|
United States32479 Posts
Original post: Blizzard
Hey everyone,
Last week we released a community update talking about our thoughts on the state of the game as well as some proposed changes along with our reasoning. As it was released a few hours after the patch notes themselves, we suspect some may have missed these notes, and we urge everyone to check them out before continuing. With that in mind, here are some small adjustments we’d like to make to our initial proposals.
Baneling
Previously Proposed Change: • Baneling weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 15 (+20 vs light).
New Change: • Baneling weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 16 (+19 vs light).
This tweak achieves most of what we were going for in PvZ while, at the same time, preserving the interaction between unupgraded Banelings in ZvZ.
Void Ray
Previously Proposed Change: • Flux Vanes movement speed increased from 4.65 to 5.11.
One of the core thoughts we expressed from our last update was as follows:
“…what we hear from many top Protoss players is that the late game unit interactions between the two races are not inherently lopsided, especially after changes to Feedback. (In fact, there are players from both sides who believe it is Protoss favored.) Rather, there’s an agreement that the primary problem with late game is the difficulty of getting there on equal footing with the Zerg…”
As our primary goal of this patch is to improve interactions surrounding mid game PvZ, we’d like to further focus our Void Ray changes around those that are targeted towards that stage of the game and thus will be removing the additional increase to movement speed we had initially planned with the Flux Vanes upgrade.
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 next week.
Below is the complete list of changes:
ZERG
- Baneling
- Baneling weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 16 (+19 vs light).
PROTOSS
- Oracle
- Revelation duration increased from 15 seconds to 20 seconds.
- Void Ray
- Cost decreased from 250/150 to 200/150.
- Void Ray build time decreased from 43 to 37 seconds.
- Movement speed increased from 3.5 to 3.85.
- Carrier
- Interceptors belonging to a Carrier that has been Neural Parasited will no longer draw aggression from units belonging to the Carrier’s original owner.
Tempest- New upgrade found on the Fleet Beacon: Tectonic Destabilizers
- Effect: Improves the Tempest's Resonance Coil to deal +40 damage vs structures.
- Cost: 150/150.
- Research time: 100 seconds.
|
I don't understand, the balance team is supposed to listen to pros and to have regular interaction with them. And they seem to say that PvZ is in a good place at the moment. Why are they pushing it at the moment ? I don't understand... If the goal is to create a more fun gameplay then buffing airtoss definitely doesn't seem the right answer. If the goal is to create balance between win rates at the pro level, they will need to push their changes again and some more if they want to have competitive series between Reynor and Goblin on a daily basis or Serral and Hurricane (no insult at all to Goblin and Hurricane who are great players, they are just not in the same category as the two juggernauts above)... And the last balance patch was really not so long ago... I don't get this patch, at all.
|
On August 15 2020 05:14 Waxangel wrote:Original post: Blizzard
Previously Proposed Change: • Baneling weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 15 (+20 vs light).New Change: • Baneling weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 16 (+19 vs light). This tweak achieves most of what we were going for in PvZ while, at the same time, preserving the interaction between unupgraded Banelings in ZvZ.
i doubt that this would change anything just like the previous baneling change. If we still see mass banelings on ZvP/T then they really need to redesign the unit.
|
On August 15 2020 05:41 NicolasJohnson wrote: I don't understand, the balance team is supposed to listen to pros and to have regular interaction with them. And they seem to say that PvZ is in a good place at the moment. Why are they pushing it at the moment ? I don't understand... If the goal is to create a more fun gameplay then buffing airtoss definitely doesn't seem the right answer. If the goal is to create balance between win rates at the pro level, they will need to push their changes again and some more if they want to have competitive series between Reynor and Goblin on a daily basis or Serral and Hurricane (no insult at all to Goblin and Hurricane who are great players, they are just not in the same category as the two juggernauts above)... And the last balance patch was really not so long ago... I don't get this patch, at all.
They do talk to pros and the feedback they got about PvZ is not that "PvZ is in a good place at the moment".
If you look at https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/23495671 the feedback they got was that:
Ultimately though, the last patch has not produced the lasting impact to ZvP winrates that we had hoped, and most of the feedback we currently receive about this matchup from professional-level Protoss players remains similar to what we had received before, just to a slightly lesser degree.
|
glad mutas are still viable in all vT matchups :angry:
|
On August 15 2020 05:41 NicolasJohnson wrote: I don't understand, the balance team is supposed to listen to pros and to have regular interaction with them. And they seem to say that PvZ is in a good place at the moment. Why are they pushing it at the moment ? I don't understand... If the goal is to create a more fun gameplay then buffing airtoss definitely doesn't seem the right answer. If the goal is to create balance between win rates at the pro level, they will need to push their changes again and some more if they want to have competitive series between Reynor and Goblin on a daily basis or Serral and Hurricane (no insult at all to Goblin and Hurricane who are great players, they are just not in the same category as the two juggernauts above)... And the last balance patch was really not so long ago... I don't get this patch, at all.
Hurricane 2-0'd Serral earlier this year before the last patch nerfing Z. Serral is better sure but Hurricane is good enough to beat anybody and in a balanced game would have a solid 30% or so winrrate vs Zergs like Serral.
|
It seems way more reasonnable, good job !
|
|
The problem for Protoss trying to go macro in all matchups is the same. Because of the cost of Protoss buildings, units and upgrades and the slow buildtime , whenever protoss goes macro builds they get stretched thin on defense and whatever harass they go for with their macro build is easily deflected(a single poking oracle or 2 adepts usually).
As soon as a T or a Z identifies a macro build from Protoss in the early game they can passively get ahead just by how the races are designed.
One example is PVT, Protoss that goes straight up macro will have to deflect various very dangerous types of harass which we all know is very difficult at the moment, even when the protoss knows of possible hellion drop they cant kill the hellions fast enough because stalkers is the only answer and they take forever to kill a hellion.
Another problem is Terrans have so many different variations of timing attacks against macro Protoss thirds, so if you prepare your best to deflect harassment you will be lacking on army supply if you set up to defend against possible harass.
Protoss are full walling against Terrans now even on 2 base to compensate for how weak the Protoss is early game at deflecting hellions.
And even after all of this , if the protoss deflects and Terran went macro behind the harass a macro protoss cant punish the terran since protoss went macro, so the game turns to being on even footing when protoss deserves a lead in the match. I have noticed a lot of people say will say "Oh protoss is in a good position now" , what they should be saying is he survived and he has a shot at the match. He is not ahead, the match is even and this is frustrating to watch.
If you want a more fun TVP matchup you have to make Terrans pay for all their various cheesy harass openings they can do without much risk of punishment if they fail. This will encourage Terrans to go for macro builds and create a meta based around macro openings. I am personally tired of watching T suicide units into P worker lines to get easy auto win games.
The solution to this is buff Protoss early game so they can get into midgames stronger which in turn will stop zerg from being so greedy because they cant get away with scouting a Protoss macro build and get 90 free drones.
A stronger protoss early game would also make Terran harass easier to defend (which it should be, if you know somethings comin and you still take damage at Pro level something is obviously very wrong).
This would make Terrans have to do some serious all in builds if they wanted to kill protoss by workers and if they didnt kill enough they would be in the same shoes as a Protoss would be.You are really behind, as you should be. But as of right now Terrans are getting away with murder.
This would promote macro builds from Terrans because they cant get free wins with low risk builds.
I am so convinced Protoss weakness in the early game is linked to so many of the problems with the gamplay of protoss because it is laughable how weak it is compared to T and Z and the meta/gameplay is getting shaped around it.
When Immortal all inns were said to be unstoppable even when scouted, Zergs proved us and themselves wrong when they learned to hold it consistently, and still after the build was falling off they still went through with a huge nerf on protoss.
Where is this logic now when you see protoss consistently struggle and lose in the same ways over and over even when they know somethings coming.
Protoss has been shorthanded for the entirety of SC2 history because it is the most hated race because we are forced to outsmart you and be sneaky.
Watch the last Pylon show , they said the exact same thing.
It's time to redesign the Protoss race to stop having to really on the enemy making mistakes and reward players like stats who really masters the game of SC2. Buffing void ray and nerfing baneling by 1 damage is not gonna change this.
|
On August 15 2020 09:15 Dedraterllaerau wrote: The problem for Protoss trying to go macro in all matchups is the same. Because of the cost of Protoss buildings, units and upgrades and the slow buildtime , whenever protoss goes macro builds they get stretched thin on defense and whatever harass they go for with their macro build is easily deflected(a single poking oracle or 2 adepts usually).
As soon as a T or a Z identifies a macro build from Protoss in the early game they can passively get ahead just by how the races are designed.
One example is PVT, Protoss that goes straight up macro will have to deflect various very dangerous types of harass which we all know is very difficult at the moment, even when the protoss knows of possible hellion drop they cant kill the hellions fast enough because stalkers is the only answer and they take forever to kill a hellion.
Another problem is Terrans have so many different variations of timing attacks against macro Protoss thirds, so if you prepare your best to deflect harassment you will be lacking on army supply if you set up to defend against possible harass.
Protoss are full walling against Terrans now even on 2 base to compensate for how weak the Protoss is early game at deflecting hellions.
And even after all of this , if the protoss deflects and Terran went macro behind the harass a macro protoss cant punish the terran since protoss went macro, so the game turns to being on even footing when protoss deserves a lead in the match. I have noticed a lot of people say will say "Oh protoss is in a good position now" , what they should be saying is he survived and he has a shot at the match. He is not ahead, the match is even and this is frustrating to watch.
If you want a more fun TVP matchup you have to make Terrans pay for all their various cheesy harass openings they can do without much risk of punishment if they fail. This will encourage Terrans to go for macro builds and create a meta based around macro openings. I am personally tired of watching T suicide units into P worker lines to get easy auto win games.
The solution to this is buff Protoss early game so they can get into midgames stronger which in turn will stop zerg from being so greedy because they cant get away with scouting a Protoss macro build and get 90 free drones.
A stronger protoss early game would also make Terran harass easier to defend (which it should be, if you know somethings comin and you still take damage at Pro level something is obviously very wrong).
This would make Terrans have to do some serious all in builds if they wanted to kill protoss by workers and if they didnt kill enough they would be in the same shoes as a Protoss would be.You are really behind, as you should be. But as of right now Terrans are getting away with murder.
This would promote macro builds from Terrans because they cant get free wins with low risk builds.
I am so convinced Protoss weakness in the early game is linked to so many of the problems with the gamplay of protoss because it is laughable how weak it is compared to T and Z and the meta/gameplay is getting shaped around it.
When Immortal all inns were said to be unstoppable even when scouted, Zergs proved us and themselves wrong when they learned to hold it consistently, and still after the build was falling off they still went through with a huge nerf on protoss.
Where is this logic now when you see protoss consistently struggle and lose in the same ways over and over even when they know somethings coming.
Protoss has been shorthanded for the entirety of SC2 history because it is the most hated race because we are forced to outsmart you and be sneaky.
Watch the last Pylon show , they said the exact same thing.
It's time to redesign the Protoss race to stop having to really on the enemy making mistakes and reward players like stats who really masters the game of SC2. Buffing void ray and nerfing baneling by 1 damage is not gonna change this.
It's the removal of the msc that caused most of this. Msc allowed for protoss to be out on the map and also defend at home in a balanced way.
Protoss has been a hot pile of mess ever since. Battery doesn't even come close to fixing toss issues.
|
On August 15 2020 09:30 LTCM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2020 09:15 Dedraterllaerau wrote: The problem for Protoss trying to go macro in all matchups is the same. Because of the cost of Protoss buildings, units and upgrades and the slow buildtime , whenever protoss goes macro builds they get stretched thin on defense and whatever harass they go for with their macro build is easily deflected(a single poking oracle or 2 adepts usually).
As soon as a T or a Z identifies a macro build from Protoss in the early game they can passively get ahead just by how the races are designed.
One example is PVT, Protoss that goes straight up macro will have to deflect various very dangerous types of harass which we all know is very difficult at the moment, even when the protoss knows of possible hellion drop they cant kill the hellions fast enough because stalkers is the only answer and they take forever to kill a hellion.
Another problem is Terrans have so many different variations of timing attacks against macro Protoss thirds, so if you prepare your best to deflect harassment you will be lacking on army supply if you set up to defend against possible harass.
Protoss are full walling against Terrans now even on 2 base to compensate for how weak the Protoss is early game at deflecting hellions.
And even after all of this , if the protoss deflects and Terran went macro behind the harass a macro protoss cant punish the terran since protoss went macro, so the game turns to being on even footing when protoss deserves a lead in the match. I have noticed a lot of people say will say "Oh protoss is in a good position now" , what they should be saying is he survived and he has a shot at the match. He is not ahead, the match is even and this is frustrating to watch.
If you want a more fun TVP matchup you have to make Terrans pay for all their various cheesy harass openings they can do without much risk of punishment if they fail. This will encourage Terrans to go for macro builds and create a meta based around macro openings. I am personally tired of watching T suicide units into P worker lines to get easy auto win games.
The solution to this is buff Protoss early game so they can get into midgames stronger which in turn will stop zerg from being so greedy because they cant get away with scouting a Protoss macro build and get 90 free drones.
A stronger protoss early game would also make Terran harass easier to defend (which it should be, if you know somethings comin and you still take damage at Pro level something is obviously very wrong).
This would make Terrans have to do some serious all in builds if they wanted to kill protoss by workers and if they didnt kill enough they would be in the same shoes as a Protoss would be.You are really behind, as you should be. But as of right now Terrans are getting away with murder.
This would promote macro builds from Terrans because they cant get free wins with low risk builds.
I am so convinced Protoss weakness in the early game is linked to so many of the problems with the gamplay of protoss because it is laughable how weak it is compared to T and Z and the meta/gameplay is getting shaped around it.
When Immortal all inns were said to be unstoppable even when scouted, Zergs proved us and themselves wrong when they learned to hold it consistently, and still after the build was falling off they still went through with a huge nerf on protoss.
Where is this logic now when you see protoss consistently struggle and lose in the same ways over and over even when they know somethings coming.
Protoss has been shorthanded for the entirety of SC2 history because it is the most hated race because we are forced to outsmart you and be sneaky.
Watch the last Pylon show , they said the exact same thing.
It's time to redesign the Protoss race to stop having to really on the enemy making mistakes and reward players like stats who really masters the game of SC2. Buffing void ray and nerfing baneling by 1 damage is not gonna change this. It's the removal of the msc that caused most of this. Msc allowed for protoss to be out on the map and also defend at home in a balanced way. Protoss has been a hot pile of mess ever since. Battery doesn't even come close to fixing toss issues.
Toss issues is just getting steamrolled by wise extra banelings and then not being able to, off their 3rd, going into a 4th, contest the 5th-6th base v Z. At my level that just means they get to play sloppy in a big army engagement 1 or more times before the game gets even, whereas I need to play crisp, and if I play sloppy once, it's game over. This is a great issue to see resolved to a greater extent.
My own void-ray inspired Pandora's box aside, templar are fantastic to use, and they can't win in a fight against 1 marine without casting a storm, which I find hilarious. Protoss don't have an issues. They're a majestic race so big they have extra knees.
|
Change the units according to the MU, nobody cares about more than 2 players in a game anyway.
|
On August 15 2020 09:30 LTCM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2020 09:15 Dedraterllaerau wrote: The problem for Protoss trying to go macro in all matchups is the same. Because of the cost of Protoss buildings, units and upgrades and the slow buildtime , whenever protoss goes macro builds they get stretched thin on defense and whatever harass they go for with their macro build is easily deflected(a single poking oracle or 2 adepts usually).
As soon as a T or a Z identifies a macro build from Protoss in the early game they can passively get ahead just by how the races are designed.
One example is PVT, Protoss that goes straight up macro will have to deflect various very dangerous types of harass which we all know is very difficult at the moment, even when the protoss knows of possible hellion drop they cant kill the hellions fast enough because stalkers is the only answer and they take forever to kill a hellion.
Another problem is Terrans have so many different variations of timing attacks against macro Protoss thirds, so if you prepare your best to deflect harassment you will be lacking on army supply if you set up to defend against possible harass.
Protoss are full walling against Terrans now even on 2 base to compensate for how weak the Protoss is early game at deflecting hellions.
And even after all of this , if the protoss deflects and Terran went macro behind the harass a macro protoss cant punish the terran since protoss went macro, so the game turns to being on even footing when protoss deserves a lead in the match. I have noticed a lot of people say will say "Oh protoss is in a good position now" , what they should be saying is he survived and he has a shot at the match. He is not ahead, the match is even and this is frustrating to watch.
If you want a more fun TVP matchup you have to make Terrans pay for all their various cheesy harass openings they can do without much risk of punishment if they fail. This will encourage Terrans to go for macro builds and create a meta based around macro openings. I am personally tired of watching T suicide units into P worker lines to get easy auto win games.
The solution to this is buff Protoss early game so they can get into midgames stronger which in turn will stop zerg from being so greedy because they cant get away with scouting a Protoss macro build and get 90 free drones.
A stronger protoss early game would also make Terran harass easier to defend (which it should be, if you know somethings comin and you still take damage at Pro level something is obviously very wrong).
This would make Terrans have to do some serious all in builds if they wanted to kill protoss by workers and if they didnt kill enough they would be in the same shoes as a Protoss would be.You are really behind, as you should be. But as of right now Terrans are getting away with murder.
This would promote macro builds from Terrans because they cant get free wins with low risk builds.
I am so convinced Protoss weakness in the early game is linked to so many of the problems with the gamplay of protoss because it is laughable how weak it is compared to T and Z and the meta/gameplay is getting shaped around it.
When Immortal all inns were said to be unstoppable even when scouted, Zergs proved us and themselves wrong when they learned to hold it consistently, and still after the build was falling off they still went through with a huge nerf on protoss.
Where is this logic now when you see protoss consistently struggle and lose in the same ways over and over even when they know somethings coming.
Protoss has been shorthanded for the entirety of SC2 history because it is the most hated race because we are forced to outsmart you and be sneaky.
Watch the last Pylon show , they said the exact same thing.
It's time to redesign the Protoss race to stop having to really on the enemy making mistakes and reward players like stats who really masters the game of SC2. Buffing void ray and nerfing baneling by 1 damage is not gonna change this. It's the removal of the msc that caused most of this. Msc allowed for protoss to be out on the map and also defend at home in a balanced way. Protoss has been a hot pile of mess ever since. Battery doesn't even come close to fixing toss issues.
The msc has its flaw but I prefer it to batteries too even if a majority seems to disagree.
|
It's a shame they went back on the speedy ray bois. Even if Toss would be, lets say, 2% better at the late game stage than Zerg, would that really be that bad? TvZ has an explosive late game, because Zerg can't compete with Terran mining when at 200 supply, so they have to keep throwing away units to keep the Terran mining low(below 4 bases.) If Protoss is more efficient late game, then we'd see something similar. That's way more exciting than the flip side case, which is Protoss spending all of their actions to try and achieve a Spore Crawler kill, then rinse and repeat.
I also think further nerfing Zerg vs Terran is a scary territory, which is another reason why it's better to change units that are more prominent in PvZ, rather than the Baneling which sees play everywhere. Like how will Zerg actually deal with Marauders? You don't need that many Tanks to make Hydralisk not the best option, we know how quickly Thors shoot Broodlords out of the sky, so if not the Baneling, then what actually deals with Marauders? Ultras?, I guess that can work, but when Terran supply is high and the army is together and not caught off guard, Ultras can quickly become quite bad as well.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
This just shows to me blizzard doesn't understand or don't want to see the problem.
I read the reasoning behind the VR buff, they want to make it easier to clear creepy and overords. Does blizzard really think that's the problem in pvz? Really?
The fundamental problem is the lotv economy. Who would have thought that reducing the ammount of minerals and forcing you to expand (use more resources to set up more expansions) would hurt the race with the most expensive units the most, and favor the race that can more easily expand the most?
Apart from that, which I know they won't change at this point, the problem is Zerg can just expand like crazy and there's no way to stop it. Baneling nerfs won't help either because of that.
Zerg players have learned to deal with harass so it's less effective now. You only kill like 4, drones and meanwhile the Zerg is making 7 behind it. There's no easy way for Protoss to deny expansions either. And after the harass the Zerg ends up with about as good as an army as yours.
Protists units in general need a buff. No one will use VR as long as they are a worse immortal that only is good for 10 seconds. Make it's base stack better vs light and the other one better vs armored.
Buff in general the proposed army so it's easier to stack the Zerg and deny expansion, and force them to make actual army sacrificing drone economy and not just 5 queens and some ling's.
Buff protoss harass options so they are more effective as they simply do nothing worthwhile anymore.
Pick one or two of the above suggestions. The real solution would be to change Zerg economy but we all know they won't do that, but nerfing the banking a little bit won't do anything as the problem is not the baneling itself but the amount of things Zerg can do with their untouchable economy in the early/mid. And for the last time, no, VR won't do anything when the Zerg can just make 20 hydras in one minute.
|
On August 15 2020 09:30 LTCM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 15 2020 09:15 Dedraterllaerau wrote: The problem for Protoss trying to go macro in all matchups is the same. Because of the cost of Protoss buildings, units and upgrades and the slow buildtime , whenever protoss goes macro builds they get stretched thin on defense and whatever harass they go for with their macro build is easily deflected(a single poking oracle or 2 adepts usually).
As soon as a T or a Z identifies a macro build from Protoss in the early game they can passively get ahead just by how the races are designed.
One example is PVT, Protoss that goes straight up macro will have to deflect various very dangerous types of harass which we all know is very difficult at the moment, even when the protoss knows of possible hellion drop they cant kill the hellions fast enough because stalkers is the only answer and they take forever to kill a hellion.
Another problem is Terrans have so many different variations of timing attacks against macro Protoss thirds, so if you prepare your best to deflect harassment you will be lacking on army supply if you set up to defend against possible harass.
Protoss are full walling against Terrans now even on 2 base to compensate for how weak the Protoss is early game at deflecting hellions.
And even after all of this , if the protoss deflects and Terran went macro behind the harass a macro protoss cant punish the terran since protoss went macro, so the game turns to being on even footing when protoss deserves a lead in the match. I have noticed a lot of people say will say "Oh protoss is in a good position now" , what they should be saying is he survived and he has a shot at the match. He is not ahead, the match is even and this is frustrating to watch.
If you want a more fun TVP matchup you have to make Terrans pay for all their various cheesy harass openings they can do without much risk of punishment if they fail. This will encourage Terrans to go for macro builds and create a meta based around macro openings. I am personally tired of watching T suicide units into P worker lines to get easy auto win games.
The solution to this is buff Protoss early game so they can get into midgames stronger which in turn will stop zerg from being so greedy because they cant get away with scouting a Protoss macro build and get 90 free drones.
A stronger protoss early game would also make Terran harass easier to defend (which it should be, if you know somethings comin and you still take damage at Pro level something is obviously very wrong).
This would make Terrans have to do some serious all in builds if they wanted to kill protoss by workers and if they didnt kill enough they would be in the same shoes as a Protoss would be.You are really behind, as you should be. But as of right now Terrans are getting away with murder.
This would promote macro builds from Terrans because they cant get free wins with low risk builds.
I am so convinced Protoss weakness in the early game is linked to so many of the problems with the gamplay of protoss because it is laughable how weak it is compared to T and Z and the meta/gameplay is getting shaped around it.
When Immortal all inns were said to be unstoppable even when scouted, Zergs proved us and themselves wrong when they learned to hold it consistently, and still after the build was falling off they still went through with a huge nerf on protoss.
Where is this logic now when you see protoss consistently struggle and lose in the same ways over and over even when they know somethings coming.
Protoss has been shorthanded for the entirety of SC2 history because it is the most hated race because we are forced to outsmart you and be sneaky.
Watch the last Pylon show , they said the exact same thing.
It's time to redesign the Protoss race to stop having to really on the enemy making mistakes and reward players like stats who really masters the game of SC2. Buffing void ray and nerfing baneling by 1 damage is not gonna change this. It's the removal of the msc that caused most of this. Msc allowed for protoss to be out on the map and also defend at home in a balanced way. Protoss has been a hot pile of mess ever since. Battery doesn't even come close to fixing toss issues. I hate to say it because I don't like the mothership core, but I agree. Without it, protoss currently has no chance of map control against zerg in the early game and even scouting is risky.
GSL spoilers:
+ Show Spoiler +People will criticize that last game Stats played against Rogue, but really, what he lost to is something every protoss has lost to at some point. Protoss map awareness before the 5 minute mark is basically non-existent so everything ends up being a risk, even the most benign of openers like 1 or 2 adept harass. Stats didn't have his wall blocked right, but even if he had, Rogue would have started busting his wall down since warpgate wasn't done and Stats had no units to defend. At the same time, Rogue also knew that Stats moved out so he made enough units to easily defend while harassing. Stats was basically in a catch-22 where either he slows down Rogue while gaining intel but leave himself in danger at home, or not harass/scout Rogue, who could potentially be all-inning him or droning hard. Stats had no way of knowing that Rogue was doing while Rogue was fully aware of what was happening on Stats' side of the map.
The point I'm making is that for the good zerg players, we're at the point where there is essentially no danger before the 5 minute mark or so outside of cheeses like cannon rushes. There are no other builds protoss can do that can pressure zerg effectively, let alone kill them. At this point, zerg essentially has to screw up for protoss to do any damage. On the other hand, there are many different builds right now that can outright kill protoss before 5 minutes, some of which are very difficult to scout, and most of which require completely different responses. It's reasonable for the level of risk for each race to be asymmetrical at different parts of the game, but in this case it's so heavily skewed that we've ended up with a situation where one race has to play safe against a race they literally can't afford to play safe against. The only other option is to play risky and end up with what amount to build order losses on occasion.
At the same time, pressure builds at the 5-8 minute mark also no longer work.
GSL spoilers:
+ Show Spoiler +We saw yet again that the adept glaive build has been solved by zerg. Rogue did exactly what every zerg who has held it did, which is make a ton of units, shut down the warp prism, then counterattack the third and win. We saw a whole pile of games that looked exactly like that this season.
Rogue also did one of the textbook solutions to the double stargate phoenix opener. In his case he went for extra hatches then hydra busted Stats, who had invested so much in phoenixes he had nothing else to defend. The other counter we saw was mass queens into nydus, which also worked well and leveled Patience. I can't think of a single instance of this double stargate strategy winning this season but this is where it's at with protoss. Do a pressure build and hope zerg screws up.
So essentially, we're at the point where protoss either all-ins or plays hyper-defensive and goes for a later timing. The former is what most protoss players are doing because the latter is incredibly difficult and allows the zerg to get a massive economic lead and/or allows them to go for their own timings that can outright kill protoss.
Tweaking void rays and banelings will not solve this problem. It may temporarily for a month or two but it's likely we'll be back at this point quite soon again anyway. It's going to take much more than that to solve these fundamental issues. The base gateway units are too bad at dealing with the volume of stuff zerg can make in the early game and zerg production/economy scales so fast that even with interruptions it often ends up being superior to both of the other races. At the same time, zerg's economy is much more resilient to losses compared the others since injects tend to scale much better later into the game than either chronoboost or MULEs. A protoss or terran losing a mineral line of workers early in the game against zerg is usually game-ending but for zerg it's a setback, not a likely loss. We've seen tons of games where the zerg loses a bunch of drones, the protoss or terran take one bad fight, and then suddenly the game is even or zerg is in the lead.
I honestly think it will take something on the level of nerfing injects and then buffing zerg units to compensate for there being less of them for things to change. The advantage of zerg's production compounds so quickly right now that it's very difficult for either of the other races to keep up. But this type of solution is just in line with many others people have suggested that basically recommend slowing the game down and making the units sturdier so entire battles aren't done in 10 seconds.
|
"So essentially, we're at the point where protoss either all-ins or plays hyper-defensive and goes for a later timing."
You say that like we haven't been there since 2010.
|
I think Protoss needs a new unit at the gateway level. Something that offers immediate early game threat and map control, similar to hellions. I'm pretty sure this is what adepts were intended for, but it's quite clear they fail at this role.
I think PvT is in a decent place, especially with the new DT blink strategies. But PvZ is looking pretty one sided and I don't think simple damage nerfs can fix it.
Edit: Thinking about it some more, I think the biggest problem with PvZ is that gateway units lose to zerglings until you get archons.
|
Below is purely a spectator point of view.
The way terran keeps the early zerg econ in check is the explosiveness of the harass. Hellions, liberators, mines, battlecruisers and even banshees just kill units, even when there is a zerg reaction. I'd like to call it frontloaded damage, where they can get several kills with relatively low commitment if they reach their destination. They also trade against most zerg units in a reasonable manner, even when terran is forced to use them in less than optimal situations.
In the meanwhile Protoss can open with adepts, oracles or phoenix as the early offensive options. Oracles and phoenixes just appear to trade too poorly vs the zerg early defences for how high the protoss commitment to them is. Zerg can throw down a spore per base and a few utility queens running about already render the stargate units very inefficient quite quickly. Then the stargate units just do not do have the same utility in defending the zerg counterattack or supporting the protoss follow-up in the same way as the terran opening options would. Simply the terran equivalents just have more synergy with the terran follow-ups. Adepts as people pointed out are being figured out and it may not be preferred anyways to buff the unit that is already used mostly in a very all-in manner.
Other frontloaded damage in protoss comes from DT's, Immortals and Disruptors. All of these are further out in the tech tree, expensive and weak to getting swarmed by just zerglings. Immortals and disruptors seem to be in a reasonable spot for what they are supposed to do, but suffer from being expensive and slow to replace if caught and killed. DTs are in fashion in lategame PvT (and PvP), showing the usefulness of frontloaded damage. Jumping into where the army is not, kill a base, jump out. No idea would they be similarly useful in lategame PvZ because we don't get to see those games right now. These three units synergise a lot better with the mid to lategame protoss armies, but cannot be opened with.
I think there are two ways to go about it, and neither of them is about void ray speed... A) redesign the protoss early game units in a way where they transition better to a natural midgame. Stargate units are too pigeon-holed (this is where void ray could actually be a thing, as it is the only one with both air and ground attacks before fleet beacon!) and they don't feel like a natural part of the midgame protoss army (in PvZ at least, phoenixes lifting tanks/killing medivacs etc have some utility in TvP). It takes too long for the air units to deal meaningful damage to the zerg ground armies, essentially protoss does not have the equivalent of panic banshee/liberator, where you have a harassment unit that can meaningfully contribute to defending early zerg aggression. Void ray could be that, but the offensive potential of void ray just isn't good enough. GSL spoiler + Show Spoiler +The Golden Wall game of Rogue v Stats was a brilliant example, phoenixes just do not have utility vs ground based zerg armies. No tanks or mines to pick up, no medivacs to chase. 20+ dead supply and expenditure on units that did not have a meaningful way to interact with the zerg army. Problems with this may be PvT spillovers if the interactions with terran units change too much.
B) Queens (and banes? and spores?) do less shield damage. Just apply a hammer approach to it. Not elegant, but could maybe just do it. Force zerg to do more to defend against the early harassment options. Spend larva for units, make more spores, spines, anything. Oracles, phoenixes, adepts can kill a few more drones each time. Could allow protosses to enter the midgame on a more even footing if zergs have less larva/expansions/drones/bank, avoiding getting outexpanded and swarmed each time they move out.
|
On August 16 2020 02:14 InfCereal wrote: "So essentially, we're at the point where protoss either all-ins or plays hyper-defensive and goes for a later timing."
You say that like we haven't been there since 2010. For a while the last couple years there was at least something resembling a middle-ground, but that's not the case anymore. What pressure builds that allow expanding behind them are left that work? Double oracle doesn't work, neither do archon drops or harass with 6-8 glaive adepts. At best with any of these, a few workers might die, but seldom is enough damage done to justify the cost.
