|
https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/23429406
New thoughts and changes. A little More at link:
Let’s go over a few key changes and whether we’ll be keeping them as is or making alterations.
Queens
Previously Proposed Change:
Anti-air weapon range decreased from 8 to 7.
After watching tournament games, we don’t have strong concerns surrounding this change, and we don’t have strong reason to believe that it would drastically impact ZvT more than ZvP. Our initial concerns surrounding the Battlecruiser vs. Queen interaction were assuaged as while there were very few Battlecruiser openings from Terrans in the tournament, they were all defended about as soundly as before. In addition, we’ve received feedback that the Queen range change is more impactful versus Banshees and Liberators than versus Battlecruisers. On the Protoss side, Oracles escaped from Queens with 1HP remaining on multiple occasions.
Creep Tumors
Previously Proposed Changes:
“Armored” attribute removed.
“Light” attribute added.
While we were initially skeptical of how this change would impact ZvT relative to ZvP, we feel comfortable going forward with the change after reviewing the tournament games. Very few additional Tumors were killed by Hellions as a result of the change, which we believe is because Hellions fall off pretty quickly in a typical bio-based ZvT, and top-level Zerg players have gotten pretty good at protecting Creep Tumors in early game. Meanwhile, we saw multiple instances of attempted Tumor assassinations from Protoss players that wouldn’t have occurred in the past.
Baneling
Previously Proposed Changes:
Centrifugal Hooks no longer grants Banelings +5 HP.
Centrifugal Hooks cost decreased from 150/150 to 100/100.
We agree with feedback that the previously proposed Baneling changes would impact ZvT greater than ZvP and, as such, we won’t be moving forward with these changes. However, we still want to make some adjustment to Banelings for ZvP. When we asked for further feedback about the difficulty of late game PvZ, the responses generally did not involve specific unit interactions in late game (apart from Feedback vs. Abduct). Rather, many responses focused on the generally favorable positions Zerg players could enter late game with. Notable examples included unfettered creep spread, high drone counts, and the ease of defending pushes. As Banelings are generally the core unit Zerg players use to defend pre-Hive Protoss timings, we believe targeting the combat effectiveness of Banelings would force Zerg players to transition to late game less greedily.
New Change:
Baneling weapon damage changed from 20 (+15 vs light) to 18 (+17 vs light).
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.
Oracles
Previously Proposed Changes:
Revelation energy cost decreased from 50 to 25.
Revelation cooldown increased from 2 seconds to 10 seconds.
Revelation duration decreased from 30 seconds to 15 seconds.
Of all the proposed changes, we were most pleasantly surprised by how much this was utilized with almost every Protoss player employing it to some degree of effectiveness in PvZ. We were also surprised by the uptick in mid game usage simply to check up on opponents’ armies and are excited to see how future Oracle usage will evolve.
Battery Overcharge
Previously Proposed Changes:
New ability: “Battery Overcharge”
Effect: Overcharges a target Shield Battery, increasing its shield restoration rate by 100% and causing it to regenerate 100 energy over 21 seconds.
Cost: 75 Energy
Cooldown: 0 seconds
Range: 8
New Changes:
New ability: “Battery Overcharge”
Effect: Overcharges a target Shield Battery near a Nexus, increasing its shield restoration rate by 100% and allowing it to restore shields without consuming energy for 14 seconds.
Cost: 50 Energy
Cooldown: 60 seconds (shared by all Nexuses)
Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus)
Our initial iteration of Battery Overcharge had some usability concerns stemming from the fact that Nexuses could only Overcharge Batteries adjacent to themselves, but not other Nexuses globally. The initial restriction was put in place due to a concern of the ability being too powerful in late game when all your Nexuses could be used to Overcharge a single large cluster of Shield Batteries. However, we realize the awkwardness of this implementation and ideally would not want to drastically alter how players utilize Chrono Boost. Therefore, we’ll be removing this restriction and instead address our concerns by placing a global cooldown on the ability a la Strategic Recall.
Next, while we’ve received feedback that the ability is effective at encouraging macro play past three bases (as evidenced by the large number of 4+ base PvPs in the BTM tournament), we believe it’s not effective enough at defending against proxy Immortal builds for two reasons. First, the ability would not be ready for the initial standard 4-Stalker 1-Immortal poke at its typical timing. Additionally, we believe there’s still a bit too much energy tension on your two initial Nexuses as we expect both Chrono Boost and Battery Overcharge usage to be key in defending Proxy Robotics builds. While the changes described in the last paragraph partially alleviate our concerns, we’d like to go even further by reducing the energy cost of the ability, which we feel comfortable with due to the ability’s newly introduced global cooldown.
Finally, we’d like to address another oddity with the ability. In the previous iteration, players were encouraged to Overcharge Batteries with near-full energy to receive the greatest benefits. We felt this could induce decision paralysis on the part of the player and promote somewhat undesirable behaviors, such as turning Batteries on and off autocast. In order to address this, we’ve redesigned the ability to be agnostic of the current energy of the targeted Battery and reduced its duration to maintain a somewhat similar power level with slightly different strengths and weaknesses.
Conclusion
By the time this blog goes up, these changes will have been updated on the Balance Test Mod for players to practice on. Barring bug fixes, these will be the final changes reflected in the next balance patch, which is currently scheduled to be released in early June, after the finals of a few major tournaments.
Full list
TERRAN
Widow Mine
Drilling Claws upgrade no longer grants Widow Mines invisibility. Instead, the existence of an Armory will grant Widow Mines invisibility.
The red laser attachment for Widow Mines will now communicate the existence of an Armory instead of the existence of the Drilling Claws upgrade.
ZERG
Queen
Anti-air weapon range decreased from 8 to 7.
Baneling
Weapon damage changed from 20 (+15 vs light) to 18 (+17 vs light).
Infestor
Microbial Shroud no longer requires an upgrade.
Creep Tumor
“Armored” attribute removed.
“Light” attribute added.
PROTOSS
Nexus
New ability: “Battery Overcharge”
Effect: Overcharges a target Shield Battery near a Nexus, increasing its shield restoration rate by 100% and allowing it to restore shields without consuming energy for 14 seconds.
Cost: 50 Energy
Cooldown: 60 seconds (shared by all Nexuses)
Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus)
Oracle
Revelation energy cost decreased from 50 to 25.
Revelation cooldown increased from 2 seconds to 10 seconds.
Revelation duration decreased from 30 seconds to 15 seconds.
High Templar
Feedback range increased from 9 to 10
|
Good changes all around. Battery overcharge sounds pretty strong for earlygame defense in PvT and PvZ though, probably worth keeping an eye on. Though maybe that's what they had in mind with the WM changes and so forth.
Stolen from reddit:
- Normal battery: restore 300 shields over 6 seconds
- Initial version in test map: restore 300 shields over 3 seconds, then another 300 shields over 21 seconds
- New proposal: restore 1400 shields over 14 seconds, reduce cost to 50 nexus energy, make available from any nexus, all without using any battery energy (allowing battery to restore another 300 shields over 6 seconds)
|
Dominican Republic627 Posts
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 feel like these changes might shift the meta quite a bit, but after being away from them for a month I actually feel like they're really not going to change the game that much. One of the few things I do agree with noregret on is that bigger changes would be much more interesting. It's just too bad the game doesn't have the same dev team available to it anymore. There are so many reworks for protoss that would make the game dynamics so much more interesting, and have been talked about since before HotS, but were just never chased.
at least give us voice packs for units to bw sounds pls thx
|
I'm delighted they scraped the HP nerf for banelings and went into a damage nerf instead since this is exactly what I was advocating for. My proposal was to nerf the damage bonus from 2 to 1 for each melee upgrade so that 1: +2 banelings couldn't one shot probe anymore and 2: banelings would generally scale a bit worse in mid to late game. This change makes more sense as it nerfs baneling's role as a core unit and specialize it more against light-based compositions. Expect very marauder heavy comp in late game tvz!
The battery overcharge seems incredibly strong in the early game now. I get that PvP needs drastic change to improve, but 1400 shields regen for 50 nexus energy, really?? I sincerely hope this doesn't turn into the new HotS nexus overcharge, which killed basically every aggressive TvP opening for the first 6 minutes or so of the game.
I'm also not a fan of the widow mine change. This combined with the new battery overcharge could make widow mine drop the new de facto standard tvp opening, which it kind or already is. I hope this doesn't kill the decent opening variety we see in TvP at the moment.
|
On May 20 2020 13:35 fastr wrote:
I'm delighted they scraped the HP nerf for banelings and went into a damage nerf instead since this is exactly what I was advocating for. My proposal was to nerf the damage bonus from 2 to 1 for each melee upgrade so that 1: +2 banelings couldn't one shot probe anymore and 2: banelings would generally scale a bit worse in mid to late game. This change makes more sense as it nerfs baneling's role as a core unit and specialize it more against light-based compositions. Expect very marauder heavy comp in late game tvz!
The battery overcharge seems incredibly strong in the early game now. I get that PvP needs drastic change to improve, but 1400 shields regen for 50 nexus energy, really?? I sincerely hope this doesn't turn into the new HotS nexus overcharge, which killed basically every aggressive TvP opening for the first 6 minutes or so of the game.
I'm also not a fan of the widow mine change. This combined with the new battery overcharge could make widow mine drop the new de facto standard tvp opening, which it kind or already is. I hope this doesn't kill the decent opening variety we see in TvP at the moment.
I've always been a fan of mass WM openers, like when Maru kept on sending in medivacs not so much for the probe kills but just forcing Protoss to defend while he macroed up behind it. With cloak I think there's some potential for Protoss missing a few here or there.
Though I think battery overcharge won't actually make a huge difference w.r.t. tank pushes. Protoss still wants to engage Terran out on the map, and if Terran does get sieged up outside a base Protoss always tries to blink on top of the tanks. Which is to say, outside battery range.
|
40% Zerg winrate, and one in GSL Ro8 + devastating nerfs sounds like a well thought out idea not influenced by the best performing race whining whatsoever (pls don’t warn me for truthing lol)
|
Indeed. I don't think that Zerg needs to be nerfed in current balance state. I understand that Protoss needs some help maybe, but I feel like Zerg is the weakest race nowadays concidering Blizzcon changes. Transitioning into late game is pretty much hard for Z already. I don't think nerfing this race will help, it will just force Zerg into midgame or early game allins. Kill or die. And to be honest why would they go to lategame, as both lg options are so bad. Broodlords were nerfed to the ground, Infestors are pretty much useless without infested terrans, and Ultras are stupid cows as always dying from small packs of bio as usual.
|
Would have loved to see -5HP to banelings but overall not a bad update I think
|
Not giving banes the -5hp feels like a "fuck you" to every bio terran tbh.
|
On May 20 2020 14:15 Luolis wrote:
Not giving banes the -5hp feels like a "fuck you" to every bio terran tbh.
Hence why the change didn't go through, since it was meant to focus on PvZ
|
On May 20 2020 14:15 Luolis wrote:
Not giving banes the -5hp feels like a "fuck you" to every bio terran tbh.
but now marauders and thors can tank banelings like a chad
this helps both high skilled players and low skilled players tho
|
On May 20 2020 14:35 Solar424 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 14:15 Luolis wrote:
Not giving banes the -5hp feels like a "fuck you" to every bio terran tbh. Hence why the change didn't go through, since it was meant to focus on PvZ
Yep, that's the sad part :D
|
On May 20 2020 14:05 hiroshOne wrote:
Indeed. I don't think that Zerg needs to be nerfed in current balance state. I understand that Protoss needs some help maybe, but I feel like Zerg is the weakest race nowadays concidering Blizzcon changes. Transitioning into late game is pretty much hard for Z already. I don't think nerfing this race will help, it will just force Zerg into midgame or early game allins. Kill or die. And to be honest why would they go to lategame, as both lg options are so bad. Broodlords were nerfed to the ground, Infestors are pretty much useless without infested terrans, and Ultras are stupid cows as always dying from small packs of bio as usual.
but zerg could potentially go out of control with a less bias map pool so i think dese changes are fine bar the queen s nerf
|
On May 20 2020 14:15 Luolis wrote:
Not giving banes the -5hp feels like a "fuck you" to every bio terran tbh.
