EPTI'm glad they didn't buff void rays that much but they didn't tweak zerg enough for my liking, they will probably stay super strong
Balance Update - August 13, 2020 - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Poopi
France12758 Posts
I'm glad they didn't buff void rays that much but they didn't tweak zerg enough for my liking, they will probably stay super strong | ||
|
plainsane
Germany98 Posts
On August 21 2020 20:45 Vision_ wrote: I think many of us are unsatisfied of the economy LotV, i read recently a comment from Phantom explaining how the PvZ is impacted by this change (...tl.net...) Don't just blindly believe everything in a post. Talking about how economy is untouchable for zerg early/mid while protoss are often ahead in Probe count early game and it's hard to punish greedy Protoss either, esp with SB overcharge now. He also talks about zerg countering a VR with 20 hydras... Bro, if your VR is so late that a Z can build 20 Hydras, the problem is not balance or economy. Try playing Zerg for once and see how hard it is to know when to drone and when to build army to not just die on the spot to timings. Protoss can just keep building 3 Probes at a time, plus crono and not losing mining time to build or even have the worker be sacrificed. I fail to see there being an issue with eco differences, it's a good thing that the macro mechanics are different for each race, imagine how dull it would be otherwise | ||
|
Shuffleblade
Sweden1903 Posts
On August 21 2020 21:05 plainsane wrote: Don't just blindly believe everything in a post. Talking about how economy is untouchable for zerg early/mid while protoss are often ahead in Probe count early game and it's hard to punish greedy Protoss either, esp with SB overcharge now. He also talks about zerg countering a VR with 20 hydras... Bro, if your VR is so late that a Z can build 20 Hydras, the problem is not balance or economy. Try playing Zerg for once and see how hard it is to know when to drone and when to build army to not just die on the spot to timings. Protoss can just keep building 3 Probes at a time, plus crono and not losing mining time to build or even have the worker be sacrificed. I fail to see there being an issue with eco differences, it's a good thing that the macro mechanics are different for each race, imagine how dull it would be otherwise Phantoms point about how an accelerated need to expand favors zerg is true. Consider how terran by design is the defensive race that was supposed to be able to hunker down on few bases and be cost efficient. That option is now gone, bases mine out too fast so terran needs to spread their defenses too thin, consider bunkers cost supply and tanks covering bases do splash damage on scvs on zealot/zergling runbys. Zerg on the other were supposed to mass expand, both due to hatcheries being their production (more bases= more production) and because their units are cost innefficient. Now zerg and protoss both needs to expand faster than their race was originaly designed for and zerg are forced to do what they do best. Also the maps keeps growing ever larger which also favours zerg, zerg has much better tools to protect spread out bases, they have overlords which cost no supply to spot around the map. They have ever growing creep to get map awareness. Also generally their units are fastest. The situations forced upon all players with the redesign of LOTV does favour zerg, its just the way it is. They nerfed creep but it basically haven't made a difference, the creep is usually out of control by midgame anyway simply for the fact that queens can be used to defend anything and is always a good investment. I'm not saying zerg is easy, I am saying they are inherently favoured and the ball is almost always on T/P to do something to stunt zerg early even though the odds are against them. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23747 Posts
On August 21 2020 20:51 plainsane wrote: This thread gives me the impression that everyone is trying to get their race buffed or the others nerfed. I see tons of ideas that are bold and radical and all, but let's be honest, SC2 is not gonna get a massive overhaul, perhaps SC3 if it ever comes. Asking for buffs to GW units while GW timings are about the strongest in the game, maybe next to 2 Base tank pushes. Let's be mindful and embrace smaller changes rather than radical ones, all matchups are pretty good right now except for PvZ late game, so let's hope for small tweaks to that. PvZ is basically entirely terrible. My personal favourite combo of changes is making batteries retractable like depots and giving sentries a creep eradication field that has a similar radius to guardian shield. In theory in early game this gives Protoss more ability to push all their gateway units aggressively without worrying as much about walls, and Zerg shouldn’t be able to drone so hardcore, which slows them down slightly and the midgame is a bit less brutal. Robo isn’t needed to push observers to contain creep if a prism and sentries can act as a sharking squad and Protoss can have a more aggressive midgame. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: My personal favourite combo of changes is making batteries retractable like depots and giving sentries a creep eradication field that has a similar radius to guardian shield. In theory in early game this gives Protoss more ability to push all their gateway units aggressively without worrying as much about walls, and Zerg shouldn’t be able to drone so hardcore, which slows them down slightly and the midgame is a bit less brutal. Robo isn’t needed to push observers to contain creep if a prism and sentries can act as a sharking squad and Protoss can have a more aggressive midgame. Creep denying sentries is a new concept to me. I believe that I would never think of that. That it fits with the sentry name and lore wise makes it even better. Having sentries that deflect creep, maybe even forcing tumors to be visible when the creep is totally eradicated, would make for a major change in PvZ. It would be interesting to see how the games play out. I support this as a change in the yearly overhaul of the game. | ||