On August 16 2020 02:20 Monochromatic wrote: I think Protoss needs a new unit at the gateway level. Something that offers immediate early game threat and map control, similar to hellions. I'm pretty sure this is what adepts were intended for, but it's quite clear they fail at this role.
I think PvT is in a decent place, especially with the new DT blink strategies. But PvZ is looking pretty one sided and I don't think simple damage nerfs can fix it.
Edit: Thinking about it some more, I think the biggest problem with PvZ is that gateway units lose to zerglings until you get archons. This is in line with my thinking too. Terran has several accessible early options that can deal with a large number of zerglings, be it units with splash like hellions or marines, which attack quickly. Protoss doesn't have this until either archons or some form of teching is done, which is severely limiting. All of the gateway units attack one unit at a time and attack slowly, making them easy to overwhelm. It's why those 3 minute ling flood builds have been so successful as of late.
|
Another balance patch that misses the mark and only breaks the game more ( proxy shield battery void ray bs).
3 years of horrible balance patches, every year the blizzcon patch is way off.
ZvP problems are based around protoss not having enough units to take a 4th base because of 2 things:
1) Main / natural base mine out too fast in lotv, protoss needs to take a 4th at a time where its just not possible vs 0.5 supply banelings and ravagers.
2) Zerg can mass ravagers and banelings way faster than protoss can mass immortals and storms. Its even more problematic if theres a big trade and armies are reset. Zerg can remake banes and ravagers wayyyy faster than protoss can remake immortals and storms/archons. Everything else from toss sucks vs banes+ ravagers.
Zerg has been getting nerfed in the wrong areas for years. Protoss and terrans have been buffed in wrong areas for years.
The new lotv economy ( less money per base, 12 worker start) Just doesnt work. Protoss doesnt have the unit count to take 4 bases fast vs zerg. Revert the ressources per base to 1500 per patch, 2500 gas. If thats still not enough after a while, consider reducing starting workers again.
If that still is not good, there are only one or two things left to do.
Make banelings 1 supply, nerf widowmines/tanks. Nerf ravagers in some way ( reduce bile damage?, nerf them overall but give them a weak attack vs air?)
Other than that, nothing other than a massive protoss rework ( warpgate removal, production rates and units stats reviewed without warpgates) will be able to fix this game.
I strongly feel the last 3 years of patches have broken the game even more than help it.
With all the current strategical tools protoss have ( Warp gates, DT blink, recall, shield batteries, ability to mass 643643 canons and batteries in late game using only 1 probe, warp-prisms,etc) If you make protoss good and they keep all those tools, they will be unbeatable at top level. WIth current design, protoss will be way too strong, or too weak at the top level.
You will NEVER !!! have Protoss balanced with current design.
|
Why arent Libs getting buffed? they are barely used, they were popular back in the day, but now it seems they are extremely situational. Also raven is still this dumb unit, thats either to strong and completely useless
|
On August 16 2020 03:59 skdsk wrote: Why arent Libs getting buffed? they are barely used, they were popular back in the day, but now it seems they are extremely situational.
What? They are very popular in all stages of the game in at least both non mirrors.
|
On August 16 2020 04:04 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 03:59 skdsk wrote: Why arent Libs getting buffed? they are barely used, they were popular back in the day, but now it seems they are extremely situational. What? They are very popular in all stages of the game in at least both non mirrors.
i watched bunch of pro games recently and they were barely used in them. Casters kept talking about how Libs is good choice, yet progamers refused to make them (and probably for a good reason).
|
On August 16 2020 03:43 Snakestyle11 wrote: Another balance patch that misses the mark and only breaks the game more ( proxy shield battery void ray bs).
3 years of horrible balance patches, every year the blizzcon patch is way off.
ZvP problems are based around protoss not having enough units to take a 4th base because of 2 things:
1) Main / natural base mine out too fast in lotv, protoss needs to take a 4th at a time where its just not possible vs 0.5 supply banelings and ravagers.
2) Zerg can mass ravagers and banelings way faster than protoss can mass immortals and storms. Its even more problematic if theres a big trade and armies are reset. Zerg can remake banes and ravagers wayyyy faster than protoss can remake immortals and storms/archons. Everything else from toss sucks vs banes+ ravagers.
Zerg has been getting nerfed in the wrong areas for years. Protoss and terrans have been buffed in wrong areas for years.
The new lotv economy ( less money per base, 12 worker start) Just doesnt work. Protoss doesnt have the unit count to take 4 bases fast vs zerg. Revert the ressources per base to 1500 per patch, 2500 gas. If thats still not enough after a while, consider reducing starting workers again.
If that still is not good, there are only one or two things left to do.
Make banelings 1 supply, nerf widowmines/tanks. Nerf ravagers in some way ( reduce bile damage?, nerf them overall but give them a weak attack vs air?)
Other than that, nothing other than a massive protoss rework ( warpgate removal, production rates and units stats reviewed without warpgates) will be able to fix this game.
I strongly feel the last 3 years of patches have broken the game even more than help it.
With all the current strategical tools protoss have ( Warp gates, DT blink, recall, shield batteries, ability to mass 643643 canons and batteries in late game using only 1 probe, warp-prisms,etc) If you make protoss good and they keep all those tools, they will be unbeatable at top level. WIth current design, protoss will be way too strong, or too weak at the top level.
You will NEVER !!! have Protoss balanced with current design. Your second point is that P has issues with ravagers and banes, but this patch is nerfing bane's damage on the very units you claim can't accumulate fast enough (archons and immortals), so isn't this patch addressing your point?
You may be right about the mineral/gas patches drying up too fast in LotV, though. It seems to encourage fast games rather than late macro games, since P is scrambling to kill the Z before their resource patches dry up. Also, all races face the dilemma of deciding whether to rebuild a destroyed base, because it may not be worth the effort if the base is already largely dry, but expanding at an unsafe location could also have an impact, especially for P which isn't as mobile as Z and has a tougher time defending multiple locations.
|
Ravagers and lings kill everything that banelings wont after armored damage, There will only be bruised immortals, stalkers, and maybe few archons left. Ravagers and lings take care of those after banes soften everything up.
Will have hardly any effect as its a unit count issue.
|
From my perspective in PvT in late game Protoss have much more viable strategies, and the mechanics of Disruptor's shot AOE is broken.
|
On August 16 2020 04:06 skdsk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 04:04 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 16 2020 03:59 skdsk wrote: Why arent Libs getting buffed? they are barely used, they were popular back in the day, but now it seems they are extremely situational. What? They are very popular in all stages of the game in at least both non mirrors. i watched bunch of pro games recently and they were barely used in them. Casters kept talking about how Libs is good choice, yet progamers refused to make them (and probably for a good reason).
I think the big problem with libs is their immobility, basically players have gotten much better at forcing sieges and relocating, If libs are engaged on the terrans terms their damage output and cost effectiveness is insane, but they almost always don't get that engagement at the pro level. Lib based armies if cought out of position get demolished with the expensive libs providing almost no value, this is true for alot of units but I think it tends to be more sever with libs given the time in the game you want to get them, usually damage output is so high that your whole force will be crushed and they will produce very little value for their cost. Alot of terrans have also shifted more heavily to siege tank use instead. I think in part the siege tank is just a more consistent and solid option in scenarios were you want siege units and in scenarios where the siege tank wont work its usually better to rely on bio's mobility and mines.
|
I was thinking about altering the sentry
- force field: 50->25 mana, duration 11->6s (I actually hate this non passable barrier thing, might be interesting to test to change it to a slowing field [speed *= 0.65] with multiple ff's overlapping so 2 ff is 0.65*0.65~0.42, with the additional effect of pushing units to its perimeter with each cast)
- guardian shield 75->50 mana, duration 11->8s, and would reduce melee damage as well, hopefully helping a lot against mass lings, especially un-upgraded ones.
and maybe some changes to the adept like - non-glaive adepts receive +20% attack speed, loses shield when shading. glaive adepts would be the same as in the current patch. aim would be to help defending the wall against lings, and not be too strong on the other side on the map before glaive.
I don't know, I don't like the void buff -.- I do care about games where there are more than 2 players.
|
On August 16 2020 05:13 bFunc wrote: From my perspective in PvT in late game Protoss have much more viable strategies, and the mechanics of Disruptor's shot AOE is broken.
Yeah I think PVT balance is just always going to feel poor,Terran has almost never had a reasonable late game answer to toss so balance has almost always revolved around Terran doing these big timing attacks that try to end the game. I mean this can be made to be "balanced" in that it provides a 50-50 win rate but its not particularly fun either, maybe its just a problem with toss design it always feels like they force these binary game states where most of the game is decided by one big clash or the success/failure of a cheese strat,.
|
The best idea I heard for balancing PvZ was making the shield battery lower-able like a supply depot. This would give a better wall off solution which would help against the effectiveness of ling run-bys.
If they buff protoss too much it will make TvP even more difficult than it already is.
|
I think this is a good adaptation from their original proposed changes.
|
Note: Feel free to just read my TL;DR I just wanted to spill all my thoughts out.
Good adjustment, it is worrisome to continuously make units move faster and faster. Particularly air units, which can become very dangerous when massed due to stacking DPS and traversing terrain. Air units are already mobile because they fly, we really don't need to have so many units that have 5 speed, it is pretty insane, especially with the Void Ray being (at least historically/currently) a slower but stronger unit, compared to the weaker but faster Phoenix for example.
Baneling Change Baneling change may or may not help a lot, but it is definitely a good place to shave off some Zerg power and help encourage them to try other comps instead of defaulting to Banelings all the time. Making them consider other units even ever so slightly more, can lead to them wanting to diversify their tech a bit more which can have a ever so slight effect on slowing Zerg's econ. Anyway, it's not a huge change, but any help is good and it doesn't really have any side effects. A few stalkers surviving with 10 health can be important. It will also make cyclone/hellion based mech die slightly less easily to ling bling muta, like last game of DRG vs Innovation this season, which I think is good.
Void Ray Deserves Better Design Balance aside, another big issue is the Void Ray and Tempest simply aren't very fun or interesting units. Terran and Zerg have become very robust over time, with basically every unit having a role in most situations/MUs. However the Void Ray and Tempest are 2 of the least used and least useful units, both belonging to Protoss. While it is fine to find a role for them for the sake of balance, can we not try to find them more interesting roles that can provide other options for midgame for example? I suppose they are trying this by pushing Void Ray to be quicker and more cost effective, so that it can be a mobile map control unit as well as help defend zerg aggression, kind of like Terran's banshee. But a fast Void Ray + the ability it has, I don't know, it just doesn't feel very interesting, it feels like an awkard of forced design.
Biggest question I have for the Void Ray is, would it really be so bad to revert the early HotS change, and make it back to 3 supply? The reason for changing it from 3 to 4 supply in very early HotS was because the balance team said mass voids seemed to be problematic. However that was before HotS even released. The game has changed a TON. Zerg has parabomb for example to help deal with mass air. Would making Void 3 supply, and thus allowing Protoss to make a few more units in endgame army situations be so bad? It would help make Protoss very slightly stronger vs Zerg lategame. Also, it would help keep its purity as a Corruptor counter. Right now, Voids do counter Corruptors by cost, but in endgame scenarios, if you are taking 10 Corruptors, you can only have 5 Void Rays. The Void Rays will barely win, so it is not really a counter at all. Is it so bad to allow it to be 12 Corruptors vs 8 Void Rays? Zerg still has Viper/Infestor/Queen spellcaster spam + movable Spores, etc.
Old Raven Unnecessarily Gutted, and Replaced with Mass BCs with Warp I also really question the new Raven. Again it feels like an awkward, forced design. Sorry this will be a bit of a dump of my opinions so feel free to skip it. It feels like a crime to make Raven basically just a detector in TvZ and very useless especially for a Mech player in that MU. Why couldn't they have come up with abilities that aren't so limited to the MU? It is OK for zerg to mass spellcasters lategame (combination of queen/infestor/viper), but it is not OK to make more than 3 Ravens anymore? Mass Ravens was certainly broken in HotS, but consider that Zerg did not have Parabomb, Corruptors were much slower, etc. They could have nerfed/reworked PDD and Seeker Missle in ways that kept their zoning traits, while making them scale much less hard lategame. They were unique and interesting zoning, positional tools, and they gutted them for much less interesting abilities. Another easy change was to make Raven 3 supply instead of 2, so that instead of having 30 Ravens you'd only have 20, unless you wanted to cut into your other army supply. It is OK for Zerg to spam spore forests and spellcasters lategame, and control huge areas of the map, but it is not ok for a Mech player to make 10-20 Ravens + Turrets + PFs to do something similar? Not saying I want super turtle styles, but positional battles can be very interesting and offer a unique way to play the game. I just feel like they really overreacted to Mass Ravens and overnerfed them, I do not understand why it is a unit they only want you to make 1-2 of, when no spellcaster is designed to be like that beside the hero Mothership. (Yeah, disable is really good in TvT and you can definitely make make 10 if you want, and having several Ravens for disable can be useful enough vs Protoss, but in TvZ there is basically nothing useful to disable, and Anti Armor missile is designed to compliment Bio way more than Mech, other than if you were to go mass Libs or mass BCs or such).
Another criticism is that the Auto Turret basically makes the Raven like some generic GtA harass unit, why does every Terran unit need to do harass in the form of killing workers? There are other types of harass possible you know? Liberator is already the "haha you didn't look for 3 seconds" harass unit for Terran, we don't need Raven Auto Turret to also basically be "did you pull your workers quick enough?". Because it is such a short duration with high dps, the only counterplay is to pull workers off temporarily. For example if it were reworked to last 20 seconds but do less damage, it would be more of a decision to try to kill the turret because maybe you don't want to waste 20 seconds of mining. Due to not being as punishing if you don't react quickly, it can be given 3 Range back. That and the duration buff would allow the AT to be more useful for Mech armies and can be used as a wall when pushing a position on the map, or it could be dropped to harass bases and threaten to kill buildings if not dealt with as it could do more total damage across its lifetime. The old AT was nice because it could be used in so many ways, the new one just makes the Raven feel like it has an awkward GtA attack. It also is very hard to use AT in situations other than harassing because of the very limited 2 range to place the turret. This is is another thing that makes it difficult to use to help supplement Mech positions on the map, it is too hard to place multiple turrets down at once.
With the Raven having so much more limited use, Mech strength growth really stops at the end of midgame, which is problematic because Mech should be a positional style that you need to either kill early or try to take the whole map and overwhelm them or win a war of attrition. If Mech is on a timer then it is much more 1 dimensional of a style, much like old Protoss being on a timer some needing to do some sort of all-in or deathball push. Of course, we now have the heavily buffed BC which offers immense endgame potential for Mech and Terran in general, but I feel BC Warp is quite toxic and problematic. BC is already the strongest straight up fighting unit, its weakness was its immobility but now it can even counter Tempest by just Warping on them? And being able to Warp so many BCs lategame makes it basically impossible to properly defend vs them as they can teleport anywhere. I guess Blizzard prefers warping BCs over being able to make 10-20 Ravens in endgame??? Idk. I think it would be much more fair if BCs were given energy bar back, since Feedback only does 0.5 damage per energy drained, and that way Terran would have to decide whether to spend energy more on Yamato or Warp. Right now BC is quite uninteresting because you basically just want to use your free Yamato+Warp back home whenever it's off cooldown, there's much less strategic decisions involved. I would prefer toning down BC and giving more ways to counterplay, and revert the Raven to its old self and simply rework the abilities to scale much less and increase its supply to 3 to specifically nerf it lategame. (Examples: Add cooldown to each PDD shot so you can only block 2 projectiles a second per PDD placed which allows the opponent to still do some degree of steady damage to you, perhaps increase PDD energy to 125, reduce Seeker Missile splash severely, increase Raven supply to 3, etc).
Sorry if that was a bit of a rant on the Raven, really wanted to talk about it, as it was my favorite unit, and feel there were many ways they could have toned it down and made it scale less hard lategame (supply, reworking abilities slightly), and would have been fine with Parabomb now being in LotV, it would be very potent vs Mass Ravens. Even Hydras have gotten buffed and they already did well vs PDD/Ravens in HotS.
Zerg Lategame + Spellcasters Bringing it back more on topic, Zerg has the most versatile and strongest spellcasters. Terran only has 1.5, since Ghost and Raven are each mostly useless in certain MUs (depending on if you go bio or mech of course).They have the highest # of general use spellcasters that are effective each MU in all stages of the game, and overall the most amount of spells, and they also happen to be spells that offer a combination of great AOE/damage/crowd control. Protoss has HTs and Sentries, with ~3 spells, Oracle and MS can provide support but only Time Warp really is a "battle" spell. Zerg meanwhile has Abduct, Blinding Cloud, Parabomb, Neural Parasite, Fungal, Transfuse, and yes Microbial Shroud (lategame you only need 1-2 to provide significant support to support Hydras when fighting airtoss, like how Serral uses it). I think the number of potent Zerg battle spells is part of what makes lategame PvZ look so tough. (I'm not sure I really agree that PvZ lategame is fine and that it is just that it is difficult for Protoss to enter lategame on even footing, being able to abduct so many units and spam multiple AOE spells just seems so efficient and strong, when I feel that Zerg as the econ race should be designed to be strong due to being able to take a huge part of the map and overwhelm you despite being cost inefficient, rather than having lots of cost efficient low supply spellcasters). Protoss is the tech race and should have the strongest and most expensive endgame army. Terran is the army race and has versatile, efficient units.
Going along with that, I feel it is OK to buff Protoss endgame slightly. I mean, at worst, it becomes slightly Protoss favored, and is that so bad? I think it would be a fine dynamic because Zerg can grow so quickly early and midgame, so Protoss endgame army being stronger would put some pressure and incentive on Zerg to interact with and try to end Protoss, rather than put the entire burden on Protoss to try to slow Zerg and also end them early. Again I think changing Void back to 3 supply would be nice here so they can fit a few more units in.
Tempest Upgrade is Contrived and has Side Effects As for the Tempest, this was supposed to be a cool capital ship unit, but it is so niche and cost inefficient. I really don't like the forced +40 building damage role it is being given. I am worried it will invalidate turtle styles in general. If someone wants to turtle, they are already giving up map control and risking drying up on resources in return for stability and easier defense. Being able to just poke at them from afar and kill buildings at a safe distance will be much more lame than the Protoss actually interacting through harass or attacks, right? So what if Tempest was just given another slight boost in damage, and perhaps give an upgrade where its ground range gets increased? That way you can safely kill spores without being abducted, and maybe the Tempest could be more usable in other situations. Yea, it'll be slow, but it doesn't matter if it's slow as long as it forces Zerg to actually do something and not just sit at their spores. Personally I feel it would be really cool to round out Skytoss by giving them 1 air unit with splash in the form of Tempest. The AOE could just be 1 matrix, like bile, and be relatively weak, but it would still help a lot vs marines and lategame vs air units. Random ideas aside, I feel they can push Tempest into a more interesting and useful role than just "oh upgrade this to kill spores lategame and I guess turtling mech players". Like, is this really the best we can do for the Tempest and Void Ray?
Guardian Shield to Block 1 Melee Damage to Buff Gateway Comp vs Zerg I think buffing Protoss gateway vs zerg in some way is probably a good idea. Someone mentioned buffing Guardian Shield so that there is a +1 melee damage block. This sounds great as it would make them much less weak vs plain Zerglings, and make pure Zergling engagements less effective, and encourage you to use a combination of Zergling flanks and other units to burn GS energy early as they move out and try to get a surround. However, would this be problematic for zealots in PvP? If not, I think that would be a great change no? Or make it so it gives +2 damage block to projectiles and +1 damage block to melee.
TL;DR Sorry for the huge long post, haven't posted much recently but just had so many thoughts and wanted to put them out there... I am quite disappointed in the new limited, awkward Raven with such contrived spells, that unnecessarily was designed to just make 0-3 of in most cases and was redesigned into being an early GtA harass unit + early spellcaster. While I don't know a perfect solution, I'm sure something could have been figured out with the old Raven but simply tone down the scaling of its spells and increase supply to 3, with Parabomb now in the game. BC buffs do compensate and give Mech the powerful lategame scaling they need to not simply be a style that is on a limited timer and needs to do huge damage with its 2/2 push, but BC Warp in particular is very problematic and toxic and I say this as a Terran player, perhaps as much or more toxic than Mass Raven in HotS. Protoss could use slight help lategame PvZ without breaking anything by just reverting Void supply to 3 because mass Voids has not been a thing since HotS beta, and perhaps allowing Guardian Shield to block 1 or 2 melee damage to make Gateway comps stronger vs Zerg earlygame without ruining PvT or PvP as Zerglings would be by far the most affected.
I really worry about air units having their speed continuously buffed as that is very dangerous and Voids are already awkwardly fast and can chase down and kill Viking/Banshee due to its leash. Void Ray and Tempest deserve to have more love and not just pushed into awkward contrived niche roles. Especially the Tempest +structure damage upgrade seems problematic as it will have unwanted side effects in being a response to mech turtle styles in a very uninteresting way. Midgame turtling styles play a necessary role in the game, but Zerg lategame is too strong with its Spore Forest + spellcaster spam, so we need to make Tempest be able to discourage that without making them able to counter positional Mech styles by killing buildings safely from afar as it is very uninteresting and uninteractive. If they want to give Protoss more tools to respond to mass Spores, can they not just increase Tempest cost effectiveness, either in slight base damage buff, or some expensive upgrade that gives more overall damage or buff ground range to 14, so that it is only something you really have time and money to get in the lategame (or possibly midgame if you are committing to skytoss)? Or heck, what if Tempest actually had bonus damage to Biological? Then it wouldn't become toxic vs Mech, it would maybe be somewhat usable vs Bio, not ruin anything in PvP, and it would be much more useful vs Zerg overall as well as vs Spores.
My suggestions: 1) Tempest to have some bonus +Biological damage for Bio and Zerg units and buildings If this is an issue for Proxy Tempest PvT then it can be an upgrade (though AFAIK cyclone/viking is core in defending that?)
2) Tempest upgrade to be some kind of lategame ground attack range upgrade This would allow Tempest to gently stop Zerg from sitting in Spore forests, and be more usable in MUs overall, instead of the suggested +Structure damage upgrade which will harshly counter Mech trying to be defensive in midgame
3) Guardian Shield to block 1 melee damage This helps vs zerglings and encourage zerg to use multiple units and tactics to get a good engage, without changing Zealots much in PvP
4) Void Ray supply reverted to 3 This slightly buffs PvZ lategame since mass Voids hasn't been a thing since HotS beta
5) Personally I would also revert to old Raven, specifically tone down PDD and revert Seeker Missile in ways to significantly reduce their lategame scaling power while keeping Raven's identity as a positional and zoning support unit PDD: Add cooldown to each PDD so 1 can only shoot down 2 projectiles per second, it makes it less oppressive and allows steady damage while still providing positional support at any stage of the game. The big issue with PDD was not the # of projectiles it can block, but that each one can block 20 projectiles instantly, and thus you could leapfrog across the map and corner 50 Corruptors without them being able to do any damage. If PDD can only shoot down 2 projectiles a second, you can still make 20 Ravens to throw down tons of PDDs to try to block 40+ projectiles a second, but the opponent can now simply back off and engage elsewhere. You can throw down tons of PDD to block hundreds of shots across an entire battle, but the Corruptors would be able to do damage during that time now. If you try to leap frog PDD, you will only be able to block some projectiles a second, so it is good for support but it does not provide you literal invincibility. And for early game, since PDD would still block 20 projectiles across its lifespan, it is still useful in small engagements such as early TvT viking battles. SM: Rework Seeker Missile damage/splash so it is still effective in zoning and forcing a unit to back off, without potential of blowing up huge numbers of stacked units, AND/OR revert the buffs that changed SM from a zoning tool with counterplay to a broken AOE nuke in the first place by changing seeking time to ~4 seconds, so there is an option for a unit to back off so the SM dies or you can stay if you want to keep contributing in a fight. The longer seeking time would still let SM be an option to deal with Sieged Tanks in TvT and even Warp Prisms, similar to Interference Matrix right now. Other possibilities are let PDD block 3-4 projectiles a second but cost 125 energy, or make Raven 3 supply to bring in line with Vipers and specifically nerf endgame massing. 6) To go with the above, I would nerf BC and increase counterplay by bringing the energy bar back This would make players strategize whether to use Warp or Yamato instead of just using braindead free Yamato->Warp combo whenever it's off cooldown, and because Feedback only does 0.5 damage now and Ghosts have EMP radius upgrade now to combat HTs, and you could always use 1 EMP on your own stacked BCs anyway Bringing back a toned down old Raven and toning down the new BC would allow Terran to have both Raven and BC as endgame unit choices and not just mass BCs, while giving more meaningful ways to counterplay each too.
|
On August 16 2020 06:00 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 05:13 bFunc wrote: From my perspective in PvT in late game Protoss have much more viable strategies, and the mechanics of Disruptor's shot AOE is broken. Yeah I think PVT balance is just always going to feel poor,Terran has almost never had a reasonable late game answer to toss so balance has almost always revolved around Terran doing these big timing attacks that try to end the game. I mean this can be made to be "balanced" in that it provides a 50-50 win rate but its not particularly fun either, maybe its just a problem with toss design it always feels like they force these binary game states where most of the game is decided by one big clash or the success/failure of a cheese strat,. Terran had a strong 4M + lib + ghost + viking lategame vP at the beginning of LotV and that was probably the best the matchup had ever been, but liberators have been nerfed multiple times since then, and the last range nerf was the straw that broke the camel's back.
I don't know why Blizzard thinks this unit is so scary, because it really isn't in its current state.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
Brutally plagiarised from my own terrible posting history.
Hm, think we should just spitball preposterous asymmetric PvZ ideas at this stage. Terrans have EMP, which has other utility but has clear Protoss-specific dimensions. Overall Blizz don’t seem too found of interactions that only occur between two of the game’s races but I think investigating
WombaT’s Ridiculous IdeaTM Sentry - New unit ability Creep Eradication Field
Active ability. Energy cost - Fuck knows /second.
Upon activation a field is generated that totally isn’t a recoloured guardian shield and can eliminate rumours without vision.
The rationale behind this change is to enable more gateway ‘sharking’ to control the spread of creep while enabling non-committal or committed aggression that is more smoothly. A Protoss player can open oracles off Stargate and keep them active in a harassment capacity for longer as they don’t need to be withdrawn to grant creep vision. Alternatively Protoss players can free up robotics production for units with more defensive or offensive capability by skipping observers at phases of the game and still being able to clear creep.
In theory this doesn’t greatly augment the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit too much either.
|
On August 16 2020 10:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Note: Feel free to just read my TL;DR I just wanted to spill all my thoughts out.
Good adjustment, it is worrisome to continuously make units move faster and faster. Particularly air units, which can become very dangerous when massed due to stacking DPS and traversing terrain. Air units are already mobile because they fly, we really don't need to have so many units that have 5 speed, it is pretty insane, especially with the Void Ray being (at least historically/currently) a slower but stronger unit, compared to the weaker but faster Phoenix for example.
Baneling Change Baneling change may or may not help a lot, but it is definitely a good place to shave off some Zerg power and help encourage them to try other comps instead of defaulting to Banelings all the time. Making them consider other units even ever so slightly more, can lead to them wanting to diversify their tech a bit more which can have a ever so slight effect on slowing Zerg's econ. Anyway, it's not a huge change, but any help is good and it doesn't really have any side effects. A few stalkers surviving with 10 health can be important. It will also make cyclone/hellion based mech die slightly less easily to ling bling muta, like last game of DRG vs Innovation this season, which I think is good.
Void Ray Deserves Better Design Balance aside, another big issue is the Void Ray and Tempest simply aren't very fun or interesting units. Terran and Zerg have become very robust over time, with basically every unit having a role in most situations/MUs. However the Void Ray and Tempest are 2 of the least used and least useful units, both belonging to Protoss. While it is fine to find a role for them for the sake of balance, can we not try to find them more interesting roles that can provide other options for midgame for example? I suppose they are trying this by pushing Void Ray to be quicker and more cost effective, so that it can be a mobile map control unit as well as help defend zerg aggression, kind of like Terran's banshee. But a fast Void Ray + the ability it has, I don't know, it just doesn't feel very interesting, it feels like an awkard of forced design.
Biggest question I have for the Void Ray is, would it really be so bad to revert the early HotS change, and make it back to 3 supply? The reason for changing it from 3 to 4 supply in very early HotS was because the balance team said mass voids seemed to be problematic. However that was before HotS even released. The game has changed a TON. Zerg has parabomb for example to help deal with mass air. Would making Void 3 supply, and thus allowing Protoss to make a few more units in endgame army situations be so bad? It would help make Protoss very slightly stronger vs Zerg lategame. Also, it would help keep its purity as a Corruptor counter. Right now, Voids do counter Corruptors by cost, but in endgame scenarios, if you are taking 10 Corruptors, you can only have 5 Void Rays. The Void Rays will barely win, so it is not really a counter at all. Is it so bad to allow it to be 12 Corruptors vs 8 Void Rays? Zerg still has Viper/Infestor/Queen spellcaster spam + movable Spores, etc.
Old Raven Unnecessarily Gutted, and Replaced with Mass BCs with Warp I also really question the new Raven. Again it feels like an awkward, forced design. Sorry this will be a bit of a dump of my opinions so feel free to skip it. It feels like a crime to make Raven basically just a detector in TvZ and very useless especially for a Mech player in that MU. Why couldn't they have come up with abilities that aren't so limited to the MU? It is OK for zerg to mass spellcasters lategame (combination of queen/infestor/viper), but it is not OK to make more than 3 Ravens anymore? Mass Ravens was certainly broken in HotS, but consider that Zerg did not have Parabomb, Corruptors were much slower, etc. They could have nerfed/reworked PDD and Seeker Missle in ways that kept their zoning traits, while making them scale much less hard lategame. They were unique and interesting zoning, positional tools, and they gutted them for much less interesting abilities. Another easy change was to make Raven 3 supply instead of 2, so that instead of having 30 Ravens you'd only have 20, unless you wanted to cut into your other army supply. It is OK for Zerg to spam spore forests and spellcasters lategame, and control huge areas of the map, but it is not ok for a Mech player to make 10-20 Ravens + Turrets + PFs to do something similar? Not saying I want super turtle styles, but positional battles can be very interesting and offer a unique way to play the game. I just feel like they really overreacted to Mass Ravens and overnerfed them, I do not understand why it is a unit they only want you to make 1-2 of, when no spellcaster is designed to be like that beside the hero Mothership. (Yeah, disable is really good in TvT and you can definitely make make 10 if you want, and having several Ravens for disable can be useful enough vs Protoss, but in TvZ there is basically nothing useful to disable, and Anti Armor missile is designed to compliment Bio way more than Mech, other than if you were to go mass Libs or mass BCs or such).
Another criticism is that the Auto Turret basically makes the Raven like some generic GtA harass unit, why does every Terran unit need to do harass in the form of killing workers? There are other types of harass possible you know? Liberator is already the "haha you didn't look for 3 seconds" harass unit for Terran, we don't need Raven Auto Turret to also basically be "did you pull your workers quick enough?". Because it is such a short duration with high dps, the only counterplay is to pull workers off temporarily. For example if it were reworked to last 20 seconds but do less damage, it would be more of a decision to try to kill the turret because maybe you don't want to waste 20 seconds of mining. Due to not being as punishing if you don't react quickly, it can be given 3 Range back. That and the duration buff would allow the AT to be more useful for Mech armies and can be used as a wall when pushing a position on the map, or it could be dropped to harass bases and threaten to kill buildings if not dealt with as it could do more total damage across its lifetime. The old AT was nice because it could be used in so many ways, the new one just makes the Raven feel like it has an awkward GtA attack. It also is very hard to use AT in situations other than harassing because of the very limited 2 range to place the turret. This is is another thing that makes it difficult to use to help supplement Mech positions on the map, it is too hard to place multiple turrets down at once.