TvZ is pretty balanced right now and Queens Nerv still gets through.
Protoss is stugeling vs Z, that s what all these changes are aming for.
All of this looks realy good to me, tbh. The shield battery change looks like even more powerfull now. The Country will most likely be to burst the overcharged batterie down every Single time...
|
Ro8 of GSL contains 1 Zerg, 3 Protoss, and 4 Terrans. If there's anyone who struggles right now it's Zerg. Look at Clem how he skyrockets in ZvT for example. Is it coincident? I don't think so. Clem is very good, but suddenly he smashes ppl like Reynor or even Serral. Just because how T was buffed and Zerg nerfed in blizzcon changes. Further nerfing Zerg is ballshit imo.
ZvT is Terran favored, and now ot will be even more leaning towards Terran because Liberators, Banshees and BC being stronger because of Queen nerf. Widomine buff will make bio+mine even more deadly because it will come sooner with perm cloak. Creep will be denied even easier...
In PvZ they cut all early agression Zerg could put on Protoss with this overcharge.
This patch is bad, and it will ruin thisngame for Z.
|
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse
|
On May 20 2020 14:52 hiroshOne wrote:
Ro8 of GSL contains 1 Zerg, 3 Protoss, and 4 Terrans. If there's anyone who struggles right now it's Zerg. Look at Clem how he skyrockets in ZvT for example. Is it coincident? I don't think so. Clem is very good, but suddenly he smashes ppl like Reynor or even Serral. Just because how T was buffed and Zerg nerfed in blizzcon changes. Further nerfing Zerg is ballshit imo.
ZvT is Terran favored, and now ot will be even more leaning towards Terran because Liberators, Banshees and BC being stronger because of Queen nerf. Widomine buff will make bio+mine even more deadly because it will come sooner with perm cloak. Creep will be denied even easier...
In PvZ they cut all early agression Zerg could put on Protoss with this overcharge.
This patch is bad, and it will ruin thisngame for Z.
A great thing about Blizzard explaining their reasoning for each matchup is how obvious the balance trolls become.
|
On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse
What exactly makes you think this way :D
|
On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D
Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.?
They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored...
Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D
|
On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D
Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag).
|
On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag).
erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it.
I am completely fine with the 4 changes if there is at least 1-2 buffs for Z in TvZ that are also minor. Best ofc to units that suck like infestor, SHs or Hydras (in ZvT: for example give them slight antihealing effect or sth. like that).
|
Austria24422 Posts
I'm still not a fan personally, especially of battery overcharge. It's such a gimmicky bandaid fix that's needed only for proxy robo and expanding to three bases in PvP. To me the strengths of proxy robo have much more to do with continued nerfing of other strategies to a point where they're so niche in the metagame that proxy robo becomes the dominant strategic choice. Blink takes a million years to complete so is flat out not viable as a one-base opening, Stargate requires heavy investment before it can pay off - a single oracle is completely worthless if one shield battery exists. As for taking three bases in PvP, that's due to how the economy works in LotV. Investing first in tech and then expanding safely is almost always inferior to just expanding and massing units. In HotS, you had zealot/archon players taking earlier thirds, but the other player could at least get a decent colossus army, expand a bit later and still be alright. That option doesn't exist in LotV. It's a design issue in every match-up, but particularly felt in PvP.
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues. The main problem is not that Zerg can get there greedily, it's that Protoss lategame units flat out suck compared to zerg's. Tempests, carriers and void rays are among the worst units in the game still, and the mothership "-400/400" meme is, well, less of a meme and more completely accurate.
In a fight against a zerg lategame army of BL/mass corruptor/viper/static defense/maybe some infestors, whatever army Protoss can build is still really disadvantaged, and their approach will only encourage and strengthen the "kill them before they get there" pushes we already see from every Korean Protoss. You might get PvZ winrates swinging the other way but you're not addressing the root problem at all. You can be on equal footing economically as Protoss, transitioning to a lategame army will still not be the preferred option for most players. They'll just go and hit their timings even harder.
Personally the big issues I see in PvZ are these lategame unit issues, and how easy and risk-free it is for zerg to harass super effectively. You can roll a handful of banelings into mineral lines all game and it's incredibly difficult for even the very top Protoss players to consistently defend them all. Two +2 banelings basically wipe out a full mineral line and you get no notification before the damage is already done. And if you have units parked there, well they're also dead. Any form of Protoss harass is damage dealt over time, so zergs can react to their mineral lines being under attack. The only exception is storm drops, but they're a huge investment and require a lot more attention to execute.
At the very least I think probes should benefit from shield upgrades so they can tank an additional hit if Protoss invests in the necessary upgrades, and make the investment a little higher for zerg to kill entire mineral lines. Iirc this has been suggested by a couple pros too.
Call me crazy but I wouldn't mind a lategame (!) upgrade for photon cannons either, something like increasing their firing rate a little so that cannons on their own can better defend mineral lines and kill 1-2 additional banelings before the reach a mineral line. As it is, cannons might as well not exist lategame unless you spam 800 minerals worth of cannons to protect a single base. Compared to how effective (and even mobile) static defense is for Zerg, or how planetary fortresses and missile turrets hold off light investment in harass, cannons just do nothing.
Given Protoss' general underperformance for the last two years (Aligulac), it's time to just buff the race outright. Much of the build order variety in HotS PvP had to do with each of the possible openings being strong in its own right. There's absolutely room for an oracle buff in the game, at the very least one affecting PvP. There's room to experiment with a blink research time reduction I feel. Absolutely room in the game to buff carriers, void rays, tempests lategame, if only through lategame upgrades.
I'm not saying do all of these at once, or that all of these would play out well, I'm saying try one or two of these general buffs and see what happens. Units of other races have seen outright buffs - thor range and damage type, BCs have been buffed multiple times, siege tanks got buffs against Protoss, EMP got a massive buff, widow mines are getting a buff, and Terran winrates have gradually improved accordingly, to a point where I feel they're in a pretty good state in both matchups, even if more could be done to address certain stages of the game. Try the same for Protoss.
Also, the oracle change is actually yet another nerf aside from clearing creep. It means revelation on armies runs out much more quickly and, as you're playing with minimal observer coverage with SG builds, you're just going to lose track of opposition armies much more easily and you'll see oracles lost trying to find the army for constant revelations much more regularly. Same goes for detection against lurkers or widow mines in straight up fights. I'd much rather keep revelation as it is. The most common oracle build vs Zerg is three oracle anyway, so there should be enough energy among them to still clear creep effectively with the current energy cost if creep tumors are changed to light.
|
On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. .
Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is.
|
Really good adjustment to the original changes. I think more can be done with ZvP, but it's also a delicate matchup right now with zergs still struggling to find consistency against the current mind games. I'm surprised they're going with the creep tumour change but I don't hate it, I think it's good to see some more aggressive changes to creep.
I'm not really sold on the battery overcharge but I'm fine with it on the basis that the matchup is pure garbage and any change would be nice
|
On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is.
While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ.
Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. We are talking about a gas costing unit REQUIRED for zerg to combat a mineral only marine, and this same gas unit can disappear en masse in the blink of an eye from a widow mine shot or a tank shot or something, not to mention the counter play against it is huge with splitting and hot pickups.
The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already.
The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play.
Things are looking grim for zerg imo
|
On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo
Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it.
I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?"
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 13:55 TentativePanda wrote:
40% Zerg winrate, and one in GSL Ro8 + devastating nerfs sounds like a well thought out idea not influenced by the best performing race whining whatsoever (pls don’t warn me for truthing lol)
At the same time Rogue won IEM and Dark was 2nd at ST with a really close finals. I don't know, Kev.
Edit> also where have you been when everything has been won by zergs? Multiple Code S, WCS, IEM, Blizzcons?
|
I am really scared of the battery overcharge, I hate bandaid fixes like those.
Several poster here have pointed out that the reason Proxy immortal is strong is because other openings are too weak, I Think that is a very interesting take on it. I mean sure buff some stuff for protoss but I am also scared of the return of the deathball, I feel the problem for protoss has been that their units have too good synergy overall. The great synnergy means that while the unit is weak or mediocre alone it becomes balanced with the right support, if you buff it so its actually good in itself then it becomes OP with the right support units.
In regards to zerg being weak, zerg is the race most focused on getting ahead on the economy, the macro race if you will. historically it feels like the race most focused on defense over time becomes stronger exponentially as they get used to defend everything from the other races. I believe the game in some situations needs to very imbalanced in the start for it to actually be more balanced when the patch meta gets figured out. The reason balance changes needs to be done periodically is not because imbalance exist and is obvious from the start, its because imbalance develops as the meta gets figured out.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. I am completely fine with the 4 changes if there is at least 1-2 buffs for Z in TvZ that are also minor. Best ofc to units that suck like infestor, SHs or Hydras (in ZvT: for example give them slight antihealing effect or sth. like that).
Well Zerg players are just better was the reason why we have so many Zerg champions in the past 2 years while so little from other races. Why doesn't it work now when Zergs are not, finally, on the receiving side? (also it's not like soO didn't even try and Rogue played really poorly)
|
On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. I am completely fine with the 4 changes if there is at least 1-2 buffs for Z in TvZ that are also minor. Best ofc to units that suck like infestor, SHs or Hydras (in ZvT: for example give them slight antihealing effect or sth. like that).
because people would have a totally different view towards TvZ if 2019 map pool was used
watching dark vs mary grand final VODs almost got me think that its not possible to slow down zerg if played by the hands of most talented players like serral,dark and rogue
|
On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D
since korea scene is a playground of soO ,dark and rogue , i think a terran tournament such as GSL should have at least 2 zerg players but it s quite unfort that rogue was defeated by Sub"scarlett" Zero
On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. We are talking about a gas costing unit REQUIRED for zerg to combat a mineral only marine, and this same gas unit can disappear en masse in the blink of an eye from a widow mine shot or a tank shot or something, not to mention the counter play against it is huge with splitting and hot pickups. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo
i would kill for moar mech but mech play needs to be stronger than bios first
if terran players dont find mech is stronger than bios then they wont use it and the first culprit i can name it is swarm host
On May 20 2020 16:36 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. I am completely fine with the 4 changes if there is at least 1-2 buffs for Z in TvZ that are also minor. Best ofc to units that suck like infestor, SHs or Hydras (in ZvT: for example give them slight antihealing effect or sth. like that). Well Zerg players are just better was the reason why we have so many Zerg champions in the past 2 years while so little from other races. Why doesn't it work now when Zergs are not, finally, on the receiving side? (also it's not like soO didn't even try and Rogue played really poorly)
i seriously think zerg players were just better in last 2 years tho. not that they were better than other races on the whole but they were too good at thier own shits
so we re gonna make thier life a little bit harder
dats an example of how being better than others could become a sin right there
|
I support all the changes especially the widow mine change.
Not sure about the new overcharge ability though. It may be needed in PvP but may be too strong in the other matchups.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues
Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is questionable at best.
Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s), so you could possibly get to a point where it feels more about execution and less about "kill him before he gets there, or have a big advantage when he does".
edit: also, fun fact. Going by Aligulac, PvZ has only been significantly Protoss-favoured for a brief period in 2010, 2011, and for a few months early in 2019, otherwise it's mostly been Zerg favoured with even periods in 2014 and 2015,. Obviously there's biases in their stats, but given that it's the largest sample size of high level games available it's still pretty telling imo.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s).
To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. And if Protoss is ahead off the midgame, they're usually in a spot to end the game. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to their own lategame units rather than push their midgame advantage to victory. That's how most PvZs in favor of Protoss already end.
While buffing them midgame would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing, as you describe pretty well. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ.
|
On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D
Because there are 20 Zergs and 3 Terrans in prolevel and those 3 Terrans beat Zergs all the time on the tourneys!
|
Italy12246 Posts
On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ.
That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs.
