felt that Protoss are really pushing the absolute limits of their race just to keep vague parity for a while, while Zergs hadn’t been.
The nydus, has been a potent tool but only abused relatively recently to its full potential in this arms race, and it feels Protoss has kind of exhausted its arsenal.
Nice post that kinda sums up how I feel on the matter wow, I think protoss and terran keep coming up with a new trick and new build and new playstyle and it just get nerfed, idk is it just me or is it any time zerg gets bodied by a strat they nerf it so it can get to late game, then they dont balance the game for late game because "each race should have advantages at different times" omega yikes
You know, I remember a time when Lategame PvZ was unplayable for the Z!
The oft-mentioned Fist of Neeb was literally unstoppable. We had carriers that made all other units in the game obsolete.
Let's not forget that there was a very long period of time in which Zerg had to Hydra bust on the 4th every game.
I'm a Protoss player, and yes it has been a miserable year... but things are gonna be improved with the next patch. Literally every patch has been an improvement to get us to the point where we are now: An ever improving RTS game.
Some people are vastly underestimating the nerf that is -1 range on neural parasite. The IT nerf is also a big one, while some argue that'll only be a small one, due to the extra theoretical DPS on naturally armored units. I don't think it'll be much of a threat any longer in the future. If anything, I think it might be too much of a nerf, for the reasons I've already stated.
On October 27 2019 21:57 Z3nith wrote: I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
For low level players Terran vs Protoss feels very frustrating to play, perhaps even as bad as PvZ is for Protoss. Pros feel the same way as far as I can tell (Maru being the possible exception). Personally as a Terran player I find TvP a lot harder than TvZ, so I'm hoping the nerfs to Zerg are actually targeted to help Protoss (not Terran), so that Protoss can safely be nerfed in PvT without further reducing Protoss viability vs Zerg.
I am surprised that people are losing interest in the game because of balance, as it's obvious that Zerg will be nerfed significantly after Blizzcon. A consensus has emerged and there's no way the balance team will ignore that. It's just a shame that the players had to compete at Blizzcon on this patch/map pool.
On October 27 2019 21:57 Z3nith wrote: I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
For low level players Terran vs Protoss feels very frustrating to play, perhaps even as bad as PvZ is for Protoss. Pros feel the same way as far as I can tell (Maru being the possible exception). Personally as a Terran player I find TvP a lot harder than TvZ, so I'm hoping the nerfs to Zerg are actually targeted to help Protoss (not Terran), so that Protoss can safely be nerfed in PvT without further reducing Protoss viability vs Zerg.
I am surprised that people are losing interest in the game because of balance, as it's obvious that Zerg will be nerfed significantly after Blizzcon. A consensus has emerged and there's no way the balance team will ignore that. It's just a shame that the players had to compete at Blizzcon on this patch/map pool.
Seems like you got what you want coming though. Vikings that go up to 150 HP will be very very useful. Colossi will be way less easy to defend. And the higher HP means that battles will last longer, which is what the Terran generally wants anyways. Plus, observer movement speed is being drastically reduced, so more Terran sorcery can emerge that we'll need to be able to scout out some other way.
On October 27 2019 21:57 Z3nith wrote: I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
For low level players Terran vs Protoss feels very frustrating to play, perhaps even as bad as PvZ is for Protoss. Pros feel the same way as far as I can tell (Maru being the possible exception). Personally as a Terran player I find TvP a lot harder than TvZ, so I'm hoping the nerfs to Zerg are actually targeted to help Protoss (not Terran), so that Protoss can safely be nerfed in PvT without further reducing Protoss viability vs Zerg.
I am surprised that people are losing interest in the game because of balance, as it's obvious that Zerg will be nerfed significantly after Blizzcon. A consensus has emerged and there's no way the balance team will ignore that. It's just a shame that the players had to compete at Blizzcon on this patch/map pool.
Seems like you got what you want coming though. Vikings that go up to 150 HP will be very very useful. Colossi will be way less easy to defend. And the higher HP means that battles will last longer, which is what the Terran generally wants anyways. Plus, observer movement speed is being drastically reduced, so more Terran sorcery can emerge that we'll need to be able to scout out some other way.
Yea, this is a really bad change for TvP, any way you look at it. I don't think they should try to mess with TvP at all for the time being.