With the Raven having so much more limited use, Mech strength growth really stops at the end of midgame, which is problematic because Mech should be a positional style that you need to either kill early or try to take the whole map and overwhelm them or win a war of attrition. If Mech is on a timer then it is much more 1 dimensional of a style, much like old Protoss being on a timer some needing to do some sort of all-in or deathball push. Of course, we now have the heavily buffed BC which offers immense endgame potential for Mech and Terran in general, but I feel BC Warp is quite toxic and problematic. BC is already the strongest straight up fighting unit, its weakness was its immobility but now it can even counter Tempest by just Warping on them? And being able to Warp so many BCs lategame makes it basically impossible to properly defend vs them as they can teleport anywhere. I guess Blizzard prefers warping BCs over being able to make 10-20 Ravens in endgame??? Idk. I think it would be much more fair if BCs were given energy bar back, since Feedback only does 0.5 damage per energy drained, and that way Terran would have to decide whether to spend energy more on Yamato or Warp. Right now BC is quite uninteresting because you basically just want to use your free Yamato+Warp back home whenever it's off cooldown, there's much less strategic decisions involved. I would prefer toning down BC and giving more ways to counterplay, and revert the Raven to its old self and simply rework the abilities to scale much less and increase its supply to 3 to specifically nerf it lategame. (Examples: Add cooldown to each PDD shot so you can only block 2 projectiles a second per PDD placed which allows the opponent to still do some degree of steady damage to you, perhaps increase PDD energy to 125, reduce Seeker Missile splash severely, increase Raven supply to 3, etc).
Sorry if that was a bit of a rant on the Raven, really wanted to talk about it, as it was my favorite unit, and feel there were many ways they could have toned it down and made it scale less hard lategame (supply, reworking abilities slightly), and would have been fine with Parabomb now being in LotV, it would be very potent vs Mass Ravens. Even Hydras have gotten buffed and they already did well vs PDD/Ravens in HotS.
Zerg Lategame + Spellcasters Bringing it back more on topic, Zerg has the most versatile and strongest spellcasters. Terran only has 1.5, since Ghost and Raven are each mostly useless in certain MUs (depending on if you go bio or mech of course).They have the highest # of general use spellcasters that are effective each MU in all stages of the game, and overall the most amount of spells, and they also happen to be spells that offer a combination of great AOE/damage/crowd control. Protoss has HTs and Sentries, with ~3 spells, Oracle and MS can provide support but only Time Warp really is a "battle" spell. Zerg meanwhile has Abduct, Blinding Cloud, Parabomb, Neural Parasite, Fungal, Transfuse, and yes Microbial Shroud (lategame you only need 1-2 to provide significant support to support Hydras when fighting airtoss, like how Serral uses it). I think the number of potent Zerg battle spells is part of what makes lategame PvZ look so tough. (I'm not sure I really agree that PvZ lategame is fine and that it is just that it is difficult for Protoss to enter lategame on even footing, being able to abduct so many units and spam multiple AOE spells just seems so efficient and strong, when I feel that Zerg as the econ race should be designed to be strong due to being able to take a huge part of the map and overwhelm you despite being cost inefficient, rather than having lots of cost efficient low supply spellcasters). Protoss is the tech race and should have the strongest and most expensive endgame army. Terran is the army race and has versatile, efficient units.
Going along with that, I feel it is OK to buff Protoss endgame slightly. I mean, at worst, it becomes slightly Protoss favored, and is that so bad? I think it would be a fine dynamic because Zerg can grow so quickly early and midgame, so Protoss endgame army being stronger would put some pressure and incentive on Zerg to interact with and try to end Protoss, rather than put the entire burden on Protoss to try to slow Zerg and also end them early. Again I think changing Void back to 3 supply would be nice here so they can fit a few more units in.
Tempest Upgrade is Contrived and has Side Effects As for the Tempest, this was supposed to be a cool capital ship unit, but it is so niche and cost inefficient. I really don't like the forced +40 building damage role it is being given. I am worried it will invalidate turtle styles in general. If someone wants to turtle, they are already giving up map control and risking drying up on resources in return for stability and easier defense. Being able to just poke at them from afar and kill buildings at a safe distance will be much more lame than the Protoss actually interacting through harass or attacks, right? So what if Tempest was just given another slight boost in damage, and perhaps give an upgrade where its ground range gets increased? That way you can safely kill spores without being abducted, and maybe the Tempest could be more usable in other situations. Yea, it'll be slow, but it doesn't matter if it's slow as long as it forces Zerg to actually do something and not just sit at their spores. Personally I feel it would be really cool to round out Skytoss by giving them 1 air unit with splash in the form of Tempest. The AOE could just be 1 matrix, like bile, and be relatively weak, but it would still help a lot vs marines and lategame vs air units. Random ideas aside, I feel they can push Tempest into a more interesting and useful role than just "oh upgrade this to kill spores lategame and I guess turtling mech players". Like, is this really the best we can do for the Tempest and Void Ray?
Guardian Shield to Block 1-2 Melee Damage to Buff Gateway Comp vs Zerg I think buffing Protoss gateway vs zerg in some way is probably a good idea. Someone mentioned buffing Guardian Shield so that the +2 damage block also applies to Melee. This sounds great as it would make them much less weak vs plain Zerglings. However, would this be problematic for zealots in PvP? If not, I think that would be a great change no? Or make it so it gives +2 damage block to projectiles and +1 damage block to melee.
TL;DR Sorry for the huge long post, haven't posted much recently but just had so many thoughts and wanted to put them out there... I am quite disappointed in the new limited, awkward Raven with such contrived spells, that unnecessarily was designed to just make 0-3 of in most cases and was redesigned into being an early GtA harass unit + early spellcaster. While I don't know a perfect solution, I'm sure something could have been figured out with the old Raven but simply tone down the scaling of its spells and increase supply to 3, with Parabomb now in the game. BC buffs do compensate and give Mech the powerful lategame scaling they need to not simply be a style that is on a limited timer and needs to do huge damage with its 2/2 push, but BC Warp in particular is very problematic and toxic and I say this as a Terran player, perhaps as much or more toxic than Mass Raven in HotS. Protoss could use slight help lategame PvZ without breaking anything by just reverting Void supply to 3 because mass Voids has not been a thing since HotS beta, and perhaps allowing Guardian Shield to block 1 or 2 melee damage to make Gateway comps stronger vs Zerg earlygame without ruining PvT or PvP as Zerglings would be by far the most affected.
I really worry about air units having their speed continuously buffed as that is very dangerous and Voids are already awkwardly fast and can chase down and kill Viking/Banshee due to its leash. Void Ray and Tempest deserve to have more love and not just pushed into awkward contrived niche roles. Especially the Tempest +structure damage upgrade seems problematic as it will have unwanted side effects in being a response to mech turtle styles in a very uninteresting way. Midgame turtling styles play a necessary role in the game, but Zerg lategame is too strong with its Spore Forest + spellcaster spam, so we need to make Tempest be able to discourage that without making them able to counter positional Mech styles by killing buildings safely from afar as it is very uninteresting and uninteractive. If they want to give Protoss more tools to respond to mass Spores, can they not just increase Tempest cost effectiveness, either in slight base damage buff, or some expensive upgrade that gives more overall damage or buff ground range to 14, so that it is only something you really have time and money to get in the lategame (or possibly midgame if you are committing to skytoss)? Or heck, what if Tempest actually had bonus damage to Biological? Then it wouldn't become toxic vs Mech, it would maybe be somewhat usable vs Bio, not ruin anything in PvP, and it would be much more useful vs Zerg overall as well as vs Spores.
My suggestions: -Tempest some bonus +Biological damage for Bio and Zerg units and buildings -Tempest to have some kind of lategame ground attack range upgrade to gently stop Zerg from sitting in Spore forests, and be more usable in MUs overall, instead of the suggested +Structure damage upgrade which will harshly counter Mech trying to be defensive in midgame -Guardian Shield to block 1-2 melee damage to help vs zerglings without changing Zealots much in PvP -Void Ray supply reverted to 3 to slightly buff PvZ lategame since mass Voids isn't and won't be a thing -Personally I would also revert to old Raven, tone down PDD and Seeker Missile so they don't scale as hard into lategame anymore while keeping their identity as positional and zoning support spells, and nerf supply to 3 -To go with the above, I would nerf BC by bringing the energy bar back and making players strategize whether to use Warp or Yamato instead of just using braindead free Yamato->Warp combo whenever it's off cooldown
This post is really well-thought out, and I particularly like your ideas regarding Void Rays and Ravens. I think guardian shield being able to work on melee would be a little too much, but other that, all good ideas.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
What if we changed the VR ability.
Right now VR deal 6 damage+10 vs armored. (16) The ability adds+6 damage vs armored (22) for 14 seconds. VR atack every 0.36 seconds.
That leaves us with 16.62 damage per second vs light, 44.32 vs armored and 59.4 DPS with full power, What if we buff the base damage of the VR vs armored, maybe to something like 6+11 vs armor (17). Then change the ability to increase the damage vs light so it catches up with the +armored damage. So for the 14 seconds that the ability lasts, VR would deal 17 damage vs all units, for a total of 45.9 DPS. Immortals have a DPS vs armored of 48 for comparison (50 damage vs armored every 1.04 seconds).
This would help VoidRays be sightly less useless against Zerg, while still being countered by hydras and marines. And because it last only 14 seconds there would be a clear window to outplay them.
As of right now VR really feel like they are either too weak or too strong between their two modes, so maybe this would help. Mixing this with the other suggestion of Yoshi Kirishima to reduce their supply cost would also help them still be good against corruptors, imo.
I think one of the problems with Protoss is T2 is too niche, when T3 should be the real specialized units. I think this would help make VR a little better and something you'd actually want to build to complement your army.
|
For sc2's 10th anniversary, I had really hoped Blizzard would be more bold and rework 2-3 units in each race. Maybe after EPT? One can dream I guess.
|
People over complicate this, Protoss is bad because their core units are almost all bad vs. Zerg.
1. Buff sentries for sure, they are in a terrible place with the Ravager in the game. Buff their damage, their HP, and I absolutely love the melee defense applied to Guardian because it would almost solely affect ZvP. PvP is by far the worst mirror in the game anyways so who gives a damn if it makes early game Zealot interaction weird, honestly, couldn't care less.
2. Reduce Adepts bonus vs light and give it to their overall damage, they are awful against Roaches and Queens.
3. Increase Stalker base damage? Give more HP? It's hilarious how awful Stalkers are vs. Zerg, they are almost on par with the Sentry, this unit has aged terribly.
4. Remove the Disruptor and replace with the Reaver, for God's sake it's like the Lurker fiasco, a unit that clearly should have been in the game from the get go, the Reaver is no different. The Disruptor sucks no matter how you redesign it, at least balancing the Reaver would be as simple as getting the splash and damage at a good point.
I'm a Zerg player, and Gateway units have aged badly. We have all learned to play around Warp Gate by now, it's probably time for some raw number buffs on core Gateway units. I understand at one point Warp Gate was new and people weren't used to it so Gateway units had to be kind of weak, but those times I feel like are long gone.
|
kinda wish they gave terrans the option of giving hellbats upgrades at engineering bay as well as armory.....
cuz hellbats are useless after the first push in t v z.
|
the thing i really don't like is that all the protoss buffs are for air units, which are the most boring unit types in the game
|
Why not have more specialized Protoss gateway units, give Stalkers more AA range and flat damage against ground units or something, have Zealots be speedy anti-armored units, have Adepts have a low power bounce attack to be better versus masses of units.
I dunno, Protoss gateway units just feel bad to me. Except for Blink Stalkers. Love those guys.
|
Say what you want about zerg, Rogue almost always completely dominate his opponents. He makes it look not even close, even more so than serral and reynor do.
This guy might be the smartest SC2 player right now. His strategic choices are insanely good. He really knows how to play a series off like noone else.
|
On August 16 2020 11:44 Wombat_NI wrote: Brutally plagiarised from my own terrible posting history.
Hm, think we should just spitball preposterous asymmetric PvZ ideas at this stage. Terrans have EMP, which has other utility but has clear Protoss-specific dimensions. Overall Blizz don’t seem too found of interactions that only occur between two of the game’s races but I think investigating
WombaT’s Ridiculous IdeaTM Sentry - New unit ability Creep Eradication Field
Active ability. Energy cost - Fuck knows /second.
Upon activation a field is generated that totally isn’t a recoloured guardian shield and can eliminate rumours without vision.
The rationale behind this change is to enable more gateway ‘sharking’ to control the spread of creep while enabling non-committal or committed aggression that is more smoothly. A Protoss player can open oracles off Stargate and keep them active in a harassment capacity for longer as they don’t need to be withdrawn to grant creep vision. Alternatively Protoss players can free up robotics production for units with more defensive or offensive capability by skipping observers at phases of the game and still being able to clear creep.
In theory this doesn’t greatly augment the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit too much either. This actually got me excited. I took your ability a bit further in my head, but imagine if SC2 launched with an ability called Oracle(taken from Tassadar from HotS,) instead of Guardian Shield. Oracle looks just like Guardian Shield, is a small vision boost and adds Detection to the Sentry. I mean it's even called a Sentry. The ability would not grant high ground vision, since enough stuff already does that and it diminishes the advantage of high ground. Protoss would've been less deathbally from the get-go (because aura effects that buff combat promotes death balls) and Protoss would have an expensive, but early Cyber Core tech unit that adds temporary detection. The Oracle unit wouldn't have needed be a unit that adds detection to Star Gate tech, Protoss would just in general be able to branch out more. Honestly the Sentry is my favourite unit game mechanic wise, I admit I'm dirty, but I just love the utility FF's and Hallucination add, but Guardian Shield has always been a bit iffy. I don't agree with buffing Guardian Shield vs Melee from earlier in the thread, Zerglings need to be useful in ZvP.
|
TvP is already hell to play, at least below pro level.
Making void rays better and giving tempest bonus damage to buildings will only make shield battery proxies even harder to play against for normal players.
But I doubt the void ray and tempest change will have much impact on pro level PvZ.
The patch screws over casual player in the wrong matchup while having almost no impact on the intended machup and level of play.
|
On August 16 2020 13:19 tigon_ridge wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 10:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Note: Feel free to just read my TL;DR I just wanted to spill all my thoughts out.
Good adjustment, it is worrisome to continuously make units move faster and faster. Particularly air units, which can become very dangerous when massed due to stacking DPS and traversing terrain. Air units are already mobile because they fly, we really don't need to have so many units that have 5 speed, it is pretty insane, especially with the Void Ray being (at least historically/currently) a slower but stronger unit, compared to the weaker but faster Phoenix for example.
Baneling Change Baneling change may or may not help a lot, but it is definitely a good place to shave off some Zerg power and help encourage them to try other comps instead of defaulting to Banelings all the time. Making them consider other units even ever so slightly more, can lead to them wanting to diversify their tech a bit more which can have a ever so slight effect on slowing Zerg's econ. Anyway, it's not a huge change, but any help is good and it doesn't really have any side effects. A few stalkers surviving with 10 health can be important. It will also make cyclone/hellion based mech die slightly less easily to ling bling muta, like last game of DRG vs Innovation this season, which I think is good.
Void Ray Deserves Better Design Balance aside, another big issue is the Void Ray and Tempest simply aren't very fun or interesting units. Terran and Zerg have become very robust over time, with basically every unit having a role in most situations/MUs. However the Void Ray and Tempest are 2 of the least used and least useful units, both belonging to Protoss. While it is fine to find a role for them for the sake of balance, can we not try to find them more interesting roles that can provide other options for midgame for example? I suppose they are trying this by pushing Void Ray to be quicker and more cost effective, so that it can be a mobile map control unit as well as help defend zerg aggression, kind of like Terran's banshee. But a fast Void Ray + the ability it has, I don't know, it just doesn't feel very interesting, it feels like an awkard of forced design.
Biggest question I have for the Void Ray is, would it really be so bad to revert the early HotS change, and make it back to 3 supply? The reason for changing it from 3 to 4 supply in very early HotS was because the balance team said mass voids seemed to be problematic. However that was before HotS even released. The game has changed a TON. Zerg has parabomb for example to help deal with mass air. Would making Void 3 supply, and thus allowing Protoss to make a few more units in endgame army situations be so bad? It would help make Protoss very slightly stronger vs Zerg lategame. Also, it would help keep its purity as a Corruptor counter. Right now, Voids do counter Corruptors by cost, but in endgame scenarios, if you are taking 10 Corruptors, you can only have 5 Void Rays. The Void Rays will barely win, so it is not really a counter at all. Is it so bad to allow it to be 12 Corruptors vs 8 Void Rays? Zerg still has Viper/Infestor/Queen spellcaster spam + movable Spores, etc.
Old Raven Unnecessarily Gutted, and Replaced with Mass BCs with Warp I also really question the new Raven. Again it feels like an awkward, forced design. Sorry this will be a bit of a dump of my opinions so feel free to skip it. It feels like a crime to make Raven basically just a detector in TvZ and very useless especially for a Mech player in that MU. Why couldn't they have come up with abilities that aren't so limited to the MU? It is OK for zerg to mass spellcasters lategame (combination of queen/infestor/viper), but it is not OK to make more than 3 Ravens anymore? Mass Ravens was certainly broken in HotS, but consider that Zerg did not have Parabomb, Corruptors were much slower, etc. They could have nerfed/reworked PDD and Seeker Missle in ways that kept their zoning traits, while making them scale much less hard lategame. They were unique and interesting zoning, positional tools, and they gutted them for much less interesting abilities. Another easy change was to make Raven 3 supply instead of 2, so that instead of having 30 Ravens you'd only have 20, unless you wanted to cut into your other army supply. It is OK for Zerg to spam spore forests and spellcasters lategame, and control huge areas of the map, but it is not ok for a Mech player to make 10-20 Ravens + Turrets + PFs to do something similar? Not saying I want super turtle styles, but positional battles can be very interesting and offer a unique way to play the game. I just feel like they really overreacted to Mass Ravens and overnerfed them, I do not understand why it is a unit they only want you to make 1-2 of, when no spellcaster is designed to be like that beside the hero Mothership. (Yeah, disable is really good in TvT and you can definitely make make 10 if you want, and having several Ravens for disable can be useful enough vs Protoss, but in TvZ there is basically nothing useful to disable, and Anti Armor missile is designed to compliment Bio way more than Mech, other than if you were to go mass Libs or mass BCs or such).
Another criticism is that the Auto Turret basically makes the Raven like some generic GtA harass unit, why does every Terran unit need to do harass in the form of killing workers? There are other types of harass possible you know? Liberator is already the "haha you didn't look for 3 seconds" harass unit for Terran, we don't need Raven Auto Turret to also basically be "did you pull your workers quick enough?". Because it is such a short duration with high dps, the only counterplay is to pull workers off temporarily. For example if it were reworked to last 20 seconds but do less damage, it would be more of a decision to try to kill the turret because maybe you don't want to waste 20 seconds of mining. Due to not being as punishing if you don't react quickly, it can be given 3 Range back. That and the duration buff would allow the AT to be more useful for Mech armies and can be used as a wall when pushing a position on the map, or it could be dropped to harass bases and threaten to kill buildings if not dealt with as it could do more total damage across its lifetime. The old AT was nice because it could be used in so many ways, the new one just makes the Raven feel like it has an awkward GtA attack. It also is very hard to use AT in situations other than harassing because of the very limited 2 range to place the turret. This is is another thing that makes it difficult to use to help supplement Mech positions on the map, it is too hard to place multiple turrets down at once.
With the Raven having so much more limited use, Mech strength growth really stops at the end of midgame, which is problematic because Mech should be a positional style that you need to either kill early or try to take the whole map and overwhelm them or win a war of attrition. If Mech is on a timer then it is much more 1 dimensional of a style, much like old Protoss being on a timer some needing to do some sort of all-in or deathball push. Of course, we now have the heavily buffed BC which offers immense endgame potential for Mech and Terran in general, but I feel BC Warp is quite toxic and problematic. BC is already the strongest straight up fighting unit, its weakness was its immobility but now it can even counter Tempest by just Warping on them? And being able to Warp so many BCs lategame makes it basically impossible to properly defend vs them as they can teleport anywhere. I guess Blizzard prefers warping BCs over being able to make 10-20 Ravens in endgame??? Idk. I think it would be much more fair if BCs were given energy bar back, since Feedback only does 0.5 damage per energy drained, and that way Terran would have to decide whether to spend energy more on Yamato or Warp. Right now BC is quite uninteresting because you basically just want to use your free Yamato+Warp back home whenever it's off cooldown, there's much less strategic decisions involved. I would prefer toning down BC and giving more ways to counterplay, and revert the Raven to its old self and simply rework the abilities to scale much less and increase its supply to 3 to specifically nerf it lategame. (Examples: Add cooldown to each PDD shot so you can only block 2 projectiles a second per PDD placed which allows the opponent to still do some degree of steady damage to you, perhaps increase PDD energy to 125, reduce Seeker Missile splash severely, increase Raven supply to 3, etc).
Sorry if that was a bit of a rant on the Raven, really wanted to talk about it, as it was my favorite unit, and feel there were many ways they could have toned it down and made it scale less hard lategame (supply, reworking abilities slightly), and would have been fine with Parabomb now being in LotV, it would be very potent vs Mass Ravens. Even Hydras have gotten buffed and they already did well vs PDD/Ravens in HotS.
Zerg Lategame + Spellcasters Bringing it back more on topic, Zerg has the most versatile and strongest spellcasters. Terran only has 1.5, since Ghost and Raven are each mostly useless in certain MUs (depending on if you go bio or mech of course).They have the highest # of general use spellcasters that are effective each MU in all stages of the game, and overall the most amount of spells, and they also happen to be spells that offer a combination of great AOE/damage/crowd control. Protoss has HTs and Sentries, with ~3 spells, Oracle and MS can provide support but only Time Warp really is a "battle" spell. Zerg meanwhile has Abduct, Blinding Cloud, Parabomb, Neural Parasite, Fungal, Transfuse, and yes Microbial Shroud (lategame you only need 1-2 to provide significant support to support Hydras when fighting airtoss, like how Serral uses it). I think the number of potent Zerg battle spells is part of what makes lategame PvZ look so tough. (I'm not sure I really agree that PvZ lategame is fine and that it is just that it is difficult for Protoss to enter lategame on even footing, being able to abduct so many units and spam multiple AOE spells just seems so efficient and strong, when I feel that Zerg as the econ race should be designed to be strong due to being able to take a huge part of the map and overwhelm you despite being cost inefficient, rather than having lots of cost efficient low supply spellcasters). Protoss is the tech race and should have the strongest and most expensive endgame army. Terran is the army race and has versatile, efficient units.
Going along with that, I feel it is OK to buff Protoss endgame slightly. I mean, at worst, it becomes slightly Protoss favored, and is that so bad? I think it would be a fine dynamic because Zerg can grow so quickly early and midgame, so Protoss endgame army being stronger would put some pressure and incentive on Zerg to interact with and try to end Protoss, rather than put the entire burden on Protoss to try to slow Zerg and also end them early. Again I think changing Void back to 3 supply would be nice here so they can fit a few more units in.
Tempest Upgrade is Contrived and has Side Effects As for the Tempest, this was supposed to be a cool capital ship unit, but it is so niche and cost inefficient. I really don't like the forced +40 building damage role it is being given. I am worried it will invalidate turtle styles in general. If someone wants to turtle, they are already giving up map control and risking drying up on resources in return for stability and easier defense. Being able to just poke at them from afar and kill buildings at a safe distance will be much more lame than the Protoss actually interacting through harass or attacks, right? So what if Tempest was just given another slight boost in damage, and perhaps give an upgrade where its ground range gets increased? That way you can safely kill spores without being abducted, and maybe the Tempest could be more usable in other situations. Yea, it'll be slow, but it doesn't matter if it's slow as long as it forces Zerg to actually do something and not just sit at their spores. Personally I feel it would be really cool to round out Skytoss by giving them 1 air unit with splash in the form of Tempest. The AOE could just be 1 matrix, like bile, and be relatively weak, but it would still help a lot vs marines and lategame vs air units. Random ideas aside, I feel they can push Tempest into a more interesting and useful role than just "oh upgrade this to kill spores lategame and I guess turtling mech players". Like, is this really the best we can do for the Tempest and Void Ray?
Guardian Shield to Block 1-2 Melee Damage to Buff Gateway Comp vs Zerg I think buffing Protoss gateway vs zerg in some way is probably a good idea. Someone mentioned buffing Guardian Shield so that the +2 damage block also applies to Melee. This sounds great as it would make them much less weak vs plain Zerglings. However, would this be problematic for zealots in PvP? If not, I think that would be a great change no? Or make it so it gives +2 damage block to projectiles and +1 damage block to melee.
TL;DR Sorry for the huge long post, haven't posted much recently but just had so many thoughts and wanted to put them out there... I am quite disappointed in the new limited, awkward Raven with such contrived spells, that unnecessarily was designed to just make 0-3 of in most cases and was redesigned into being an early GtA harass unit + early spellcaster. While I don't know a perfect solution, I'm sure something could have been figured out with the old Raven but simply tone down the scaling of its spells and increase supply to 3, with Parabomb now in the game. BC buffs do compensate and give Mech the powerful lategame scaling they need to not simply be a style that is on a limited timer and needs to do huge damage with its 2/2 push, but BC Warp in particular is very problematic and toxic and I say this as a Terran player, perhaps as much or more toxic than Mass Raven in HotS. Protoss could use slight help lategame PvZ without breaking anything by just reverting Void supply to 3 because mass Voids has not been a thing since HotS beta, and perhaps allowing Guardian Shield to block 1 or 2 melee damage to make Gateway comps stronger vs Zerg earlygame without ruining PvT or PvP as Zerglings would be by far the most affected.
I really worry about air units having their speed continuously buffed as that is very dangerous and Voids are already awkwardly fast and can chase down and kill Viking/Banshee due to its leash. Void Ray and Tempest deserve to have more love and not just pushed into awkward contrived niche roles. Especially the Tempest +structure damage upgrade seems problematic as it will have unwanted side effects in being a response to mech turtle styles in a very uninteresting way. Midgame turtling styles play a necessary role in the game, but Zerg lategame is too strong with its Spore Forest + spellcaster spam, so we need to make Tempest be able to discourage that without making them able to counter positional Mech styles by killing buildings safely from afar as it is very uninteresting and uninteractive. If they want to give Protoss more tools to respond to mass Spores, can they not just increase Tempest cost effectiveness, either in slight base damage buff, or some expensive upgrade that gives more overall damage or buff ground range to 14, so that it is only something you really have time and money to get in the lategame (or possibly midgame if you are committing to skytoss)? Or heck, what if Tempest actually had bonus damage to Biological? Then it wouldn't become toxic vs Mech, it would maybe be somewhat usable vs Bio, not ruin anything in PvP, and it would be much more useful vs Zerg overall as well as vs Spores.
My suggestions: -Tempest some bonus +Biological damage for Bio and Zerg units and buildings -Tempest to have some kind of lategame ground attack range upgrade to gently stop Zerg from sitting in Spore forests, and be more usable in MUs overall, instead of the suggested +Structure damage upgrade which will harshly counter Mech trying to be defensive in midgame -Guardian Shield to block 1-2 melee damage to help vs zerglings without changing Zealots much in PvP -Void Ray supply reverted to 3 to slightly buff PvZ lategame since mass Voids isn't and won't be a thing -Personally I would also revert to old Raven, tone down PDD and Seeker Missile so they don't scale as hard into lategame anymore while keeping their identity as positional and zoning support spells, and nerf supply to 3 -To go with the above, I would nerf BC by bringing the energy bar back and making players strategize whether to use Warp or Yamato instead of just using braindead free Yamato->Warp combo whenever it's off cooldown
This post is really well-thought out, and I particularly like your ideas regarding Void Rays and Ravens. I think guardian shield being able to work on melee would be a little too much, but other that, all good ideas.
Thanks, I'm really happy someone read my post haha. Yeah GS +2 melee damage block would be way too much, I think +1 could be considered maybe since GS is just temporary, and Zerglings would still be useful for flanks / surrounds to catch Gateway units and let other units engage. Might make Zergs have to work a little harder and use some tactics to force energy on GS early and a combination of Zergling flanks/surrounds + other units to fight a Gateway army moving across the map? A tactic would be to surround the army and then snipe the Sentry with Roaches/Bile. Another option is to simply buff Sentry base stats, it wouldn't change much but, it wouldn't break any unit interaction, while making Gateway ever slightly stronger. I suppose back in WoL, Sentry needed to be weak and fragile because FF was so strong, so you can snipe Sentries and need other Gateway units for damage. But now there is Bile and such to play around FF, so maybe the Sentry can be buffed?
|
On August 16 2020 20:55 MockHamill wrote: TvP is already hell to play, at least below pro level.
Making void rays better and giving tempest bonus damage to buildings will only make shield battery proxies even harder to play against for normal players.
But I doubt the void ray and tempest change will have much impact on pro level PvZ.
The patch screws over casual player in the wrong matchup while having almost no impact on the intended machup and level of play.
This is exactly how I felt about it. It might have a small effect on pvz, but in pvt are we going to see the resurgance of the shield batter proxy shenanigans? I say yes, and at minimum it's going to further constrain how terran can open up the game.
|
On August 16 2020 17:43 Snakestyle11 wrote: Say what you want about zerg, Rogue almost always completely dominate his opponents. He makes it look not even close, even more so than serral and reynor do.
This guy might be the smartest SC2 player right now. His strategic choices are insanely good. He really knows how to play a series off like noone else. T/P blame balance without even looking for the games. If someone abuse particular strategy, you can call that a balance issue, but we didn't see anything like this.
|
|
On August 16 2020 23:09 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 17:43 Snakestyle11 wrote: Say what you want about zerg, Rogue almost always completely dominate his opponents. He makes it look not even close, even more so than serral and reynor do.
This guy might be the smartest SC2 player right now. His strategic choices are insanely good. He really knows how to play a series off like noone else. T/P blame balance without even looking for the games. If someone abuse particular strategy, you can call that a balance issue, but we didn't see anything like this. Rogue abuses zerg larva mechanics, which have infinite potential compared to terran or protoss mechanics
|
On August 16 2020 20:55 MockHamill wrote: TvP is already hell to play, at least below pro level.
Making void rays better and giving tempest bonus damage to buildings will only make shield battery proxies even harder to play against for normal players.
But I doubt the void ray and tempest change will have much impact on pro level PvZ.
The patch screws over casual player in the wrong matchup while having almost no impact on the intended machup and level of play.
Agreed. I had already given up playing TvP before the patch, now I will give up playing Terran altogether.
|
On August 17 2020 01:47 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 20:55 MockHamill wrote: TvP is already hell to play, at least below pro level.
Making void rays better and giving tempest bonus damage to buildings will only make shield battery proxies even harder to play against for normal players.
But I doubt the void ray and tempest change will have much impact on pro level PvZ.
The patch screws over casual player in the wrong matchup while having almost no impact on the intended machup and level of play. Agreed. I had already given up playing TvP before the patch, now I will give up playing Terran altogether.