That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their lategame setup ready whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too.
|
|
|
On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too.
so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ?
|
Italy12246 Posts
On May 20 2020 17:31 seemsgood wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too. so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ?
I mean, in principle it helps, but the thing with the mothership is it only takes 1-2 seconds of not paying attention to lose it to an abduct. Feedback could have 12 range and that interaction would still be onesided and down to player attention rather than spell range.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
To all the '4T in RO8' people:
It is not an impossible prediction to have Trap, Dear, Dark and Maru in the RO4 and if Parting is the real bane of Maru, it can end with no T in RO4. What will you say then?
(I admit that this requires Parting to play ridiculously well and Trap finding his 2019 PvT)
|
One more hit to kill marauders, wtf I rather take the hp reduction.
|
I mean tvz appears to be pretty even recently going from results (like inno going 3-2 vs dark in next, reynor not doing so hot vs terrans like clem/gabe/uthermal or clem beating serral) also terrans currently are performing pretty decent overall, i don't get why they think the old bane nerf should have gone through, if it didn't rly affect pvz and helps terran alot in tvz, equally all the zergs that are talking about a 4 terran ro4 or zerg being the weakest race right now are as hillarious or more, i mean seriously? 
|
Overall, I'm just really happy that the balance team is working again. And it seems to me that these changes, while not perfect, are going in the right direction, which was also generally the case for the 2017 and 2018 seasons, before the disastrous (lack of) changes in 2019.
Let's see how it plays out, at least now we can be somewhat confident that further changes will be made if necessary.
|
Austria24422 Posts
The thing with this baneling change is also that it's not just +1 hits to kill a marauder. Medivac healing forces you to burst units down. If marauders survive the extra hit, they may not even die from the next one, they might survive and get healed up, then potentially survive the next hit after too. It's pretty huge.
|
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
|
Italy12246 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
Protoss wins 3/19 (15%) Premier tournaments since the last major balance update (4.8.2) in 2019. It's very easy to cherry pick statistics to prove one's point.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:10 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season. Protoss wins 3/19 (15%) Premier tournaments since the last major balance update (4.8.2) in 2019. It's very easy to cherry pick statistics to prove one's point.
if were basing this on the tourney wins, nerf zergs into oblivion
|
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.
|
On May 20 2020 17:36 Teoita wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 17:31 seemsgood wrote:On May 20 2020 17:14 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 17:09 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 17:06 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 16:57 Teoita wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Olli wrote:
I also highly disagree with how they perceive PvZ lategame issues Well, part of the problem is that Zergs are so strong defensively, so to some extent they are right. On the other hand, it's insane that lategame PvZ still revolves around the goddamn Mothership, it honestly should be nerfed into the ground and other things should be buffed to compensate. To name one, it's insane that Interceptors still cost money when broodlings and locusts never have. Currently a carrier is formally 480/250, but in practice it's more about ~800-1000/250 because of how easily interceptors die. What Protoss gets for that cost is, well, questionable at best. Imo, the other thing that makes lategame PvZ ass is that zerg static defense becomes an incredibly cost effective part of their main army. If it weren't for those two things I think you could have a decent-ish matchup, because both armies kind of rely on similar concepts and compositions of long range siege + sniper unit + support caster(s). To some degree, sure. But again, the problem is that if both players go into lategame on equal footing, Zerg just makes better stuff and wins. There's no incentive for Protoss to go to the lategame rather than push their buffed midgame even more to avoid giving Zerg a way back into the game. That would likely see Protoss winrates improve significantly, but that in itself shouldn't be a goal worth pursuing. The same way it isn't great that Terran's doing pretty well vs Protoss stems in no small part from SCV pulls. The goal should be balancing winrates through changes that also make the game more entertaining to watch and play. I'm sure both Protoss and Zerg would agree that PvZ would be better served if it wasn't set in this "don't let them get there" state. I thought we were done with this type of balancing. Reminds me way too much of WoL PvZ. That's where my "buff other things to compensate" comes in. My point is, they should be buffed enough that Protoss doesn't have to go full WoL on Zergs. That's exactly my thinking. As it stands, who on earth would ever want to make a tempest, carrier or void ray lategame (not mentioning mothership; remove the thing!) unless they're forced to? The better choice is almost always to just add gates and have at them before they get their army up whenever there's a midgame advantage. But I'd really like being able to play lategame too. so in other words , feedback s range buff is nowhere near enough right ? I mean, in principle it helps, but the thing with the mothership is it only takes 1-2 seconds of not paying attention to lose it to an abduct. Feedback could have 12 range and that interaction would still be onesided and down to player attention rather than spell range.
how blizzard still lets fucking vipers hard counter mothership is beyond me...
thing like "mothership not being yoink'd by vipers" can go through without testing but any further buffs must be put on hold until blizzcon patch tho
On May 20 2020 18:04 xelnaga_empire wrote:
1. 10 Protoss qualify for IEM Katowice group stages out of 23 qualification spots
2. 7 Protoss qualify for GSL Super Tournament out of 16 spots
3. Now there are 3 Protoss in the Round of 8 in the GSL (7 Protoss qualified for this GSL out of 24 spots)
And I’m not going to even mention that last year for Blizzcon, out of the top 8 Korean spots, 5 of them were Protoss. So Korean Protoss had a stellar year, last year.
I don’t think Protoss needs all these buffs. It will make Protoss too strong and arguably, based on the qualification performance for offline Premier tournaments, Protoss is already too strong this season.
they are buffing where its weak not where its strong so i think those changes are fine
|
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).
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
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
|
On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote: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)
I can t say, I ve stopped playing before the WM style defence was in meta.
I was convinced about a bunker buff and for now but what we see from Clem in many maps is a push with bunker in front of opponent base. I wasn t so far from the solution even if i was thinking in a way to protect around your base with marines (inside a bunker),..
Deseperate situations needs deseperate moves.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 20 2020 18:29 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 18:23 deacon.frost wrote:On May 20 2020 18:20 Vision_ wrote: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) I can t say, I ve stopped playing since the WM style defence was in meta. I was convinced about a bunker buff and for now but what we see from Clem in many maps is a push with bunker in front of opponent base. I wasn t so far from the solution even if i was thinking in a way to protect around your base with marines (inside a bunker),.. Deseperate situations needs deseperate moves.
when you make mostly banelings and they kill less the answer is yes. OTOH because I play random and leave mirrors I play bellow my actual MMR so it probably doesn't matter that much(if I can play mass baneling style there's somethign wrong anyway)
|
Yeah i was wrong cause marines are garbage without stimpack
|
As Zerg you are just forced to use banelings vs everything. Just because every other option is shit. So if they want to nerf banelings they shoud give sth back. They didn't. Zerg is fucked. Again.
|
ZvT is totally fucked.
The mine is a stupid and infuriating unit to buff, and this just makes it easier to take terrible early damage cus your observer got hit by a mine or something.
Shield battery thing is a bandaid.
Original patch was awful, this one is not really any better.
|
|
|
I dont presume to know anything about balance. But I would like to point out that the last zerg and current world champion was just eliminated from GSL by a player/ caster and it didnt look even remotely close.
I hope zerg figures out the new meta fast. I do like to watch TvT and TvP but PvP!? please save us haha
|
So no zerg in gsl after the dismantle of the best zvt (well, I guess now, T will bring up that serral is actually a decent player but these two are pretty closes anyway).
Why not buffing toss rather than hammer nerf Z while every parameters (online cups, aligulac, gsl) leans already into terran favored. (+ TY comment)
|
Still huge buffs to TvZ.
Queen -1 range = u take more damage in hellion/banshee phase.
Banelings less dmg vs armored still makes marauder heavy play much stronger, especially vs ultra/ling/bane. Its also a buff to cyclone play.
With the widowmine upgrade at same time, its still way too much of a buff to TvZ, and with how bad zerg have been getting destroyed by terrans in all regions recently, I really think this is not a good way to balance out PvZ.
|
TY explicitly said in his interview he wanted to avoid fighting Dark in standard macro games, which is why he cheesed 2/3 games. The one long game he played was biomech, about as far from standard as you can get.
Good prep on his part (credit to Rogue who helped him), but it doesn't say much about balance unless you want to nerf bunker build time.
|
On May 20 2020 19:35 pvsnp wrote:
TY explicitly said in his interview he wanted to avoid fighting Dark in macro games, which is why he cheesed 2/3 games. The one long game he played was biomech, about as far from standard as you can get.
Good prep on his part (credit to Rogue who helped him), but it doesn't say much about balance unless you want to nerf bunker build time.
No point nerfing bunker build time since none of TY's finished anyway.
|
On May 20 2020 19:38 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 19:35 pvsnp wrote:
TY explicitly said in his interview he wanted to avoid fighting Dark in macro games, which is why he cheesed 2/3 games. The one long game he played was biomech, about as far from standard as you can get.
Good prep on his part (credit to Rogue who helped him), but it doesn't say much about balance unless you want to nerf bunker build time. No point nerfing bunker build time since none of TY's finished anyway.
One did but got salvaged instantly
|
Proxy rax really needs to be addressed if they go ahead with the other changes
|
Dark vs TY :-((( Well seems like all we need is more Zerg nerfs in this matchup. Thanks Blizzard, u really hit the spot with your changes. It's so bad that it isn't even funny.
|
On May 20 2020 19:46 Scarlett` wrote:
Proxy rax really needs to be addressed if they go ahead with the other changes
Do you have any thoughts on how to do it without nerfing it out of viability?
|
I am not looking forward to the bullshit proxy stargate battery camp plays, dont get me wrong its not op its just really lame to play vs. buffing batteries will make more people play that strat at my garbage 4.6 level
also any nerf to the baneling is good in my book. and they shouldnt buff the WM.
|
One of the main difference between mines and other AOE effect remains in his flat damage, Here the list of flat splash damage ("Without no "Light Bonus or Armored Bonus"):
- Widow Mines
- Disruptor : But it s a controversial unit
- Ultralisks : one of the most versatile unit, cause his behavior strongly depends of his huge size.
- Storm : But it s not an instant effect...
Maybe the damage of the WM has to be tweaked a bit like Banelings has been tweaked (not so much i would say...)
|
On May 20 2020 19:47 imsupervisor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 19:46 Scarlett` wrote:
Proxy rax really needs to be addressed if they go ahead with the other changes Do you have any thoughts on how to do it without nerfing it out of viability?
One stupid but blizzard way would be:
marinebuildtime increased by 3 seconds --> once reactor or teclab is on it its old marinebuildtime again
but yeah T gets free wins (its so much harder to defend than to do...) with 2-3 rax sind 10 years...if they buff macro T as hard as they are they need to do sth to freewins.
btw is there statistics on winrate for 2/3 rax in TvZ? would be really interesting to see. guess its definetly not 50/50 lol.
|
On May 20 2020 20:26 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 19:47 imsupervisor1 wrote:On May 20 2020 19:46 Scarlett` wrote:
Proxy rax really needs to be addressed if they go ahead with the other changes Do you have any thoughts on how to do it without nerfing it out of viability? btw is there statistics on winrate for 2/3 rax in TvZ? would be really interesting to see. guess its definetly not 50/50 lol.
Don't you remember 2018? The winrate of 2rax/3rax vs zerg in tournaments has to be absolutely insane. I never see this strategy lose.
Zero changes have been made since then. Since WoL, in fact, unless you count the 12 worker start. And in all that time it has not lost a single tournament game.
|
So now Terrans should start screaming for Protoss nerfs right? Probably blink stalkers, they beat Maru. Or blink DTs, or disruptors.
Or maybe balance today is no different from yesterday despite your favorite player losing in GSL. Proxy rax, blink stalkers, whatever.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though.
|
On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D
i used to cry a lot about zerg, just from a watching standpoint, as it felt like Z was broken af.
but with the metagame evolving and terran reaching out for their potential, i acutally feel like the MU is even right now as well...
in general i don't mind any of these changes a lot despite one. they are maybe favoring Terran in TvZ a bit too much still, but that can be tweaked.
the only thing i think is really bad is this:
Battery Overcharge:
Range: Unlimited
with this change, it becomes an OFFENSIVE tool, which it shouldn't be deigned for.