|
Vision_
844 Posts
| ||
|
hiroshOne
Poland424 Posts
| ||
|
Aesto
44 Posts
On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: PvZ is basically entirely terrible. My personal favourite combo of changes is making batteries retractable like depots and giving sentries a creep eradication field that has a similar radius to guardian shield. In theory in early game this gives Protoss more ability to push all their gateway units aggressively without worrying as much about walls, and Zerg shouldn’t be able to drone so hardcore, which slows them down slightly and the midgame is a bit less brutal. Robo isn’t needed to push observers to contain creep if a prism and sentries can act as a sharking squad and Protoss can have a more aggressive midgame. I do like the retractable shield battery because a) 10 years in, even the best Protoss still sometimes lose games because a unit left the wall for a second, or because Zerglings managed to push a hold-positioned unit in the wall aside. Maybe it's time to acknowledge this is mostly just luck rather than skill. b) It would have the side-benefit of making it much less likely for 2 Adepts to get into the base early on in PvP, which again, happens even at the highest level, and is a significant factor in why PvP is so volatile. c) It would give more freedom to mapmakers because hold-positioning a unit correctly is much harder in diagonal walls, so it would give more leeway in the way the front of the natural is designed. d) Archons getting stuck in walls. e) It would nerf Hellion openers in TvP, which are extremely coin-flippy. Zest once failed to qualify for GSL against some nobody (forgot who) because of it. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20275 Posts
On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: PvZ is basically entirely terrible. My personal favourite combo of changes is making batteries retractable like depots and giving sentries a creep eradication field that has a similar radius to guardian shield. In theory in early game this gives Protoss more ability to push all their gateway units aggressively without worrying as much about walls, and Zerg shouldn’t be able to drone so hardcore, which slows them down slightly and the midgame is a bit less brutal. Robo isn’t needed to push observers to contain creep if a prism and sentries can act as a sharking squad and Protoss can have a more aggressive midgame. Both would be awesome changes IMO | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On August 21 2020 22:13 Aesto wrote: I do like the retractable shield battery because a) 10 years in, even the best Protoss still sometimes lose games because a unit left the wall for a second, or because Zerglings managed to push a hold-positioned unit in the wall aside. Maybe it's time to acknowledge this is mostly just luck rather than skill. b) It would have the side-benefit of making it much less likely for 2 Adepts to get into the base early on in PvP, which again, happens even at the highest level, and is a significant factor in why PvP is so volatile. c) It would give more freedom to mapmakers because hold-positioning a unit correctly is much harder in diagonal walls, so it would give more leeway in the way the front of the natural is designed. d) Archons getting stuck in walls. e) It would nerf Hellion openers in TvP, which are extremely coin-flippy. Zest once failed to qualify for GSL against some nobody (forgot who) because of it. don't forget about f) Terrans have it and they still fail horribly in ling runbys later on. | ||
Mizenhauer
United States1798 Posts
There was a long stretch in 2017/18 where a common P opening vs Z was to get some stalkers in a prism with an observer and fight back creep, but they stopped doing it. Doing it with sentries is just a bigger gas investment and a bigger risk. | ||
|
Vision_
844 Posts
On August 21 2020 22:44 Mizenhauer wrote: There was a long stretch in 2017/18 where a common P opening vs Z was to get some stalkers in a prism with an observer and fight back creep, but they stopped doing it. Doing it with sentries is just a bigger gas investment and a bigger risk. Patch 4.0.0 Balance Post-Blizzcon 2017 november 14 Stalker Particle Disruptors weapon damage changed from 10 (+4 Armored) to 15 (+6 Armored). Weapon speed changed from 1 to 1.54. Receives +2 base damage per level of Protoss Ground Weapon upgrades. Patch 4.1.4 Balance Update On 2018 January 29, Blizzard released a Balance Update. Stalker Particle Disruptors’ damage reduced from 15 (21 vs. armored) to 13 (18 vs. armored) and period reduced from 1.54 to 1.34. Protoss Ground Weapons upgrade will provide +1 base damage and +1 armored instead of +2 base damage. It was quite huge and necessary as a But In HotS, stalkers was commonly used and get buff post Blizzcon 2017 but the rest of the core units is certainly less effective now (by the way). Of course if you buff stalkers, you will imbalance TvP. Zealots seems untouchable so if you need to buff the start of Protoss game, you will have to tweak sentries (as they are a bit unused now). From what i know a lot of Protoss are still opening with stargate as they haven t enought flexibility. | ||
|
Supah
708 Posts