I'm curious about this because I never faced proxy voids, only a couple times proxy tempest with maybe starting with 1 void. It is annoying but it doesn't seem overly strong or anything as long as you respond quickly and don't get greedy. I suppose dragged out tempest proxy games can give them time to do the upgrade though, and that would be problematic. I really hope the tempest upgrade doesn't go through because it can potentially ruin Mech TvP in the midgame, when Mech needs to be turtling to an extent. If they want to address Zerg spore forest they need to think more carefully. An upgrade to buff ground range or give bonus Bio damage may be better while also giving more use in other situations. Or just reworking the Tempest completely once again since it isn't key for anything right now so there is a lot of freedom.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 16 2020 19:54 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 16 2020 11:44 Wombat_NI wrote: Brutally plagiarised from my own terrible posting history.
Hm, think we should just spitball preposterous asymmetric PvZ ideas at this stage. Terrans have EMP, which has other utility but has clear Protoss-specific dimensions. Overall Blizz don’t seem too found of interactions that only occur between two of the game’s races but I think investigating
WombaT’s Ridiculous IdeaTM Sentry - New unit ability Creep Eradication Field
Active ability. Energy cost - Fuck knows /second.
Upon activation a field is generated that totally isn’t a recoloured guardian shield and can eliminate rumours without vision.
The rationale behind this change is to enable more gateway ‘sharking’ to control the spread of creep while enabling non-committal or committed aggression that is more smoothly. A Protoss player can open oracles off Stargate and keep them active in a harassment capacity for longer as they don’t need to be withdrawn to grant creep vision. Alternatively Protoss players can free up robotics production for units with more defensive or offensive capability by skipping observers at phases of the game and still being able to clear creep.
In theory this doesn’t greatly augment the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit too much either. This actually got me excited. I took your ability a bit further in my head, but imagine if SC2 launched with an ability called Oracle(taken from Tassadar from HotS,) instead of Guardian Shield. Oracle looks just like Guardian Shield, is a small vision boost and adds Detection to the Sentry. I mean it's even called a Sentry. The ability would not grant high ground vision, since enough stuff already does that and it diminishes the advantage of high ground. Protoss would've been less deathbally from the get-go (because aura effects that buff combat promotes death balls) and Protoss would have an expensive, but early Cyber Core tech unit that adds temporary detection. The Oracle unit wouldn't have needed be a unit that adds detection to Star Gate tech, Protoss would just in general be able to branch out more. Honestly the Sentry is my favourite unit game mechanic wise, I admit I'm dirty, but I just love the utility FF's and Hallucination add, but Guardian Shield has always been a bit iffy. I don't agree with buffing Guardian Shield vs Melee from earlier in the thread, Zerglings need to be useful in ZvP. I had also pondered that, I’d figured just outright giving Sentries would give them too much utility in shutting down other tech paths be it cloakshees or DTs or what have you.
I am quite fond of sentries myself and Oracles as being in a pretty good spot as genuine support units, agree with most of your post.
I’m not sure how one fills the rather gaping hole between Protoss early harassment and their big pushes, but they could do with something in that space in terms of posturing and additional harassment or clearing of creep etc.
|
On August 16 2020 15:55 Beelzebub1 wrote: 3. Increase Stalker base damage? Give more HP? It's hilarious how awful Stalkers are vs. Zerg, they are almost on par with the Sentry, this unit has aged terribly. I honestly think the changes they made to stalkers a couple years ago have made them much worse against zerg. They didn't used to do as much damage, but they attacked substantially faster so if you had a handful of stalkers they could at least hold their own against zerglings, especially with blink.
After the initial change where they slowed the stalker's attack period but gave them much more damage (and a bigger bonus versus armoured), they attacked much slower and were worse against zerglings but for the first time ever they were actually quite good against roaches, queens, etc., with micro. But then they did that weird half-measure change where they slightly sped up the stalker attack but gave them attack damage that was halfway between their old values and the changed values. This resulted in stalkers still being terrible against zerglings, but now they also were again poor against roaches, and ever since protoss has been back to relying on immortals to not get run over by mass roach, roach/ravager, and other roach compositions.
There've been so many changes they've done to protoss the last couple years that they've ended up rolling back half way and it has made the unit worse as a result. The exact same thing that happened to stalkers ended up happening to tempests.
I do think they need to look at the gateway units and protoss overall. Tinkering with void rays is not going to solve protoss being ridiculously fragile for chunks of the game.
|
On August 17 2020 02:20 Ben... wrote: e against zerglings, but now they also were again poor against roaches, and ever since protoss has been back to relying on immortals to not get run over by mass roach, roach/ravager, and other roach compositions.
There've been so many changes they've done to protoss the last couple years that they've ended up rolling back half way and it has made the unit worse as a result. The exact same thing that happened to stalkers ended up happening to tempests.
I do think they need to look at the gateway units and protoss overall. Tinkering with void rays is not going to solve protoss being ridiculously fragile for chunks of the game.
The void ray doesn't do a whole lot vs zerg early game and a speed buff isn't going to change that. What it is going to do is make them MUCH more effective vs Terran. The mobility will make them much more micro-able and safer against marines, thus forcing out early cyclones which will delay production of other units that you actually need to be able to do enough early game damage to the protoss player. So now the void ray all in becomes a void ray opener that is safe, low risk and effective and will force the Terran player to respect it. Just the threat of early void ray harass will have an impact.
There are other options to help protoss vs zerg that wouldn't effect the other matchup but this is what they chose to go for. Personally I think they could of buffed sentries, maybe make force fields last longer?? Maybe make them require 2 corrossive biles to break ?
|
On August 17 2020 02:34 RandomPlayer416 wrote:
The void ray doesn't do a whole lot vs zerg early game and a speed buff isn't going to change that. What it is going to do is make them MUCH more effective vs Terran. The mobility will make them much more micro-able and safer against marines, thus forcing out early cyclones which will delay production of other units that you actually need to be able to do enough early game damage to the protoss player. So now the void ray all in becomes a void ray opener that is safe, low risk and effective and will force the Terran player to respect it. Just the threat of early void ray harass will have an impact.
There are other options to help protoss vs zerg that wouldn't effect the other matchup but this is what they chose to go for. Personally I think they could of buffed sentries, maybe make force fields last longer?? Maybe make them require 2 corrossive biles to break ?
Interesting that you mention biles in respect to FF. The current cool down for a bile is pretty low, maybe that could be look at biles in conjunction with a lower energy cost for FF?
I'm also liking the idea of some sort of anti creep tumor gateway tech ability.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 17 2020 05:04 Sprog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 02:34 RandomPlayer416 wrote:
The void ray doesn't do a whole lot vs zerg early game and a speed buff isn't going to change that. What it is going to do is make them MUCH more effective vs Terran. The mobility will make them much more micro-able and safer against marines, thus forcing out early cyclones which will delay production of other units that you actually need to be able to do enough early game damage to the protoss player. So now the void ray all in becomes a void ray opener that is safe, low risk and effective and will force the Terran player to respect it. Just the threat of early void ray harass will have an impact.
There are other options to help protoss vs zerg that wouldn't effect the other matchup but this is what they chose to go for. Personally I think they could of buffed sentries, maybe make force fields last longer?? Maybe make them require 2 corrossive biles to break ? Interesting that you mention biles in respect to FF. The current cool down for a bile is pretty low, maybe that could be look at biles in conjunction with a lower energy cost for FF? I'm also liking the idea of some sort of anti creep tumor gateway teach ability. I’m still skeptical what it would do, despite being one who proposed giving sentries a specific creep-killing ability.
Even if they can shark and retract creep, can they do it in a phase of the game that actually impacts Zerg growth? Or would it still be too risky and you’d just see sharking squads get surrounded and wiped?
I dunno really. I’d like some experimentation. One of my favourite ideas others have suggested is a retractable shield battery that can raise or lower as required. I assume it wouldn’t actually regen shields when underground (or, to fit Protoss, phased out of existence)
I think in combination we could see a slowdown of Zerg growth with these few small tweaks.
I think cumulatively they could actually add up more than people realise, Protoss having to keep units in their walls, get well it’s only one unit. Yes but it’s kind of a big deal when it’s at a phase of the game where Zerg are severely skimping on units to drone hardcore.
I’m unsure what one would do with biles. PvZ looks bleak now for sure but I still vividly remember how silly forcefields on ramps were back in the day.
I’m not sure how much a cooldown increase would do in the mid to lategame when huge bane counts come into play. You only have to stomp the forcefields once to get in. It’s a weird dynamic where bile feels like it needs to be strong for earlier pushes, but is a bit strong against later pushes like the Collosus return we’re seeing lately.
Perhaps not making them instant-kill forcefields would do something, but a short delay with an animation of them dissolving or something.
Nothing huge by any means like a half or a quarter of a second but you’d introduce a timing element from setting up a surround, hitting the biles and pushing through the dissolving forcefields, or add a really, really short window where the Protoss can set up their forcefields again.
Just spitballing really, mostly awful ideas haha
|
I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse.
|
On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse.
I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers.
The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that?
Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal?
Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling.
|
Mass muta has been a thing vs stalkers since the beginning (2010). I know at pro level it's not done, but it's annoying when you play team games and occassional 1vs1 to lose to it when you have more stalkers than mutas. Stalkers NEED AA. The void ray buff is just for team games.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. The instant nature of it is a bit, oof.
The game’s engagements are fast enough as it is, a lot of spells are not dodgeable in any meaningful way.
What if it was a short channelling spell with a slightly lengthened pull time? Nothing too long, they still need to be useful.
That would give you a short time to snipe the viper, or alternatively if you’re Terran or Protoss you’d have a short period to EMP/feedback to cancel the channel.
Unless you are insanely fast the yoinked unit will still be pulled at least some distance so the Zerg still have the option of poking forward and sniping it too, would just add at least another layer of play and counter-play.
|
On August 17 2020 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. The instant nature of it is a bit, oof. The game’s engagements are fast enough as it is, a lot of spells are not dodgeable in any meaningful way. What if it was a short channelling spell with a slightly lengthened pull time? Nothing too long, they still need to be useful. That would give you a short time to snipe the viper, or alternatively if you’re Terran or Protoss you’d have a short period to EMP/feedback to cancel the channel. Unless you are insanely fast the yoinked unit will still be pulled at least some distance so the Zerg still have the option of poking forward and sniping it too, would just add at least another layer of play and counter-play.
To be frank I've always felt that the ability is just wrong, like it doesn't belong to starcraft at all. I'd much more prefer if viper just had something similar to "spawn broodling" from broodwar. Cast on unit Only vs ground (Viper already has this insane parasitic bomb vs Air you know?) After 2-5sec deals instant 150-200 dmg and spawns 1-2 broodlings no top of the unit
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 17 2020 23:30 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. The instant nature of it is a bit, oof. The game’s engagements are fast enough as it is, a lot of spells are not dodgeable in any meaningful way. What if it was a short channelling spell with a slightly lengthened pull time? Nothing too long, they still need to be useful. That would give you a short time to snipe the viper, or alternatively if you’re Terran or Protoss you’d have a short period to EMP/feedback to cancel the channel. Unless you are insanely fast the yoinked unit will still be pulled at least some distance so the Zerg still have the option of poking forward and sniping it too, would just add at least another layer of play and counter-play. To be frank I've always felt that the ability is just wrong, like it doesn't belong to starcraft at all. I'd much more prefer if viper just had something similar to "spawn broodling" from broodwar. Cast on unit Only vs ground (Viper already has this insane parasitic bomb vs Air you know?) After 2-5sec deals instant 150-200 dmg and spawns 1-2 broodlings no top of the unit I’m not a massive fan to say the least, but I couch most of my theorycraft balancing in tweaking what’s there over something more radical.
10 (well I suppose 9) years of wanting Warpgate retooled or removed and Protoss getting more potent gate units being largely why haha.
I can’t see yoinks going anywhere, and assuming that how would I introduce at least some counter play to it. Would still have some potency but a bit of space for P/T to try to protect important assets.
It has a pretty important function in ZvZ too. Between disables from the raven, splitting bio and flanking, dropping on top of them etc, pushing an air advantage TvT has a lot of play/counterplay they can do against tanklines, Zerg have a smaller toolset against lurkers that they can frequently deploy anyway.
|
It's also strange that the Viper has abduct when the Infestor has neural. Why does zerg need two spells that do almost the same, i.e. take out the opponents big, expensive units?
I think it would be much better to find another spell to replace abduct.
|
On August 17 2020 23:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 23:30 egrimm wrote:On August 17 2020 20:19 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. The instant nature of it is a bit, oof. The game’s engagements are fast enough as it is, a lot of spells are not dodgeable in any meaningful way. What if it was a short channelling spell with a slightly lengthened pull time? Nothing too long, they still need to be useful. That would give you a short time to snipe the viper, or alternatively if you’re Terran or Protoss you’d have a short period to EMP/feedback to cancel the channel. Unless you are insanely fast the yoinked unit will still be pulled at least some distance so the Zerg still have the option of poking forward and sniping it too, would just add at least another layer of play and counter-play. To be frank I've always felt that the ability is just wrong, like it doesn't belong to starcraft at all. I'd much more prefer if viper just had something similar to "spawn broodling" from broodwar. Cast on unit Only vs ground (Viper already has this insane parasitic bomb vs Air you know?) After 2-5sec deals instant 150-200 dmg and spawns 1-2 broodlings no top of the unit I’m not a massive fan to say the least, but I couch most of my theorycraft balancing in tweaking what’s there over something more radical. 10 (well I suppose 9) years of wanting Warpgate retooled or removed and Protoss getting more potent gate units being largely why haha. I can’t see yoinks going anywhere, and assuming that how would I introduce at least some counter play to it. Would still have some potency but a bit of space for P/T to try to protect important assets. It has a pretty important function in ZvZ too. Between disables from the raven, splitting bio and flanking, dropping on top of them etc, pushing an air advantage TvT has a lot of play/counterplay they can do against tanklines, Zerg have a smaller toolset against lurkers that they can frequently deploy anyway.
I agree that it is somehow radical and probably something much more mild would be more probable to be implemented. However Viper with abduct was implemented only in LotV so it is not as long in the game as the warpgate you mentioned so there is still hope
My proposal would give same (needed) functionality against fortified positions as before - you could cast 'spawn broodlings' onto sieged tanks/lurkers and depending on the dmg 1 or 2 shot the unit. Also I'd gladly see more lurker play in ZvZ even if it'd would be potentially imba
Also as sneakyfox mentioned abduct heavily overlaps with neural - why do we have 2 similar in function and idea spells additionally for the same race and at the similar tech tree position?
|
Zerg has the strongest spells in the game by far, it really isnt even close compared to the other races. Would love to see an abduct nerf or blinding cloud nerf even both. Parasitic bomb is a good spell but its not that difficult to deal with compared to the other ones which you just can't deal with.
|
Patch going live this week?
|
Give us the dragoon! Lore-wise it would even fit. Goon tech was lost fleeing from Aiur, but in LotV , Aiur was retaken. So let s say they rediscovered how to make goons. It might not immediately help pvz (though may be beefier vs roaches and ravager and survive a wee bit more vs hydras) but it would help vs terran harass quite effectively while not requiring any gimmicky spell or research. Blink is nice and provided great spectator value in the right hand, but i feel stalkers cannot be the backbone of a protoss army, they need to be repurposed (AA?)
|
On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling.
Abduct is to good on 3pop unit, it also only cost 75mana, like what? its on the same level as BC yamato tbh, should be rebalanced or extremely nerfed
|
The big problem is 1 shotting probes PvZ. Just changing the probe armor tag would be a much better change.
|
On August 18 2020 02:47 skdsk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. Abduct is to good on 3pop unit, it also only cost 75mana, like what? its on the same level as BC yamato tbh, should be rebalanced or extremely nerfed
Don't forget unlike every other caster, vipers can just go home and get full energy off throw away buildings
|
Could the Viper abduct spell not be retooled a bit? I was thinking that instead of the abductee being flung toward the Viper, the Viper could simply establish its tether and then maybe the Viper could "tug" the abductee in its direction, the exact mechanics would be up to debate/experimentation. Like it could be "reeled" back a la a fishing line, or maybe the tether distance stays the same but the Viper has to walk away (speed based on the unit size/weight/armor class) in order to drag the unit backward.
This would hopefully give the Protoss (ie Colossus) a small moment to counterplay as the unit moves into the Zerg army more slowly?
|
On August 18 2020 03:01 kyarisan wrote: Could the Viper abduct spell not be retooled a bit? I was thinking that instead of the abductee being flung toward the Viper, the Viper could simply establish its tether and then maybe the Viper could "tug" the abductee in its direction, the exact mechanics would be up to debate/experimentation. Like it could be "reeled" back a la a fishing line, or maybe the tether distance stays the same but the Viper has to walk away (speed based on the unit size/weight/armor class) in order to drag the unit backward.
This would hopefully give the Protoss (ie Colossus) a small moment to counterplay as the unit moves into the Zerg army more slowly?
I think something like this would work, the easiest example would be like Batrider in Dota.
I'm a Terran player so abduct isn't quite as terrible against us but watching a Toss army lose its potency due to key units being abducted with really no counter play doesn't feel right.
|
HT just got a buff Vs viper... Without viper what is there in late game for zerg? Useless infestor? Ultras lol?
Seriously lots of pros and blizz said ZvP might even be protoss favored late game it's just that z gets ahead in midgame.
With the huge (!!!) tempest buff the carrier tempest HT archon comp will be laughably op if protoss gets in late game on even footing. If they nerf spore walls (which is a good thing) they will have to buff zerg anti air
|
On August 18 2020 03:00 Moonerz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 02:47 skdsk wrote:On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. Abduct is to good on 3pop unit, it also only cost 75mana, like what? its on the same level as BC yamato tbh, should be rebalanced or extremely nerfed Don't forget unlike every other caster, vipers can just go home and get full energy off throw away buildings
the main thing is terran does have some counter play, but protoss basically doesnt, i feel like abduct, should charge up like Yamato or requirer aim-time like ghost, also the actual pull range should be reduced (castable from 9 range but pulls only 4.5 or something)
|
On August 18 2020 04:24 Decendos wrote: HT just got a buff Vs viper... Without viper what is there in late game for zerg? Useless infestor? Ultras lol?
Seriously lots of pros and blizz said ZvP might even be protoss favored late game it's just that z gets ahead in midgame.
With the huge (!!!) tempest buff the carrier tempest HT archon comp will be laughably op if protoss gets in late game on even footing. If they nerf spore walls (which is a good thing) they will have to buff zerg anti air
The goal of these balance comments is to make sure Zerg stops winning entirely. No one making suggestions is aiming for a 50% win rate.
|
Maybe feedback needs another buff. It used to be 1 damage/1 energy. Now it's 0.5 dmg/energy. Maybe it should be 0.75 dmg/energy?
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On August 18 2020 03:52 Moonerz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 03:01 kyarisan wrote: Could the Viper abduct spell not be retooled a bit? I was thinking that instead of the abductee being flung toward the Viper, the Viper could simply establish its tether and then maybe the Viper could "tug" the abductee in its direction, the exact mechanics would be up to debate/experimentation. Like it could be "reeled" back a la a fishing line, or maybe the tether distance stays the same but the Viper has to walk away (speed based on the unit size/weight/armor class) in order to drag the unit backward.
This would hopefully give the Protoss (ie Colossus) a small moment to counterplay as the unit moves into the Zerg army more slowly? I think something like this would work, the easiest example would be like Batrider in Dota. I'm a Terran player so abduct isn't quite as terrible against us but watching a Toss army lose its potency due to key units being abducted with really no counter play doesn't feel right.
i said this months ago and everybody call me crazy, but is true the abduct thing doesn't have a counter or nothing. a nerf or removal is needed
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 18 2020 04:32 InfCereal wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 04:24 Decendos wrote: HT just got a buff Vs viper... Without viper what is there in late game for zerg? Useless infestor? Ultras lol?
Seriously lots of pros and blizz said ZvP might even be protoss favored late game it's just that z gets ahead in midgame.
With the huge (!!!) tempest buff the carrier tempest HT archon comp will be laughably op if protoss gets in late game on even footing. If they nerf spore walls (which is a good thing) they will have to buff zerg anti air The goal of these balance comments is to make sure Zerg stops winning entirely. No one making suggestions is aiming for a 50% win rate. What?
The fabled Protoss lategame that we never see?
Almost every PvZ suggestion in here (outside of Blizzard’s) is for tweaks or buffs to the midgame, a whole bunch are actively against buffing late game air toss, myself amongst them.
|
On August 18 2020 03:00 Moonerz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 02:47 skdsk wrote:On August 17 2020 07:27 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:On August 17 2020 06:36 BronzeKnee wrote: I guess I need to write another article...
The elephant in the room here is the Viper. It's always been the Viper (it has negative consequences game design wise in TvZ too). Anything that takes Protoss along time to build (mostly units that don't come out of the Warp Gate) simply gets Abducted and killed and the rest of the Protoss army can't stand up to a Roach/Hydra/Lurker ball.
It has been this way forever. The more expensive unit you make that gets Abducted, the more it puts you behind, so why tech? Why go into late game? There is a reason we see timing attacks against Zerg. More counter play must be introduced to this mechanic for Protoss to have a chance in late game.
This has to be solved.
Buffing Void Rays is not the solution. It will only make other match ups and team games worse. I agree, I've been feeling that Viper Abduct is pretty problematic. It's not interesting, watching it happen in pro games feels REALLY lame and honestly unfair. It gives me a bad feeling while watching a game when I should be excited and enjoying it. It's anticlimactic because it can decide whether a battle or game is won or lost, without the two armies actually engaging or poking in meaningful ways. You could use Feedback I suppose, but it doesn't seem to be too common, probably because it's usually too hard to have both Colossus and HT tech at a time when Zerg can have Vipers. The cost of Abduct needs to be adjusted to account for them wanting to just abduct the most expensive units, or it needs to be changed so you can't abduct massive units. Then you can't abduct Colossus, Thors, BCs, Carriers, or Tempest anymore. It would also help Tempests be used to poke at Spores without worry of being abducted, and we wouldn't need the +Structure damage upgrade. I'm honestly surprised you can Abduct the Mothership too, what is with that? Or what if Abduct only pulls Massive units half the range as normal? Other ideas is that Abduct shouldn't be so instant, it should slowly drag the unit towards them, allowing you time to react and possibly snipe the Viper or poke back while the Viper is pulling. Abduct is to good on 3pop unit, it also only cost 75mana, like what? its on the same level as BC yamato tbh, should be rebalanced or extremely nerfed Don't forget unlike every other caster, vipers can just go home and get full energy off throw away buildings Vipers are too cost-effective for several reasons, Consume being the most important. With it, their spells do not even cost mana, just HP from a nearby hatchery or extract. And they gain full energy a few seconds after spawning. Consume needs to be removed. Or reworked, it may give HP insted of energy.
|
Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential.
|
On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential.
if you give gateway unit even more damage and dps at the start of the game will always break PvT early game.
In previous version, there is a (brief) patch that the stalker have 15 damage per shot (up from 10), but the same theoretical DPS, and it instantaneously break PvT early game, there is a youtube video PiG done with progamers on that. The same can be said about adept as well, if adept have higher dps against scv or marine , it will make pushing them away in the first 2-3 minute for safe mining at the natural pretty much impossible. If T can only mine at natural 1 minute later than P, the match up is not going to be good.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential.
Protoss doesnt need a buff in dps, zerg needs more nerf Queen needs to be look at, is way to good for his cost and what it does for zerg.
|
On August 18 2020 08:39 mounteast0 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential. if you give gateway unit even more damage and dps at the start of the game will always break PvT early game. In previous version, there is a (brief) patch that the stalker have 15 damage per shot (up from 10), but the same theoretical DPS, and it instantaneously break PvT early game, there is a youtube video PiG done with progamers on that. The same can be said about adept as well, if adept have higher dps against scv or marine , it will make pushing them away in the first 2-3 minute for safe mining at the natural pretty much impossible. If T can only mine at natural 1 minute later than P, the match up is not going to be good.
Glaives for free seems a bit over the top.
Build a bunker if you scout aggression. As a P if you scout early T aggression you generally build a battery
|
On August 18 2020 10:12 Sprog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 08:39 mounteast0 wrote:On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential. if you give gateway unit even more damage and dps at the start of the game will always break PvT early game. In previous version, there is a (brief) patch that the stalker have 15 damage per shot (up from 10), but the same theoretical DPS, and it instantaneously break PvT early game, there is a youtube video PiG done with progamers on that. The same can be said about adept as well, if adept have higher dps against scv or marine , it will make pushing them away in the first 2-3 minute for safe mining at the natural pretty much impossible. If T can only mine at natural 1 minute later than P, the match up is not going to be good. Glaives for free seems a bit over the top. Build a bunker if you scout aggression. As a P if you scout early T aggression you generally build a battery
Do you know maxpax build? the agression comes before you can build a bunker, if you try to low ground cc. Now imagine if adept already comes with glaves upgrade, no way in hell you can try to low ground expand... not to mention super buffed stalkers later.
So you are forced to build cc later or in base, meaning you are already behind toss from early game economically.
So now blizz buffs bunker build time and they become broken versus zerg, so blizz buffs queens, which become broken versus toss and the cycle of buff and nerfs begins..
|
I mentioned this in another thread, but
Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like making Queen build time a few seconds longer, making Inject give 1 less larva, or making Inject take a few more seconds to spawn the larva. Anything that might encourage you to make 1-2 more Hatcheries to compensate for the slight nerf, which would ever so slightly help compensate for Zerg disproportionately benefiting from LotV's 12 worker start. These changes wouldn't particularly change any Zerg BOs either. And when I say a few seconds I really mean a few seconds; just any tweak to help out even in the slightest bit, without changing any unit interactions/balance.
I think Zerg's economy benefitting from the increased worker start resulted in them getting faster access or easier tech switches to powerful tech like Vipers and SHs, which are units that are able to help further snowball any existing lead into something much greater.
Aside from previously mentioned ideas to reworking Abduct, such as making Abduct simply drag units slowly instead of instantly pulling units (and stunning them in the process), or having Massive units be pulled half the distance, or having some sort of channeling (could be like Steady Targetting or a channeling spell that can be interrupted mid-drag), Consume could also be taken a look at. I know Blizzard doesn't want to have the same abilities as BW, but consuming HP from buildings doesn't seem to really be much of a cost. Perhaps they can make Consume drain much more HP for each energy gained, to help compensate for Zerg's economy booming so quickly due to the 12 worker start? This would mean Zergs may need to create more Evos to drain HP from. Or they could nerf the energy cost of Abduct to 100 for example. Abduct has further been buffed in LotV because of you can now combo them into Lurkers.
As we saw in Rogue's game, it seemed he was able to safely have Ravagers, Lurkers, and Vipers out all at once, when Stats was only on Stalker/Colossus. It seems like Zerg was able to both power up economically as well as access 2 of its highest tech in the time Protoss was only able to access 1, and that seems to be a bit undesired. Add on top of that, Vipers with Abduct and Consume make Zerg battle efficient as well. Protoss used to be the race that wants to access powerful tech quickly, Zerg should be the race that wants to macro up their econ quickly, and Terran should be the race who wants to pump their efficient army out asap so they can start multitasking and micro'ing. Unless I'm missing some big reasons as to how Rogue outplayed Stats so hard in that game, doesn't it feel like something might be wrong if Zerg was able to macro up, tech up, and get efficient and strong army out all at once?
|
Too much entitlement in the game design. Entitled to get 2 - 3 bases (due to early game buffing mechanics) which mean players don't need to earn their way to 2 or 3 bases, the game design will entitle them to just 'have it" with little effort on the part of the player.
What happened to earning expansions ?
IMHO, they have catered too much to new players and their complaints, the result is a game that is very on the rails and kinda uninteresting.
SC2 should be all about earning your way through tech, not be given better units and buffs just because players are bad.
|
On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like [...] making Inject give 1 less larva The larvae amount is already reduced by 1 with the 12 worker economy. That change has already been implemented. Source
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I mentioned this in another thread, but
Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like making Queen build time a few seconds longer, making Inject give 1 less larva, or making Inject take a few more seconds to spawn the larva. Anything that might encourage you to make 1-2 more Hatcheries to compensate for the slight nerf, which would ever so slightly help compensate for Zerg disproportionately benefiting from LotV's 12 worker start. These changes wouldn't particularly change any Zerg BOs either. And when I say a few seconds I really mean a few seconds; just any tweak to help out even in the slightest bit, without changing any unit interactions/balance.
I think Zerg's economy benefitting from the increased worker start resulted in them getting faster access or easier tech switches to powerful tech like Vipers and SHs, which are units that are able to help further snowball any existing lead into something much greater.
Aside from previously mentioned ideas to reworking Abduct, such as making Abduct simply drag units slowly instead of instantly pulling units (and stunning them in the process), or having Massive units be pulled half the distance, or having some sort of channeling (could be like Steady Targetting or a channeling spell that can be interrupted mid-drag), Consume could also be taken a look at. I know Blizzard doesn't want to have the same abilities as BW, but consuming HP from buildings doesn't seem to really be much of a cost. Perhaps they can make Consume drain much more HP for each energy gained, to help compensate for Zerg's economy booming so quickly due to the 12 worker start? This would mean Zergs may need to create more Evos to drain HP from. Or they could nerf the energy cost of Abduct to 100 for example. Abduct has further been buffed in LotV because of you can now combo them into Lurkers.
As we saw in Rogue's game, it seemed he was able to safely have Ravagers, Lurkers, and Vipers out all at once, when Stats was only on Stalker/Colossus. It seems like Zerg was able to both power up economically as well as access 2 of its highest tech in the time Protoss was only able to access 1, and that seems to be a bit undesired. Add on top of that, Vipers with Abduct and Consume make Zerg battle efficient as well. Protoss used to be the race that wants to access powerful tech quickly, Zerg should be the race that wants to macro up their econ quickly, and Terran should be the race who wants to pump their efficient army out asap so they can start multitasking and micro'ing. Unless I'm missing some big reasons as to how Rogue outplayed Stats so hard in that game, doesn't it feel like something might be wrong if Zerg was able to macro up, tech up, and get efficient and strong army out all at once? I like the cut of your jib sir.
Zerg macro has both got the biggest boost via the 12 worker start, but also by the skill ceiling on its macro mechanic.
If you ever have the pleasure to watch Serral or Dark’s play in first person, their injects are crazy fast you can honestly barely see them. On top of great improvements in spreading creep over the years.
What about cutting the top number of larva that can be banked to a hatch by a little? This shouldn’t affect Zerg styles that spend larva and trade a lot as they’ll be spending larvae as they come in. Big remaxes and tech switches would be made slightly weaker in how the game is currently played, but more use of macro hatches could compensate for that while slightly slowing Zerg down a bit.
I dunno, the balance feels on the cusp of being bang on, but slightly, slightly off. TvZ isn’t unwinnable by any means but generally I’m seeing Ts get completely swallowed whole if their big first pushes get cleared.
Ideally I guess you’d want it something like: Push does appreciable damage - T favoured Push cleared up, pretty even trades - Even game or slightly Z favoured Push wiped out - Z favoured
As I said I don’t feel it’s too far off, it’s a rather delicate tightrope to walk, but it is a little off from having the constant back and forth trading styles we’ve seen before.
At the opposite end of the macro mechanics scale, chronoboost feels really weak by comparison, especially with the new economy coming in. Aside from being very potent in optimising builds and timings in the early game, it feels it doesn’t scale overly well as the base count increases.
If chrono got a slight boost for every nexus you had, perhaps Protoss would be more flexible against Z and their macro machine. Although I have misgivings that this would make them too strong against Terrans. Still I would enjoy having chrono as a more integral part of the macro cycle. Could introduce some interest tactical decisions, do you chrono your production like a madman or have harassment forces out and be banking for recalls.
|
It isn't that the other races macro is too strong, it's that Protoss macro is too weak, and units like the Ravager all but invalidates old macro strategies like the FFE.