1 base play will be even stronger in pvp, esp proxy robo bs.
other allins may be formed with these, maybe even voidray PvT allins.
it also helps timing pushes on 2 base a lot.
this shouldn't be the case. it should be 100% defensive.
|
On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though.
While i agree i don't think parting won today because of that (maybe in game 4, but he had an insane advantage at that point anyways).
|
Biggest issues with this patch:
Widow mine buff
Queen range
Protoss shield overcharge thing
Mines are already great units and now they are going to be “cloaked” regularly and without investment
Queens are very good units, yes but literally the only unit that defends effectively for Zerg. Maybe this change isn’t as bad as I think, but maybe it is just as bad as I’m thinking.
The Protoss shield thing is just real good
|
On May 20 2020 21:38 KalWarkov wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D i used to cry a lot about zerg, just from a watching standpoint, as it felt like Z was broken af. but with the metagame evolving and terran reaching out for their potential, i acutally feel like the MU is even right now as well... in general i don't mind any of these changes a lot despite one. they are maybe favoring Terran in TvZ a bit too much still, but that can be tweaked. the only thing i think is really bad is this: Battery Overcharge: Range: Unlimited with this change, it becomes an OFFENSIVE tool, which it shouldn't be deigned for. 1 base play will be even stronger in pvp, esp proxy robo bs. other allins may be formed with these, maybe even voidray PvT allins. it also helps timing pushes on 2 base a lot. this shouldn't be the case. it should be 100% defensive.
Of course you're right, it just that it already is:
Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus)
|
On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though.
We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play.
|
On May 20 2020 21:45 batatm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:38 KalWarkov wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D i used to cry a lot about zerg, just from a watching standpoint, as it felt like Z was broken af. but with the metagame evolving and terran reaching out for their potential, i acutally feel like the MU is even right now as well... in general i don't mind any of these changes a lot despite one. they are maybe favoring Terran in TvZ a bit too much still, but that can be tweaked. the only thing i think is really bad is this: Battery Overcharge: Range: Unlimited with this change, it becomes an OFFENSIVE tool, which it shouldn't be deigned for. 1 base play will be even stronger in pvp, esp proxy robo bs. other allins may be formed with these, maybe even voidray PvT allins. it also helps timing pushes on 2 base a lot. this shouldn't be the case. it should be 100% defensive. Of course you're right, it just that it already is: Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus)
It's proxy nexus time BOYS!
|
On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play.
It's currently the gold standard of late game PvT play from what I've seen. It's not something PartinG came up with by himself for today. He executed at a very high level though.
On May 20 2020 21:48 Z3nith wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:45 batatm wrote:On May 20 2020 21:38 KalWarkov wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D i used to cry a lot about zerg, just from a watching standpoint, as it felt like Z was broken af. but with the metagame evolving and terran reaching out for their potential, i acutally feel like the MU is even right now as well... in general i don't mind any of these changes a lot despite one. they are maybe favoring Terran in TvZ a bit too much still, but that can be tweaked. the only thing i think is really bad is this: Battery Overcharge: Range: Unlimited with this change, it becomes an OFFENSIVE tool, which it shouldn't be deigned for. 1 base play will be even stronger in pvp, esp proxy robo bs. other allins may be formed with these, maybe even voidray PvT allins. it also helps timing pushes on 2 base a lot. this shouldn't be the case. it should be 100% defensive. Of course you're right, it just that it already is: Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus) It's proxy nexus time BOYS! sOs just several community feedback updates ahead of the meta.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play.
It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily
|
On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily
I wish they'd do something with the tempest. It's too fragile and low DPS to really fulfill a role (the role it used to have, which was admittedly boring) in the late game. It's part of an absurdly annoying variety of cheese in PvT. Honestly all it is at this point is a 2nd voidray.
|
On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily
Huh, interesting. Still I wouldn't have though many players would be able to play it to the standard that PartinG did against Maru, it might just be Terrans need to get used to being multipronged rather than being the ones doing the multipronging. If it isn't sorted in a couple months though then maybe look at it.
|
On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily
I remember Harstem talking about it, and it's a strong style no doubt. But didn't that strategy evolve because Protoss decided that was better than fighting mass Liberator head-on? Tempests being no good and all. What does Protoss have that can stop a death push from Terran?
If Maru didn't lose 30 supply for free, I'd expect him to do a maxed push and probably kill Parting.
|
On May 20 2020 21:59 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily I remember Harstem talking about it, and it's a strong style no doubt. But didn't that strategy evolve because Protoss decided that was better than fighting mass Liberator head-on? Tempests being no good and all. What does Protoss have that can stop a death push from Terran? If Maru didn't lose 30 supply for free, I'd expect him to do a maxed push and probably kill Parting.
But that's the strength of the style. Scrappiness and multiprong. One of the things about Terran is that the army compositions become less mobile in defending as the game goes on. Buying time and doing chip damage - even if you can't get the insane damage PartinG got - is worth a lot. And with no ranged libs or a big tank count in sight Maru would always be hard pressed to push into disruptors (also maybe worth noting that Maru's anti-disruptor control was subpar).
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 20 2020 21:59 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily I remember Harstem talking about it, and it's a strong style no doubt. But didn't that strategy evolve because Protoss decided that was better than fighting mass Liberator head-on? Tempests being no good and all. What does Protoss have that can stop a death push from Terran? If Maru didn't lose 30 supply for free, I'd expect him to do a maxed push and probably kill Parting.
I think it's still possible to fight ranged liberators with a good amount of tempests, disruptors, storms, etc., especially if you're kiting it across the map and delaying libs from sieging up at your expansions. It's quite technical but you do have the range advantage and should be able to keep the ground army away from your tempests with good micro. I don't mind that so much on paper. It's tricky to control, but so is a lategame Terran army. The problem is that that's the only thing tempests are useful for - very slowly chipping away at things that can't shoot back. For the time/resource investment, that's just not good enough.
The other upside of blink DT lategame is that it's kinda the only strong tool Protoss has to knock out lategame planetaries without committing large parts of their army. I think tempests being bad is the main issue though.
On May 20 2020 21:57 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 21:53 Olli wrote:On May 20 2020 21:47 Z3nith wrote:On May 20 2020 21:16 Olli wrote:
Well... whisper it, but I do feel Protoss is a bit strong in that disruptor/blink DT phase of the game. Tables turn super lategame though. We'd have to see if any player besides PartinG can actually replicate that style as it does seem incredibly micro intensive to play. It's actually pretty much the standard lategame approach for PvT nowadays. Harstem talked a bit about on a recent pylon show episode. Most Protoss don't go tempests anymore because they suck for their cost, instead they go blink DT and stalker/disruptor to chip away at the Terran while they expand heavily I wish they'd do something with the tempest. It's too fragile and low DPS to really fulfill a role (the role it used to have, which was admittedly boring) in the late game. It's part of an absurdly annoying variety of cheese in PvT. Honestly all it is at this point is a 2nd voidray.
I think the only justification for Tempests being in the game in the first place was BL/infestor. But that's so long ago, and I think most Protoss would nowadays rather get carriers anyway.
The real disappointment to me is the void ray. You could actually go tempests/void ray/templar if void rays weren't so godawful at what they're supposed to do. Void rays to me should be useful for Protoss the way vikings and corruptors are for Terran - your bread and butter air unit to fight other air units and protect the more intricate, higher cost air units, like how corruptors protect BLs or were used to protect mutalisks against phoenix. But as it is they're just another glass cannon unit.
I know people hate void rays, but if you made them into a better lategame unit through an additional upgrade (HP buff maybe?) I think it would really enable other Protoss air units. Super intricate balancing act of course.
|
Welcome to the year of the terran.
What I don't like about this patch in short: I think it still it benefits terran the most.
What doesn't make sense:
- shield battery and global timer, this feels like photon overcharge 2.0. Global timer is a gimicky moba like thing. Once every minute you are allowed to defend a base vs an attack the other times you die. Just chronoboost the shieldbattery similar to normal chrono: +50% efficiency and speed. This way it's a consistent option to improve defense by a bit.
- there is zero necessity for the widowmine buff, it's not fun, it's not too weak
- I really don't think the queen range will help protoss, protoss main problem is the lack of dps outside of AoE, even lategame carriers and tempest are terrible now
- the baneling damage nerf will still benefit terran the just as much since marauder heavy armies were never that bad and are now great.
Finally as people are saying: terran does not really need help right now, while protoss is still living off of AoE and has shitty late game.
There was a brilliant game of Parting vs Maru where Parting was attacking in many places.This is the kind of fun people want to see and often do see in tvz, but in pvz it's very rare... Why is that?
Once Maru spread his units properly it was over and Parting went into deathball style. Because Protoss (gateway) units suck by themselves and always need AoE and synergy effects.
Blizzard what's your problem? There are so many possible way to improve protoss gameplay (any of these changes coule help and could alway be balanced by AoE nerfs):
- increase gateway production speed by a good amount(50%?) after warpgate upgrade, but only in gateway mode. To allow for more gateway build variation if not using warpins.
- lategame stalker range upgrade (on twilight but requires robotics facility & dark shrine for example). +2 Range. stalkers are so terrible lategame that it will probably be fine.
- increase carrier launch & leash range.
- give tempest air only AoE, with very low damage + reduce supply to 4. A bit like the valkyrie or the corsair. To not make it useless vs armor turn it into spell damage.
- give adepts the ability to activate shade at any point manually
- give adepts +1 armor
- make immortals & archons move faster
- give archons +1 range
- give archons bigger splash radius
More radical ideas:
- increase stalker damage in exchange for less hp + smaller frame (more vulnerable to AoE), for example -40 hp, +30% damage.
- make sentry cost 25/75, remove forcefield, increase attack range +2, the beam attack slows enemies by 30+%, change guardian shield to +1 damage reduction but also for melee.
- change shields to not take +damage, for example stalker shield would not take bonus damage from marauder +armored attacks. Only HP takes + armored damage.
- Reduce storm dps by spreading damage over 6 seconds. Better for zoning, less punishing.
- tone down disruptor AoE, an idea: 30 damage but no friendly fire. Add autocast.
|
Battery change = rip proxy's in tvp mine change won’t make up for the lost threat, toss wol play more greedy and tvp will be back to last patch, toss gets to ahead from standard opening situation.
|
On May 20 2020 22:10 Olli wrote:
The problem is that that's the only thing tempests are useful for - very slowly chipping away at things that can't shoot back. For the time/resource investment, that's just not good enough.
.
I think that its fine, that was the role they were supposed to have from the get go, a tech unit used to stop siege up of units forcing interactions, they weren't supposed to straight up 1 shot stuff from safety.
I like their current iteration of fast, not very strong straight up but with good range as they exist now.
If anything they could be a tad cheaper (and maybe build a bit faster), so they could be used as a way to counter act a terran that goes heavy into lib/ghost but a not unit you want to counter units like vikings or cyclones.
On May 20 2020 22:10 Olli wrote:
I know people hate void rays, but if you made them into a better lategame unit through an additional upgrade (HP buff maybe?) I think it would really enable other Protoss air units. Super intricate balancing act of course.
I dont think you can give that role to voids in their current iteration. The fact that it attacks the same for ground and air and that it has a weird attack mode where you want them to move the least while attacking makes them hard to balance.
I think the only solution would be to split its attack into AtA and AtG and then take it from there. Buffing it while its in current iteration would simply make its game interactions stupid because its a unit that its too uniform in how it functions.
|
On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. We are talking about a gas costing unit REQUIRED for zerg to combat a mineral only marine, and this same gas unit can disappear en masse in the blink of an eye from a widow mine shot or a tank shot or something, not to mention the counter play against it is huge with splitting and hot pickups. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo
Zerg struggling to trade ?
This is just from my experience, and im not sayin this is true in every aspect of sc2.
