|
On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much.
That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected:
Probe
Stalker
Sentry
Immortal
Colossus
SCV
MULE
Hellion
Siege Tank
Thor
(landed) Viking
|
On August 07 2020 21:28 sneakyfox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much. That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected: Probe Stalker Sentry Immortal Colossus SCV MULE Hellion Siege Tank Thor (landed) Viking
I look forward to Ravager bane being countered by mass immortal
|
On August 07 2020 22:04 Z3nith wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 21:28 sneakyfox wrote:On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much. That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected: Probe Stalker Sentry Immortal Colossus SCV MULE Hellion Siege Tank Thor (landed) Viking I look forward to Ravager bane being countered by mass immortal
It's not like you are making banes to waste them on Immortals anyway. They are there to counter Zealots/Adepts and zone out HT and this interaction wouldn't be affected if banes were nerfed vs mechanical.
|
Northern Ireland26222 Posts
On August 07 2020 21:28 sneakyfox wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much. That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected: Probe Stalker Sentry Immortal Colossus SCV MULE Hellion Siege Tank Thor (landed) Viking
I’d quite like to see manual detonations having some beneficial trade off vs attack-moving.
+2 banes rolling into worker lines feels insanely unforgiving for the defender right now. If the attacker could get a one shot kill with a manual detonation, but not with A-moving you could get a bit of a dance going, or at least the harassing player would have to keep eyes on it to maximise damage.
It’s not especially intuitive though, so there is that problem.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On August 07 2020 22:09 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 21:28 sneakyfox wrote:On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much. That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected: Probe Stalker Sentry Immortal Colossus SCV MULE Hellion Siege Tank Thor (landed) Viking I’d quite like to see manual detonations having some beneficial trade off vs attack-moving. +2 banes rolling into worker lines feels insanely unforgiving for the defender right now. If the attacker could get a one shot kill with a manual detonation, but not with A-moving you could get a bit of a dance going, or at least the harassing player would have to keep eyes on it to maximise damage. It’s not especially intuitive though, so there is that problem.
we need them baneling cannons  Ravager holding up to 4 banelings and shooting them with higher damage, banes denote upon impact. Skill shot = rewards.
|
Northern Ireland26222 Posts
On August 07 2020 22:50 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2020 22:09 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 07 2020 21:28 sneakyfox wrote:On August 07 2020 21:23 ytherik wrote:On August 07 2020 21:19 Elentos wrote:On August 07 2020 21:13 ytherik wrote:
Was anybody complaining about baneling damage actually? Banelings are de bombas, they are supposed to deal terrible damage, that's the design of the unit. Why not just make them more expensive or more squishy if they seem too strong? Weird decision with the damage nerf indeed. The only damage complaint I regularly see is that +2 banelings one-shot probes which this doesn't affect at all. I assume this is an attempt to make it so Zergs can't just go mass baneling against stalker/colossus and get away with it. But I really don't think that's the problem with Zerg or banelings. Wouldn't lowering bane dmg vs mechanical fix the problem more elegantly then? Then it wouldn't affect ZvZ nor Bane vs Zealot interaction. That's the first thing that comes to my mind. It even makes sense lore wise since bane is full of some toxic substance that should not affect mechanical units and structures so much. That's an interesting idea when looking at the units that would be affected: Probe Stalker Sentry Immortal Colossus SCV MULE Hellion Siege Tank Thor (landed) Viking I’d quite like to see manual detonations having some beneficial trade off vs attack-moving. +2 banes rolling into worker lines feels insanely unforgiving for the defender right now. If the attacker could get a one shot kill with a manual detonation, but not with A-moving you could get a bit of a dance going, or at least the harassing player would have to keep eyes on it to maximise damage. It’s not especially intuitive though, so there is that problem. we need them baneling cannons Ravager holding up to 4 banelings and shooting them with higher damage, banes denote upon impact. Skill shot = rewards.
Sick, and sentries get a new ability called ‘force umbrella’ to cast above the heads of its fellow Protoss warriors. I’m liking these changes man!
|
About the Void Ray changes:
I'll freely admit to doing a proxy Void Ray Shield Battery build in every PvT. I have about a 80-90% winrate with it in D1/M3. With those changes to Void Rays, that build would be utterly ridiculous.
It probably wouldn't ruin PvP as much. The higher you get in rating, the more easily Void Rays get shut down.
For PvZ, Void Rays haven't been relevant since sOs (and then Naniwa copying him) did a Void Ray/Chargelot/Storm build sometime in 2014, and Zergs realized they could just counter it with mass Queens. Nowadays Zergs make more Queens anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. When I play Zerg, I find mass Void Rays pretty easy to beat as long as I remember to connect all my bases with creep.