Mule is powerful, Spawn is very powerful and in comparison (especially with how the new economy works) Chronoboost just seems meh, almost like an afterthought, it could probably use a raw numbers buff to allow Protoss greater flexibility in pumping out economy, upgrades, or units.
|
On August 20 2020 22:49 jpg06051992 wrote: It isn't that the other races macro is too strong, it's that Protoss macro is too weak, and units like the Ravager all but invalidates old macro strategies like the FFE.
Mule is powerful, Spawn is very powerful and in comparison (especially with how the new economy works) Chronoboost just seems meh, almost like an afterthought, it could probably use a raw numbers buff to allow Protoss greater flexibility in pumping out economy, upgrades, or units.
Im pretty sure most terrans would be more than happy trading mules for a chronoboost ability on their cc's. Gets you a nice probe lead in PvT and it allows the toss to take upgrade leads after being down. Also gets your powerful units and researches out at a more favorable time. So I wouldnt say thats really the problem.
|
Lol @ chronoboost being weak 🤣
Seriously last months and now Gsl qualifier are pointing into pretty balanced game.
Blizz should focus on underused units and abilities / upgrades. So void Ray buff in some way is fine, also stuff like microbial shroud or infestor in general would be great for fun purposes and strategic variations.
|
United States1542 Posts
On August 20 2020 14:26 Parcelleus wrote: Too much entitlement in the game design. Entitled to get 2 - 3 bases (due to early game buffing mechanics) which mean players don't need to earn their way to 2 or 3 bases, the game design will entitle them to just 'have it" with little effort on the part of the player.
What happened to earning expansions ?
IMHO, they have catered too much to new players and their complaints, the result is a game that is very on the rails and kinda uninteresting.
SC2 should be all about earning your way through tech, not be given better units and buffs just because players are bad.
When you start with 12 workers and a shit ton of money early on, you sorta end up on 2/3 bases pretty naturally...
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 20 2020 23:34 Decendos wrote: Lol @ chronoboost being weak 🤣
Seriously last months and now Gsl qualifier are pointing into pretty balanced game.
Blizz should focus on underused units and abilities / upgrades. So void Ray buff in some way is fine, also stuff like microbial shroud or infestor in general would be great for fun purposes and strategic variations. It falls off in utility hugely the longer the game runs, although it’s certainly potent in crafting tight builds earlier on.
There’s all sorts of ways it could be tweaked to make it scale better. You could cut both its duration and its cost proportionally, so you can chrono more things while not outright buffing it. You’d be able to continuously chrono gateways for example, but it wouldn’t be a buff to chronoing out a single robo unit for example.
There’d be decisions to be made, but it could augment certain styles simply by letting you spread energy around, although with a higher attention to the cycles needed.
I’m really not interested in a singular unit like Voids getting more use when the issues in PvZ are much more rooted in core mechanics.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 20 2020 14:26 Parcelleus wrote: Too much entitlement in the game design. Entitled to get 2 - 3 bases (due to early game buffing mechanics) which mean players don't need to earn their way to 2 or 3 bases, the game design will entitle them to just 'have it" with little effort on the part of the player.
What happened to earning expansions ?
IMHO, they have catered too much to new players and their complaints, the result is a game that is very on the rails and kinda uninteresting.
SC2 should be all about earning your way through tech, not be given better units and buffs just because players are bad. Perhaps, I think it’s more a desire to force macro games than any catering to new players though.
At least to me the sheer speed of Legacy and the compliment of harassment units and the speed of bases mining out made it the hardest of the iterations for a scrub like me to play.
Perhaps that’s just a failure to deliver on intent but I wouldn’t find it caters to new players all that well at all. You have a lot more money more quickly to not be able to spend and it’s really furiously paced.
|
On August 20 2020 22:14 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I mentioned this in another thread, but
Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like making Queen build time a few seconds longer, making Inject give 1 less larva, or making Inject take a few more seconds to spawn the larva. Anything that might encourage you to make 1-2 more Hatcheries to compensate for the slight nerf, which would ever so slightly help compensate for Zerg disproportionately benefiting from LotV's 12 worker start. These changes wouldn't particularly change any Zerg BOs either. And when I say a few seconds I really mean a few seconds; just any tweak to help out even in the slightest bit, without changing any unit interactions/balance.
I think Zerg's economy benefitting from the increased worker start resulted in them getting faster access or easier tech (....) production like a madman or have harassment forces out and be banking for recalls.
Where Blizzard has done nothing for that, it s easy to prove Zerg won 11 or 12 seconds at start (see my post : https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/557533-the-beginning-of-an-answer). Everybody must agree LotV is suffering to please the pro scene while it s the fan base which is the most important. Of course, limit the larva per base could solve some problem but in theory it sn t a smart idea (Unless all maps have the same number of expansion which isn t the case).
Love your messages guys, Wombat and Yoshi, ...
|
On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential.
Any buff to the dps of stalkers or adepts Not gated by an upgrade can really tip the balance of TvP early game, remember when due to build times and The burst damage buff proxy gate could deny terans expo for a minute. The strength of proxy gate is a significant problem because it can put on extreme pressure while basically not impacting protoss’s own economic progress.
I think giving ravagers an armored or light tag would be an appropriate nerf. Their are very few tagless units and Zerg seems to have most of them.
For this matter maybe queens should have a tag, they would not be nearly as tanky vs every unit if they took bonus damage from some. I think making queens armored would make sense since it won’t break TVZ early game since Terran mainly has access to anti light or neutral damage types but would help Protoss mid game since now stalkers, immortals and vrs do extra damage to them. It also will maintain queens effectiveness vs Phoenix and adepts. My one concern is that this might make canon battery proxy’s vs Zerg to oppressive.
Honestly I would like to see something done to curb proxy battery strats while buffing the units used in them. Vrs and immortals can only be so good before the proxy battery strat becomes oppressive this is a concern of mine on the upcoming patch. I think defensive voidrays clearly needed a buff, but offensive vr battery may become to good with cheaper rays.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 21 2020 01:33 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 22:14 Wombat_NI wrote:On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I mentioned this in another thread, but
Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like making Queen build time a few seconds longer, making Inject give 1 less larva, or making Inject take a few more seconds to spawn the larva. Anything that might encourage you to make 1-2 more Hatcheries to compensate for the slight nerf, which would ever so slightly help compensate for Zerg disproportionately benefiting from LotV's 12 worker start. These changes wouldn't particularly change any Zerg BOs either. And when I say a few seconds I really mean a few seconds; just any tweak to help out even in the slightest bit, without changing any unit interactions/balance.
I think Zerg's economy benefitting from the increased worker start resulted in them getting faster access or easier tech (....) production like a madman or have harassment forces out and be banking for recalls. Where Blizzard has done nothing for that, it s easy to prove Zerg won 11 or 12 seconds at start (see my post : https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/557533-the-beginning-of-an-answer). Everybody must agree LotV is suffering to please the pro scene while it s the fan base which is the most important. Of course, limit the larva per base could solve some problem but in theory it sn t a smart idea (Unless all maps have the same number of expansion which isn t the case). Love your messages guys, Wombat and Yoshi, ... Glad someone loves my messages anyway haha.
I’m fine balancing around the pro scene, my issue is they seem to cut out a lot of options in how they’ve approached things/not approached things.
Accelerated 3rd base eco where it kicks in so fast really cut off a lot of non-cheesy aggression and decision-making. Queens being so good as they currently are filled far far too many holes. Them not adopting my chrono changes is a huge mistake obviously :p
In fairness removing the mothership core was a good change in the right direction. It opens a dynamic between a Protoss cutting batteries to be greedy, windows for punishing that and greedy opponents being able to eke out an advantage over an overly cautious Toss.
That kind of risk/reward is good, and it impacts the variety of the game from the lowest scrub right up to the elite pro players if you have it.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 21 2020 01:37 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2020 08:07 Freeborn wrote: Guys...
Gateway units need more DPS. Every person with half a brain who has played protoss and other races will know that.
What works for terran and zerg, massing low tier units just does not work for protoss, the damage is so low that you just lose without AoE. This limits protoss playstyles and makes them weak to early game attacks and harrass as there is not enough dps to clear harrass units efficiently.
We don't need a new gateway unit, we need an overall increase of dps for all gateway units, and then changes to make sure their offensive capabilities don't become too overwhelming.
Obvious solution: nerf offensive warp ins. Offensive warp ins negate a good part of the defenders advantage, change that and gateway units don't overwhelm as easily when buffed. Additional options: remove or nerf force field. It still has the ability to create very lopside battles, while being 100% useless in others. Exchange these extremes for some solid sentry combat power.
Now all we need is to do buff stalkers and adepts as well (zealots seem okay) without making them too strong. For adepts an easy option would be to have them start with glaives and increase their attack upgrades. If they become too powerful, their shading ability or some of it's power could be locked behind an upgrade.
Stalkers need a flat base damage buff, if they get too strong, we can reduce their range by 1 (Could be unlocked via upgrade) or reduce their hp.
My simple core ideas summarized: - no more fast warp in unless near nexus (plus maybe lategame upgrade for warpprism) - forcefield removed or made destructible by having hp. - sentry +1 range, gas cost reduced to 75 - adepts start with glaives - stalkers +3 base damage (+2 upgrade progression), -1 range
Additional fun ideas: - make swarmhosts and ravagers light units -> bam! suddenly adepts, phoenix and oracle become much more useful vs zerg - archon speed upgrade researched at templar archives -> another option to buff gateway compositions without affecting the archons direct battle strength too much, while increasing survivability and tactical potential. Any buff to the dps of stalkers or adepts Not gated by an upgrade can really tip the balance of TvP early game, remember when due to build times and The burst damage buff proxy gate could deny terans expo for a minute. The strength of proxy gate is a significant problem because it can put on extreme pressure while basically not impacting protoss’s own economic progress. I think giving ravagers an armored or light tag would be an appropriate nerf. Their are very few tagless units and Zerg seems to have most of them. For this matter maybe queens should have a tag, they would not be nearly as tanky vs every unit if they took bonus damage from some. I think making queens armored would make sense since it won’t break TVZ early game since Terran mainly has access to anti light or neutral damage types but would help Protoss mid game since now stalkers, immortals and vrs do extra damage to them. It also will maintain queens effectiveness vs Phoenix and adepts. My one concern is that this might make canon battery proxy’s vs Zerg to oppressive. Honestly I would like to see something done to curb proxy battery strats while buffing the units used in them. Vrs and immortals can only be so good before the proxy battery strat becomes oppressive this is a concern of mine on the upcoming patch. I think defensive voidrays clearly needed a buff, but offensive vr battery may become to good with cheaper rays. I think it’s the concern of most people skimming the proposed changes. Most changes to Protoss always have the threat of a augmenting existing cheese.
I suppose we could nerf batteries recharge rate somewhat if they’re not within a certain distance of a Nexus? Perhaps not hugely harshly so you keep up the option of aggressive cheesy builds being doable, but enough so that you could buff units that you mightn’t otherwise for fear of them making cheese builds too strong?
|
+ Show Spoiler +GSL 9 P 10 T 5 Z advance from qualifiers...finally we can talk about useless Z things to buff like midgame infestor, burrow movement, SHs and hydras :-)
|
On August 21 2020 00:01 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 14:26 Parcelleus wrote: Too much entitlement in the game design. Entitled to get 2 - 3 bases (due to early game buffing mechanics) which mean players don't need to earn their way to 2 or 3 bases, the game design will entitle them to just 'have it" with little effort on the part of the player.
What happened to earning expansions ?
IMHO, they have catered too much to new players and their complaints, the result is a game that is very on the rails and kinda uninteresting.
SC2 should be all about earning your way through tech, not be given better units and buffs just because players are bad. When you start with 12 workers and a shit ton of money early on, you sorta end up on 2/3 bases pretty naturally...
Plus the main starts mining out at like 7 minutes, so you kind of don't have an option
|
On August 21 2020 02:54 Decendos wrote:+ Show Spoiler +GSL 9 P 10 T 5 Z advance from qualifiers...finally we can talk about useless Z things to buff like midgame infestor, burrow movement, SHs and hydras :-)
Worth noting that's almost all of the korean zergs.
|
AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
|
On August 21 2020 06:20 Freeborn wrote: AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
You can't remove warp-in or slow it down. A lot of stuff is balanced around it like boosted medivacs and zerg's macro. You need to change that too and that's asking for trouble until the game is stabilised.
|
On August 21 2020 06:20 Freeborn wrote: AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
- Sentry would need some kind of other ability to compensate, nobody would invest 100 gas just for Guardian Shield and Hallucination - Stalkers are already the best all-round unit Protoss has, if they had more damage Protoss would just go back to the pure Blink Stalkers style we had in HotS. - The gateway-heavy style Zest played in early LotV would also become too strong - Protoss would never get any tech and just pressure their opponent until one of them dies - Adepts are just not as good as chargelots long-term, so they wouldn't get made much - Without fast warp in, Warp Prisms would go back to never being used like in WoL - Edit: Thought about this point some more, probably not true. I stand by the rest though.
Basically, Protoss would mass Stalkers and just enough Zealots to buffer in front.
|
On August 21 2020 07:40 Aesto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 06:20 Freeborn wrote: AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
- Sentry would need some kind of other ability to compensate, nobody would invest 100 gas just for Guardian Shield and Hallucination - Stalkers are already the best all-round unit Protoss has, if they had more damage Protoss would just go back to the pure Blink Stalkers style we had in HotS. - The gateway-heavy style Zest played in early LotV would also become too strong - Protoss would never get any tech and just pressure their opponent until one of them dies - Adepts are just not as good as chargelots long-term, so they wouldn't get made much - Without fast warp in, Warp Prisms would go back to never being used like in WoL - Edit: Thought about this point some more, probably not true. I stand by the rest though. Basically, Protoss would mass Stalkers and just enough Zealots to buffer in front.
Theirs also the added problem of the Protoss death all becoming overwhelming powerfull in pvt. Image the Protoss death all but with all the stalkers contributing more dos and no nerfs to splash.
|
On August 21 2020 06:20 Freeborn wrote: AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
I primarily play random. I’m not going to argue that protoss is in a rough spot right now especially vs Zerg. But toss is really hard to balance correctly because chrono boost and having strong unit interactions in early game make it really hard to tune effectively. Also forcefeild is so core to toss’s identity at this point, you can’t remove it.
|
On August 20 2020 21:59 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like [...] making Inject give 1 less larva The larvae amount is already reduced by 1 with the 12 worker economy. That change has already been implemented. Source
Oh!! That's awesome lol, thanks. I missed out on early LotV stuff, I had no idea.
On August 20 2020 22:14 Wombat_NI wrote: I like the cut of your jib sir.
On August 21 2020 01:33 Vision_ wrote: Love your messages guys, Wombat and Yoshi, ...
I enjoy reading your guys' messages as well :>
In regards to Gateway army needing more strength, and because Adept use really falls off after early-midgame, why not revisit the idea of having a 2nd upgrade for Adepts that would further power them up for mid and lategame? Adepts could gain more damage, have more Shields, or something. Something that wouldn't make Protoss too strong in PvT (alternative unit choices are fine, but raw strength no), but would help in PvZ. If the cost and/or research time is high enough, or if it is gated behind Glaives, then it won't ruin anything early on. Maybe it could even be researched at the Templar Archives instead.
Also, if we make it so that Battery only gives you the full charging power when in a Pylon field connected to a WG, WP, or Nexus (just like Warp-ins), we could buff Tempest's overall damage/range (and Void Rays) without making Proxy Tempest (or Proxy Voids) too strong in TvP. A buffed Tempest could allow the Tempest to be that anti-Spore forest tool that Blizz wants and perhaps find usage in other MUs (and potentially allow more Skytoss strategies), without a contrived and uninteresting upgrade. If we just increase its damage, we may need to slightly rework or nerf Viper/Abduct/Consume, but if we increase the AtG Range the Tempest then Abducting it as soon as it tries to shoot won't be so free.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
Any news on the patch? It's been more than a week now and we're through the usual patch day.
|
On August 21 2020 10:11 Cyro wrote: Any news on the patch? It's been more than a week now and we're through the usual patch day.
its live on EU
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On August 21 2020 11:29 bela.mervado wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 10:11 Cyro wrote: Any news on the patch? It's been more than a week now and we're through the usual patch day. its live on EU
Oh damn :D
No confirmation announcement yet. I see people are confused on reddit too lol
|
On August 21 2020 08:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: In regards to Gateway army needing more strength, and because Adept use really falls off after early-midgame, why not revisit the idea of having a 2nd upgrade for Adepts that would further power them up for mid and lategame? Adepts could gain more damage, have more Shields, or something. Something that wouldn't make Protoss too strong in PvT (alternative unit choices are fine, but raw strength no), but would help in PvZ. If the cost and/or research time is high enough, or if it is gated behind Glaives, then it won't ruin anything early on. Maybe it could even be researched at the Templar Archives instead.
Maybe a movement speed upgrade? (Requires Templar Archives or something?)
|
On August 21 2020 08:24 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2020 21:59 Drfilip wrote:On August 20 2020 12:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Due to the 12 worker start seemingly benefiting Zerg the most of any race, might it be worth considering a universal slight nerf to Zerg macro? Something like [...] making Inject give 1 less larva The larvae amount is already reduced by 1 with the 12 worker economy. That change has already been implemented. Source Oh!! That's awesome lol, thanks. I missed out on early LotV stuff, I had no idea. Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 01:33 Vision_ wrote: Love your messages guys, Wombat and Yoshi, ...
I enjoy reading your guys' messages as well :> In regards to Gateway army needing more strength, and because Adept use really falls off after early-midgame, why not revisit the idea of having a 2nd upgrade for Adepts that would further power them up for mid and lategame? Adepts could gain more damage, have more Shields, or something. Something that wouldn't make Protoss too strong in PvT (alternative unit choices are fine, but raw strength no), but would help in PvZ. If the cost and/or research time is high enough, or if it is gated behind Glaives, then it won't ruin anything early on. Maybe it could even be researched at the Templar Archives instead. Also, if we make it so that Battery only gives you the full charging power when in a Pylon field connected to a WG, WP, or Nexus (just like Warp-ins), we could buff Tempest's overall damage/range (and Void Rays) without making Proxy Tempest (or Proxy Voids) too strong in TvP. A buffed Tempest could allow the Tempest to be that anti-Spore forest tool that Blizz wants and perhaps find usage in other MUs (and potentially allow more Skytoss strategies), without a contrived and uninteresting upgrade. If we just increase its damage, we may need to slightly rework or nerf Viper/Abduct/Consume, but if we increase the AtG Range the Tempest then Abducting it as soon as it tries to shoot won't be so free.
I like these ideas.
|
I think it's fine that Adepts falls off. So do roaches.
Pretty much every upgrade I can think of (Movespeed, Damage, Health, Shield) will make them better Zealots and Zealots in turn pretty useless
|
On August 21 2020 15:51 Harris1st wrote: I think it's fine that Adepts falls off. So do roaches.
Pretty much every upgrade I can think of (Movespeed, Damage, Health, Shield) will make them better Zealots and Zealots in turn pretty useless
Yes it s hard to touch caracteristic itself....
You can make an upgrade to increase temporarily their shield before shading if you want to escape from the fight or make a counter attack faster. Then the attack speed can be speed up when they appear after shade in, as Blizzard wants it (or simplier a single bonus damage on their first shot)
|
On August 21 2020 15:51 Harris1st wrote: I think it's fine that Adepts falls off. So do roaches.
Pretty much every upgrade I can think of (Movespeed, Damage, Health, Shield) will make them better Zealots and Zealots in turn pretty useless
This is the problem since the introduction of the adept. Adept and Zealot share many similarities and kind off "overlap" that's way it is so hard to design them correctly. Right now both of them are in okeyish spot imho. Adept for early game scout/harass with possibility to perform midgame pressure/all-in Zealot useless in early game (mainly because of lack of charge at this point of the game) with possibility to perform midgame all-in and really useful in mid/late game (outperforming the adept in that regard)
|
On August 21 2020 06:20 Freeborn wrote: AGAIN: gateway units need a DPS buff. Play random for a bit and compare the races base armies and you will see what I mean.
I know that it's dangerous for the early game, BUT that's why we need to limit the offensive capabilities and it's not that hard. Some ideas: - No fast warpin, that will be such a huge change already and gimp most early offenses - remove forcefield - stalker -1 range, this will mean that stalkers no longer outrange marines and are outranged by marauders, will probably need to offer that +1 range baack as an upgrade - adept shade cooldown nerfed until upgrade researched, adepts are not very strong early game without permanent shades, they are pretty slow
If you respond to my proposal please read the whole thing and think about it a bit.
In order to buff Gateway units we would have to overhaul Protoss a lot to keep the game balanced.
If I were trying to achieve this I would implement some combination of the following:
1. Move Warpgate upgrade to Twilight council (maybe decrease research time slightly) - make WG timings weaker and also a choice between Charge/Blink/Glaive/WG 2. Move Chrono a bit later in the tech (maybe introduce to Nexus a upgrade similar to Orbital command after the cybernetics core) so P cannot that easily mass units of the 1 gate and obliterate any FE Terran 3. Unify the build time of gateway units between Gateway and Warpgate (currently it is a mess - check that Warp Gate (Legacy of the Void) ) so it is not necessary to get WG in order to produce faster 4. Warped unit warp without shields (instead of getting 200% dmg while warping). That would make instant reinforcements weaker and giving some defenders advantage at least while keeping fast harass option available for Protoss. 5. Unify Slow (11.4) and Fast(3.6) warp-ins into 1 speed as it was before but a bit longer like ~6s 6. Gateway->Warpgate transformation takes more time exact to avg build time of gateway units - this would further weaker timing attacks
|
I think changes aren t going deeper, because the game is old (and for some other reasons, specially business). Even if i think changes aren t necessary in a certain way, i m sorry to see with the change of LotV economy how Blizzard kept his viewers interested at the cost of less strategy and Build Orders.
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...)
I hadn t enought time to read all comments and to figure out everything cause it s not my native langage but if the TEST MOD isn t in use by Blizzard by now, why couldn t ask to Blizzard if some kind of community changes could be tested (mainly concerning the economy) ? There s enought representative people inside TL and retired pro gamers who can help, like Demuslim (or others..) and have time to study the real impact of an in-between economic model. There s nothing to lose for Blizzard, the patch can be a failure, it can work, but in definitive, it will gather together and maybe take a thorn out of SC2.
|
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.
|
If gateway units need a buff, I would do it by some other unit provide some support with an ability. Oracle and Sentry are probably the choices. Sentry is a ground unit and has forcefields that need to be kind of spam able to work so having another ability to train energy would hinder it. Oracle on another hand doesn't really have an ability to use in mid-fight. The pulsar beam is not something that you usually use that much in the later game. Also, 3-5 oracles should probably be able to provide support to most of the army. So, maybe some kind of aura that buffs the ground units, and to have some element, that prevents it just becoming another button, that needs to be pushed during the fight, make oracle stationery during the ability. Now you need some setup and positioning to have oracles provide support for the fight.
On another note, it feels like Protoss could use something like Hellions, that give some presence on map and can do some runbys. Because we don't want to have them warped into opponents base, they should be produced from robo but have short build time like 30 or less. Also, the cargo size of 2 could make them good for drops too.
Is there a reason why Warp Prism could not just have a longer time transforming to phasing mode than currently? This would make setting up during a fight riskier, because of snipes being easier, and give some additional time for the defender to react before main has 10 zealots in it.
|
France12463 Posts
Why is Anoss using an alt "Vision_" account here btw?
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
|
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
|
On August 21 2020 21:05 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +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 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.
|
Northern Ireland20680 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.
|
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.
|
The gamble with sentries in HotS existed, Z was forced to react and make roachs defensively. This kind of build doesn t exist anymore (for good or bad reasons i don t know..) but i m sure it was in the meta. I don t remember if Protoss pushed since LotV kappa.
|
Let's get real. They buff Voidrays and Tempests force Zergs to use Microbial Shroud.
|
On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Both would be awesome changes IMO
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On August 21 2020 22:13 Aesto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: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. 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.
|
United States1542 Posts
On August 21 2020 22:25 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: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. Both would be awesome changes IMO
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.
|
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 nerf buff. Then excepted changes to fix adepts and a small buff to sentry's guardian shield (radius 4 to 4.5), neither zealots or sentries recieved a buff.
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 wonder if it's as simple as increasing +1/+2/+3 weapons, make Ravagers take 2 hits to kill a Forcefield, and then making Blink take longer to research.
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.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 21 2020 22:25 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 21:38 Wombat_NI wrote: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. Both would be awesome changes IMO 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.
|
Why not have Guardian shield do a moderate amount of structure dps to everything in its AoE.
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.
|
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.
|
On August 21 2020 23:03 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Show nested quote + 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 nerf buff. Then excepted changes to fix adepts and a small buff to sentry's guardian shield (radius 4 to 4.5), neither zealots or sentries recieved a buff. 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.
|
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.
|
On August 22 2020 09:16 ThunderJunk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2020 23:03 Vision_ wrote: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 nerf buff. Then excepted changes to fix adepts and a small buff to sentry's guardian shield (radius 4 to 4.5), neither zealots or sentries recieved a buff. 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. 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).
|
On August 22 2020 14:28 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2020 09:16 ThunderJunk wrote:On August 21 2020 23:03 Vision_ wrote: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 nerf buff. Then excepted changes to fix adepts and a small buff to sentry's guardian shield (radius 4 to 4.5), neither zealots or sentries recieved a buff. 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. 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.
|
Slower attacks are more micro-able, not less, in the sense that stutter-step is more effective (you have more time to move between attacks).
|
u are all newbs patch is live
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Italy12246 Posts
I don't think Sentries clearing creep is the answer. Once ling speed completes, the only way to safely be anywhere near creep is if you are either a flying unit (bansheers, warp prisms et al), or have similar mobility to speedlings and the ability to trade well against them (upgraded adepts, hellions).
Having sentries walk on creep would just result in Zerg surrounding your ground army and murdering it because it's not 2011 anymore and Zergs have finally learnt that they can make units before they have 70 drones without being horribly behind. You could throw a Warp Prism in there, but then an observer is cheaper for the same job, the only difference is it takes a bit longer to build two robo units (and sending the obs is waaaaay less risky). On top of that, the first 2-3 sentries a Protoss makes are *incredibly* valuable, nobody sane would ever risk losing them. You would need the old mothership core recall for sentry pokes to be a thing again.
If the goal is to contain creep, a better change might be either a) new creep tumors only become invisible after x amount of time and/or b) if the Zerg cancels a new tumor, the original one can no longer spread creep. Neither of those solves the fundamental issue of zerglings forcing most armies to stay at home though.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 22 2020 22:52 Teoita wrote: I don't think Sentries clearing creep is the answer. Once ling speed completes, the only way to safely be anywhere near creep is if you are either a flying unit (bansheers, warp prisms et al), or have similar mobility to speedlings and the ability to trade well against them (upgraded adepts, hellions).
Having sentries walk on creep would just result in Zerg surrounding your ground army and murdering it because it's not 2011 anymore and Zergs have finally learnt that they can make units before they have 70 drones without being horribly behind. You could throw a Warp Prism in there, but then an observer is cheaper for the same job, the only difference is it takes a bit longer to build two robo units (and sending the obs is waaaaay less risky). On top of that, the first 2-3 sentries a Protoss makes are *incredibly* valuable, nobody sane would ever risk losing them. You would need the old mothership core recall for sentry pokes to be a thing again.
If the goal is to contain creep, a better change might be either a) new creep tumors only become invisible after x amount of time and/or b) if the Zerg cancels a new tumor, the original one can no longer spread creep. Neither of those solves the fundamental issue of zerglings forcing most armies to stay at home though. This much is true, although I still like my idea :p
As much as struggling to roll back the Zerg economic juggernaut is the cause of much Protoss woes, the root cause of why Protoss struggle to do that is a general lack of mobility.
|
I am thinking about experimenting with creep tumor health to help clearing creep in Zv[TP].
let's lower the creep tumor health to 40 and add 1 armor, remove light tag from the building tumor so no easy snipe of the spreading tumor. (and I'd like to be able to cancel undamaged creep tumors)
so P can use a warp prism + 2 adepts + 1 obs to clear creep.
vs bio T: players would build the 4-6 hellions to pressure Z, then try to roast some drones, fucking up in the process, throwing away the hellions. or preserving them to use in the 2 base push. they generally seem to use 1-2x medivacs with some marines and scan to clear creep. the +1 armor and 40 health would allow 8 marines to one shot tumors. 4 hellions already one shot tumors, this would not change.
it takes a lot of attention to spread the creep, I'd prefer the opponent to spend similar amount to clear it. the sentry idea is nice and unique, but would make it a bit too easy to clear the creep.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
I bet before the end of the year, the queen will be weakened a bit to help in economy against the other races
|
Italy12246 Posts
Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy.
|
|
On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote: Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy.
Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays.
Queens need to be this strong...
|
seems like the community feels towards some kind of sentry buff. . . funny how we all had a similar conclusion while blizzard thinks the most worthless units are the answer.
|
On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote: Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong...
That's exactly what Zergs said about Queens going down to 7 range. That it would totally break the matchups, and 20 drones would die to air harass every game, and it would be totally imba. Pity the poor Zergs.
Surprise surprise, nothing changed. And after that, the balance team decided more nerfs to Zerg were in order.
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On August 23 2020 13:12 RandomPlayer416 wrote: seems like the community feels towards some kind of sentry buff. . . funny how we all had a similar conclusion while blizzard thinks the most worthless units are the answer.
You can probably have both. No reason not to improve the void ray which had been relatively nerfed into being unusable.
|
I think everyone agrees design wise, the Queen is too strong and covers too many things. But there doesn't seem to be any good ways to nerf it without breaking the balance somewhere or making opponent cheeses/rushes too strong.
But how about nerfing Creep Tumors' ability to spawn new Creep Tumors themselves? It takes 11 seconds for them to be able to spawn a new tumor. What if that was increased to like 15 seconds? It would significantly reduce creep's ability to exponentially spread, without making early game creep spread to connect your first 3 bases too weak.
If you wanted to spread creep faster, you would have to use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor itself, so spreading creep fast is more of an investment and effectively takes more energy from the Queen. As for connecting creep between early bases, it will be a little slower unless you use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor a couple more times, which may be desirable so they do not have as much energy banked up for Transfuse early game, thus allowing more opportunities for harass or make attempts at killing Queens more viable.
(Alternatively, maybe you could reduce the rate a Tumor spreads creep, to further promote things like having Overlords drop creep further ahead so the Tumor can spawn a new tumor ASAP at max distance. But nerfing the rate a Tumor spreads creep could make connecting early bases too weak vs cheese, since often for example 1 Tumor will be enough to almost connect your main and natural. But I think 1 of these 2 ideas should be considered even if it might slightly strengthen early cheeses).
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On August 23 2020 19:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think everyone agrees design wise, the Queen is too strong and covers too many things. But there doesn't seem to be any good ways to nerf it without breaking the balance somewhere or making opponent cheeses/rushes too strong.
But how about nerfing Creep Tumors' ability to spawn new Creep Tumors themselves? It takes 11 seconds for them to be able to spawn a new tumor. What if that was increased to like 15 seconds? It would significantly reduce creep's ability to exponentially spread, without making early game creep spread to connect your first 3 bases too weak.