On October 28 2019 06:37 Z3nith wrote: I wonder if one of the ways to make Protoss viable in the late game would be by giving gateway units late-game upgrades. The Blizzard team seem to want to move towards this as evidenced by the adept changes but maybe if they gave a similar upgrade to the stalker which could be locked to say, the dark shrine, which would make it a viable unit in the late game could actually cause some really interesting changes design wise.
This is actually something several of us brought up in a previous thread. I'd like to see upgrades that make gateway units themselves more useful in the lategame. For terran and zerg, the core units tend to keep being used throughout the game and remain useful, but that's not really the case with protoss. Zealots are essentially the only unit of the four core gateway units that actively gets used, and only really for suiciding into bases, or being used to absorb damage with the main army. There is stalker use against terran but not so much for sentries or adepts. Against zerg, stalkers, sentries, and adepts aren't all that useful outside of very specific compositions like recent blink/disruptor style. Prior to that stalkers were basically used as panic defense against brood lords, and neither sentries or adepts get made past 8-10 minutes.
I think some of the ideas people threw around in the last thread like a lategame upgrades for zealot movement speed so they can flank, stalker damage, or something to make adepts more useful like a damage boost upgrade would all be cool. Anything to move protoss away from essentially being forced to go for slow deathballs or mass air. Right now lategame protoss harass only really consists of throwing a bunch of zealots at bases either by walking them across the map or via a warp prism. Stalkers are too expensive to use as sacrificial harass units, and unless you have like 16 adepts with glaives, you aren't really ever going to do substantial damage with adepts unless the person messed up badly.
On October 27 2019 21:57 Z3nith wrote: I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
For low level players Terran vs Protoss feels very frustrating to play, perhaps even as bad as PvZ is for Protoss. Pros feel the same way as far as I can tell (Maru being the possible exception). Personally as a Terran player I find TvP a lot harder than TvZ, so I'm hoping the nerfs to Zerg are actually targeted to help Protoss (not Terran), so that Protoss can safely be nerfed in PvT without further reducing Protoss viability vs Zerg.
I am surprised that people are losing interest in the game because of balance, as it's obvious that Zerg will be nerfed significantly after Blizzcon. A consensus has emerged and there's no way the balance team will ignore that. It's just a shame that the players had to compete at Blizzcon on this patch/map pool.
Seems like you got what you want coming though. Vikings that go up to 150 HP will be very very useful. Colossi will be way less easy to defend. And the higher HP means that battles will last longer, which is what the Terran generally wants anyways. Plus, observer movement speed is being drastically reduced, so more Terran sorcery can emerge that we'll need to be able to scout out some other way.
I like the observer speed change a lot, as the speed is too forgiving currently in my opinion. They already give permanent, cloaked, F2-friendly vision of a large area, so they should not be so fast. I lose games to them all the time, even when I am looking for them.
I am also glad that Blizzard are looking at helping vs Colossi, but the Viking is problematic in TvT so I am not sure how I feel about that change.
Of course some of our current problems are due to the map pool rather than balance. The current maps are too big. Then in TvP there's the fact that map makers have embraced the blockable reaper jump gimmick which denies Terran scouting information. I'm not sure why these are a thing as there's no skill or interaction involved on either side - once any half-decent player knows where the buildings need to go, they are guaranteed to deny the reaper scout. Meanwhile it's considered obligatory to give Zergs a spot to park an overlord for free vision of the natural on every map.
On October 27 2019 21:57 Z3nith wrote: I just don't understand why they've decided to nerf Protoss when PvT seems to getting to a decent place now and PvZ is utterly imbalanced. If you look at the statistics for the global finals PvT is at 53% in favour of Protoss while PvZ is 61% in favour of Zerg.
For low level players Terran vs Protoss feels very frustrating to play, perhaps even as bad as PvZ is for Protoss. Pros feel the same way as far as I can tell (Maru being the possible exception). Personally as a Terran player I find TvP a lot harder than TvZ, so I'm hoping the nerfs to Zerg are actually targeted to help Protoss (not Terran), so that Protoss can safely be nerfed in PvT without further reducing Protoss viability vs Zerg.
I am surprised that people are losing interest in the game because of balance, as it's obvious that Zerg will be nerfed significantly after Blizzcon. A consensus has emerged and there's no way the balance team will ignore that. It's just a shame that the players had to compete at Blizzcon on this patch/map pool.
