|
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On May 22 2020 16:20 egrimm wrote:
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift.
you can't fix proxy robo without redesigning protoss race unless you wanna go weirder than what's now(e.g. shield battery has to be next to nexus, which is iffy and,as you say, inconsistent  )
|
On May 22 2020 16:27 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 16:20 egrimm wrote:
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift. you can't fix proxy robo without redesigning protoss race unless you wanna go weirder than what's now(e.g. shield battery has to be next to nexus, which is iffy and,as you say, inconsistent )
That's true so instead of trying to implement a bandaid hotfix which we even don't know how will fare and impact non mirror PvX matchups I'd rather wait and work on actual protoss redesign.
Right now battery overcharge might become next photon overcharge which will not only worsen the interactions in PvX but also sooner or later be replaced with something more thought out (shield battery)
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On May 22 2020 17:46 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 16:27 deacon.frost wrote:On May 22 2020 16:20 egrimm wrote:
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift. you can't fix proxy robo without redesigning protoss race unless you wanna go weirder than what's now(e.g. shield battery has to be next to nexus, which is iffy and,as you say, inconsistent ) That's true so instead of trying to implement a bandaid hotfix which we even don't know how will fare and impact non mirror PvX matchups I'd rather wait and work on actual protoss redesign. Right now battery overcharge might become next photon overcharge which will not only worsen the interactions in PvX but also sooner or later be replaced with something more thought out (shield battery)
On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought. so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn  (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live) Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:23 Big J wrote:
As always the Zerg and Terran stuff looks like nice little balance tweaking while the Protoss stuff is mostly just weirdo crap (the feedback change is the exception). Blizzard never knew what to do with the race and they are still clueless. Somewhere in LotV they were on the right track when they finetuned unit stats, but it seems like they are back to experimenting with changes to break some deeply flawed XvP metagame (in this case PvP). Remove warpgate, move it to the lategame, re-balance gateway units around that. THERE. Now you have defenders advantage in PvP and generally in every vP Also now you can most probably remove the shield battery as gateway units are stronger
But let's face it, Blizzard won't spend that much time into balancing and redesigning Protoss.
|
On May 22 2020 18:36 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 17:46 egrimm wrote:On May 22 2020 16:27 deacon.frost wrote:On May 22 2020 16:20 egrimm wrote:
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift. you can't fix proxy robo without redesigning protoss race unless you wanna go weirder than what's now(e.g. shield battery has to be next to nexus, which is iffy and,as you say, inconsistent ) That's true so instead of trying to implement a bandaid hotfix which we even don't know how will fare and impact non mirror PvX matchups I'd rather wait and work on actual protoss redesign. Right now battery overcharge might become next photon overcharge which will not only worsen the interactions in PvX but also sooner or later be replaced with something more thought out (shield battery) Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought. so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live) On May 20 2020 18:23 Big J wrote:
As always the Zerg and Terran stuff looks like nice little balance tweaking while the Protoss stuff is mostly just weirdo crap (the feedback change is the exception). Blizzard never knew what to do with the race and they are still clueless. Somewhere in LotV they were on the right track when they finetuned unit stats, but it seems like they are back to experimenting with changes to break some deeply flawed XvP metagame (in this case PvP). Remove warpgate, move it to the lategame, re-balance gateway units around that. THERE. Now you have defenders advantage in PvP and generally in every vP Also now you can most probably remove the shield battery as gateway units are stronger But let's face it, Blizzard won't spend that much time into balancing and redesigning Protoss.
To be honest as much I agree that the big Warpgate redesign would be beneficial while not being realistic I do believe that the exact Proxy Robo issue could be resolved other way while not being a band aid and also working nicely if the Warpgate redesign actually *would* happen.
Here is how imho:
The Proxy Robo issue comes mostly from 2 factors:
1. Immortals being really strong 1v1 unit, probably the strongest P unit relatively easy to get to in early game as it can be obtained without any additional advanced tech structures and/or upgrades
2. Great synergy with warp prism which also is being produced out of robo which further exacerbates the issue
I will focus on 1st point as changing the Warp Prism affects a lot of other interactions in other matchups too.