--
In my eyes, only two things need to be addressed right now: the efficiency of using mass Bane against units it is not supposed to be efficient, and the ease with which Zerg can take out Carriers through Neural. Given these changes, it seems Blizzard has recognized that these are problems, but I'm not so sure about their solutions.
|
On August 08 2020 00:03 Aesto wrote:
About the Void Ray changes:
I'll freely admit to doing a proxy Void Ray Shield Battery build in every PvT. I have about a 80-90% winrate with it in D1/M3. With those changes to Void Rays, that build would be utterly ridiculous.
It probably wouldn't ruin PvP as much. The higher you get in rating, the more easily Void Rays get shut down.
For PvZ, Void Rays haven't been relevant since sOs (and then Naniwa copying him) did a Void Ray/Chargelot/Storm build sometime in 2014, and Zergs realized they could just counter it with mass Queens. Nowadays Zergs make more Queens anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. When I play Zerg, I find mass Void Rays pretty easy to beat as long as I remember to connect all my bases with creep.
--
In my eyes, only two things need to be addressed right now: the efficiency of using mass Bane against units it is not supposed to be efficient, and the ease with which Zerg can take out Carriers through Neural. Given these changes, it seems Blizzard has recognized that these are problems, but I'm not so sure about their solutions.
Banelings are highly cost inefficient vs anything that are not packed marines. However it's the only units Zerg can make in numbers. The 200 supply cap and the heavy supply cost of every Zerg units while they need more economy supply is limiting Zerg composition choice.
The deathball is way too strong in SC2, while not interesting at all. However, with this patch, Blizzard want to make it invincible, which is another step into killing SC2 (which is already become an awful game due to the balance team trying to follow any random dudes that whine loudly).
|
On August 08 2020 00:29 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2020 00:03 Aesto wrote:
About the Void Ray changes:
I'll freely admit to doing a proxy Void Ray Shield Battery build in every PvT. I have about a 80-90% winrate with it in D1/M3. With those changes to Void Rays, that build would be utterly ridiculous.
It probably wouldn't ruin PvP as much. The higher you get in rating, the more easily Void Rays get shut down.
For PvZ, Void Rays haven't been relevant since sOs (and then Naniwa copying him) did a Void Ray/Chargelot/Storm build sometime in 2014, and Zergs realized they could just counter it with mass Queens. Nowadays Zergs make more Queens anyway, so I wouldn't worry about it. When I play Zerg, I find mass Void Rays pretty easy to beat as long as I remember to connect all my bases with creep.
--
In my eyes, only two things need to be addressed right now: the efficiency of using mass Bane against units it is not supposed to be efficient, and the ease with which Zerg can take out Carriers through Neural. Given these changes, it seems Blizzard has recognized that these are problems, but I'm not so sure about their solutions. Banelings are highly cost inefficient vs anything that are not packed marines. However it's the only units Zerg can make in numbers. The 200 supply cap and the heavy supply cost of every Zerg units while they need more economy supply is limiting Zerg composition choice. The deathball is way too strong in SC2, while not interesting at all. However, with this patch, Blizzard want to make it invincible, which is another step into killing SC2 (which is already become an awful game due to the balance team trying to follow any random dudes that whine loudly). Fair enough, I should have written 'effectiveness' rather than 'efficiency'.
|
I like most of these changes, and the reasoning behind them seems solid.
Not sure about the baneling though.. it will affect ZvZ and ZvT also. If the problem is the +2 banes one-shotting probes I'd suggest to change its attack from 18(+2)/+17(+2) to 18(+2)/+17(+1), so that +2 banes would do 41 dmg. They would not kill a level-2 armored probe. This is a minor nerf to banes in all match-ups when upgrades kick in, but not unreasonable given that it is a tier-1.5 unit.
|
A solution to +2 banes vs probes could be making the banelings gain 1 less damage per upgrade (either base or bonus, depending on how much you want to nerf them). +2 banes would deal 41 damage to light, so if protoss has 2 armor or shield upgrades, +2 banes don't kill probes. Right now they need 4 which obviously never happens. +3 comes far later into the game but even that could eventually be offset by 5 armor and shield upgrades. I think it's fair for protoss to have to keep up with zerg's upgrades in order to avoid getting losing their probes.
The question is if this change breaks other interactions with banelings and I honestly don't think it looks too bad. I just looked at light units to examine the softer bonus damage only version of the nerf and it seems fairly resonable to me:
In ZvZ, zerglings are completely unaffected. Drones, like probes, could avoid getting 1 shot by +2 banes by keeping up with armor upgrades. This mostly affects LBM. Drones, unlike probes, would still always 1 shot by +3 banes. Hydras with less than +2 carapace would no longer get 2 shot by +3 banes but that isn't relevant at all imo.