If you wanted to spread creep faster, you would have to use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor itself, so spreading creep fast is more of an investment and effectively takes more energy from the Queen. As for connecting creep between early bases, it will be a little slower unless you use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor a couple more times, which may be desirable so they do not have as much energy banked up for Transfuse early game, thus allowing more opportunities for harass or make attempts at killing Queens more viable.
(Alternatively, maybe you could reduce the rate a Tumor spreads creep, to further promote things like having Overlords drop creep further ahead so the Tumor can spawn a new tumor ASAP at max distance. But nerfing the rate a Tumor spreads creep could make connecting early bases too weak vs cheese, since often for example 1 Tumor will be enough to almost connect your main and natural. But I think 1 of these 2 ideas should be considered even if it might slightly strengthen early cheeses). we can always nerf queens the weird way. e.g. you have battle queens or macro queens and their switch takes a while(think about it as siege tanks/thors). Macro queens are heavily nerfed in attacking capabilities but can inject, spawn tumors and transfuse. Battle queens can do the fighting. Switch requires 25 energy.
Although creating/buffing a unit would be more reasonable then making these shenanigans.
|
The most reasonable way to nerf the queen would be to reduce it's larva producing ability. Or increase it's supply.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 23 2020 19:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think everyone agrees design wise, the Queen is too strong and covers too many things. But there doesn't seem to be any good ways to nerf it without breaking the balance somewhere or making opponent cheeses/rushes too strong.
But how about nerfing Creep Tumors' ability to spawn new Creep Tumors themselves? It takes 11 seconds for them to be able to spawn a new tumor. What if that was increased to like 15 seconds? It would significantly reduce creep's ability to exponentially spread, without making early game creep spread to connect your first 3 bases too weak.
If you wanted to spread creep faster, you would have to use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor itself, so spreading creep fast is more of an investment and effectively takes more energy from the Queen. As for connecting creep between early bases, it will be a little slower unless you use the Queen's Spawn Creep Tumor a couple more times, which may be desirable so they do not have as much energy banked up for Transfuse early game, thus allowing more opportunities for harass or make attempts at killing Queens more viable.
(Alternatively, maybe you could reduce the rate a Tumor spreads creep, to further promote things like having Overlords drop creep further ahead so the Tumor can spawn a new tumor ASAP at max distance. But nerfing the rate a Tumor spreads creep could make connecting early bases too weak vs cheese, since often for example 1 Tumor will be enough to almost connect your main and natural. But I think 1 of these 2 ideas should be considered even if it might slightly strengthen early cheeses). The game should be one of as many tactical and strategic choices as possible without making it overly complex and coinflippy.
It gives a variety of styles and approaches more room to breathe and the best players more ways to show their skills.
As per your suggestions, very much fit in that. Specifics aside, just as a general concept. Think numbers aren’t as big a deal if one isn’t defining a change’s desirability.
Currently a Zerg has macro boost, a strong and versatile defensive unit and great creep spread out of the box. If you nerf tumours spawning further tumours then you’re creating options that Zergs have to pick between. Zergs might decide prioritising creep is less important than pumping eco, some might build an extra Queen or two to really maximise spread, and the really elite Zergs might be able to achieve similar results to now with slight improvements in Queen movement and the likes.
If we were to tweak the Queen I’d definitely look here first over combat capacity because that really does have huge knock on effects to so many builds and interactions.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less.
|
Hupsaiya said it really well in his stream last night: The Void Ray is a unit that if it's not too weak, it suddenly becomes way too strong.
Design-wise, it covers too many bases. It's a flying unit available immediately with good hp that can attack both air and ground and is difficult to micro against (because of the leash).
There's a good reason there are no T2 air units in either broodwar or sc2 that are good against both air and ground. The only unit that comes close is the mutalisk, and those are only good if you have 8 or more of them - and they have a short attack range that doesn't leash.
If we're gonna have a unit like that, fine - we can keep it in the game as long as it's mostly useless to build - which it was! Making the void ray good makes the game worse.
|
Speaking of creep, why does it actually provide vision? None of the races need to play with maphack. Zergs do most of the scouting with overlords and the map presence of the fast units anyway. Maybe the game would be more balanced if zerg did not have so much vision enabling them to set up accurate multipronged flanking in advance.
|
On August 24 2020 03:37 Calliope wrote: Speaking of creep, why does it actually provide vision? None of the races need to play with maphack. Zergs do most of the scouting with overlords and the map presence of the fast units anyway. Maybe the game would be more balanced if zerg did not have so much vision enabling them to set up accurate multipronged flanking in advance.
I've always wondered this too but I think it's too late to change because of how major of a change it would be to remove it. I wish creep were different. Something like zerg units would get a sizeable health regen buff when on it but very slowly lose health when off of it.
|
On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote: Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less.
Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries.
|
On August 24 2020 03:37 Calliope wrote: Speaking of creep, why does it actually provide vision? None of the races need to play with maphack. Zergs do most of the scouting with overlords and the map presence of the fast units anyway. Maybe the game would be more balanced if zerg did not have so much vision enabling them to set up accurate multipronged flanking in advance.
After thought, if you should decide between creep tumors giving vision or creep tumors invisibility, what do you decide ?
Before SC2 came out (before BETA), a lot of players (casuals and hard core players, pros ???) always have been annoyed by the creep mecanics. But in definitive, if i have to remove something, i ll remove the invisibility and increase his health a little bit with adding a bonus armor to prevent the effectiveness of T1 units (and then, by the way, decrease his mana cost regarding to the inject-spell) The worst thing actually in this mecanic is the lack of cooldown, A single Queen can spawn multiple tumors with rapid-fire as Solar oftenly does. When i see a bunch of creep tumors close together, i m just getting mad..
Edit : remove vision is also a design problem, how can you know if there s a structure or an ennemy when you re spawnning the tumor in the fog of war ?
|
On August 24 2020 03:56 AirbladeOrange wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 03:37 Calliope wrote: Speaking of creep, why does it actually provide vision? None of the races need to play with maphack. Zergs do most of the scouting with overlords and the map presence of the fast units anyway. Maybe the game would be more balanced if zerg did not have so much vision enabling them to set up accurate multipronged flanking in advance. I've always wondered this too but I think it's too late to change because of how major of a change it would be to remove it. I wish creep were different. Something like zerg units would get a sizeable health regen buff when on it but very slowly lose health when off of it. If it wasn't too late to delete the msc, then it's not too late to completely removed creep vision.
|
Removing creep vision is an atrocious idea and a massive nerf to a core mechanic.
|
On August 24 2020 22:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Removing creep vision is an atrocious idea and a massive nerf to a core mechanic.
Been following the thread for a while, am no good player myself (very very casual player, more of a tourney watcher for the last 10 years), I definitely have wondered what is the downside to removing vision, as most of the comments here seem to be in favour of this.. but there must be a con to it right?
What do you think are the worst things that will come out of it?
|
These threads are really a phenomenon, a minor change to a small balance patch and somehow the topic's evolved into destroying zerg core mechanics. How about we remove Warpgate or Orbital Commands?
|
On August 24 2020 22:30 plainsane wrote: These threads are really a phenomenon, a minor change to a small balance patch and somehow the topic's evolved into destroying zerg core mechanics. How about we remove Warpgate or Orbital Commands?
Redesigning the game around not having mules and warpgate, weaker queens, weaker creep and weaker hatchery production would be perfectly fine in my book. There were even some serious mods which checked it out back in the day, but I have not seen anybody talk about them for years. IDK if there is even a LotV version.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 24 2020 23:00 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 22:30 plainsane wrote: These threads are really a phenomenon, a minor change to a small balance patch and somehow the topic's evolved into destroying zerg core mechanics. How about we remove Warpgate or Orbital Commands? Redesigning the game around not having mules and warpgate, weaker queens, weaker creep and weaker hatchery production would be perfectly fine in my book. There were even some serious mods which checked it out back in the day, but I have not seen anybody talk about them for years. IDK if there is even a LotV version. The game is truly miraculously balanced in my view despite the existence of Warpgate especially. Despite valid criticisms the core game of SC2 has been and still is better balanced than both BW and WC3. Other competing RTS games may have balance in a racial sense but a real crushing lack of variety strategically.
That said I think it’s worth looking at core mechanics despite that, game can always be better.
Creep and injects are pretty good things to have in a really mechanical game, there’s always room to improve and prioritisation and all that stuff.
The issue is the ceiling on those mechanics isn’t shared by those of the other races. This issue is only magnified by Legacy’s economy changing and their strengths coming into play earlier.
Protoss and Terran got all the juice out of the orange of their macro mechanics within a few years of Wings being out, if not even earlier. Zerg are immeasurably better these days and there is still room to improve.
It’s hard to comment without knowing the people involved, I’m pretty sure when Browder, Kim et al were designing Wings they weren’t anticipating half the map being covered in creep as players improved.
|
On August 24 2020 23:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 23:00 Slydie wrote:On August 24 2020 22:30 plainsane wrote: These threads are really a phenomenon, a minor change to a small balance patch and somehow the topic's evolved into destroying zerg core mechanics. How about we remove Warpgate or Orbital Commands? Redesigning the game around not having mules and warpgate, weaker queens, weaker creep and weaker hatchery production would be perfectly fine in my book. There were even some serious mods which checked it out back in the day, but I have not seen anybody talk about them for years. IDK if there is even a LotV version. The game is truly miraculously balanced in my view despite the existence of Warpgate especially. Despite valid criticisms the core game of SC2 has been and still is better balanced than both BW and WC3. Other competing RTS games may have balance in a racial sense but a real crushing lack of variety strategically. That said I think it’s worth looking at core mechanics despite that, game can always be better. Creep and injects are pretty good things to have in a really mechanical game, there’s always room to improve and prioritisation and all that stuff. The issue is the ceiling on those mechanics isn’t shared by those of the other races. This issue is only magnified by Legacy’s economy changing and their strengths coming into play earlier. Protoss and Terran got all the juice out of the orange of their macro mechanics within a few years of Wings being out, if not even earlier. Zerg are immeasurably better these days and there is still room to improve. It’s hard to comment without knowing the people involved, I’m pretty sure when Browder, Kim et al were designing Wings they weren’t anticipating half the map being covered in creep as players improved.
People tend to forget than injects and larva production were already nerfed at the start of lotv
|
On August 24 2020 22:24 chuchutrain wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 22:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Removing creep vision is an atrocious idea and a massive nerf to a core mechanic.
Been following the thread for a while, am no good player myself (very very casual player, more of a tourney watcher for the last 10 years), I definitely have wondered what is the downside to removing vision, as most of the comments here seem to be in favour of this.. but there must be a con to it right? What do you think are the worst things that will come out of it?
Losing the creep vision destroys one of Zerg's main form of defender's advantage. Zerg doesn't have tanks, or forcefields, and their 'walls' are of little value against anything beyond early game hellions or adepts. A big part of the defender's advantage Zerg gets is the combination of vision and movement speed provided by creep. Knowing the opponent's army movement, or forcing them to slow down to remove that vision, let's the Zerg position their army better for a defensive fight and fire up units. If you remove creep vision, then Zerg needs to dump extra resources and attention into vision, which is one of their main defensive advantages. This would be especially bad in TvZ, where you need creep anyway to fight efficiently. Only now it would be of no value spotting drops or move-outs.
|
On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote: Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income.
I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this.
Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening.
|
There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is.
|
On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time.
With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary.
|
On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary. There's still spawning time and cost. Sure, a Zerg can instantly remax on zerglings, but a remax of zerglings is easily dealt with if the other player maintained tech units. If both players are reset, then zerglings can wreak havoc, but the whole idea of trading ineffectively for zerg is that their stronger economy and shittier units allow them to trade their crappy units over and over and swarm the opponent with those shitty units.
Remaxing on anything other than zerglings (or roaches) takes the spawning time, and for high tier units that is plenty long enough for a terran to get enough of an army out to defend. Endgame terrans and toss may not be able to instantly remax, but it takes them 2 production cycles... which is about the same as the 1 from zerg + the move across the map. And they can do it over and over, whereas a zerg remaxing cannot do it instantly again, as it takes 4-5 injects to get those 19 larvae per hatchery back up again.
I really don't think hte problem is the larvae bank. The problem is the fact that a zerg can (and should) generally sit on 1 base more than their opponent. If as a 3-base terran your push on the 4th works, you win. If it fails, the zerg's economy takes off and you play defense and try to get back through drops and backstabs. Protoss do a similar push but it's earlier. The problem is that modern zergs are too good to not win if they get and hold that stable economic advantage.
That said, if you take away the economy advantage, zerg units are way too trashy to hold up in a "fair" fight. You need to be able to trade an infinite amount of banelings for cheaper units... because trading banelings at an equal economy means you run out and die. So you'd actually have to *buff* zerg units if you nerf their economic advantages. It'll change their swarmy nature, and I don't know if that is actually desirable.
Oh, and I am not opposed to lowering the max larvae per hatch. I just don't think it'll change much. In fact, it might just make stuff harder: sniping a hatch now can really set production back, but if zerg get used to making more macro hatcheries, every individual hatch being sniped will actually hurt production less.
|
On August 25 2020 03:25 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary. There's still spawning time and cost. Sure, a Zerg can instantly remax on zerglings, but a remax of zerglings is easily dealt with if the other player maintained tech units. If both players are reset, then zerglings can wreak havoc, but the whole idea of trading ineffectively for zerg is that their stronger economy and shittier units allow them to trade their crappy units over and over and swarm the opponent with those shitty units. Remaxing on anything other than zerglings (or roaches) takes the spawning time, and for high tier units that is plenty long enough for a terran to get enough of an army out to defend. Endgame terrans and toss may not be able to instantly remax, but it takes them 2 production cycles... which is about the same as the 1 from zerg + the move across the map. And they can do it over and over, whereas a zerg remaxing cannot do it instantly again, as it takes 4-5 injects to get those 19 larvae per hatchery back up again. I really don't think hte problem is the larvae bank. The problem is the fact that a zerg can (and should) generally sit on 1 base more than their opponent. If as a 3-base terran your push on the 4th works, you win. If it fails, the zerg's economy takes off and you play defense and try to get back through drops and backstabs. Protoss do a similar push but it's earlier. The problem is that modern zergs are too good to not win if they get and hold that stable economic advantage. That said, if you take away the economy advantage, zerg units are way too trashy to hold up in a "fair" fight. You need to be able to trade an infinite amount of banelings for cheaper units... because trading banelings at an equal economy means you run out and die. So you'd actually have to *buff* zerg units if you nerf their economic advantages. It'll change their swarmy nature, and I don't know if that is actually desirable. Oh, and I am not opposed to lowering the max larvae per hatch. I just don't think it'll change much. In fact, it might just make stuff harder: sniping a hatch now can really set production back, but if zerg get used to making more macro hatcheries, every individual hatch being sniped will actually hurt production less.
I agree Zerg having the economic advantage is good and necessary (and unique to their race). I think the issue is there is that their ideal lategame should be having so much econ/bank/mining/larva that they can overwhelm the opponent or batter them constantly until they die or are unable to continue mining. They should swarm them with lower cost efficient units. The problem is that Zerg actually has some of the strongest lategame armies, with mobile Spore forests and the highest number of useful spellcasters with the highest number of battle-oriented spells (AOE/damage/crowd control, or NP/Abduct).
If Zerg's endgame army was a little weaker in a straight up battle, then it would put pressure/incentive on them to actually try to end Terran/Protoss. I think with BCs, Terran super endgame is probably stronger, but Protoss seems to need some help. Lategame aside, I think Zerg with their explosive economy in LotV can effectively achieve stronger armies because they can access multiple T3 units (Viper + Lurker in PvZ) faster than the opponent while having an econ advantage... This means that Zerg (at least in PvZ as that is the biggest issue), is basically stronger throughout the whole game except maybe late-lategame or endgame, but Protoss isn't going to get there.
I've wondered before with all the sped up econ in LotV, if there might be certain tech/upgrades that can be re-scaled. For example, +2 and +3 attack/armor upgrades taking longer to finish, or Hive/Hive tech taking longer so there is more time fighting with lower tech units before players access lategame units.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
Imo the core problems of zerg is:
Larva Mechanic is too good, and the way they can easily expand is also too strong. To balance that, they made it easier to suffer damage to harass and timming pushes. That worked on WoL and HotS. However on Lotv we have 3 problems: It's easier for the zerg to expand, Protoss and Terran timmings/harass have been generally nerfed and the Queen is stronger than when the game came out, and finally zergs have gotten better in defending pushes, and the maps favor defending expantions in general too.
The end result is that i'ts very hard to deal economic damage to a zerg. And even if you do deal damage t's negated by the larva mechanics and zergs becoming better. They defend their bases with 4-5 queens, and even if your harass kills 7-10 drones they just remax them instantly. Since Queens don't require larva, the intended design trade-off of "zerg either drones or makes army" is negated, as they can make both drones and queens and defend well.
The queen should be a vulnerable unit, only good vs air. It should have never been good to defend pushes. I'd say increasing the time to spawn larva from the hatchery a little bit, and nerfing the queen, either in health, damage, cost or supply, so that zerg can't just make 5, defend every push and keep droning as if nothing had happened.
That's the main problem in PvZ (and to an extend TvZ). There doesn't seem to be a way anymore to stop the zerg from growing and taking half the map incredibly fast, and thanks to LotV and increased game knowledge and mechanics the Zergs can do it much more effectively than ever before. So when the midgame comes, and the lategame comes, the zerg is always at an advantage, which makes the mid and lategame themselves being hard to judge as the zerg is always ahead by the time they come.
BTW I think creep giving vision is cool, and spreading creep is a good mechanic. However maybe it does too many things, as it gives vision, speed, and health regen. It also delays every push as you need to clear it as you push else your fighting at a disadvantage. I like the idea of the creep tumors being visible without detectos.
|
Italy12246 Posts
It's honestly not just lategame that's awkward against Zerg because of larva. They are the only race that can lose, say, 15 out of 50 workers (30ish percent), and still be in the game. Meanwhile, if Terran or Protoss lose, say 8 out of 40 (20 percent), they sometimes can have a Hail Mary play but for the most part, they are done. Given the choice I wish Terran and Protoss were more like Zerg in that regard because games being ended by a single widow mine drop is dumb as hell, but it's honestly pretty hard to achieve that.
edit: if you think it was easy for Zerg to suffer damage to non-committed timings or harassment in WoL you were watching the wrong game. WoL vZ post Queen buff was all about using every single resource you had to build up to just one all-in before Hive tech kicked in. Most builds investing in cutesy harassment or pokes were not optimized for that and fell out of flavour.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
Didn't see anything posted here so just a heads-up.
Theres a major bug where medivacs can't load units, literally lost a game just now because of that. Don't play terran until hotfix.
And btw i've been doing proxy VR against all races today. It's been pretty fun.
|
On August 25 2020 00:46 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote: Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income. I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this. Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening.
I second this. Macro hatcheries were one of Broodwar's best features.
|
On August 25 2020 08:20 [Phantom] wrote: Didn't see anything posted here so just a heads-up.
Theres a major bug where medvacs can't load units, literally lot a game just now because of that. Don't play terran until hotfix.
And btw i've been doing proxy VR against all races today. It's been pretty fun.
Why doesn't Blizzard play test their patches? Seriously.
|
On August 25 2020 04:08 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 03:25 Acrofales wrote:On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary. There's still spawning time and cost. Sure, a Zerg can instantly remax on zerglings, but a remax of zerglings is easily dealt with if the other player maintained tech units. If both players are reset, then zerglings can wreak havoc, but the whole idea of trading ineffectively for zerg is that their stronger economy and shittier units allow them to trade their crappy units over and over and swarm the opponent with those shitty units. Remaxing on anything other than zerglings (or roaches) takes the spawning time, and for high tier units that is plenty long enough for a terran to get enough of an army out to defend. Endgame terrans and toss may not be able to instantly remax, but it takes them 2 production cycles... which is about the same as the 1 from zerg + the move across the map. And they can do it over and over, whereas a zerg remaxing cannot do it instantly again, as it takes 4-5 injects to get those 19 larvae per hatchery back up again. I really don't think hte problem is the larvae bank. The problem is the fact that a zerg can (and should) generally sit on 1 base more than their opponent. If as a 3-base terran your push on the 4th works, you win. If it fails, the zerg's economy takes off and you play defense and try to get back through drops and backstabs. Protoss do a similar push but it's earlier. The problem is that modern zergs are too good to not win if they get and hold that stable economic advantage. That said, if you take away the economy advantage, zerg units are way too trashy to hold up in a "fair" fight. You need to be able to trade an infinite amount of banelings for cheaper units... because trading banelings at an equal economy means you run out and die. So you'd actually have to *buff* zerg units if you nerf their economic advantages. It'll change their swarmy nature, and I don't know if that is actually desirable. Oh, and I am not opposed to lowering the max larvae per hatch. I just don't think it'll change much. In fact, it might just make stuff harder: sniping a hatch now can really set production back, but if zerg get used to making more macro hatcheries, every individual hatch being sniped will actually hurt production less. I agree Zerg having the economic advantage is good and necessary (and unique to their race). I think the issue is there is that their ideal lategame should be having so much econ/bank/mining/larva that they can overwhelm the opponent or batter them constantly until they die or are unable to continue mining. They should swarm them with lower cost efficient units. The problem is that Zerg actually has some of the strongest lategame armies, with mobile Spore forests and the highest number of useful spellcasters with the highest number of battle-oriented spells (AOE/damage/crowd control, or NP/Abduct). If Zerg's endgame army was a little weaker in a straight up battle, then it would put pressure/incentive on them to actually try to end Terran/Protoss. I think with BCs, Terran super endgame is probably stronger, but Protoss seems to need some help. Lategame aside, I think Zerg with their explosive economy in LotV can effectively achieve stronger armies because they can access multiple T3 units (Viper + Lurker in PvZ) faster than the opponent while having an econ advantage... This means that Zerg (at least in PvZ as that is the biggest issue), is basically stronger throughout the whole game except maybe late-lategame or endgame, but Protoss isn't going to get there. I've wondered before with all the sped up econ in LotV, if there might be certain tech/upgrades that can be re-scaled. For example, +2 and +3 attack/armor upgrades taking longer to finish, or Hive/Hive tech taking longer so there is more time fighting with lower tech units before players access lategame units.
It is weaker in straight up fight, that's why it needs mobile spore forest and strong spellcasters.
|
On August 25 2020 00:46 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote: Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income. I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this. Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening.
I fail to see your logic here, you discuss mules like they are not part of an orbital command, that can also scan. And Nexi not only have chrono, but also recall and Batery overcharge. A queen has inject, spawn creep and a weak heal. Of all these abilities, the queen heal falls off most late game, together with battery charge. Mules and scans are highly important late game, as soon as a new base is taken drop 8 mules and even if you only mine for a minute you get 2k minerals. Recall is the "Oh shit" button and immensely powerfull in base trade scenarios.
Inject and creep spread on the other hand are mechanically highly taxing and cant be forgotten once or you are screwed, and you have to look away from the army while doing it. Creep denial is pretty easy late game since both other races have deathballs with detection moving around. Try respreading that while injecting 5 bases and making sure you are never out of position and aware of drops.
Im afraid you only see your side of the picture.
19 Larvae at a hatch requires 6 injects by the way, that takes 3 Minutes to build up. T and P can add Production too you know. With 20 Warpgates toss can remax in a Minute.
|
On August 25 2020 01:33 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 00:54 Dangermousecatdog wrote: There are no diminishing returns for mules. That +225 minerals is always +225 minerals. Proportionately an individual mules might be less relative to an income, but chances are, you have an orbital for every base, so it is proportional. Scans are used because if you was to ask anyone if they would pay for an eventual 225 min cost for an uncounterable instant information and detector over an area for a period of time, it is well worth the cost no matter what race it is. That's my point. As a proportion of income, mules start to be less impactful on overall income and scans become much more worthwhile as the game goes on so there becomes less of a trade-off, but it is still a trade-off nonetheless. With how zerg is set up right now, they can have the equivalent of both at once quite early in the game since all they need to do is make queens that they were going to make for defensive purposes anyway. In doing so they both can boost their economy and boost their map vision/informational advantage at the same time. With mules or chronoboost, there is never a risk of their power snowballing out of control as the game goes on. Injects and the sheer number of larva zerg has access to on the other hand are a large part of why the zerg economy can snowball out of control since the advantage gained by injects (more larva, thus more units) is cumulative and is lasting rather than temporary.
In a split map scenario with 4-5 bases mining out, mules become ridiculously overpowered. Plus Terran can just sack 40 SCVs and have 40 more army supply than Zerg or Protoss late late game. Your statement is false. Perhaps in the mid game, but that's where scan is most powerful so i guess that's evened out.
And to your second paragraph, yes it can snowball out of control, but it needs to because harass is so powerful, adepts, hellions, libs, drops, DTs. Also we have the weakest Units and the one of the best ones even dies on its use. So zerg needs a better economy. 2 Base Terran can easily defeat a 4 Base zerg due to sheer cost effectiveness.
|
On August 25 2020 05:19 Teoita wrote: It's honestly not just lategame that's awkward against Zerg because of larva. They are the only race that can lose, say, 15 out of 50 workers (30ish percent), and still be in the game. Meanwhile, if Terran or Protoss lose, say 8 out of 40 (20 percent), they sometimes can have a Hail Mary play but for the most part, they are done. Given the choice I wish Terran and Protoss were more like Zerg in that regard because games being ended by a single widow mine drop is dumb as hell, but it's honestly pretty hard to achieve that.
edit: if you think it was easy for Zerg to suffer damage to non-committed timings or harassment in WoL you were watching the wrong game. WoL vZ post Queen buff was all about using every single resource you had to build up to just one all-in before Hive tech kicked in. Most builds investing in cutesy harassment or pokes were not optimized for that and fell out of flavour. That first bit isn't true at all. It is only true vs protoss adept pushes, and to make those hit fast and hard, the protoss cuts a LOT of probes, and adepts lose their usefulness the moment enough roaches (or a single muta) hits the table, meaning protoss has (1) cut probes and (2) built an army that is no longer useful at that moment, so needs to invest heavily in expanding infrastructure, giving the zerg a good window to redrone, as they already have the infrastructure necessary to continue being useful. But a zerg losing 8 drones to a widowmine drop or a hellion runby is just as screwed as a protoss losing 8 probes (or a terran losing 8 scvs in TvT). Sure, they can invest in redroning, but then the follow-up tank push crushes them because they don't have enough army to hold it off.
You can complain that there are not enough comeback mechanics for leaving harrassment to happen, but that is equally true for all races. Actually terran probably have it easiest in that regard, as turtle terran into mech deathball is probably the best way to get back from an economic deficit.
|
On August 25 2020 04:32 [Phantom] wrote:
BTW I think creep giving vision is cool, and spreading creep is a good mechanic. However maybe it does too many things, as it gives vision, speed, and health regen. It also delays every push as you need to clear it as you push else your fighting at a disadvantage. I like the idea of the creep tumors being visible without detectos.
Creep does not give health regen, get your facts straight please. Tumors give vision and creeped terrain gives movement speed buffs.
And stop spouting that Zerg is imbalanced when terrans are destroying top zergs left and right, yes protoss need a bit of love, but creep is not the problem here, it's their late game.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On August 24 2020 23:58 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2020 22:24 chuchutrain wrote:On August 24 2020 22:15 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Removing creep vision is an atrocious idea and a massive nerf to a core mechanic.
Been following the thread for a while, am no good player myself (very very casual player, more of a tourney watcher for the last 10 years), I definitely have wondered what is the downside to removing vision, as most of the comments here seem to be in favour of this.. but there must be a con to it right? What do you think are the worst things that will come out of it? Losing the creep vision destroys one of Zerg's main form of defender's advantage. Zerg doesn't have tanks, or forcefields, and their 'walls' are of little value against anything beyond early game hellions or adepts. A big part of the defender's advantage Zerg gets is the combination of vision and movement speed provided by creep. Knowing the opponent's army movement, or forcing them to slow down to remove that vision, let's the Zerg position their army better for a defensive fight and fire up units. If you remove creep vision, then Zerg needs to dump extra resources and attention into vision, which is one of their main defensive advantages. This would be especially bad in TvZ, where you need creep anyway to fight efficiently. Only now it would be of no value spotting drops or move-outs. Especially the visibility - zerg has ovies and lings. So specifically the visibility is a tad overdramatized since many zergs especially early on "see" via different things than the creep. The issue of losing complete visibility is that you cannot spread the creap and it would be much huger APM sink than before. Technically only the active tumors can see, but then many pro zergs spread the creap via queens and not much via tumors themselves.
|
Dude can we chill out on the queen nerfs and creep nerfs. Those arent the issue at all. Zerg would still find a way to be OP. Do you have any idea how frustrating zerg will be to play with an even weaker defender advantage? They have less harass options, less openings, less raiders than the other races. They dont have some of those units you make 1 or 2 of and can get game ending damage done. IF you nerf their defender advantage, their mid game, AND their late game, there will be no reason to play zerg. Other races will be strategically better.
At this point, its just banelings and vipers. Banelings being 0.5 supply is what makes zerg strong in mid game and probably late game too. Vipers are also a unit that makes it so zerg late game is either too strong or too weak.
Too reliant on abduct in late game. And i feel the abduct interaction can never be balanced. If its the way to go and done properly, its always gonna be too strong. If it becomes weak but zerg is balanced around abducting t3 units, then zerg late game becomes trash.
I feel the first change should be the remove abduct and buff zerg in other areas for late game. Then it becomes easier to balance the late game armies by playing around with numbers.
Right now unit stats dont really matter if its all about staying near spores and lurkers and abducting units 1 by 1. You can buff protoss units all you want, if zerg does the micro viper thing right, they will still win out. And if they cant win out by doing it right, then protoss will be overpowered in late game. It will never be balanced as long as abduct exists. If zerg can safely get abducts off, its overpowered late game. If they cannot, its underpowered late game, vs protoss at least.
Then you have to figure out how to make banelings 1 supply without breaking the game. It would mean a nerf to splash of other races, and perhaps a buff to some of the midgame zerg units like roaches, hydras, and maybe infestors. ( Or make lurkers better at lair tech).
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
If somebody can make gazillion banelings which cost gazillion of gas, the question is - how is it even possible? Why nerf banelings when the issue is zerg can bank so much gas to make so many banes?
|
On August 25 2020 17:02 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 00:46 Ben... wrote:On August 24 2020 09:22 Sprog wrote:On August 23 2020 23:35 BonitiilloO wrote: Creep tumor should cost minerals to help the economy vs other races Queen should cost 1 more supply and spawn 1 less larva
zergs don't do macro hatcheries anymore and they get 80 drones while other races are still in 60 or less. Is the current cap for larva 19 per hatch? Tune down the max number of larvae, if you want more then you're forced to spend money on extra hatcheries. That's actually a good idea. The other races have to continually build units or else they've basically wasted production time they could have been using. Zerg by design has always been able to save larva a bit, but with so many larva per hatchery, they are basically able to completely ignore having to waste production time for a good chunk of the game and are instead limited by supply and income. I think in general, the macro mechanics have been badly in need of rebalancing for a long time now. Chronoboost is useful for about the first 10 minutes of the game and then it falls off the map in terms of usefulness, and with the added battery charge, chronoboost has now become a more situational spell since there are key times it shouldn't be used now. Similar with MULES. They're nice to have early on, and can be useful situationally, but once terran gets enough SCVs, diminishing returns set in for MULES and often scans are favoured unless terran is already behind and is using MULES to replace dead workers. With zerg, there is no trade-off for using injects, and not only do injects not slowly lose value, they actually gain power and usefulness as the game goes on. Because there are unlimited queens available, outside of when the first two or three queens pop in the game, there is never a question of whether an inject should be done or if creep should be spread instead. Typically, enough queens are made so both can be done, with the added bonus of queens also being good for holding off a huge number of different builds. The trade-offs the other races have to deal with don't exist for zerg and zerg is rewarded for abusing this. Zerg macro mechanics exist in the same tier of design issues as warpgate where there should be trade-offs to using them, but in reality there aren't so it's always favourable to use them. Like warpgate, fixing the zerg mechanics would require a ton of work and would be quite difficult so it probably won't end up happening. I fail to see your logic here, you discuss mules like they are not part of an orbital command, that can also scan. And Nexi not only have chrono, but also recall and Batery overcharge. A queen has inject, spawn creep and a weak heal. Of all these abilities, the queen heal falls off most late game, together with battery charge. Mules and scans are highly important late game, as soon as a new base is taken drop 8 mules and even if you only mine for a minute you get 2k minerals. Recall is the "Oh shit" button and immensely powerfull in base trade scenarios. Inject and creep spread on the other hand are mechanically highly taxing and cant be forgotten once or you are screwed, and you have to look away from the army while doing it. Creep denial is pretty easy late game since both other races have deathballs with detection moving around. Try respreading that while injecting 5 bases and making sure you are never out of position and aware of drops. Im afraid you only see your side of the picture. 19 Larvae at a hatch requires 6 injects by the way, that takes 3 Minutes to build up. T and P can add Production too you know. With 20 Warpgates toss can remax in a Minute.