Simple nerf to immortal will almost surely make PvZ totally imbalanced so that is a no go.
However if we made immortal scale through out the game we would postpone its strength. Immortal would be weaker early game while maintaining its current strength in the later stages of the game.
My 1st proposal would be:
1. Immortals barrier is now a upgrade at CyberCore available after the robo is built. Cost: Low (like 50/50) Time: Mid (like 80s)
2. To compensate decrease immortal cost back to 250/100
Then the 2nd proposal would be to "scale down" immortal from 4 supply unit to 3 supply unit - basically multiply immortal stats and cost by 3/4.
We would get a unit like:
Cost: 175/75
Supply/cargo: 3
Time: 29
Health/Shield: 150/75
Dmg: 15/+22 vs Armored
That should make Immortal more managable unit by the opponent and also less commital and pivotal from the Protoss player view
3rd proposal would be less important/impactful:
Replace barrier ability back with reworked Hardened Shield.
reworked Hardened Shield works the same way as the original ability however instead of always reducing the dmg to 10 it reduces the incoming damage by 50%.
That way the unit interactions with immortal would be less binary
|
On May 22 2020 18:57 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 18:36 deacon.frost wrote:On May 22 2020 17:46 egrimm wrote:On May 22 2020 16:27 deacon.frost wrote:On May 22 2020 16:20 egrimm wrote:
Current batch of changes seems mostly alright.
I am not a fan of WM change and Battery overcharge.
First will not change much in the overall game interactions but makes the game mechanics more obfuscate as normally you need to upgrade the unit with some research instead of just finishing a building - it is just inconsistent.
Second is just a bandaid to proxy robo play which I'd rather prefer to address other way and try to fix the actual cause not the effects of it.
I'd also would wait a bit with patch integration to live version of the game as we now seem to experience the metagame shift. you can't fix proxy robo without redesigning protoss race unless you wanna go weirder than what's now(e.g. shield battery has to be next to nexus, which is iffy and,as you say, inconsistent ) That's true so instead of trying to implement a bandaid hotfix which we even don't know how will fare and impact non mirror PvX matchups I'd rather wait and work on actual protoss redesign. Right now battery overcharge might become next photon overcharge which will not only worsen the interactions in PvX but also sooner or later be replaced with something more thought out (shield battery) On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +This new change should impact PvZ more so than TvZ as a much greater proportion of the typical mid game Protoss army is non-light compared to the typical mid game Terran bio army. After this change, smaller non-light units such as Marauders, Roaches, Stalkers, and Siege Tanks will generally take one additional hit from Banelings while beefier units such as Thor, Archons, and Immortals will generally take more. Really ? A maraudeur has 125 hit points 7*20-7 = 133 7*18-7 = 119 No need to an additional baneling...Anyway this is a good change direction.. The shift of 2 damage seems very little but it can be enought. so my Nestea style of playing will be harder? damn (a-move them banelings and let their god decide who's gonna live) On May 20 2020 18:23 Big J wrote:
As always the Zerg and Terran stuff looks like nice little balance tweaking while the Protoss stuff is mostly just weirdo crap (the feedback change is the exception). Blizzard never knew what to do with the race and they are still clueless. Somewhere in LotV they were on the right track when they finetuned unit stats, but it seems like they are back to experimenting with changes to break some deeply flawed XvP metagame (in this case PvP). Remove warpgate, move it to the lategame, re-balance gateway units around that. THERE. Now you have defenders advantage in PvP and generally in every vP Also now you can most probably remove the shield battery as gateway units are stronger But let's face it, Blizzard won't spend that much time into balancing and redesigning Protoss. To be honest as much I agree that the big Warpgate redesign would be beneficial while not being realistic I do believe that the exact Proxy Robo issue could be resolved other way while not being a band aid and also working nicely if the Warpgate redesign actually *would* happen. Here is how imho: The Proxy Robo issue comes mostly from 2 factors: 1. Immortals being really strong 1v1 unit, probably the strongest P unit relatively easy to get to in early game as it can be obtained without any additional advanced tech structures and/or upgrades 2. Great synergy with warp prism which also is being produced out of robo which further exacerbates the issue I will focus on 1st point as changing the Warp Prism affects a lot of other interactions in other matchups too. Simple nerf to