In most games it dont even matter actually. Because you can replenish units so fast. Out of 10 fights, you actually have to win just 1, to win the game as a zerg. Which makes the terran having to do little error in micro, which is in my opinion, much harder than to select all, a move, as the zerg usually does. The terrans have struggled whit unnecessary buffs to zerg units since hots, while gain nothing really to stop it. TVZ was fine in Hots, and terrans are basically using the same units, which in some cases ( mines) are nerfed. against buffed units like Lings, ultras. And also the creep is also easier to spread now compared to hots. I dont se any real problem whit making it a bit harder for zerg to play zvt.
This may not have anything to do whit the buffs of nerf, But personally have i won alot of good players in hots ( including Serral), but in lotv i feel inferior to low masters who can make unlimited lings/banes. when they make tier 3 units, i can never compete whit the speed to make armies that can compete whit those units.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 21 2020 00:24 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 22:10 Olli wrote:
The problem is that that's the only thing tempests are useful for - very slowly chipping away at things that can't shoot back. For the time/resource investment, that's just not good enough.
. I think that its fine, that was the role they were supposed to have from the get go, a tech unit used to stop siege up of units forcing interactions, they weren't supposed to straight up 1 shot stuff from safety. I like their current iteration of fast, not very strong straight up but with good range as they exist now. If anything they could be a tad cheaper (and maybe build a bit faster), so they could be used as a way to counter act a terran that goes heavy into lib/ghost but a not unit you want to counter units like vikings or cyclones. Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 22:10 Olli wrote:
I know people hate void rays, but if you made them into a better lategame unit through an additional upgrade (HP buff maybe?) I think it would really enable other Protoss air units. Super intricate balancing act of course. I dont think you can give that role to voids in their current iteration. The fact that it attacks the same for ground and air and that it has a weird attack mode where you want them to move the least while attacking makes them hard to balance. I think the only solution would be to split its attack into AtA and AtG and then take it from there. Buffing it while its in current iteration would simply make its game interactions stupid because its a unit that its too uniform in how it functions.
The problem with the current tempest iteration is that they're faster than before, but still not fast enough to get away from anything. So they might as well be as slow as previously if you can't properly retreat from damage either way. At least they were stronger at clearing big targets from range before.
As for voids, I don't think you'd need to change much about them. They're currently terrible against most unit compositions outside of PvP, where mass void ray can very occasionally be strong. A lategame upgrade wouldn't change much of that except for niche situations where Protoss currently needs something better, and I think the speed upgrade was already intended to be a step in that direction. But that alone just makes a terrible unit that can't fight anything a bit of a faster unit that can't fight anything. It's not fast enough to harass or chase anything down like phoenixes, it can't really fight straight up against most unit compositions (hydras, infestors, thors, marines, ghosts, vipers, vikings - incorporate any of these and voids just melt). I don't see what's wrong with buffing them lategame given that these units would still fare well against them. But maybe they wouldn't completely destroy them anymore, which would be nice.
|
United Kingdom20322 Posts
Big improvements, i'm happy with that
|
It's suppose to be a patch for ZvP? I wonder because majority of those changes seem to affect mostly TvZ and TvZ right now looks pretty in term of balance ok at top level.
I m not sure about this one.
|
Solid balance team, keep up the good work!
|
The increase to Feedback range doesn't make much sense given Blizzard's rationale. With the nerf to Banes damage vs non-lights and Queen-range, Protoss will be able to face Zergs in a better position in the late-game.
|
On May 20 2020 20:00 Andi_Goldberger wrote:I am not looking forward to the bullshit proxy stargate battery camp plays, dont get me wrong its not op its just really lame to play vs. buffing batteries will make more people play that strat at my garbage 4.6 level also any nerf to the baneling is good in my book. and they shouldnt buff the WM.
The shield battery needs to be in close proximity to a Nexus to be overcharged.
|
I think the recent balance in tournaments have been more due to maps with narrow chokes and siege tank spots more than anything else. The changes seem pretty justified and pretty minor in terms of balance, I'm sure the upcoming map selection will have a bigger impact on balance than this patch.
|
On May 20 2020 16:25 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it. I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?"
meh. i'd rather not have a system of "revenge" balancing lol
|
On May 21 2020 12:07 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 16:25 pvsnp wrote:On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it. I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?" meh. i'd rather not have a system of "revenge" balancing lol
Not a system, just an unavoidable consequence of imperfect balance. Not revenge, just a nerf whose impact is impossible to predict perfectly. This patch is apparently the balance team's best effort to achieve good balance. But if it turns out that the nerf was a little much and Zerg struggles, oh well, not the end of the world.
Like Rotti said, it's not such a bad thing.
|
On May 21 2020 12:24 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 12:07 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 16:25 pvsnp wrote:On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it. I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?" meh. i'd rather not have a system of "revenge" balancing lol Not a system, just an unavoidable consequence of imperfect balance. Not revenge, just a nerf whose impact is impossible to predict perfectly. This patch is apparently the balance team's best effort to achieve good balance. But if it turns out that the nerf was a little much and Zerg struggles, oh well, not the end of the world. Like Rotti said, it's not such a bad thing.
oh yea I understand that this isnt the final, permanent patch or anything. It's not the end of the world.
|
Man as a Terran player I’m not looking forward to this patch, sure tvz is going to get unneeded buffs, but in the meantime protoss is getting a huge buff that will tilt an already protoss favored mu even more In thier favor. I’m heavily considering a switch to protoss since I can see the following situation. Protoss will have around a 60% winrate vs terran, and be able to hold close to 50% vs zerg with the changes, zerg will get stomped by Terran and have a fair mu vs toss and Terran will stomp zerg but suffer Abismall winrate s in tvp, maybe we see some attempts at mech, toss figures them out quickly like always then we have the same meta we have now except toss is safer, can play greedier and it will be harder for Terran to use 2 base allins to equalize the matchup.
Overall this is going to be a protoss favored patch.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On May 21 2020 13:56 washikie wrote:
Man as a Terran player I’m not looking forward to this patch, sure tvz is going to get unneeded buffs, but in the meantime protoss is getting a huge buff that will tilt an already protoss favored mu even more In thier favor. I’m heavily considering a switch to protoss since I can see the following situation. Protoss will have around a 60% winrate vs terran, and be able to hold close to 50% vs zerg with the changes, zerg will get stomped by Terran and have a fair mu vs toss and Terran will stomp zerg but suffer Abismall winrate s in tvp, maybe we see some attempts at mech, toss figures them out quickly like always then we have the same meta we have now except toss is safer, can play greedier and it will be harder for Terran to use 2 base allins to equalize the matchup.
Overall this is going to be a protoss favored patch.
The oracle change is practically a nerf in every regard other than cleaning up creep, and the mine change is huge for midgame fights and harassment in PvT. The shield battery change won't have too big an effect once armies get larger. There's a 60 second global cooldown on it, it's literally only useful for a very short period of time if you fight directly in shield battery range. Absolutely no changes to any other scenario. You might see some early all-ins be held more easily because of it, but Terran gets significant buffs in standard play.
Overall this patch swings heavily in favor of Terran again while Protoss barely gets significant changes in their favor despite underperforming for about two years.
|
On May 21 2020 13:16 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 12:24 pvsnp wrote:On May 21 2020 12:07 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 16:25 pvsnp wrote:On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:
[quote]
What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it. I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?" meh. i'd rather not have a system of "revenge" balancing lol Not a system, just an unavoidable consequence of imperfect balance. Not revenge, just a nerf whose impact is impossible to predict perfectly. This patch is apparently the balance team's best effort to achieve good balance. But if it turns out that the nerf was a little much and Zerg struggles, oh well, not the end of the world. Like Rotti said, it's not such a bad thing. oh yea I understand that this isnt the final, permanent patch or anything. It's not the end of the world.
Don't tend to hear this often when it's the other end of the stick though
|
On May 21 2020 13:56 washikie wrote:
Man as a Terran player I’m not looking forward to this patch, sure tvz is going to get unneeded buffs, but in the meantime protoss is getting a huge buff that will tilt an already protoss favored mu even more In thier favor. I’m heavily considering a switch to protoss since I can see the following situation. Protoss will have around a 60% winrate vs terran, and be able to hold close to 50% vs zerg with the changes, zerg will get stomped by Terran and have a fair mu vs toss and Terran will stomp zerg but suffer Abismall winrate s in tvp, maybe we see some attempts at mech, toss figures them out quickly like always then we have the same meta we have now except toss is safer, can play greedier and it will be harder for Terran to use 2 base allins to equalize the matchup.
Overall this is going to be a protoss favored patch.
See, As a protoss I consider quitting. I have switched to Terran before (TvP 40%, TvT 70%, TvZ 60%), but I can't stand how TvZ plays out (no brain, all hands). I can see, that Terran needs help vs Protoss, but touching the WMs? Short rant+ Show Spoiler +Widowmines are almost as cheap as a baneling(75/25 vs50/25) and pretty much same tier tech. They do more damage in a wider area, have range, hit air, auto attack(you don't even need to look at the screen) and are reusable.
|
On May 20 2020 17:06 Fuzer wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Because there are 20 Zergs and 3 Terrans in prolevel and those 3 Terrans beat Zergs all the time on the tourneys!
i could tell you there are 3 terrans because only the super top 3 can be as good as top 20 zergs cause zerg is easier. so what's your point?
|
The widow mine change, while a good idea, will only have an effect on extremely greedy Protoss players that skip all detection. If Protoss play normal it will have no impact at all. Meanwhile the super overcharge ability will be useful in almost every game.
Late game is still impossible to play for Terran if you do not have korean pro level mechanics. So nothing has changed there.
TvP is hell before the patch.
TvP will be hell after patch.
|
On May 21 2020 20:13 MockHamill wrote:
The widow mine change, while a good idea, will only have an effect on extremely greedy Protoss players that skip all detection. If Protoss play normal it will have no impact at all. Meanwhile the super overcharge ability will be useful in almost every game.
Late game is still impossible to play for Terran if you do not have korean pro level mechanics. So nothing has changed there.
TvP is hell before the patch.
TvP will be hell after patch.
Yep I prity much agree, widow mine change in tvp is just not that impactful since almost evrey toss build gets obs already to deal with banshees. Armory is to slow and to much investment to realy make a difference for Terran here, maybe you get a little extra value from mines but they will still tend to die anyway since by the time you normally have an armory toss has collosus out and will just gun down mines while Terran retreats from engagements.
Meanwhile battery change is a significant buff vs 2 base allins which are prity much terrans bread and butter late game while winnable now with shockwave is still p favored and will be as long as the disruptor remains the way it is.
A better change would be to give Terran better tools to fight disruptor for instance bring back 50 energy interference matrix on the raven, increase its range so ravens don’t get easily wrecked by stalkers when casting it and decrease raven cost to 100/150. This would be a really impactful change for Terran, would mess with tvt but people will just make more Vikings.
Or bring back longer range libs old libs could more effectively zone disruptors, once toss gets 12+ of them they can prity much endlessly throw novas to prevent an engagement.
Or make siegetanks more effective vs chargelots some how so Terran can go marine tank into late game, this way tanks can zone ruptors.
|
Disruptors seems to be a really crap unit...
|
On May 22 2020 01:49 Vision_ wrote:
Disruptors seems to be a really crap unit...
Tell that to terran players.. Its not bad
|
Norway10161 Posts
TERRAN
Widow Mine
Drilling Claws upgrade no longer grants Widow Mines invisibility. Instead, the existence of an Armory will grant Widow Mines invisibility.
The red laser attachment for Widow Mines will now communicate the existence of an Armory instead of the existence of the Drilling Claws upgrade.
ZERG
Queen
Anti-air weapon range decreased from 8 to 7.
Baneling
Weapon damage changed from 20 (+15 vs light) to 18 (+17 vs light).
Infestor
Microbial Shroud no longer requires an upgrade.
Creep Tumor
“Armored” attribute removed.
“Light” attribute added.
PROTOSS
Nexus
New ability: “Battery Overcharge”
Effect: Overcharges a target Shield Battery near a Nexus, increasing its shield restoration rate by 100% and allowing it to restore shields without consuming energy for 14 seconds.