In ZvP, sentries and high templars would avoid getting 2 shot by +2 banes with 1 and 2 armor upgrades, respectively. This can make a huge difference in those fights where a few banes manage to slip through force fields and hit the casters. With maxed upgrades for both players, they also wouldn't get 2 shot. Adepts, DTs, and Zealots are affected with certain combinations of upgrades but the only one I find to be notable is +1 banes no longer 4 shoting unupgraded zealots.
In ZvT, SCVs without +3 armor would no longer be 1 shot which does make a real difference for lategame ZvMech. Mech is also helped out by hellbats not getting killed by 3 +3 banes, hellions with less than +3 armor would no longer die to 2 +3 banes. But all this probably wouldn't affect the matchup more than the base damage nerf imo.
For bio, the pure bane vs. marine interaction would be unchanged, banes would still 2 shot marines in all common situations. The significant difference is that the marines that only get hit by 1 bane would sometimes take 1 extra hit from another unit to kill.
Then there are all the other interactions where the banelings don't kill their target in and the nerf would let it take 1 more shot from the other zerg units but the biggest strength of banelings lies in killing units off completely before the rest of the army comes in so except for marines I don't think those situations are as important as the number of shots to kill various units (for example, 20 marines taking an extra hit each makes a big difference. 6 adepts, not so much).
Edit: Oh, someone else suggested the same thing while I typed this up
|
I'm reading a lot of baneling remorse, so I want to point some things out.
I've watched so many series in PvZ where the Protoss only won because the Zerg carelessly wasted a bunch of banelings on an Archon, and that's what was needed to come to an even mid-game - and even then the lategame was going to be garbage anyways so the Protoss won by leaning on superior engagements in the midgame. The Stats vs. Reynor finals in the Cynical Death cup is a perfect example of that.
Also, in the time before damage-amped siege tanks, banelings had 25 hp, and ZvT was balanced. +10 hp on units that can be massed... that was a HUGE increase in hp. That buff affected ZvP also, and but Protoss never had a buff like the siege tank buff to balance it out.
The baneling nerf is literally getting Artosis to play Starcraft 2 again after years on the sidelines. It's a good change.
|
Surprised to see Zerg not getting a buff. Usually the trend has been a Zerg nerf+buff. I could be wrong though.
|
United States4415 Posts
On August 07 2020 19:19 hiroshOne wrote:
These are horrible changes. Especially when we got literally 3 pro Zergs that are winning vs Protoss- Serral, Reynor and Rogue- arguably the best players in the world. So much effort to stop Serral from winning, seems to be ballshit not balancing the game. More and more nerfs for Zerg. It's ridiculous.
Dark has an 85% series winrate vs Protoss this year. soO has a 71%. Solar has an 80%. All Zergs are doing amazing in ZvP right now. It's considered the worst balanced matchup for a reason.
|
Might be nice to get some motivation behind the changes.
Some I like, but some (like the Void Ray ones) I am not looking forward to as a sub 5k Terran player. Void Ray + shield battery cheese is already hard enough to hold off with my poor micro, and now vikings and cyclones will be less effective at kiting them.
|
I have a feeling that they may not go through with all the Void Ray changes. I can see them doing just one or two of them. The Baneling change also has a negative impact on ZvZ.
|
Proxy voids + batteries is already very demanding for amateur terrans to micro properly. A cyclone/vk die in seconds when slightly mismicroed. Now it is going to be even harder...And yet the balance team didn't even mention this in their notes at all. All they could think of is 'chasing down banshees' LOL. I am in serious doubt of how they appreciate tvp.
|
The game is not and should not be balanced around amateur terran player's inability to micro properly.
|
Northern Ireland26222 Posts
On August 08 2020 05:18 DuckS wrote:
The game is not and should not be balanced around amateur terran player's inability to micro properly.
Luckily if you ask them any Terran in the world will report having roughly equivalent micro to ByuN at his peak, so it makes it easier to balance around micro requirements at least.
|
The baneling nerf was badly needed so that's good. In both PvZ and TvZ we were seeing ridiculous numbers of banelings being made and even when poorly used they seemed to be cost effective. We shouldn't be watching immortal/archon and mech armies getting wiped out by banelings. It's just silly.
The protoss air buffs outside of the oracle revelation one seem strange. They seem to be intended to buff protoss in PvZ but I'm not exactly sure how these changes do any of that. PvZ lategame isn't what's wrong right now. The issues are that protoss at the top level can almost never get past 3 bases without getting steamrolled by ling/bane/ravager compositions and that there are basically no effective pressure builds left that can't be comfortably dealt with in the majority of cases by zerg, making it difficult to slow down zerg's economy. Adept glaive builds have run their course and are being handled by zerg in such a way that these builds almost always end up with a zerg advantage/win now. Same with archon drops. The two stargate phoenix stuff pros were trying for a bit was even worse. We're basically at the point where anything less than the zerg player making a substantial mistake will result in the zerg by default having an economic advantage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