IMO, the main "offender" of the orbital command is the Mule. To me, it feels like a bandaid macro booster to balance out chroned probes and inject, and I think the game would be better off without them.
Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On August 25 2020 04:32 [Phantom] wrote: Imo the core problems of zerg is:
Larva Mechanic is too good, and the way they can easily expand is also too strong. To balance that, they made it easier to suffer damage to harass and timming pushes. That worked on WoL and HotS. However on Lotv we have 3 problems: It's easier for the zerg to expand, Protoss and Terran timmings/harass have been generally nerfed and the Queen is stronger than when the game came out, and finally zergs have gotten better in defending pushes, and the maps favor defending expantions in general too.
The end result is that i'ts very hard to deal economic damage to a zerg. And even if you do deal damage t's negated by the larva mechanics and zergs becoming better. They defend their bases with 4-5 queens, and even if your harass kills 7-10 drones they just remax them instantly. Since Queens don't require larva, the intended design trade-off of "zerg either drones or makes army" is negated, as they can make both drones and queens and defend well.
The queen should be a vulnerable unit, only good vs air. It should have never been good to defend pushes. I'd say increasing the time to spawn larva from the hatchery a little bit, and nerfing the queen, either in health, damage, cost or supply, so that zerg can't just make 5, defend every push and keep droning as if nothing had happened.
That's the main problem in PvZ (and to an extend TvZ). There doesn't seem to be a way anymore to stop the zerg from growing and taking half the map incredibly fast, and thanks to LotV and increased game knowledge and mechanics the Zergs can do it much more effectively than ever before. So when the midgame comes, and the lategame comes, the zerg is always at an advantage, which makes the mid and lategame themselves being hard to judge as the zerg is always ahead by the time they come.
BTW I think creep giving vision is cool, and spreading creep is a good mechanic. However maybe it does too many things, as it gives vision, speed, and health regen. It also delays every push as you need to clear it as you push else your fighting at a disadvantage. I like the idea of the creep tumors being visible without detectos.
This.
User was warned for this post
|
Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
Why not? we're talking about lategame here, so there are banks and workers en masse. Adding Production is no Problem here, no more than taking time to stack injects and building macro hatches.
Remember, the moment a Z is maxed, there are Zero Larvae. Now let's say there are 6 hatches, 3 of which injected, now then there are 24 Larva spawning in the next 30 sec, but then larva capped on all hatches, so from there it is only 9 per 30 sec.
Now Zerg Production is very decentralized so reinforcements are scattered and weak, and killing a hatchery is not only a huge blow to the economy, but also to production, usually killing a hatch is 15-25% of production.
|
On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote: Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong...
I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!)
The problem is how much value you get from so little resources. A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least.
|
Is the game playable right now or is terren still messed up?
|
On August 26 2020 06:02 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote: Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong... I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!) The problem is how much value you get from so little resources. A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least. Queen is critical to Zerg's early game defence. Messing with it will brake the game. Especially that Blizzard messed with it enough already. Also, comparing Queen to Siegetank...Seriously? Siegetank is not there for it's"tankyness" but for range and splash dmg. Queen isnfor tanking dmg. Both units have different role.
User was warned for this post
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On August 26 2020 06:02 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2020 09:59 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 23 2020 01:25 Teoita wrote: Yeah a queen nerf would be welcome (although it may make zvt messy, dunno). What you get for the cost is pretty crazy. Lol what would zerg do against 2 battle cruisers? Or a bunch of cloak banshee? Or speed void rays. Queens need to be this strong... I see your point, but I also think that this unit can be adjusted in other ways. A Queen only cost 150 Minerals and 2 Supply and still has the same "tankyness" as a Siege Tank(175 hp and 1 Armor!) The problem is how much value you get from so little resources. A good start would be to change the Queen price to maybe 175 Minerals at least.
a unit like the Queen, should cost at least 200 or its to good for his mineral price, u rarely see a queen dying in the battlefield.
|
I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
|
Queen is critical to Zerg's early game defence. Messing with it will brake the game. Especially that Blizzard messed with it enough already. Also, comparing Queen to Siegetank...Seriously? Siegetank is not there for it's"tankyness" but for range and splash dmg. Queen isnfor tanking dmg. Both units have different role.
Adjusting the queen again will not break the game, was the game broken after blizzards queen changes over the years?
I may have expressed myself wrong, let me be clear: I was stating that the Queen have the same defense(and by that I mean hp and armor) as the Siege tank, for the price of 150 minerals and 0 gas. I know that the two units have different roles but that doesn´t change the fact that the queen might be to strong in correlation to the price you pay for it.
Then some poster said earlier in the thread that the queen needs to be this strong to actually hold of early pressure from Terran/Protoss. Fine, maybe a little price raise would balance it out and solve some things.
I think a +25 mineral cost or even a small gas cost could be interesting, and it would force the Zerg into some more strategic decisions.
|
I think making Queen 3 supply instead of 2 should be considered too. If it costs 1 more supply, it effectively costs 12.5 more minerals due to needing 1/8th of an Overlord. And needing ~1 more Overlord for several queens means using up 1 more larvae. Though these would probably be too tiny to help much early game. And may impact lategame too much. because Zerg needing a lot of drones already doesn't leave much supply left to make a big army to swarm with (aside from Banelings being 0.5 supply, which is why I think they should not be nerfed to 1 supply as it is the only one real good unit helping Zerg to be able to create a very overwhelming, large lategame army that is "Zergy" due to being not very cost efficient, but supply efficient). Though Queens being 3 supply and nerfing lategame may be desirable as well, if we want to see less mass Queen/spellcaster lategame.
Otherwise, given the +25 minerals doesn't break any timings early, it may be pretty nice for Zergs to consider whether to make many Queens or make 1 more Spore/Spine or even macro hatch.
Another idea I wanted to throw out is nerfing Transfuse range so you have to be closer. It would make players have to be more careful about their Queen positioning. Right now, if you have Queens generally in the same area, you can Tranfuse each other easily and stay alive for a lot of harass as long as you make the right number. This heavily discourages the opponent from trying to kill Queens, as it will make their harass units take too much damage. But if Transfuse range was like 4 instead of 7, there would be more openings to kill Queens or find damage. It would be more possible to pick off Queens if you didn't have enough Queens in the right spot to defend, and your other Queens were a bit too far to help heal in time. It would add more skill/depth to the game, rather than straight up nerfing their raw power. The reduced range would also weaken Zerg lategame, and discourage spellcaster/Transfuse spam.
I would also be in support of removing or nerfing/reworking Abduct. If Transfuse range is nerfed as well especially, it would be fine to buff some Zerg lategame units in raw strength slightly, to compensate for the weaker spells.
|
On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
these are really interesting ideas "- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana." I'm guessing you meant vipers, not lurkers
|
On August 26 2020 11:49 Die4Ever wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
these are really interesting ideas "- Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana." I'm guessing you meant vipers, not lurkers
I support the first few ideas, in order basically. GS giving +1 armor to melee, Batteries that can lower/phase out, Ravagers taking a couple more seconds to transform. I kind of like Zerg units getting full HP when they finish morphing, but that's something to explore (to compensate, you could increase the Cocoon armor, or Cocoon HP more, which would further improve Coccoon micro to take advantage of armor and cancel out). Adrenal Glands should stay because mass Zerglings can either catch you off guard and do a lot of damage, or be completely shut down and waste all your larvae reserves. Viper needs nerfing/reworking for sure.
|
On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote + Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
Why not? we're talking about lategame here, so there are banks and workers en masse. Adding Production is no Problem here, no more than taking time to stack injects and building macro hatches. Remember, the moment a Z is maxed, there are Zero Larvae. Now let's say there are 6 hatches, 3 of which injected, now then there are 24 Larva spawning in the next 30 sec, but then larva capped on all hatches, so from there it is only 9 per 30 sec. Now Zerg Production is very decentralized so reinforcements are scattered and weak, and killing a hatchery is not only a huge blow to the economy, but also to production, usually killing a hatch is 15-25% of production.
Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off.
|
On August 26 2020 09:06 PyroNswe wrote:Show nested quote +
Queen is critical to Zerg's early game defence. Messing with it will brake the game. Especially that Blizzard messed with it enough already. Also, comparing Queen to Siegetank...Seriously? Siegetank is not there for it's"tankyness" but for range and splash dmg. Queen isnfor tanking dmg. Both units have different role.
Adjusting the queen again will not break the game, was the game broken after blizzards queen changes over the years? I may have expressed myself wrong, let me be clear: I was stating that the Queen have the same defense(and by that I mean hp and armor) as the Siege tank, for the price of 150 minerals and 0 gas. I know that the two units have different roles but that doesn´t change the fact that the queen might be to strong in correlation to the price you pay for it.
Does a Queen have a Splash attack vs ground units? Does a tank slow down by three quarters when he leaves his base? Is a tank needed to keep production on par with the other races?
No? Then keep the cost as is please.
This thread keeps coming up with nerfs to things that are well balanced i feel entertained and so happy the Balance team does a good job ignoring these things.
|
The new patch is just live, any tournaments point to pretty balanced distribution and all there is is race bashing on Zerg with mostly horrible ideas that would completely remove zerg from the game.
Funny how discussion went from patch notes to random battle net level flame wars.
|
On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think making Queen 3 supply instead of 2 should be considered too. If it costs 1 more supply, it effectively costs 12.5 more minerals due to needing 1/8th of an Overlord. And needing ~1 more Overlord for several queens means using up 1 more larvae. Though these would probably be too tiny to help much early game. And may impact lategame too much. because Zerg needing a lot of drones already doesn't leave much supply left to make a big army to swarm with (aside from Banelings being 0.5 supply, which is why I think they should not be nerfed to 1 supply as it is the only one real good unit helping Zerg to be able to create a very overwhelming, large lategame army that is "Zergy" due to being not very cost efficient, but supply efficient). Though Queens being 3 supply and nerfing lategame may be desirable as well, if we want to see less mass Queen/spellcaster lategame.
Otherwise, given the +25 minerals doesn't break any timings early, it may be pretty nice for Zergs to consider whether to make many Queens or make 1 more Spore/Spine or even macro hatch.
Another idea I wanted to throw out is nerfing Transfuse range so you have to be closer. It would make players have to be more careful about their Queen positioning. Right now, if you have Queens generally in the same area, you can Tranfuse each other easily and stay alive for a lot of harass as long as you make the right number. This heavily discourages the opponent from trying to kill Queens, as it will make their harass units take too much damage. But if Transfuse range was like 4 instead of 7, there would be more openings to kill Queens or find damage. It would be more possible to pick off Queens if you didn't have enough Queens in the right spot to defend, and your other Queens were a bit too far to help heal in time. It would add more skill/depth to the game, rather than straight up nerfing their raw power. The reduced range would also weaken Zerg lategame, and discourage spellcaster/Transfuse spam.
I would also be in support of removing or nerfing/reworking Abduct. If Transfuse range is nerfed as well especially, it would be fine to buff some Zerg lategame units in raw strength slightly, to compensate for the weaker spells.
A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind.
Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way
|
On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Lurkers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game
|
On August 26 2020 15:10 Slydie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote: Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
Why not? we're talking about lategame here, so there are banks and workers en masse. Adding Production is no Problem here, no more than taking time to stack injects and building macro hatches. Remember, the moment a Z is maxed, there are Zero Larvae. Now let's say there are 6 hatches, 3 of which injected, now then there are 24 Larva spawning in the next 30 sec, but then larva capped on all hatches, so from there it is only 9 per 30 sec. Now Zerg Production is very decentralized so reinforcements are scattered and weak, and killing a hatchery is not only a huge blow to the economy, but also to production, usually killing a hatch is 15-25% of production. Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off.
Since you only ever lose half the army supply the Zerg loses if you are on even footing, you would only need half. And its eather mech or bio, so stop exagerating to make a point like we wouldnt notice. And yes, i have seen 12+ Factories and 8+ starports games and Terrans remaxing really fast.
And dont forget that then the larva bank is a goner, a ling bane remax can easily require 100 Larva, which doesnt come easy, your factories and starports keep producing. Plus this is not a serious imbalance. If anything i see Zerg losing because they cant keep up with the cost efficiency of Terran even if 1 or 2 bases ahead
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 26 2020 16:33 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think making Queen 3 supply instead of 2 should be considered too. If it costs 1 more supply, it effectively costs 12.5 more minerals due to needing 1/8th of an Overlord. And needing ~1 more Overlord for several queens means using up 1 more larvae. Though these would probably be too tiny to help much early game. And may impact lategame too much. because Zerg needing a lot of drones already doesn't leave much supply left to make a big army to swarm with (aside from Banelings being 0.5 supply, which is why I think they should not be nerfed to 1 supply as it is the only one real good unit helping Zerg to be able to create a very overwhelming, large lategame army that is "Zergy" due to being not very cost efficient, but supply efficient). Though Queens being 3 supply and nerfing lategame may be desirable as well, if we want to see less mass Queen/spellcaster lategame.
Otherwise, given the +25 minerals doesn't break any timings early, it may be pretty nice for Zergs to consider whether to make many Queens or make 1 more Spore/Spine or even macro hatch.
Another idea I wanted to throw out is nerfing Transfuse range so you have to be closer. It would make players have to be more careful about their Queen positioning. Right now, if you have Queens generally in the same area, you can Tranfuse each other easily and stay alive for a lot of harass as long as you make the right number. This heavily discourages the opponent from trying to kill Queens, as it will make their harass units take too much damage. But if Transfuse range was like 4 instead of 7, there would be more openings to kill Queens or find damage. It would be more possible to pick off Queens if you didn't have enough Queens in the right spot to defend, and your other Queens were a bit too far to help heal in time. It would add more skill/depth to the game, rather than straight up nerfing their raw power. The reduced range would also weaken Zerg lategame, and discourage spellcaster/Transfuse spam.
I would also be in support of removing or nerfing/reworking Abduct. If Transfuse range is nerfed as well especially, it would be fine to buff some Zerg lategame units in raw strength slightly, to compensate for the weaker spells. A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind. Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way A slight nerf to transfuse range isn’t a bad idea, although maybe 4 is too far. Gives opportunities to punish badly positioned Queens but if players are on point with positioning then they’ll be able to transfuse basically as normal anyway.
I’m down with keeping Zerg balanced in strength but shifting it slightly from the Queen being such a strong catch-all unit. Be it transfuse range, stat wise, supply increase, tweak to creep or whatever.
On the other side of the coin giving Protoss a walling option with a battery being able to phase out isn’t a significant buff but makes that slightly more forgiving defensively. Even walls that pass the eye test we sometimes see Zerglings push units out of the wall and pop through them.
If the barrier to doing that is BC rushes I’m happy with them being neutered, probably by making jump need an upgrade. While it was a creative opener it is kind of fundamentally really, really silly to my particular tastes.
|
On August 26 2020 16:33 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 11:46 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think making Queen 3 supply instead of 2 should be considered too. If it costs 1 more supply, it effectively costs 12.5 more minerals due to needing 1/8th of an Overlord. And needing ~1 more Overlord for several queens means using up 1 more larvae. Though these would probably be too tiny to help much early game. And may impact lategame too much. because Zerg needing a lot of drones already doesn't leave much supply left to make a big army to swarm with (aside from Banelings being 0.5 supply, which is why I think they should not be nerfed to 1 supply as it is the only one real good unit helping Zerg to be able to create a very overwhelming, large lategame army that is "Zergy" due to being not very cost efficient, but supply efficient). Though Queens being 3 supply and nerfing lategame may be desirable as well, if we want to see less mass Queen/spellcaster lategame.
Otherwise, given the +25 minerals doesn't break any timings early, it may be pretty nice for Zergs to consider whether to make many Queens or make 1 more Spore/Spine or even macro hatch.
Another idea I wanted to throw out is nerfing Transfuse range so you have to be closer. It would make players have to be more careful about their Queen positioning. Right now, if you have Queens generally in the same area, you can Tranfuse each other easily and stay alive for a lot of harass as long as you make the right number. This heavily discourages the opponent from trying to kill Queens, as it will make their harass units take too much damage. But if Transfuse range was like 4 instead of 7, there would be more openings to kill Queens or find damage. It would be more possible to pick off Queens if you didn't have enough Queens in the right spot to defend, and your other Queens were a bit too far to help heal in time. It would add more skill/depth to the game, rather than straight up nerfing their raw power. The reduced range would also weaken Zerg lategame, and discourage spellcaster/Transfuse spam.
I would also be in support of removing or nerfing/reworking Abduct. If Transfuse range is nerfed as well especially, it would be fine to buff some Zerg lategame units in raw strength slightly, to compensate for the weaker spells. A queen nerf is not what's needed, your proposed +1 supply change would mess up the whole early game and make BC rush impossible to hold without being massively behind. Also, Transfuse is only 7 range as is, same range as a photon canon, i have never heard about anyone in the pro scene complaining about transfuse either. So i wonder are you just trying to come up with random things popping in your head about how to nerf zerg? And then writing it here without giving it a second thought? It surely feels this way
I suggested the supply change as an alternative to discussion about increasing the cost by 25 minerals.
I did say it was just "another idea I wanted to throw out". And what does a photon canon's range have anything to do with this? How many balance changes have went through that changed things that you don't hear pros complain about?
And also I support removing BC warp or heavily reworking/nerfing it, such as bringing back an energy bar and also keeping cooldowns for Warp and Yamato. The whole idea of a BC warping is really stupid and bad design, except maybe if BCs had both energy+cooldowns so you had to choose between using energy for Yamato or Warp (and both also have cooldowns).
|
On August 26 2020 16:57 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 15:10 Slydie wrote:On August 25 2020 21:48 plainsane wrote: Please don't compare "adding production" to injects, it doesn't make any sense. Imagine if my Orbital Commands could also make battlecruisers? Zerg has a WAY easier time getting their production up, but have weaker units and need Hatchery upgrades to compensate.
Why not? we're talking about lategame here, so there are banks and workers en masse. Adding Production is no Problem here, no more than taking time to stack injects and building macro hatches. Remember, the moment a Z is maxed, there are Zero Larvae. Now let's say there are 6 hatches, 3 of which injected, now then there are 24 Larva spawning in the next 30 sec, but then larva capped on all hatches, so from there it is only 9 per 30 sec. Now Zerg Production is very decentralized so reinforcements are scattered and weak, and killing a hatchery is not only a huge blow to the economy, but also to production, usually killing a hatch is 15-25% of production. Of course "adding production" is not possible. Have you ever played against a terran with 30 rax, 20 factories and 20 starports? THAT is the kind of production which is needed to match a zerg remax, and yes, you need all of them because zerg can make that larva into any unit they want to throw the terran off. Since you only ever lose half the army supply the Zerg loses if you are on even footing, you would only need half. And its eather mech or bio, so stop exagerating to make a point like we wouldnt notice. And yes, i have seen 12+ Factories and 8+ starports games and Terrans remaxing really fast. And dont forget that then the larva bank is a goner, a ling bane remax can easily require 100 Larva, which doesnt come easy, your factories and starports keep producing. Plus this is not a serious imbalance. If anything i see Zerg losing because they cant keep up with the cost efficiency of Terran even if 1 or 2 bases ahead
What I really don't like about the zerg remaxes, especially watching on pro level, is that it forces Terran to be the aggressor. It is always the job of Terran to kill drones and preasure or kill the 4th, while there are no incentive to do such things for Zerg. The counter to a very greedy build from Terran is just to make expand even faster and make more drones.
Fortunately, Zerg can screw up and make too few units or too few drones, but the dynamic that Terran needs to keep Zerg in check to keep the macro under control remains the same.
It isn't like Zerg can't do an early all-in to keep Terran honest, but they don't have to at all.
|
On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game
Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year.
There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go.
Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively.
|
On August 27 2020 02:45 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane wrote:On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year. There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go. Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively.
I see TvZ as pretty much in good balance, perhaps best balance ever. I Think PvZ is Zerg favored yes, but only in late game, mid game Protoss is still very strong. So my point is that i support the approach of the balance team deciding to only change things that affect PvZ late game. Reworking the viper may be a good idea, but it is what Z relies on vs late game Terran, so nerfing it hard would just bring a new Problem in TvZ
Edit: And yes i would really like to see more variety in openings in PvZ, adept printer is getting boring. I think Protoss needs a viable late game for that. Because a failed gladept opener is often game over.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 27 2020 04:34 plainsane wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2020 02:45 Xamo wrote:On August 26 2020 16:48 plainsane wrote:On August 26 2020 08:44 Xamo wrote: I like these ideas for PvZ: - Guardian Shield also provides armor vs melee attacks. This may give Protoss a chance to gain map control in some situations. It may also be good for PvP, where the Zealot is the king. - Shield batteries can be lowered. Or even better, transformed to "shadow status" and back. - Ravagers take more time to transform. - Banes/Overseers/Ravagers/Lurkers loose HP (span with less HP) when damaged during its transformation. - Adrenals Glans is removed from the game - zerglings are ridiculously cost-effective with it. - Consume gives Vipers HP instead of Mana.
Most are small changes...
First two, i don't care Third, never seen a pro player lose because of a ravager morph mid fight, prism immortal micro seems like two orders of magnitude more powerful. Remember a Ravager costs 75 gas, this is not cheap! Fourth, no, again i see no imbalance issues surrounding this, plus it adds depth to a fight surrounding attacking indefensible cocoons. Fifth, yea very effective and very brittle, glas cannons as you will, get your defenses up, if you let zerglings in your base you get F'ed up. If you get Zerglings in melee range you were out of position and better have FF ready. Terran has Tanks and depot walls. Sixth, I think you mean Vipers? Consume is a very APM consuming ability and without it the viper is kinda useless since all spells are so damn expensive, and the unit is also very expenisive with 200 Gas and cant deal damage except through Parasitic bomb (which costs 125 Energy!) Removing consume without reworking the spell costs and maybe adding an upgrade for more starting energy would be a nail in the coffin for ZvT late game Summarizing your thoughts, you do not see imbalance anywhere and therefore any nerf is bad - not only these. Obviously I disagree, ZvP is imbalanced and in a horrible state since last year. There is no single unit responsible for that, but a generic economy and cost-effectiveness advantage for Z. That's why I think small changes that slightly reduce this effectiveness or increase it for P are the way to go. Perhaps I went too far suggesting to remove Adrenal, its boost may be reduced alternatively. I see TvZ as pretty much in good balance, perhaps best balance ever. I Think PvZ is Zerg favored yes, but only in late game, mid game Protoss is still very strong. So my point is that i support the approach of the balance team deciding to only change things that affect PvZ late game. Reworking the viper may be a good idea, but it is what Z relies on vs late game Terran, so nerfing it hard would just bring a new Problem in TvZ Edit: And yes i would really like to see more variety in openings in PvZ, adept printer is getting boring. I think Protoss needs a viable late game for that. Because a failed gladept opener is often game over. TvZ isn’t terrible IMO, it’s far from the best we’ve ever seen.
I don’t think I support changes that affect only late game in PvZ because you can’t untether the late game from how the early and mid game flow into it.
In recent years the solution to that lategame problem is air toss, which is either too strong IMO (and I hate air balls) or too weak, and in the latter case Protoss lategame is bad.
A good matchup doesn’t have to be absolutely perfectly balanced, perfect balance is incredibly difficult to achieve. Enjoyability, a variety of viable approaches etc.
Protoss doesn’t necessarily need a better lategame, it needs a more solid and less committal early and midgame game in the matchup, that’ll transition into a more solid lategame anyway. That seems to be the spirit of the theorycrafting in the thread anyway.
|
To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\
|
On August 27 2020 17:16 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\
In terms of design, I would agree that is the one most blatantly bad thing they need to change. Mass BCs with yamato is already the strongest straight up army in the game, and now they can warp too? So you can base trade with BCs, you can harass and constantly jump/snipe bases and repair and repeat, you can even open with them and harass so you can slowly turtle and build up to that toxic lategame. It's not interesting, it's not fun to fight against, there's not much strategy involved, you just use warp/yamato as much as possible when it's off cooldown.
Adding a 1 sec cooldown to Jump at least made it not as broken, but still being able to escape fights like that is really stupid and frustrating to play against. As a Terran I feel incredibly dirty doing it. The fact that BCs counter Carriers AND Tempests due to being able to Jump on them is so dumb. Also, did you guys know that BC is the only capital ship that has 3 armor? Yeah, not even Carrier or Mothership have 3.
(Even if massing BCs from early on is not a great strategy at Code S level, it's still doable and that's bad. It's way worse than the old Raven which had more ways to counterplay and can easily have been toned down. And they could have fixed its oppressiveness by giving each PDD shot a tiny cooldown or only allow it to block 2-3 projectiles a second, and reverting Seeker Missile to a single target zoning tool rather than a AOE nuke, and if really desired then make the unit 3 supply too).
|
On August 29 2020 13:50 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2020 17:16 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, my biggest gripe atm is the Battlecruiser jump ability, how can a capital ship just jump from one side of the map to the other :\ In terms of design, I would agree that is the one most blatantly bad thing they need to change. Mass BCs with yamato is already the strongest straight up army in the game, and now they can warp too? So you can base trade with BCs, you can harass and constantly jump/snipe bases and repair and repeat, you can even open with them and harass so you can slowly turtle and build up to that toxic lategame. It's not interesting, it's not fun to fight against, there's not much strategy involved, you just use warp/yamato as much as possible when it's off cooldown. Adding a 1 sec cooldown to Jump at least made it not as broken, but still being able to escape fights like that is really stupid and frustrating to play against. As a Terran I feel incredibly dirty doing it. The fact that BCs counter Carriers AND Tempests due to being able to Jump on them is so dumb. Also, did you guys know that BC is the only capital ship that has 3 armor? Yeah, not even Carrier or Mothership have 3. (Even if massing BCs from early on is not a great strategy at Code S level, it's still doable and that's bad. It's way worse than the old Raven which had more ways to counterplay and can easily have been toned down. And they could have fixed its oppressiveness by giving each PDD shot a tiny cooldown or only allow it to block 2-3 projectiles a second, and reverting Seeker Missile to a single target zoning tool rather than a AOE nuke, and if really desired then make the unit 3 supply too).
I 100% agree with everything you're saying. But I get the feeling that the people feeding Blizzard feedback are biased in their opinions, since its usually pros that are giving the feedback and they usually want changes where their race comes out better, rather than in the interest of balancing the game...
|
I haven't really liked the void ray changes so far. It works fairly as intedend in PvZ and I like it there, but it seems like it just increases stupid 1 base cheese in PvT and PvP. Having 1 void show up and tunnel down your single pylon powering your 2 gates and then not having anti air is a definite feels bad.
|
Hmm.. what if there was an easier wall off and Vipers only hold units still (instead of yoinking them) if they have shield health?
Fixes Protoss needing to be insurmountably ahead in the late game. Positioning still matters. But now, units don’t auto die.
Banelings seem to always get value against Protoss as well, though I’m not sure if that’s too important. It does seem to force less mobile Archons/Immortals. Maybe a speed buff for those units.
|
On August 29 2020 16:42 Supah wrote: Hmm.. what if there was an easier wall off and Vipers only hold units still (instead of yoinking them) if they have shield health?
Fixes Protoss needing to be insurmountably ahead in the late game. Positioning still matters. But now, units don’t auto die.
Banelings seem to always get value against Protoss as well, though I’m not sure if that’s too important. It does seem to force less mobile Archons/Immortals. Maybe a speed buff for those units. An upgrade on the Templar archives to boost archon speed could help. Just an outright buff will make archons too strong early game.
|
Has anyone else tried out that tempest upgrade? It seems almost too good. It more than doubles tempest damage against buildings. Once you get to about 9 or 10 tempests and the upgrade, you can basically one-shot or two shot every building in the game, even planetaries.
There has got to be some incredibly broken proxy tempest build using that upgrade that someone just has to figure out.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
I have an idea that helps protoss in pvz early game and cause little problems in other matchups.
rework adept:
1) remove shade 2) up move speed to stalker level 3) up attack speed to glaves level by default 4) instead of glaves upg pseudo-splash upg (something similar to bounce like in 1st version of LotV beta, just little more stable)
Results: without a shadow, adepts have much less mobility and cannot threaten the economy before prism, but they can destroy lings and control map. This change will allow to limit zerg growth, because he will have to make more lings to counter 1st 2-4 adepts. Later, with grade and prism adepts can be used for harass but without shade, they cant be at 2 places at the same time.
In PvT adepts without shades are no threat to anything but unupgraded marines. They have not enough speed and range to catch helions or reapers and no shade to teleport into tanks.
In PvP this change removes last part of earlygame randomness with lucky shade into main..
|
I have an idea to fix this game:
- Hire a balance team that plays this game at high GM level for years, preferably also played broodwar before too, so they can understand what makes a good RTS meta game. (StarCraft2 has no unit balance anymore, its all about early/mid game economic damage. Units are all about avoiding arrmy and killing workers, sure gives us 50% win ratio, but feels broken). Army vs Army at even economy is super imbalanced right now.
- Undo the last 3 years of changes. Fix the game from there.
No offense meant, I just feel like patch after patch, more gimmicks are added that break the game.
|
Gah i did it again, quote instead of edit, sorry
|
I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
|
On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way.
What's funny is that even in BW with stronger units, Protoss is the least scary at max out/max upgrades. To be fair, vs Carriers Terran is usually trying to hit a timing push before too many are out, but even the "ultimate" Protoss army is more about positioning and good use of spells than raw power.
On August 30 2020 07:20 Snakestyle11 wrote: StarCraft2 has no unit balance anymore, its all about early/mid game economic damage. Units are all about avoiding arrmy and killing workers, sure gives us 50% win ratio, but feels broken).
I mostly agree with this, but Blizzard thinks it's more exciting this way and are unlikely to change things, unfortunately.
|
On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max.
Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger.
But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates.
They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts.
|
On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts.
Interesting but I would keep prism as harrasing potential. Same as drop overlords
|
On August 30 2020 15:43 followZeRoX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts. Interesting but I would keep prism as harrasing potential. Same as drop overlords
What is sad about the Warp prism is that the success or failure of a Protoss push depends so much on keeping it alive. The weaker units are balanced by having near-instant frontline reinforcements.
|
On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts.