Cost: 50 Energy
Cooldown: 60 seconds (shared by all Nexuses)
Range: Unlimited (the target Battery must be within range 8 of any friendly Nexus)
Oracle
Revelation energy cost decreased from 50 to 25.
Revelation cooldown increased from 2 seconds to 10 seconds.
Revelation duration decreased from 30 seconds to 15 seconds.
High Templar
Feedback range increased from 9 to 10
Terran: Long-winded complex change of requirements for stuff.
Zerg: Change range and damage.
Protoss: Complex new interaction between abilities.
Seems like a good adjustment in general
|
On May 22 2020 01:49 Vision_ wrote:
Disruptors seems to be a really crap unit...
Hate what the unit looks like but I gotta say it creates some interesting interactions. I just wish it was possible to focus fire it as a counter play
|
On May 20 2020 14:05 hiroshOne wrote:
Indeed. I don't think that Zerg needs to be nerfed in current balance state. I understand that Protoss needs some help maybe, but I feel like Zerg is the weakest race nowadays concidering Blizzcon changes. Transitioning into late game is pretty much hard for Z already. I don't think nerfing this race will help, it will just force Zerg into midgame or early game allins. Kill or die. And to be honest why would they go to lategame, as both lg options are so bad. Broodlords were nerfed to the ground, Infestors are pretty much useless without infested terrans, and Ultras are stupid cows as always dying from small packs of bio as usual.
I couldn't agree more Zerg seems to be on a bit of a downward trend result wise and Protoss is up and Terrans over the last couple months have been way up in terms of results just look at this first season of GSL Zerg has been doing awful and Protoss and Terran are both playing a lot better than they have in recent history. It isn't just in Korea either Clem has been playing out of his mind lately beating almost everyone including a reverse 3-2 sweep on Serral a couple weeks ago and Heromarine has also been in excellent shape winning many online cups against the best EU players. I also agree in regards to your thoughts on Zerg hive tech its basically useless especially with the fast drop style that Terran has favored as of late over mech the mobility is just atrocious. I think the game is in a pretty big state of flux at the moment and would honestly prefer Blizzard hold off on any patch until we see how things play out more.
|
On May 21 2020 12:24 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 21 2020 12:07 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 16:25 pvsnp wrote:On May 20 2020 16:23 BerserkSword wrote:On May 20 2020 15:58 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:42 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:36 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:21 Decendos wrote:On May 20 2020 15:11 Luolis wrote:On May 20 2020 15:08 Soke wrote:
ZvT is already slightly T favored. This is just gonna make it worse What exactly makes you think this way :D Results of last 4 weeks? GSL / TSL etc.? They actually go through with such dumb logic "its only small buff to WM and only 3 small nerfs to Zerg"...yeah so its 4 changes that buff T in the MU that is already pretty T favored... Well we´ll see i guess Z can just go infestors now that microbial thing is OP - LOL! :-D Can you point a single result from GSL where the zerg should have won a game they lost? TSL is still going on and the results really are not that outrageous (especially if you include cross-server lag). erm is it the good old Terran player play better so they deserve to win argument again? Winrates of last 4 weeks dont care about single games. Its not like TvZ is broken now - its slightly T favored but 4 (!!) favorable buffs for T in the MU will break it. . Yea are you telling me that scarlett losing to innovation is a sign of imbalance, or that Maru and Innovation beating Ragnarok are upsets? The winrates are quite even in total. The mine change won't change shit, nor will the bane nerf. Queen nerf and creep nerf will have some effect, but we'll have to wait and see what the full extent of that is. While I like that they didnt take the HP off of banes, I still think even this small bane nerf is huge, especially in TvZ. Zerg is already struggling HARD to trade anywhere close to efficiently against Terran. This nerf makes it even worse as banes still do find connections on things like marauders and tanks. The way the state of the TvZ metagame is right now, even a "small" nerf like this will have significant consequences. The mine buff is significant as well. It opens up stronger hellbat timings and mech is extremely viable against zerg already. The queen nerf is actually a nerf to roach ravager, which already struggles a lot vs banshees and drop play. Things are looking grim for zerg imo Worst comes to worst, maybe Zerg suffers in ZvT for a couple months. Sucks for them I guess, but it's nothing the other races haven't had to deal with over the past few years. Perfect balance is impossible, and Zerg has been on the good side for quite some time. They'll get over it. I think it was Rotti who said on the Pylon Show "Maybe they nerf Zerg a little too much. Is that really such a bad thing?" meh. i'd rather not have a system of "revenge" balancing lol Not a system, just an unavoidable consequence of imperfect balance. Not revenge, just a nerf whose impact is impossible to predict perfectly. This patch is apparently the balance team's best effort to achieve good balance. But if it turns out that the nerf was a little much and Zerg struggles, oh well, not the end of the world. Like Rotti said, it's not such a bad thing.
Online tournaments are heavely dominated by various T in both korean and foreigner scenes.
Aligulac now is inclining into T favored.
Last gsl tournament results speak for themselves.
And the patch is not even live : it is a revenge patch.
Not the end of the world but I rather see pvp. At least protoss players and community figures are less toxics overall and the race didn't dominate since a long time.
|
And the one before had 7 protoss in ro16, you can't complain about balance just because of 2 games of your favorite player that went wrong.
Using Aligulac as balance talk isn't smart at all, Elazer won against TY the day before TY outplayed Dark, the difference ? stakes and ping. Olimoleague is dominated by Z in 2020, and ? Protoss is the lagging race probably because it is also the least played.
|
On May 22 2020 03:45 algue wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 01:49 Vision_ wrote:
Disruptors seems to be a really crap unit... Hate what the unit looks like but I gotta say it creates some interesting interactions. I just wish it was possible to focus fire it as a counter play
It is in small numbers once their is a high count not so much. That’s why I wish ravens were a viable counter, if Terran could make 1 raven per 2 disruptor then they could inference them when they tried to use nova, it would be extremely hard to do but it would at least provide some kind of counter play.Terran has good options for countering high tier aoe units except the ruptor, ghost counter ht, Viking counters collosi. What counters ruptors? Micro counters them to a point but once thier are enough the zoning potential becomes to much. I guess bcs are an answer but it’s typically not possible for Terran to tech switch to them
|
On May 22 2020 05:31 DieuCure wrote:And the one before had 7 protoss in ro16, you can't complain about balance just because of 2 games of your favorite player that went wrong. Using Aligulac as balance talk isn't smart at all, Elazer won against TY the day before TY outplayed Dark, the difference ? stakes and ping. Olimoleague is dominated by Z in 2020, and ? Protoss is the lagging race probably because it is also the least played.
2 victories for P, 1 for Z, 1 for T since 2020 in monthly results and 6 Z, 7P and 1 T in the weekly tournament you might have some problems with numbers lately, this is a 2 races dominations and the big tourney is quite balanced for now.
But ok, this online cup is surprisingly not dominated by T contrary to the others... Which is odd if you take into account other numbers that disprove your point :
Gsl had one Z in ro8 meaning all the others disappeared and the last one supposed to be the best zerg in the world lost badly.
But let's go deeper :
Between the february 1 and now.
Elazer is at 57% against non korean T while Heromarine is close to 82%.
Reynor is at 62% while Clem is at 79%.
Serral didn't play enough to be relevant but his games against Clem clearly indicates he is struggling too.
You could argue it doesn't mean much as they're playing a lot of opponents who are below their level but it is another indicator at least that a hammer nerf is not necessary.
Actually I am even very surprised by such differences.
Now let's see the numbers of the koreans, in the same period of time, their scene is more stacked so it is less volatile :
Innovation is at 65% in total in this mu (both korean only and in total).
Cure is at 75% against kor only
Maru gives the same problem as serral but is at 68% with his loss against rogue and his 4-3 victory over Dark
Only TY is lagging behind with only 59%
Which is still way better than the zergs :
Rogue is at 41% in zvt
Dark at 54%.
soO 55%
Solar 52%
So, every top terrans in Korea has waaay better winrates in this mu than their korean counterparts since +3months and a half.
And it is exactly the same for the foreigner where zerg has dominated since 2011. And each players played quite a lot of time during this time, only Serral and Maru slacked.
That said, the mu is heavely dependant of maps so it can be stabilized but let's not make it as if this hammer nerf isn't a vengeance.
|
Bisutopia19299 Posts
Baneling change looks like a good one. As a protoss player, I am not a fan of the new shield battery ability. I think the shield battery was a great addition on its own and would prefer changes to non-static defenses if any changes were made. It also feels like the mothership core gimmick. Overall, not a bad patch though.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 22 2020 07:12 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 22 2020 05:31 DieuCure wrote:And the one before had 7 protoss in ro16, you can't complain about balance just because of 2 games of your favorite player that went wrong. Using Aligulac as balance talk isn't smart at all, Elazer won against TY the day before TY outplayed Dark, the difference ? stakes and ping. Olimoleague is dominated by Z in 2020, and ? Protoss is the lagging race probably because it is also the least played. 2 victories for P, 1 for Z, 1 for T since 2020 in monthly results and 6 Z, 7P and 1 T in the weekly tournament you might have some problems with numbers lately, this is a 2 races dominations and the big tourney is quite balanced for now. But ok, this online cup is surprisingly not dominated by T contrary to the others... Which is odd if you take into account other numbers that disprove your point : Gsl had one Z in ro8 meaning all the others disappeared and the last one supposed to be the best zerg in the world lost badly. But let's go deeper : Between the february 1 and now. Elazer is at 57% against non korean T while Heromarine is close to 82%. Reynor is at 62% while Clem is at 79%. Serral didn't play enough to be relevant but his games against Clem clearly indicates he is struggling too. You could argue it doesn't mean much as they're playing a lot of opponents who are below their level but it is another indicator at least that a hammer nerf is not necessary. Actually I am even very surprised by such differences. Now let's see the numbers of the koreans, in the same period of time, their scene is more stacked so it is less volatile : Innovation is at 65% in total in this mu (both korean only and in total). Cure is at 75% against kor only Maru gives the same problem as serral but is at 68% with his loss against rogue and his 4-3 victory over Dark Only TY is lagging behind with only 59% Which is still way better than the zergs : Rogue is at 41% in zvt Dark at 54%. soO 55% Solar 52% So, every top terrans in Korea has waaay better winrates in this mu than their korean counterparts since +3months and a half. And it is exactly the same for the foreigner where zerg has dominated since 2011. And each players played quite a lot of time during this time, only Serral and Maru slacked. That said, the mu is heavely dependant of maps so it can be stabilized but let's not make it as if this hammer nerf isn't a vengeance.
Like you saw Rogue and soO playing in GSL, right?
|
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 Republic12129 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 Republic12129 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 Republic12129 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
|
Bisutopia19299 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 Republic12129 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?
|
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
PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon.
Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4?
|
On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos 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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4?
It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another.
|
On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another.
If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg.
|
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?
70% winrate for Terran for 30 games played that means a lot. During broodlords infestors in WOL, the winrates were just 65% for Zerg.
That's probably explained by the change of the maps that were really big and openned before. But Terrans received buffs to compensate that, and now the maps are Terran favored, and the results show Zergs were destroyed in this GSL.
You can say, ok Zergs had a bad tournaments, but the concern is Terran received again a buff, while Zerg is triple nerf (queens, creep, banelings). You can argue that's for ZvP, but again ZvP was at 39% in this GSL.
We'll see in the next tournaments, but the actual balance (from maps or patches) seem to be extremely bad from this GSL (close to gomTvT or broodlords/infestors) and may be even worst with the new changes.
|
On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg.
Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all.
Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more.
|
Rofl, it's getting ridiculous, some Zerg viewers can't stand the fact that every single premier tournament finals hasn't to be ZvZ because they are so used to now.
Rogue and soO played awfully. That's it.
|
On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. I've thought about buffing forcefields and giving banes less damage vs shields too. Ultimately I wasn't too big of a fan of the forcefield idea though because the bile/FF interaction was added because forcefields were so oppressive in the match-up and a lot of people didn't like it (neither as viewers nor as players).