immortal will almost surely make PvZ totally imbalanced so that is a no go. However if we made immortal scale through out the game we would postpone its strength. Immortal would be weaker early game while maintaining its current strength in the later stages of the game. My 1st proposal would be: 1. Immortals barrier is now a upgrade at CyberCore available after the robo is built. Cost: Low (like 50/50) Time: Mid (like 80s) 2. To compensate decrease immortal cost back to 250/100 Then the 2nd proposal would be to "scale down" immortal from 4 supply unit to 3 supply unit - basically multiply immortal stats and cost by 3/4. We would get a unit like: Cost: 175/75 Supply/cargo: 3 Time: 29 Health/Shield: 150/75 Dmg: 15/+22 vs Armored That should make Immortal more managable unit by the opponent and also less commital and pivotal from the Protoss player view 3rd proposal would be less important/impactful: Replace barrier ability back with reworked Hardened Shield. reworked Hardened Shield works the same way as the original ability however instead of always reducing the dmg to 10 it reduces the incoming damage by 50%. That way the unit interactions with immortal would be less binary
I think you hit the nail on the head, the problem is likely to be immortal and wp synergy. In my opinion the problem is how immortals have long cd on their attacks and their attacks are pretty immediate. I think immortal strength could stay the same while weakening the two immortal x wp powerspike. Either introduce a CD on attacks after being dropped (would be fine with that for medivacs too btw), make immortals attack not instantaneous or make their attackspeed higher while lowering damage. Any of these Changes could keep the overall strength of the unit whiel nerfing the powerspike of immortal x wp synnergy.
|
I heard a lot that the terran resurgence was connected to the map pool favoring them a lot.
It's possible that the new patch makes terran broken on this map pool but also allows for a more diverse map pool where TvZ doesn't look silly.
I don't really know how this works specifically but surely you'd have to wait for the next map pool before you declare TvZ is over.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On May 22 2020 23:20 Nebuchad wrote:
I heard a lot that the terran resurgence was connected to the map pool favoring them a lot.
It's possible that the new patch makes terran broken on this map pool but also allows for a more diverse map pool where TvZ doesn't look silly.
I don't really know how this works specifically but surely you'd have to wait for the next map pool before you declare TvZ is over.
IMO the issue is that we don't have the data from the best. Rogue played like he's suffering from a serious hangover. soO played like he's given up already. Only Dark played like he's trying and he didn't seem to be exactly playing well. (I don't follow foreigners so I don't know what zWCS produced)
That's top 3 zergs where 2 didn't even try to play properly.
|
On May 20 2020 12:52 BonitiilloO wrote:
i like the changes made, SC2 is hopefully becoming a BW alike in term of no more balance near soon, is good to me.
I don't think we'll ever get to that point honestly
|
and we shouldnt. regular balance patches are a good thing.
|
On May 23 2020 00:59 freelifeffs wrote:
and we shouldnt. regular balance patches are a good thing.
I agree. I like the variety it induces in gameplay
|
Bisutopia19384 Posts
On May 23 2020 00:11 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 23:20 Nebuchad wrote:
I heard a lot that the terran resurgence was connected to the map pool favoring them a lot.
It's possible that the new patch makes terran broken on this map pool but also allows for a more diverse map pool where TvZ doesn't look silly.
I don't really know how this works specifically but surely you'd have to wait for the next map pool before you declare TvZ is over. IMO the issue is that we don't have the data from the best. Rogue played like he's suffering from a serious hangover. soO played like he's given up already. Only Dark played like he's trying and he didn't seem to be exactly playing well. (I don't follow foreigners so I don't know what zWCS produced) That's top 3 zergs where 2 didn't even try to play properly.
I felt that way about soO from his GSL games, but he sure played hard in the TSL. In regards to maps, I think 100% the maps help Terrans in TvZ, but it isn't OP. Honestly, it just makes the games really competitive. You know that SC2 is reaching a healthy state when maps can even the balance without patches needed. It has been that way for a decade in BW. I'm excited to see SC2 positively affected by the current map pool.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On May 23 2020 01:40 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On May 23 2020 00:11 deacon.frost wrote:On May 22 2020 23:20 Nebuchad wrote:
I heard a lot that the terran resurgence was connected to the map pool favoring them a lot.