This is a simple, easy change that makes PvP slightly better since it buffs everything in PvP except the Disruptor. It gives Protoss incentive to not have to do heavy economic damage against Zerg because you can hit very strong +1 and +2 timings. So, Zerg will actually have to think about containing against a Protoss 3rd rather than only droning to max or defending serious tech involvement from Protoss. Immortal/Sentry all ins have some life back into them, but won't be too strong. Out of position Vipers can be more easily sniped. Toss army won't be steam rolled as hard if too many Vipers are built to adequately defend against but only take out 3 Colossus. Blink all ins would be mitigated by the longer timer. Ultra-late game will be skewed toward Protoss in an A-move scenario, but Protoss generally have to balance Blink/Charge/Storm/Disruptor/Warp Prism (all with fairly different movement speeds) in general army movement anyway. It's fairly difficult and Toss just needs a "dumb" buff instead of more gimmicky stuff. Basic Glaive/Blink all ins would not be affected since they already hit on the edge of "strong before splash is needed" timings and adding a Forge eliminates that entirely. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23747 Posts
Merci. I just think relatively small targeted changes to specific issues in match flow if we give pros time with them. PvZ tends to being a very snowbally matchup, I’d rather the Protoss be given small shovels to prevent the snowball reaching a critical mass than be given a harder to obtain but similarly huge snowball when end game is reached. In recent years that seems to be the approach, air toss is too strong and nerfed, Protoss sucks in lategame and it gets buffed again etc. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
No one would use it to kill a 1500 HP CC, but it would help clearing 50 HP tumors while not adding yet another ability to the game. That said, I'm not sure it would make a difference either way. It's not like Protoss armies can't clear creep, it's that they can't do so non-committally like you can with a medivac drop or hellions. I think the solution is to make adepts more useful vZ, so adepts are something you want to have in your army anyway. Adepts in a prism clear creep just fine, it's just that you don't want to make adepts in the first place. | ||
|
Russano
United States425 Posts
| ||
|
ThunderJunk
United States648 Posts
On August 21 2020 23:03 Vision_ wrote: It was quite huge and necessary as a But In HotS, stalkers was commonly used and get buff post Blizzcon 2017 but the rest of the core units is certainly less effective now (by the way). Of course if you buff stalkers, you will imbalance TvP. Zealots seems untouchable so if you need to buff the start of Protoss game, you will have to tweak sentries (as they are a bit unused now). From what i know a lot of Protoss are still opening with stargate as they haven t enought flexibility. I remember this change. So many people were totally convinced that it was a nerf to the stalkers. Same DPS but faster attack... and they were vehemently arguing that it was a nerf. The creep tumor being changed to light will make stalkers even worse for clearing creep now. | ||
|
slant
Romania95 Posts
On August 22 2020 04:59 Russano wrote: I don't think somehow making adepts better vs zergs is a good idea given what they do already in PvZ. The transition out of them is already the only difficult part in going them as it is. Most PvZs are just adept printer anyway, if anything I'd want toss buffs on other units to discourage adept play like that just because of how tedious and monotone it makes the matchup. Toss gets adepts into zerg base, either the zerg is good enough to deflect them or not, and if they are then they win and if they're not then they usually lose. | ||
|
FrkFrJss
Canada1205 Posts
On August 22 2020 09:16 ThunderJunk wrote: Just a note on the DPS issue. If a unit attacks faster with a lower attack, it makes them slightly more microable (assuming they are microable) but with a lowered DPS versus units with armor. I remember this change. So many people were totally convinced that it was a nerf to the stalkers. Same DPS but faster attack... and they were vehemently arguing that it was a nerf. The creep tumor being changed to light will make stalkers even worse for clearing creep now. In this case, Stalker v1: 67 shots * 1.54 seconds/shot = 103.18 seconds Stalker v2: 77 shots * 1.34 seconds/shot = 103.18 seconds They do roughly the same DPS, but the second stalker shoots 10 more shots than the first stalker. This means that if a 0/0 stalker is facing a 0/0 enemy unit with any base armor, the second stalker will be hitting the unit (and thus incurring the armor penalty) more times. Though one caveat is that depending on the health of the enemy unit, either stalker could kill the unit faster because one stalker attacks with more power (and thus kills a unit in fewer shots and potentially shorter time), whereas the other stalker attacks faster (and thus may kill a unit in a shorter time). | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
On August 22 2020 14:28 FrkFrJss wrote: Just a note on the DPS issue. If a unit attacks faster with a lower attack, it makes them slightly more microable (assuming they are microable) but with a lowered DPS versus units with armor. In this case, Stalker v1: 67 shots * 1.54 seconds/shot = 103.18 seconds Stalker v2: 77 shots * 1.34 seconds/shot = 103.18 seconds They do roughly the same DPS, but the second stalker shoots 10 more shots than the first stalker. This means that if a 0/0 stalker is facing a 0/0 enemy unit with any base armor, the second stalker will be hitting the unit (and thus incurring the armor penalty) more times. Though one caveat is that depending on the health of the enemy unit, either stalker could kill the unit faster because one stalker attacks with more power (and thus kills a unit in fewer shots and potentially shorter time), whereas the other stalker attacks faster (and thus may kill a unit in a shorter time). There are ups and downs. The armor affecting each shot makes faster and weaker attack worse than slower and stronger attack. The flip side is when the target is being destroyed. Stronger attacks have higher overkill while lower attack can change to a new target instead, thus making the weaker attack better. The overkill was one of the things that the balance team communicated to us as their rèasoning in chosing the final damage. The other big thing was the microability between shots. I can't remember the armor being mentioned at all. | ||
| ||