I'm not saying the changes Blizzard is making (to Protoss) are great either, but these seem to be the ones they're committed to and if that's the case there's no point to wait 2 more extra months to go through with them. And if this whole thing really becomes the true #TerranPatch that's fine too as long as Blizzard don't take forever to acknowledge it and react.
|
On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg.
You know blizzard adjust one time in a year. The two Bl/infest prove it while they let zerg without late game during 2 whole gsl and wcs globals at the end of hots.
Anyway, you can tweak the shield or armor upgrad so that +2 banes don't os probes (and 2shots ht if I am not mistaken), that's a proposition by Harstem.
Bring back graviton catapult, ht with +1 feedback, the battery ability seems good.
I think it would be enough, in worst case you can revert the chargelots to his previous state (less speed but the +8 damages), this ability is the reason why roach ravagers weren't that strong back then.
And still nerf the queen range.
So yes other options exist, now, blizzard just put Z at 55% in zvt I guess. Well, I don't really care of this number, I just look at the mu from the best players since 3 months and it's quite radical in both korean and foreigner scene. (I just looked at korean vs korean and foreigner vs foreigner there isn't too much cross server)
|
On May 24 2020 18:48 DieuCure wrote:
Rofl, it's getting ridiculous, some Zerg viewers can't stand the fact that every single premier tournament finals hasn't to be ZvZ because they are so used to now.
Rogue and soO played awfully. That's it.
I genuinely think people are just posting without watching the series they played.
|
On May 24 2020 22:56 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:48 DieuCure wrote:
Rofl, it's getting ridiculous, some Zerg viewers can't stand the fact that every single premier tournament finals hasn't to be ZvZ because they are so used to now.
Rogue and soO played awfully. That's it. I genuinely think people are just posting without watching the series they played.
Sure dude, TY is not watching games either as he states the meta is currently terran favored.
|
On May 24 2020 22:56 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:48 DieuCure wrote:
Rofl, it's getting ridiculous, some Zerg viewers can't stand the fact that every single premier tournament finals hasn't to be ZvZ because they are so used to now.
Rogue and soO played awfully. That's it. I genuinely think people are just posting without watching the series they played.
That's the feeling I get too. You cannot look at those games Solar played and go "yup, there's a balance issue here". It was the Snarf Olympics on his part. His entire BO3 against TY was under 10 minutes. Several of the other zergs just barely didn't make it through like Ragnarok, who played well and had several close games. Impact got knocked out entirely by Cure, who has been on an upward trajectory for nearly a year now and has so far put in some of his most dominant performances this season. Scarlett similarly performed quite well despite ultimately losing to Dear, who she had already won a series against.
It's not like there was some major balance issue identified. Most of the zergs who lost ended up doing so in close games that could have went either way.
If anything, it's probably this map pool, which tends to favour terran tank pushes and protoss sentry-based all-ins, that is more problematic than anything. Most games this GSL have been shorter than normal for a reason.
On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos 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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon.
This is a good summary of my views as well. Every genuine attempt Blizzard made at giving protoss something new at all in the last 2 years has been either neutered to a mediocre half-measure (the stalker changes and the tempest changes) or completely undone while various options for doing all-ins/pressures are also being taken away along with other nerfs that straight up didn't seem thought through (that feedback damage nerf is sure having a lot of repercussions they didn't seem to notice at first). Now one of the only effective ways of playing protoss against zerg is to do committed pressures or all-ins and hope to either win outright or cripple the opponent so they are far behind. Once zerg gets better at holding the latest batches of pressures and all-ins (like glaive adepts we've been seeing. They're already starting to get shut down much better than in the past) or the maps change to less favour all-ins we'll be back at square one with protoss back to not having any reliable ways of putting on pressure against zerg that can't be held by queens and a few roaches.
|
you know what Sc2 needs? cash cups like fortnite if they had cash cups I feel like people would love them, instead of just random online cups they have like $100 buck and if you win you can get into something bigger like $500 and so on.
|
On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more.
I like the idea of reduced damage vs shield. MIght be interesting to have it be -2 damage + an additional 2 damage for each shield upgrade. - would give protoss a real reason to get shield upgrades for a change. plus it would be hilarious to watch 30 banelings fail to kill a +3 shield archon
|
On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more.
Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ.
|
On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ.
Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest.
Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors.
|
On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors.
Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that.
It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank.
|
On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank.
I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar.
This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think
Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon.
I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor
|
On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor
What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore..
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
Of course, this is just the way Z works, so nothing wrong there. The problem is when your answer to pretty much everything is 1 unit... and your counter attack option is the same unit... etc. etc.
but ye
and actually, just to edit: I wouldn't even say it's a "problem", it's just a really stale meta/appealing design failure.
|
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
Buffing lurkers with insta burrow -> imagine the bnet forums. Not gonna happen(i mean on hive lurkers are insane the lower you use them(and can keep in mind burrowed units don't move with f2 ))
|
On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote: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 PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon. Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore..
That was not what I was going for at all....
On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo
The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit.
Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless.
|
On May 27 2020 20:08 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:On May 24 2020 18:07 Elentos wrote:
[quote]
PvZ winrates in tournaments (per Aligulac) have been significantly below 50% for all but 8 months in this expansion that is almost 5 years old. In the past 2 years, Protoss have won 5 Premier events (as classified by Liquipedia), which is less than Maru alone and not at all comparable with the over 20 that Zerg won. In that time frame, even though Protoss players were repeatedly calling for help against Zerg they never received any significant buffs for that matchup that actually got to stay in the game. Last year, when there was a 4-week period where 2-base all-ins were particularly strong in PvZ, they were nerfed while Zergs were already figuring out how to defend. Meanwhile, BL/infestor was making late game PvZ unplayable for most of the year but was left untouched until after Blizzcon.
Protoss hasn't gotten anything from Blizzard in the last few years. How much longer do you think they should wait just because there's one GSL without a Zerg in the top 4? It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore.. That was not what I was going for at all.... Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back. BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit. Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless.
Honestly I think the current state of zerg balance is almost entirely due to maps this is the first map pool in forever where the majority rather than minority’s of maps have significant terrain features. It’s pretty much the first unfavorable map pool for zerg in years.
I think if you saw a different map pool without any balance changes Terran would perform worse in tvz.
|
On May 28 2020 00:44 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 20:08 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:On May 27 2020 16:45 Harris1st wrote:On May 27 2020 15:38 pvsnp wrote:On May 27 2020 14:37 Drfilip wrote:On May 25 2020 07:45 Lexender wrote:On May 24 2020 18:32 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On May 24 2020 18:21 Elentos wrote:On May 24 2020 18:10 stilt wrote:
[quote]
It's weird seeing a poster with +50k posts not knowing that you can buff a race without nerfing another. If you can think of buffs that will bring Protoss to 50% PvZ winrates without bringing them to 55% in PvT, I'm all for that. They can always adjust stuff later if they overnerf Zerg. Making forcefields require two biles to kill and biting the bullet and giving banes minus damage to shields would together do more for PvZ than this array of changes, and would literally not affect PvT or TvZ, at all. Sure, Blizz has not been keen on minus damage modifiers, but we already have a bunch of units with special modifiers to hurt shields more. Changing the damage does not affect TvZ like people think it does, a tactic thats already used is to kite with ONLY marines and leave marauders in the front because using banes on marauders has always been a stupid move this doesn't change that. Theres really no unit you are killing with banes that isn't light in TvZ. Even if you aim for the marines with banes, a lot of them will blow up on other stuff. There is also regularly a lack of bane micro, which lead to banes running into whatever is closest. Many a time have I seen a muta, ling, bane player defeat a bio, thor army and using banes to blow up the last thor in order to quickly swoop in with mutas without losing too many. That tactic will be worse with a lowered bane damage vs thors. Good. Banelings shouldn't counter everything. Watching 50 of them blow up a whole army because Zerg can afford the trade is stupid. There's no other way to convert resources into damage like that. It's perverse how banelings being a suicide units becomes an advantage once Zerg has a huge bank. I'd say HT's go in the same direction, you barely get more than one storm/ templar. This can also backfire quite heavily, recent example beeing DRG ivs Zest in TSL5 I think Nevertheless I agree. Banelings are the ultimate anti ground weapon. I just worry Zerg beeing overnerfed, TvZ is fine. All changes together could easily sway this in Terrans favor What? When do you ever see a P player with more than like ... 12 HT? And that's like.. 6 with army, and others at home in case of retreat/spread on map, which we dont really see anymore.. That was not what I was going for at all.... On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back. BUFF Swarmhosts??? Nooooooooooo The only Zerg unit who maybe deserves a buff are Ultras, because they suck balls for what they cost as a unit and tech path to get there. Make em smaller, cheaper and not so clunky and reduce HP and damage a bit. Zerg has still nydus as harass tool. Just because it isn't crazy OP anymore doesn't mean it's useless. Honestly I think the current state of zerg balance is almost entirely due to maps this is the first map pool in forever where the majority rather than minority’s of maps have significant terrain features. It’s pretty much the first unfavorable map pool for zerg in years. I think if you saw a different map pool without any balance changes Terran would perform worse in tvz.
I agree. 2019 was a year of very little in the way of balance changes. Three balance updates in total; 1 of them very minor. The highlight of the buffs to Terran was Thor AA-range increase and a new upgrade for Ghost EMP's radius.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/xR27fsm.png)
With relatively the same balance, and the fact that there isn't a revolutionary new style of TvZ that's shaking up the meta, Terrans having a resurgence recently is only explained by the new maps.
If the balance team believes that TvZ is Terran favoured; what happens when the map pool changes? what happens when pro zergs adapt to the new maps?
|
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
|
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
Thors need to be able to 1-shot broodlords or else they get stuck behind broodlings. A 1-range advantage isn't enough to make a couple thors threaten broodlords. And bio Terrans dont have the infrastructure to mass produce thors; the meta rightnow (from what I've seen) is bio-mine-tank pushes in TvZ.
BC's also got their instant teleport nerfed (I have not really seen BCs massed in late-game after that patch) and lib range got nerfed too (libs were/still are used in late-game TvZ).
I, for one, am glad if pro Terrans feel that they dont have to play on a timer. But I attribute that to maps being strong with tanks. Terrans are able to pressure Zergs in the mid-game enough to force poor trades and have enough map-control to expand.
|
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action.
And the less said about mass infestor the better.
|
On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better.
Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
|
On May 28 2020 13:59 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
That's not a design problem. I stand by my position that BLs are horrible for both game design and the game itself, for the same reason that skytoss and skyterran deathballs are also horrible. The fact that we see so few of them these days is a positive indication of the game's health.
If Zerg is indeed struggling, then buffs to ground units are the correct answer. Not a return to air deathballs. The Ultralisk would probably be the first candidate, since several of its counters have been buffed in recent years. But that's neither here nor there, seeing as the balance team has obviously concluded that Zerg buffs are not necessary at this time. The recent shift towards Terran did not happen as a result of any balance changes, but rather a change in the map pool. We are getting new maps with Season 2–maybe they will tilt things back towards Zerg. Time will tell.
|
On May 28 2020 13:59 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. Both Lurkers and Ultras suck hard vs bio especially in lategame. Pack of bio can easily stim into Lurkers and snipe them, ghost snipe too. There are not Broodwar Lurkers u know? And it's different pathing in here. That's why u see Zerg slowly bleeding units in lategame. Cost efficiency is not there compared to Terran. With nerfing banelings it will be just worse.
biggest problem right now where TvZ isnt okay is 3 things:
- super early game: 2 / 3 rax still has insane winrates --> mb super small nerf to rax build time like 2-3 sec?
- lairtech Z sucks
- superlategame Z cant trade anymore with PFs, mass OCs and ghosts on the field
My biggest problem with this is definetly lairtech Z sucking so hard. If anything we see mutas in ZvT, most times we just see +2 +2, get roach and banespeed and get to hive asap.