Seems like you got what you want coming though. Vikings that go up to 150 HP will be very very useful. Colossi will be way less easy to defend. And the higher HP means that battles will last longer, which is what the Terran generally wants anyways. Plus, observer movement speed is being drastically reduced, so more Terran sorcery can emerge that we'll need to be able to scout out some other way.
I like the observer speed change a lot, as the speed is too forgiving currently in my opinion. They already give permanent, cloaked, F2-friendly vision of a large area, so they should not be so fast. I lose games to them all the time, even when I am looking for them.
I am also glad that Blizzard are looking at helping vs Colossi, but the Viking is problematic in TvT so I am not sure how I feel about that change.
Of course some of our current problems are due to the map pool rather than balance. The current maps are too big. Then in TvP there's the fact that map makers have embraced the blockable reaper jump gimmick which denies Terran scouting information. I'm not sure why these are a thing as there's no skill or interaction involved on either side - once any half-decent player knows where the buildings need to go, they are guaranteed to deny the reaper scout. Meanwhile it's considered obligatory to give Zergs a spot to park an overlord for free vision of the natural on every map.
Yes. I say bring back Metalopolis, Desert Oasis, and other cool maps from history. It's a shame that balance has been forced on such large maps all the time. Let's get more strategic variation in the map pool please.
I checked the TvZ, ZvP and PvT winrates using liquipedia for WCS Global finals, GSL, IEM WC, ASUS ROG, GSL vs the World and Super tournaments (felt like WCS and WESG would've taken me too much time so I omitted those). I probably made some mistakes here and there because I added everything up in my head and it is probably possible that I got the races mixed up every now then when recording the matchup (most likely my most common error). Also, I guess just to make my process more transparent, I used the matchup statistics given in the GSL Code S and the rest I manually counted. Anyway, I hope i didn't make too many mistakes and that someone who has good grasp of technology could check if the numbers are okay. All said, the records I found were as follows:
By Matchup TvZ: 109-126 ZvP: 163-151 PvT: 150-115
By Race Z: 289-260 T: 224-276 P: 301-278
I don't really know when people started saying zerg was imba but if we just look at GSL Season 2 and 3, Super Tournament 2, ASUS ROG and WCS Global finals so far then the records are:
By Matchup TvZ: 60-79 ZvP: 103-94 PvT: 90-65
By Race Z: 182-154 T: 125-169 P: 184-168
Hope this post contributes to balance discussion.
Edit: lol realized I messed up and counted Dark vs TY as a 4-0 for Terran so I fixed the numbers for now.
Edit 2: Since the data is not exactly accurate, I would only take away that it does look like Zerg and Protoss have been strong this year while Terran has been weakest.
On October 28 2019 10:46 Anc13nt wrote: I checked the TvZ, ZvP and PvT winrates using liquipedia for WCS Global finals, GSL, IEM WC, ASUS ROG, GSL vs the World and Super tournaments (felt like WCS and WESG would've taken me too much time so I omitted those). I probably made some mistakes here and there because I added everything up in my head but the records I found were as follows:
I don't really know when people started saying zerg was imba but if we just look at GSL Season 2 and 3, Super Tournament 2, ASUS ROG and WCS Global finals so far then the records are:
On October 28 2019 10:46 Anc13nt wrote: I checked the TvZ, ZvP and PvT winrates using liquipedia for WCS Global finals, GSL, IEM WC, ASUS ROG, GSL vs the World and Super tournaments (felt like WCS and WESG would've taken me too much time so I omitted those). I probably made some mistakes here and there because I added everything up in my head but the records I found were as follows:
I don't really know when people started saying zerg was imba but if we just look at GSL Season 2 and 3, Super Tournament 2, ASUS ROG and WCS Global finals so far then the records are:
how about the data of present patch? prism nerfed and overlord buffed
good idea. I checked and the patch was August 16-17 but I don't know when it was implemented in tournaments. If someone could let me know that'd be great. Certainly, I'd have to omit GSL Season 2 and ASUS ROG but I'm not sure about GSL Season 3 as the patch happened in the middle of the tournament.
If we just look at WCS Global finals and Super Tournament 2 then
On October 28 2019 08:32 ThunderJunk wrote: You know, I remember a time when Lategame PvZ was unplayable for the Z!
The oft-mentioned Fist of Neeb was literally unstoppable. We had carriers that made all other units in the game obsolete.