It's possible that the new patch makes terran broken on this map pool but also allows for a more diverse map pool where TvZ doesn't look silly.
I don't really know how this works specifically but surely you'd have to wait for the next map pool before you declare TvZ is over. IMO the issue is that we don't have the data from the best. Rogue played like he's suffering from a serious hangover. soO played like he's given up already. Only Dark played like he's trying and he didn't seem to be exactly playing well. (I don't follow foreigners so I don't know what zWCS produced) That's top 3 zergs where 2 didn't even try to play properly. I felt that way about soO from his GSL games, but he sure played hard in the TSL. In regards to maps, I think 100% the maps help Terrans in TvZ, but it isn't OP. Honestly, it just makes the games really competitive. You know that SC2 is reaching a healthy state when maps can even the balance without patches needed. It has been that way for a decade in BW. I'm excited to see SC2 positively affected by the current map pool.
Before many were saying the map pool is zerg friendly. The last Protoss friendly map pool ended with MSC nerfs 
|
to me the new shield ability is a bit too much but i get it .. i think.
i would like a simpler thing which would maybe address some bullshit play styles as well.
to have shield batteries start with 0 energy (nerf, dont build it on other peoples yard plz)
batteries close to a nexus (range 8) would start with full (as now)
but would have increased effectiveness (buff, increase energy:shield rate by 50%).
we already have the speed warp in mechanic so range dependent behavior is not unheard of.
|
Which map features help Protoss more than Terran? Both benefit in general from more terrain features because their heavy hitters tend to have a lot of range, but Terran benefits more because they're the "ranged glass-cannon + positional siege units race".
There are very specific things that Protoss care about (like whether ramps are force-fieldable or not), but they seem like edge-cases.
So, how do you craft a Protoss friendly map-pool that doesn't help Terran at least as much?
|
On May 23 2020 03:01 Athenau wrote:
Which map features help Protoss more than Terran? Both benefit in general from more terrain features because their heavy hitters tend to have a lot of range, but Terran benefits more because they're the "ranged glass-cannon + positional siege units race".
There are very specific things that Protoss care about (like whether ramps are force-fieldable or not), but they seem like edge-cases.
So, how do you craft a Protoss friendly map-pool that doesn't help Terran at least as much?
Big ledges next to bases that are 2 tiers hgh so can’t be used by reaper but rock for blink allin
Also toss tend to benefit more than Terran from having realy tight natural areas, where as for Terran if thier is a cliff adjacent to the natural entrance it’s a huge deal defensively. Terran also realy benefit from having a tank spot in the natural or main that covers the third where as toss want a third that they can wall easily enough vs zerg but, does not have strong tank abusable feature really
Toss also care a lot about abusable area around the nat and in the main for canons, Terran don’t.
|
Aligulac has TvZ at 50% winrate for three months straight.
|
Sooo does Blizz watch GSL?
+ Show Spoiler +
Does not look like Protoss and Terran need buffs and Zerg nerfs ....
Maybe they should wait a bit longer
|
On May 24 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:Sooo does Blizz watch GSL? + Show Spoiler +Does not look like Protoss and Terran need buffs and Zerg nerfs .... Maybe they should wait a bit longer
when i see posts like this i wonder if people just post after looking at results, or are we even watching the same group stages? if you did watch them, how did you come to this conclusion? i mean, one of the top zergs even merked himself this season. idk what else u expect lol
tl;dr
did u even watch gsl?
|
On May 24 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:Sooo does Blizz watch GSL? + Show Spoiler +Does not look like Protoss and Terran need buffs and Zerg nerfs .... Maybe they should wait a bit longer when i see posts like this i wonder if people just post after looking at results, or are we even watching the same group stages? if you did watch them, how did you come to this conclusion? i mean, one of the top zergs even merked himself this season. idk what else u expect lol tl;dr did u even watch gsl?
I did. And if Parting didn't play the match of his life we would have 4 Terrans in the Ro4.
What's the point of your post?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kIn11ml.png)