1 in 5 games its mutas --> kind of okay IF other styles become playable
1 in 20 games hydras --> way too expensive for what they do --> give them antihealing to fight bio comps better
1 in 100 games lurker (on lairtech!!) --> just seen on hivetech AFTER they have their 2 long and expensive upgrades and even then they suck because ghosts, mass tanks or mass drops kill the lurkerstyle
1 in 100 games SHs --> after nydus nerfs they just outright suck even against mech and lol SHs vs bio
1 in 1000 games its lairtech infestors bc you cant even harrass now that IT are gone --> just give it IT back with ground attack only
So basically what the patch will do is Z gets to lairtech EVEN worse with buffed libs, mines and less creep, so Z cant afford to build lairtech units and will even more depend on just +2 +2 ling bane...thats just bad and lairtech is where the most fun should be for Z...
|
On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better.
When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them...
TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that.
Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long.
Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so.
Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors
|
On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here.
Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC.
Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force.
It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on.
|
On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:
When Zerg start to say, the ZvT is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them...
see how that works ?
|
On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them... TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that. Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long. Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units.
I like how you completely ignored my other comment just so you could whine disingenuously..
|
On May 27 2020 17:21 Decendos wrote:
What they need to do is nerf banes and queens and buff SHs, lurker, infestor, hydras in some way - basically all lairtech Z units are not good or really bad right now. Mostly lair is for upgrades and speed for your roach ling bane ravager with sometimes mutas that are also massively nerfed with free invisible WMs after patch...
Would also be fine with not even buffing above units but buffing Z harrass. Right now Z cant harrass at all (or if the do its once again baneling runbys) --> buff ovispeed for ovidrops, buff roachburrow, give infestors IT (groundattack only) back.
Pls leave the swarm host in its niche role until it gets yet another design revamp, it's a strong contender for lamest unit in the game rn
|
On May 28 2020 18:00 pvsnp wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them... TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that. Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long. Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units. I like how you completely ignored my other comment just so you could whine disingenuously..
I like how you ignore any arguments i've provided to just nearly insult me.
Unlike you i now play both Zerg and Terran, and i've to say i've gave up playing Zerg completly because it's x100 times more fun to play Terran than Zerg, specially in TvZ.
You're claiming TvZ is fine designwise because you play on the only side who has fun in the match up.
On the Zerg side, the game is a torture where you are the punching ball of the terran for 10min+. The number showed that's even not balance if you look the winrate.
You speak about broodlords, but they are quite similar to liberator and siege tanks. Except broodlords is the hardest tech to unlock while siege tank is one of the easiest. Mech and siege tanks do encourage turtling way more than broodlords, whose actually main function in the MU is to be an anti-mass tanks.
So the combination of tanks/thors give Terran a combinaison to turtle the whole game and event in lategame with little answer for Zerg. And ultras/lurkers are also counter by tanks. The only thing that remains is vipers, and grabing one by one the deathball which means long and uninteresting games.
|
Zergs should be happy of the map pool this year
They are allowed to play on " Rush Map "
Ah Ah Ah
|
On May 28 2020 17:54 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here. Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC. Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force. It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on.
I agree, baneling cost per supply is way too high.
Let's double bane supply to 2 - problem solved.
|
On May 28 2020 21:57 LTCM wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:54 Drfilip wrote:On May 27 2020 16:53 -Kyo- wrote:
I think the point he is trying to make is that there is very few other units that it's almost better to have just MORE of, even if it outnumbers your other units. The reason is because if you get basically any trades at all, the units youre killing cost more, take longer to rebuild, cost more supply etc so it's almost always a better trade. Not to mention, if you survive X amount of time without taking damage as Z, that means your eco is generally ahead/you've established more larva/bases etc. Therefore, simply trading leads to the establishment of being able to dump into your next tech such as mutas when available etc off your eco advantage etc.
I just want to point out one detail here. Banelings are the most expensive unit per supply in the game. 50 minerals for 2 zerglings and 25 gas and minerals extra per baneling making 1 supply cost 100 minerals and 50 gas or 150 resources. There are units that are more gas intensive, e.g. observer, ghost, DT, viper. Notable units that do not cost more gas per supply compared to banelings are the colossus, medivac, siege tank, mutalisk, lurker, sentry, disruptor and BC. Banelings seldom trade cost effectively in higher numbers. They can be used in high numbers because of the strong economy and the time it takes for the opponent to reassemble a fighting force. It was just the part about being cheaper that I did not agree on. I agree, baneling cost per supply is way too high. Let's double bane supply to 2 - problem solved.
Let's also double their explosion radius
Now, can we stop the whining and go back to the patch at hand which will come after GSL Code S is over I guess
|
On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors
It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says.
Thors have 11 range.
|
On May 28 2020 22:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says. Thors have 11 range.
Yeah. And thanks to that - 1 Thor counters mutas if they're under 20, and few Thor's counter Broodlords. As a Zerg I wish i had opportunity to make LITERALLY one unit to counter whole playstyle hard,l. Imagine 3 corruptors countering 10 BattleCruisers.
|
On May 29 2020 01:45 hiroshOne wrote:
Yeah. And thanks to that - 1 Thor counters mutas if they're under 20, and few Thor's counter Broodlords. As a Zerg I wish i had opportunity to make LITERALLY one unit to counter whole playstyle hard,l. Imagine 3 corruptors countering 10 BattleCruisers.
I couldn t imagine such a deep whine about a single little buff.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 28 2020 22:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says. Thors have 11 range.
THanks for the update on it, I missed the patch then.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 29 2020 01:45 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 22:34 Big J wrote:On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says. Thors have 11 range. Yeah. And thanks to that - 1 Thor counters mutas if they're under 20, and few Thor's counter Broodlords. As a Zerg I wish i had opportunity to make LITERALLY one unit to counter whole playstyle hard,l. Imagine 3 corruptors countering 10 BattleCruisers.
Maybe one day Blizzard changes mutalisks, so hardcounters won't be necessary.
ZvP - phoenix, multiple patches addressing air zerg
ZvZ - spore, at least one patch to address mutalisk
TvZ - thor, i believe there were multiple patches addressing the unit basedo n zerg air
Most of the time it was based on mutas, several times on BL. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it would be wiser to change muta and BL?
|
On May 29 2020 01:45 hiroshOne wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 22:34 Big J wrote:On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says. Thors have 11 range. Yeah. And thanks to that - 1 Thor counters mutas if they're under 20, and few Thor's counter Broodlords. As a Zerg I wish i had opportunity to make LITERALLY one unit to counter whole playstyle hard,l. Imagine 3 corruptors countering 10 BattleCruisers.
Thats honestly complete bull, ive seen a map where literally 5 thors get killed by 20 muta's which got magicboxed and barely any died. A thor is nice to scare some muta's away with bio support, but a single thor wont do much v 8+ muta's. Beside muta's are in a really good spot right now. They have a strong place in zvz, used in ZvP here and there and in ZvT we see them around 80% of the time. Even against mech with the rich vespene gass zergs like too play mass muta's v mech which involves thors and bc's. So I dont know Kev, but they seem like a good unit
|
I too would like to know when Thors obtained this magical ability to counter any number of mutas lower than 20, especially given that the Thor vs muta interaction is exactly the same as in Heart of the Swarm, and they certainly didn't do that there.
|
On May 29 2020 06:16 Athenau wrote:
I too would like to know when Thors obtained this magical ability to counter any number of mutas lower than 20, especially given that the Thor vs muta interaction is exactly the same as in Heart of the Swarm, and they certainly didn't do that there.
Thor has lost 1 armor since then.
I am unsure, but I believe that the splash radius has been reduced too.
Mutas are stronger vs thor now.
|
On May 29 2020 06:56 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 06:16 Athenau wrote:
I too would like to know when Thors obtained this magical ability to counter any number of mutas lower than 20, especially given that the Thor vs muta interaction is exactly the same as in Heart of the Swarm, and they certainly didn't do that there. Thor has lost 1 armor since then. I am unsure, but I believe that the splash radius has been reduced too. Mutas are stronger vs thor now.
Thors got +1 armor and increased splash radius in LotV, but they reverted that in-lieu of buffing the high-impact mode instead. Now the Thor vs muta interaction is exactly like it was in Heart of the Swarm
|
On May 28 2020 20:02 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2020 18:00 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 17:15 Tyrhanius wrote:On May 28 2020 13:53 pvsnp wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. TvZ is in a great spot now design-wise precisely because BL are shit. They are slow, valuable, vulnerable, and stackable units, designed in such a way that actively encourages turtling around a deathball. They are a wonderful example of the worst design principles in SC2. In their absence, Zerg uses ground units like Ultras and Lurkers. Faster units that fuel a dynamic multipronged, back-and-forth style with lots of action. And the less said about mass infestor the better. When Terrans start to say, the TvZ is in great spot, you have to understand that means for them... TvZ was at 70% on GSL, gomTvT and broodlords/infestors in WOL was more balanced than that. Zerg had a good lategame before simply because the map pool had big maps where it was easier to take a lot of expansions or to slow the mech push when the rush distance is long. Now it's not the case, and Zerg are in huge trouble because the two T3 units can't compete with the P/T lategame, and maps aren't not big enough to get enough expansions to compensate by a better macro the lack of cost effectivity of Zerg units. I like how you completely ignored my other comment just so you could whine disingenuously.. I like how you ignore any arguments i've provided to just nearly insult me. Unlike you i now play both Zerg and Terran, and i've to say i've gave up playing Zerg completly because it's x100 times more fun to play Terran than Zerg, specially in TvZ. You're claiming TvZ is fine designwise because you play on the only side who has fun in the match up. On the Zerg side, the game is a torture where you are the punching ball of the terran for 10min+. The number showed that's even not balance if you look the winrate. You speak about broodlords, but they are quite similar to liberator and siege tanks. Except broodlords is the hardest tech to unlock while siege tank is one of the easiest. Mech and siege tanks do encourage turtling way more than broodlords, whose actually main function in the MU is to be an anti-mass tanks. So the combination of tanks/thors give Terran a combinaison to turtle the whole game and event in lategame with little answer for Zerg. And ultras/lurkers are also counter by tanks. The only thing that remains is vipers, and grabing one by one the deathball which means long and uninteresting games.
Hate to break it to you buddy, but your ladder experience means nothing in terms of balance.
Git gud.
|
On May 29 2020 01:59 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2020 01:45 hiroshOne wrote:On May 28 2020 22:34 Big J wrote:On May 28 2020 17:47 deacon.frost wrote:On May 28 2020 06:13 Snakestyle11 wrote:
Zergs also lost infested terrans, and broodlords get outranged by thors now.
Its a huge change to late game. Terrans arent as scared to keep making Command centers and get to the late game anymore, where as before they would just *all-in* on 3 bases , maybe 4 almost every game and try to end the game before mass infesters.
IMO, bring back infested terrans, but NOT the super rocket anti air. Were IT op against ground? I dont think so. Did they fix the bug the BL can shoot from +2 distance if not a-moved but directly aiming at target? (shift clicking thors) Not sure if it's a bug and if it's in the game anymore, but if it's still in the game BL outrange Thors It wasn't a bug and it isn't in the game anymore. The general behaviour how the broodlord actually works as a carrier is still there, but the broodling leash range has been reduced from 12 to 9. So as far as I understand it the actual broodlord range should be down to 9 (used to be 12), not 10 as the weapon stat in the game says. Thors have 11 range. Yeah. And thanks to that - 1 Thor counters mutas if they're under 20, and few Thor's counter Broodlords. As a Zerg I wish i had opportunity to make LITERALLY one unit to counter whole playstyle hard,l. Imagine 3 corruptors countering 10 BattleCruisers. Maybe one day Blizzard changes mutalisks, so hardcounters won't be necessary. ZvP - phoenix, multiple patches addressing air zerg ZvZ - spore, at least one patch to address mutalisk TvZ - thor, i believe there were multiple patches addressing the unit basedo n zerg air Most of the time it was based on mutas, several times on BL. MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, it would be wiser to change muta and BL?
You cant expect blizzard to bring any type of balance to Zerg.
Yeah at the highest level in GSL they arent a factor. But the rest of the world is dominated by how OP the race actually is. Blizzard even stated in the past that they want to see Zerg win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/kIn11ml.png)