Let's not forget that there was a very long period of time in which Zerg had to Hydra bust on the 4th every game.
I'm a Protoss player, and yes it has been a miserable year... but things are gonna be improved with the next patch. Literally every patch has been an improvement to get us to the point where we are now: An ever improving RTS game.
If by "improved" you mean "Protoss are dead" then yes I agree.
Blizzard really need to stop buffing units to make them get used and look at where gaps are in race’s options and fill them that way.
Lurkers are good units, at least in ZvZ and ZvP, they don’t get made because Infestors and Broods are just way better.
Now they’re contemplating giving Zerg 10 range lurkers via an upgrade, cutting research times etc. Which is fine if you’re significantly nerfing other things, which they’re not really doing, so Zerg get a buffed unit (ok unupgraded range is less), because it’s ‘not used enough’, which is because the other stuff they already had that isn’t hugely being nerfed is OP to begin with.
Ok they’re not ‘OP’ or anything now but teleporting BCs in an attempt to force them to be viable just makes for a silly gimmicky unit, you don’t have to have every single unit be frequently used for the game to be rich and vibrant.
18 pages on this topic (here) and millions of posts on reddit.. this is why SC2 has never been a balanced game. Blizzard caters too much to the public's opinion. Balance the game around the highest level of play and get feedback from the most knowledgeable (keyword here) progamers.
On October 28 2019 09:51 Justinian wrote: I like the observer speed change a lot, as the speed is too forgiving currently in my opinion. They already give permanent, cloaked, F2-friendly vision of a large area, so they should not be so fast. I lose games to them all the time, even when I am looking for them.
No offense, but the game isn't and shouldn't be balanced around you (or me) unless youre GM or something.
On October 28 2019 11:57 Wombat_NI wrote: Blizzard really need to stop buffing units to make them get used and look at where gaps are in race’s options and fill them that way.
Lurkers are good units, at least in ZvZ and ZvP, they don’t get made because Infestors and Broods are just way better.
Now they’re contemplating giving Zerg 10 range lurkers via an upgrade, cutting research times etc. Which is fine if you’re significantly nerfing other things, which they’re not really doing, so Zerg get a buffed unit (ok unupgraded range is less), because it’s ‘not used enough’, which is because the other stuff they already had that isn’t hugely being nerfed is OP to begin with.
Ok they’re not ‘OP’ or anything now but teleporting BCs in an attempt to force them to be viable just makes for a silly gimmicky unit, you don’t have to have every single unit be frequently used for the game to be rich and vibrant.
Regarding the Lurker buff - they are actually heavily nerfing the Infestor and BL.
I was watching Wardi's balance patch tournament in which it was all Pros taking part. In the games I saw, the traditional Zerg lategame (BL, infestor, corruptor) was getting absolutely stomped by the Protoss lategame. at like 30 minutes in, the units lost tab showed 40 infestors dead vs 4 carriers dead....insane.
The infested Terran nerf is huge. They are far less potent in direct engagement since they do not flood the ground space anymore and, despite having more dps per energy, still die to a single storm/liberator hit. It is FAR easier to control them now. The BL and Neural range nerfs are massive too. lower range neural makes the infestors insanely exposed. Brood lords can no longer zone HTs out/pick them off easy meaning storm is spammed non stop. Time Warp on Brood Lords is insane as now it basically means they are instakilled, since protoss army has greater range and can just move backwards and kill the already slow brood lords. I even saw mana's flux vane void rays, which were roaming around the golden armada deathball and zoning out any corruptors trying to get a good angle on carriers.
I think 10 range lurkers might be able to help in a lot of this, especially zoning out high templar.
After watching that balance patch tournament I think the infested terran nerf might be way too much. IDK how they are supposed to stand up to mass Terran range/Protoss AOE
On October 28 2019 14:28 TT1 wrote: 18 pages on this topic (here) and millions of posts on reddit.. this is why SC2 has never been a balanced game. Blizzard caters too much to the public's opinion. Balance the game around the highest level of play and get feedback from the most knowledgeable (keyword here) progamers.
The game can't be balance becausethe game is built on bad base(again forgot what's the right term). Queen is the biggest bandaind in history of SC2 and it's still in the game. Macro-vision-speed_boost-anti_air-anti_ground_healer OMG uber unit that has to do it all. And on top of that it doesn't cost larvae. How can you build a solid balanced game when every Zerg related issue was -
WCS
).
)