How did they almost fix it ? Never heard this before
|
Poll: Do you think warp-gate should :be removed (5) 45% increase cost regarding teleport distance ? (4) 36% revert, i.e increase cooldown regarding teleport distance ? (1) 9% be less effective (1) 9% 11 total votes Your vote: Do you think warp-gate should : (Vote): revert, i.e increase cooldown regarding teleport distance ? (Vote): increase cost regarding teleport distance ? (Vote): be less effective (Vote): be removed
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts.
is not like they were stronger, units damage output vs health was good , what i mean is, units from BW would take longer to be kill therefore more micro management and stuff, in sc2 units die way to fast imo
all units ALL UNITS SHOULD GET A 10% DAMAGE REDUCTION IN SC2.
|
On August 30 2020 07:20 Snakestyle11 wrote:
- Hire a balance team that plays this game at high GM level for years, preferably also played broodwar before too, so they can understand what makes a good RTS meta game.
Unfortunately, I don't think gamers are good game designers. It's not that easy to find somebody as talented as Rob Pardo. SC2 would need a very good game designer with a strong vision... but for a 10 years old game , like sc2, I don't think any big changes will happen anyway.
|
On August 31 2020 00:34 heqat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 07:20 Snakestyle11 wrote:
- Hire a balance team that plays this game at high GM level for years, preferably also played broodwar before too, so they can understand what makes a good RTS meta game. Unfortunately, I don't think gamers are good game designers. It's not that easy to find somebody as talented as Rob Pardo. SC2 would need a very good game designer with a strong vision... but for a 10 years old game , like sc2, I don't think any big changes will happen anyway.
That makes me sad.. Indeed, there s for sure a place for an old school rts, slower, with no rapid fire and map-control oriented. Not sure also that the final form of the game suits to the oldest players, built in TvZ around the foolish feature of the impossible split... built with spells without cooldown (creep tumors as an obvious lack of professionnalism) and with half of the population dedicated to gather ressources. I only enjoy to watch the strongest players, i.e 5 or 6 TOP EU, with a little bit interest on the divide between KOR and EU.
On August 30 2020 07:20 Snakestyle11 wrote: - Undo the last 3 years of changes. Fix the game from there.
I don t enjoy your comments sometimes but i agree on this main idea. Then you could also fire two useless workers from start
We deserve to see infested terrans back
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 30 2020 16:18 AssyrianKing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts. How did they almost fix it ? Never heard this before It’s certainly news to me.
I’ve been banging the drum about various tweaks to warp gate or outright removal for nearly a decade now, and I’ve never heard anything to the effect that Blizz were actually looking into making radical changes.
|
What kind of radical changes would you like ? Excepted those i proposed above in the poll, i don t see something else ... I would like to hear which changes could be added cause i don t think it s necessary to remove this feature.
Why ? Because it gives an uniqueness feature to the protoss race but it feels as if they had done anything... Why don t give to the player the option to increase his speed recovering max population without the warp-gate, i.e less cooldown when you build units from your gateway.
I don t understand the logic beside that
|
On August 31 2020 01:53 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2020 16:18 AssyrianKing wrote:On August 30 2020 14:36 Snakestyle11 wrote:On August 30 2020 13:08 AssyrianKing wrote: I was doing an analysis of Protoss units comparing BW units to Protoss units: These are the differences that were noteworthy: -BW Zealots have 10 extra shields (Although SC2 Zealots get charge) -BW Dragoons do 7 extra damage and have 20 extra shields(though they have have blink) -BW High Templar do 32 extra damage, have 50 extra shields, build ~5 seconds quicker(though Warpgate covers this), and have the amulet upgrade -BW Archons have 5 extra damage -BW Carriers have 4 Armor instead of 2 in SC2, although they do take 24 seconds longer to build. Also BW Intereceptors healed when they returned to the Carrier, and Interceptors automatically retreat into the Carrier at 1/4 shields (or 10 shield points).
In general, BW Protoss units were much beefier, but my assumption is it did take longer to create the ultimate Protoss Army, and the other race's goal was to prevent that in a way. Also in SC2, Protoss have Immortals, Sentries, and Colossus, so thats probably why the other gateway units arent as beefy.
The only opinion I have, since Carriers and Tempests are so similar, we should bring the beefier BW Carrier back. It would certainly help Protoss in their lategame. This is in comparison withe the BW Battlecruiser which actually took longer 20 seconds longer to build and had 50 less health (and can't jump) when comparing to the SC2 Battlecruiser
No warp gates. No warp prisms. 12 units selected max. Units from ALL races were stronger. Lings were stronger, hydras were stronger, siege tanks were stronger. But yea, protoss problems all come from the power of warp-prisms + warp--gates. They were almost on the right path to fix this a few years ago, then backed off because of a few reddit posts. How did they almost fix it ? Never heard this before It’s certainly news to me. I’ve been banging the drum about various tweaks to warp gate or outright removal for nearly a decade now, and I’ve never heard anything to the effect that Blizz were actually looking into making radical changes. I remember people calling for warpgate changes since 2010 but I was never convinced it was needed. Now I'm definitely for something like making wapgate late game tech and just buffing gateway units.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 31 2020 02:01 Vision_ wrote: What kind of radical changes would you like ? Excepted those i proposed above in the poll, i don t see something else ... I would like to hear which changes could be added cause i don t think it s necessary to remove this feature.
Why ? Because it gives an uniqueness feature to the protoss race but it feels as if they had done anything... Why don t give to the player the option to increase his speed recovering max population without the warp-gate, i.e less cooldown when you build units from your gateway.
I don t understand the logic beside that Some kind of risk/reward tradeoff with gates producing better vs the reinforcement potential of warp gates was something I have pondered over the years, amongst many other things.
Without going down that rabbit hole my post was more about never hearing that Blizzard had ever really looked at the fundamentals of warp gate than discussing my thoughts on the mechanic.
|
Didnt they consider making warp prism slow warp-ins at some point and adding an upgrade to unlock faster warp-ins or a requirement? I could be wrong about this, but im pretty sure it was considered but then they backed off because ppl said it would ruin most protoss builds, which is true, but would be a good first step in the direction to buff protoss units and high tech production.
My idea is:
Rework warp gates entirely:
Make it a hero building that starts with 4 charges, with an upgrade to get 6 charges( can be higher numbers, just placeholder).
Make gateways the main production building, warpgates would be a harass tool. You can then buff gateway units, and bring back the templar upgrade to start with 75 energy; if made from gateways.
Could also possible allow immortals to be made from gateways once you have robo support bay or something.
I would also remove abduct, and make so neural can work on 4 supply units maximum. I would then buff broodlords and ultras.
Next step would be making banelings 1 supply (can be made from a larva, or 2 zerglings combined like archons).
Widowmines would need to be nerfed for this to be possible tho, this is the trickier change.
|
I always promote a redesign (radical change) when paramaters doesn t feel hasardous. Why 4 ? why not 5 ? 6 ? why not +7 ? +8 ? +5 ? with upgrade ? If it s a core mecanic, it feel your idea a bit "binary" even with an the help of an upgrade imo. To be sure, just take the example of larva injection, which change has impacted deeply the meta game after HotS. The more and more you re using fixed numbers, the less flexible your game will be.
I super agree also with the Banes / WM which is really necessary (i would like a tag applied on units touched by acid to prevent an over accumulation of damage). Also agree with neural parasite.
|
Bisutopia19027 Posts
Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution.
|
One of the things I was really happy to realize (only 1 month ago) when I came back to LotV, is that Warpgate did get quite a few changes. For example, you have to warp at a pylon connected to WG/Nexus in order to warp in quick to get the max speed, and they made it warp in 5 seconds now and not take double damage which helps deal with Bio drops + Mutas. And if you warp in at a proxy pylon around the map, that it will take much longer, so if you want to do some kind of push you need to tech to Warp Prism first.
What I'm a bit confused about, is that they reworked base Warpgate tech which is great, but Warp Prism still gives them quick access to reinforce just like the old proxy pylons did. Sure, you need a bit more tech now and can't just do a Gateway-only all-in like back then, and you can't warp in units around the map for harass as quickly without a WP. But in a way doesn't this also limit early game pressure PvZ because you need to wait for a WP? And that is a reason why Protoss has trouble pressuring Zerg early now because there's no threat of early Warpgate timings?
Did they have to allow WP to still give Protoss quick frontline warpins because there really is no way to just buff Protoss units instead?
I guess it kind of makes sense, just I was hyped to see Warp was reworked which does address some things, but WP is still needed.
I still feel like giving Guardian Shield 1-2 damage block vs Melee could do wonders and let Protoss walk about more often without worry of losing hard to straight up lings. Targeting Sentries down could be more of a thing. Terran has Hellion/Banshee to go around early on, Protoss have Adepts/Stargate but it's not the same.
|
On August 31 2020 06:00 BisuDagger wrote: Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution.
Talking about more radical changes I'd like to see something which increases the vision around the base for P and T. The creep spread of Z gives so much vision that there is ample time to reach and the player is never really surprised by anything coming in via the front door. Something similar for P and T would decrease the risk of something like a ling runby prematurely ending a whole match (or a finals, as it were).
|
On August 30 2020 21:33 Vision_ wrote:Poll: Do you think warp-gate should :be removed (5) 45% increase cost regarding teleport distance ? (4) 36% revert, i.e increase cooldown regarding teleport distance ? (1) 9% be less effective (1) 9% 11 total votes Your vote: Do you think warp-gate should : (Vote): revert, i.e increase cooldown regarding teleport distance ? (Vote): increase cost regarding teleport distance ? (Vote): be less effective (Vote): be removed
I've always thought warp gate should function similar to the nydus network. You would transform a gateway into a warp gate, load already made units into it, then warp then out onto the map via pylon or prism. Maybe you could transport probes and immortals this way?
|
On August 30 2020 07:20 Snakestyle11 wrote: I have an idea to fix this game:
- Hire a balance team that plays this game at high GM level for years, preferably also played broodwar before too, so they can understand what makes a good RTS meta game. (StarCraft2 has no unit balance anymore, its all about early/mid game economic damage. Units are all about avoiding arrmy and killing workers, sure gives us 50% win ratio, but feels broken). Army vs Army at even economy is super imbalanced right now.
- Undo the last 3 years of changes. Fix the game from there.
No offense meant, I just feel like patch after patch, more gimmicks are added that break the game.
Blizzard doesnt want to invest that kind of budget into this game. They'd have to pay said pro-players much more than they would earn streaming. Given the large gaps between balance patches they'd all have to be free-lancers. Kinda like people who do paid surveys.
|
On August 31 2020 06:00 BisuDagger wrote: Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution.
I think i suggested this weeks ago. But of course it goes un-noticed and then someone with credibility mentions it and it becomes a topic of discussion.
Maybe some people need to be more accepting of ideas regardless of where they're coming from.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On August 31 2020 09:38 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2020 06:00 BisuDagger wrote: Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution. I think i suggested this weeks ago. But of course it goes un-noticed and then someone with credibility mentions it and it becomes a topic of discussion. Maybe some people need to be more accepting of ideas regardless of where they're coming from. Agree, alas this is the way of the world. It’s been quite a popular idea and I’m not sure who first came up with it, but I’ve definitely repeated it and it’s got some positive feedback.
My own ideas less so haha
|
Bisutopia19027 Posts
On August 31 2020 09:38 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2020 06:00 BisuDagger wrote: Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution. I think i suggested this weeks ago. But of course it goes un-noticed and then someone with credibility mentions it and it becomes a topic of discussion. Maybe some people need to be more accepting of ideas regardless of where they're coming from. I have brought this idea up several times over the past few years. Your post didn't get recognition probably because it's been heard before. All I did was find a way to make the suggestion relevant and I even gave you/anyone else with the idea in this thread credit. I'm sure many others thought about or even liked the suggestion, problem is it has been said enough times and doesn't create any good dialogue for debate.
TLDR, keep posting your ideas. Even if they don't create discussions in the thread, they are still appreciated.
|
On August 31 2020 20:40 BisuDagger wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2020 09:38 RandomPlayer416 wrote:On August 31 2020 06:00 BisuDagger wrote: Artosis talked about how Terran can raise buildings to seal walls versus zerg, but protoss can't. I often find that walling from ling runbys in the midgame has been a tough problem to deal with. But in WoL and HoTs protoss could always wall of with a sentry if needed. Ravagers have been a major nerf to the sentry forcefield. So if we are talking about changes in response to what he said, I'd love to see forcefields readdressed in a future patch. Like others said previously in this thread, forcefield HP might be the best solution. I think i suggested this weeks ago. But of course it goes un-noticed and then someone with credibility mentions it and it becomes a topic of discussion. Maybe some people need to be more accepting of ideas regardless of where they're coming from. I have brought this idea up several times over the past few years. Your post didn't get recognition probably because it's been heard before. All I did was find a way to make the suggestion relevant and I even gave you/anyone else with the idea in this thread credit. I'm sure many others thought about or even liked the suggestion, problem is it has been said enough times and doesn't create any good dialogue for debate. TLDR, keep posting your ideas. Even if they don't create discussions in the thread, they are still appreciated.
I dunno. I think the difficulty for Toss to wall off is a legitimate concern. In that sense I prefer the idea of a shield battery being in or out of phase or so. If it's in phase it is solid and can heal. If it's out of phase it can be walked through but won't heal. Switching between the two is instant with no cooldown. Maybe being out of phase it is immune to damage or so too, to maybe create some interesting mechanics such as trying to phase out exactly when biles land but before lings can flood in to take advantage (and obviously if it's overcharged and then phases out, overcharge ends).
However, biles were designed specifically to deal with early walls. While it takes more than one bile to destroy a depot, ravagers are effective against early Terran walls as well. Reverting biles popping force fields seems like a change in the wrong direction too. Zerg need something before Ultra tech to get rid of forcefields, and bile is a good solution.
|
Wow, people are literally whining about ling runby now. I guess I have to wait a bit for the very deep theorycrafting which will come to the brillant conclusion that speed's speedling is inherently op since 2010 (or 1998?)
Anyway Cougar's suggestion looked cool.
|
Even though there are balance problems to address, I still think the biggest problems in SC2 are the gimmicky design features. By the end of the season, when we know they're not making any balance patches anyway because it is too close to the World Championship, I would love to see them have the PTR showcase a version of Sc2 without:
- Offensive Protoss warp-ins (or at least only have slow ones) - BC teleport - Free Zerg units, SH in particular - Nydus host (or at least replaced with something that's only on creep) (and probably a few more that I forget)
It seems to me that these gimmicks, which negate the core principles of RTS gaming (the economy-unit relationship; army positioning; defender's advantage), are what's making the game less entertaining to watch as well as play. They are also gimmicks which make balancing extremely difficult in general. Because the fact that units can be put into completely different situations because of these gimmicks (like suddenly appearing in the opponents main) tilt their balance so much.
Let's try it blizzard!
|
On August 31 2020 21:57 stilt wrote: Wow, people are literally whining about ling runby now. I guess I have to wait a bit for the very deep theorycrafting which will come to the brillant conclusion that speed's speedling is inherently op since 2010 (or 1998?)
Anyway Cougar's suggestion looked cool. I don't see anybody moaning about ling runbys. A ling runby can be stopped by an attentive protoss player and a single sentry. Just like in 2010. Clearly walling off is still fine against runbys. But a solution to wall-off against roach-ravager threats without needing to full wall and later kill your own buildings would be interesting.
|
On August 31 2020 21:57 stilt wrote: Wow, people are literally whining about ling runby now. I guess I have to wait a bit for the very deep theorycrafting which will come to the brillant conclusion that speed's speedling is inherently op since 2010 (or 1998?)
Anyway Cougar's suggestion looked cool. It's not the ling runby that protoss players are frustrated about currently. It's the inability to early scout and be at least kinda safe. The walk-around ling rush strategy Stats and Trap lost to is incredibly difficult to scout correctly since it's identical to standard openers and there are multiple paths the lings can go down (in Trap's case he even scouted for this strategy with his adept but just barely missed the lings) and protoss has to rely on one relatively slow unit to scout it. At the same time, the protoss can't just leave their adept at home and not scout since there are a bunch of different potential builds off this same opener that require vastly different responses. There's this build, there's the ~3:30 speedling flood (several protoss died to this one last GSL), there's ravager busts, baneling busts, or the zerg could just play macro, all off the same looking opener.
The mothership core used to be the solution to this problem. It allowed protoss to scout and play at least somewhat safe at the same time. When they removed it this entire ability to scout and be safe went with it. They added batteries to compensate defensively but they never resolved anything for the other issues the mothership core compensated for. Now not only does protoss not have nearly as good scouting ability but now their entire survival for the first four minutes of the game comes down to keeping the one or two units they get pre-warpgate alive.
I never liked the mothership core but I honestly feel like they need to bring it back or provide some other solution to this issue.
|
some reasonable things i would like to see:
-buff the pylon to at least some of its former SC1 glory -take 50 max energy off queen
fanboy dreams:
-give mothership observer status -4 baneling in an overlord = AA balloon bomb
|
Are we even allowed to share opinions on the void ray changes?
Anytime I comment accurately on the state of TvP I get banned for it.
|
Mexico2169 Posts
I think talking about a big re-design for warpgate is wasting our time.. At this point they are not going to change it. And it isn't that terrible honestly. I think it's a cool feature that makes protoss macro more distinct. The game can work with warpgate.
That being said... there are quite a few interesting ideas here. I really like the Warpgate as a nydus idea you can transform into warpgate and then units can come from there and be teleported to a pylon field, I think that would be an excellent change, for starcraft 3 that is.
Through out sc2 the warpgate suffered the following changes:
-Slow warp-in in pylons far from Nexus and gateways. -No longer you can warp-in on the high ground. -They reduced the pylon radius to make it harder to warp in on the highground. - Increased research time. -Nerfs to chronobust also changed when warpgate comes out.
These changes, while balanced at the time, I think broke Protoss a little bit. Reducing the pylon radius is utterly innecesary now that you can't warp in on the highground. Reverting this change would, imo, improve protoss walls and general base layout. Not that big of a deal though. Removing warpins on the highground was a good change.
However as another poster pointed out, slow warp in completely destroyed a lot of pushes for the protoss. Want to do a gateway push? You can't, you need to wait for prism. Want to do a little push with VR and army? you can't, you need to go robo tech! Want to do some pressure with adepts or blink (no-alllin necessary, just pressure? You cant cause you need to wait for robo. And not only way, but spend on it too.
Slow warp ins are SO BAD comparatively, that no one uses them. This basically removes most protoss agression until prism comes out, giving zerg a lot of piece of mind. What if you could upgrade pylons? You can click on a pylon and transform it into a "higher pylon" that has the fast warpgate tech? The cost and time of research could balance it out a little, while still coming faster than a prism withouth forcing you to go robo?
I think the mothership core also wasnt as terrible as people made it out to be.
Finally I really think they need to revert some warpgate nerfs or nerfs to protoss units in generals. In WoL and HotS Zergs had bad creep spread, overlord speed came way later too. Maps didn't give free vision to the zerg outside every natural base and behind the main. Zergs can scout very well now. I think a lot of the balance in the early days was because if the zerg knew what was coming, they could stop it pretty well (except things like the soul train), but a lot of the time they didn't know, or had incomplete informations.
Now, Protoss early agression is completely gone, and they can know when and what you will atack them 3 minutes before you do. That, alongside zerg being able to take half the map now as Zergs figured out better ways to defend, makes protoss early game and midgame non-existant. Protoss could fight on the lategame, but it is too far economically to do it.
Also the mothership should be a better unit. There no reason why it shouldn't. And there is no reason why it should be able to be pulled by the Viper.
|
On September 01 2020 01:36 Ben... wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2020 21:57 stilt wrote: Wow, people are literally whining about ling runby now. I guess I have to wait a bit for the very deep theorycrafting which will come to the brillant conclusion that speed's speedling is inherently op since 2010 (or 1998?)
Anyway Cougar's suggestion looked cool. It's not the ling runby that protoss players are frustrated about currently. It's the inability to early scout and be at least kinda safe. The walk-around ling rush strategy Stats and Trap lost to is incredibly difficult to scout correctly since it's identical to standard openers and there are multiple paths the lings can go down (in Trap's case he even scouted for this strategy with his adept but just barely missed the lings) and protoss has to rely on one relatively slow unit to scout it. At the same time, the protoss can't just leave their adept at home and not scout since there are a bunch of different potential builds off this same opener that require vastly different responses. There's this build, there's the ~3:30 speedling flood (several protoss died to this one last GSL), there's ravager busts, baneling busts, or the zerg could just play macro, all off the same looking opener. The mothership core used to be the solution to this problem. It allowed protoss to scout and play at least somewhat safe at the same time. When they removed it this entire ability to scout and be safe went with it. They added batteries to compensate defensively but they never resolved anything for the other issues the mothership core compensated for. Now not only does protoss not have nearly as good scouting ability but now their entire survival for the first four minutes of the game comes down to keeping the one or two units they get pre-warpgate alive. I never liked the mothership core but I honestly feel like they need to bring it back or provide some other solution to this issue. Terrans have same problem with removal of cliffs, you cant really scout zerg now, while zerg have like 5 differnt allins you can die to. Tho with terran you can sacrifice 1 scan if you suspect anything.
While with protoss and terran, once you see expand, you know you are safe, but thats not the case with zerg. I feel like something needs to be done about these allins, maybe nerf bane/corrise byle damage against buildings (add an upgrade similar to how cyclone gets double damage)
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On September 01 2020 05:12 [Phantom] wrote: I think talking about a big re-design for warpgate is wasting our time.. At this point they are not going to change it. And it isn't that terrible honestly. I think it's a cool feature that makes protoss macro more distinct. The game can work with warpgate.
That being said... there are quite a few interesting ideas here. I really like the Warpgate as a nydus idea you can transform into warpgate and then units can come from there and be teleported to a pylon field, I think that would be an excellent change, for starcraft 3 that is.
Through out sc2 the warpgate suffered the following changes:
-Slow warp-in in pylons far from Nexus and gateways. -No longer you can warp-in on the high ground. -They reduced the pylon radius to make it harder to warp in on the highground. - Increased research time. -Nerfs to chronobust also changed when warpgate comes out.
These changes, while balanced at the time, I think broke Protoss a little bit. Reducing the pylon radius is utterly innecesary now that you can't warp in on the highground. Reverting this change would, imo, improve protoss walls and general base layout. Not that big of a deal though. Removing warpins on the highground was a good change.
However as another poster pointed out, slow warp in completely destroyed a lot of pushes for the protoss. Want to do a gateway push? You can't, you need to wait for prism. Want to do a little push with VR and army? you can't, you need to go robo tech! Want to do some pressure with adepts or blink (no-alllin necessary, just pressure? You cant cause you need to wait for robo. And not only way, but spend on it too.
Slow warp ins are SO BAD comparatively, that no one uses them. This basically removes most protoss agression until prism comes out, giving zerg a lot of piece of mind. What if you could upgrade pylons? You can click on a pylon and transform it into a "higher pylon" that has the fast warpgate tech? The cost and time of research could balance it out a little, while still coming faster than a prism withouth forcing you to go robo?
I think the mothership core also wasnt as terrible as people made it out to be.
Finally I really think they need to revert some warpgate nerfs or nerfs to protoss units in generals. In WoL and HotS Zergs had bad creep spread, overlord speed came way later too. Maps didn't give free vision to the zerg outside every natural base and behind the main. Zergs can scout very well now. I think a lot of the balance in the early days was because if the zerg knew what was coming, they could stop it pretty well (except things like the soul train), but a lot of the time they didn't know, or had incomplete informations.
Now, Protoss early agression is completely gone, and they can know when and what you will atack them 3 minutes before you do. That, alongside zerg being able to take half the map now as Zergs figured out better ways to defend, makes protoss early game and midgame non-existant. Protoss could fight on the lategame, but it is too far economically to do it.
Also the mothership should be a better unit. There no reason why it shouldn't. And there is no reason why it should be able to be pulled by the Viper.
I like your augmented pylon idea and some of your general thoughts. Sadly I think this would give more of an advantage to Protoss against Terrans where they’re already fine, than being a way to reliably be more aggressive against Zerg in a variety of ways, where it is more needed.
My issue with Warpgate aside from not hugely liking the mechanic due to it making balancing very difficult, is the lack of a tradeoff. Something like gateways producing faster vs warpgates doing slower but with the advantage of fast reinforcement, there’s a decision to be made there.
I mean you said yourself, chronos and warp gate times and high ground warps and all sorts of other things keep getting tweaked because they have to work around WG.
I think it is a pretty cool thing and fits Protoss racial lore and aesthetic. Just having it off the bat and as the core macro mechanic is a nightmare to balance around.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On September 01 2020 05:12 RandomPlayer416 wrote: Are we even allowed to share opinions on the void ray changes?
Anytime I comment accurately on the state of TvP I get banned for it. What are your thoughts?
|
All this started because I compared BW units with SC2 units hahaha.
I personally think warpgate as it is now is fine
I remember someone once posted and idea that normal gateways production speed should be similar/same to BW
But I really like my idea of the Carrier buff, just make it like the BW carrier exactly, cost, build time and stats. Then it can be a proper vialable late game Protoss unit
|
On September 01 2020 07:22 Wombat_NornIron wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 05:12 RandomPlayer416 wrote: Are we even allowed to share opinions on the void ray changes?
Anytime I comment accurately on the state of TvP I get banned for it. What are your thoughts?
Well the match up is just not winnable unless your opponent is 200-300 MMR below you and even then its still in protoss' favour. There is no real time that Terran has a chance to inflict any serious damage that a shield battery and stalkers cant defend against. With the cheap void rays its just another all in that you have to be ready for, another proxy you need to scout for and its all low risk for protoss. Its impossible to scout everything and it often results in playing safe on 2 bases, while protoss gets ahead.
Its just so unfair because as a Terran your strategy is telegraphed well in advance, but as a protoss with warp in, if you see the warp prism in your base or anywhere near it and you're even slightly out of position 95 times out of a 100 the game ends, 4 times they'll get greedy and lose the prism and you might be able to counter attack and the 1 time it wont work is when they don't attempt to warp prism harass you in which case they're bad and dont deserve to win.
I play all race's so hopefully I don't get banned for stating my opinion from my experiences playing both races. Its a real shame that I have resorted to insta-quitting every single TvP game that I get.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On September 01 2020 08:26 AssyrianKing wrote: All this started because I compared BW units with SC2 units hahaha.
I personally think warpgate as it is now is fine
I remember someone once posted and idea that normal gateways production speed should be similar/same to BW
But I really like my idea of the Carrier buff, just make it like the BW carrier exactly, cost, build time and stats. Then it can be a proper vialable late game Protoss unit Carriers suck though in SC2, always have :p I tend to think they always will just given how SC2 works, although I wish they didn’t.
BW they’re cool and scary because they’re not coming out in a game where you can max out in sub 10 minutes, without restrictions on control groups etc. They’re very microable too. There’s a Carrier/Goliath dance made possible with using the leash range micro and cliffs vs trying to abuse the terrain and vision.
SC2 there’s some cool games involving them but they’re usually scrappy affairs with low unit counts. As things scale up there’s not much to do with Carriers apart from A-moving a big air blob, which isn’t terrible fun to do nor observe. There’s a lot more interesting unit engagement stuff when the ground terrain is actually a factor.
I’d like capital ships to be cooler, where one or two controlled well can impact a battle but it tends towards air blobs given how fast SC2’s economy explodes.
|
To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous
|
I think I'd be down for a sweet carrier buff and then capping the number you can have to 4 or something.
|
slight offtopic: any reports on what 3v3 4v4 random teams look like these days? can of worms status: open.
|
On September 01 2020 17:00 fLyiNgDroNe wrote:slight offtopic: any reports on what 3v3 4v4 random teams look like these days? can of worms status: open.
Either proxy All-ins and game ends sub 5:00 or super late game with Carrier, BC/ Thor, Corrupter + Viper
Rarely back and forth mid game clashes
|
On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous
What does "sort of alright" even mean?
I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them.
|
On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them.
Future beat Parting in this weeks ESL weekly NA Dunno if anyone casted it.
|
On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them. Terran beats Protoss all the time, you hyperbolic balance whiner. You can google vods yourself. I suggest some Clem from this DH fall.
|
On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them. Looking at the balance report from Aligulac, Protoss is doing worse vs Terran this month compared to last month. We must take into consideration that the patch came live just after the middle of the month, but that shouldn't matter too much. If PvT is worse this month, when a third the month has had "OP Protoss", then the first 2/3 should have been horribly awful for Protoss. Why would August be worse than July? The only difference between them is that Protoss got "buffed" into losing more often. I think that I need to clarify that PvT is slightly in Protoss favour (53.4/46.6) and it is too early for statistics to paint a just picture.
Addendum: when looking at individual, recent results I had trouble finding games that had winning Terrans on a higher level. Must have started looking in the wrong places.
To watch games where Terran won vs Protoss, I give you the GSL qualifiers. Games:+ Show Spoiler +PartinG vs Bunny at 17 minutes INnoVation vs Chance at 8 hours and 18 minutes Results: + Show Spoiler +2-0 for the Terrans in both matches
|
On September 02 2020 16:04 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them. Looking at the balance report from Aligulac, Protoss is doing worse vs Terran this month compared to last month. We must take into consideration that the patch came live just after the middle of the month, but that shouldn't matter too much. If PvT is worse this month, when a third the month has had "OP Protoss", then the first 2/3 should have been horribly awful for Protoss. Why would August be worse than July? The only difference between them is that Protoss got "buffed" into losing more often. I think that I need to clarify that PvT is slightly in Protoss favour (53.4/46.6) and it is too early for statistics to paint a just picture. Addendum: when looking at individual, recent results I had trouble finding games that had winning Terrans on a higher level. Must have started looking in the wrong places. To watch games where Terran won vs Protoss, I give you the GSL qualifiers. Games: + Show Spoiler +PartinG vs Bunny at 17 minutes INnoVation vs Chance at 8 hours and 18 minutes Results: + Show Spoiler +2-0 for the Terrans in both matches
Of course Terran beats Protoss all the time, and often very convincingly. Clem has great TvP and often uses his multitasking to utterly destroy his opponents.
Balance discussions tend to be triggered when fan favourites lose at the highest level of play looking completely helpless against certain compositions and playstyles. IMO that was the case last GSL.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S
Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals).
|
On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Maybe Taeja should take some tips from his foreigner teammates. uThermal's Voidray defense looked better than that bunker on the low ground nonsense, and Clem in general seems to be very good against Protoss (although I don't have a clue how good he'd be against Zest or Creator).
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 02 2020 23:32 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Maybe Taeja should take some tips from his foreigner teammates. uThermal's Voidray defense looked better than that bunker on the low ground nonsense, and Clem in general seems to be very good against Protoss (although I don't have a clue how good he'd be against Zest or Creator). Taeja wouldn't stand a chance against Zest unless the Artosis curse would group up with the rematch curse so no big harm done. But then I see people writing that the Protoss players don't stand a chance when 2 Terrans got kicked with 0:4 in TvP out of the code S and another Protoss won the regional server tourney while another Protoss won regional DH tourney.
I can see how Taeja can lose to Zest even with Terran stronk, but to Creator? Special to Neeb? And the cherry on the top - Stats leads over Innovation in the ITaX Super Series on the right.
From what I saw it doesn't seem that Terran is as OP as people are writing here.
|
Well it shouldn't really be surprising that Terran at the highest level isn't having the best of times in TvP anymore post the addition of battery overcharge. It's given Protoss a tool to tighten up their early and mid-game defenses to a more stable spot while they've also come up with a late game style that works consistently (and is disgustingly frustrating to play against).
I don't think it's bad enough to address with a patch at this point especially since knee-jerk changing Protoss would probably ruin all (however minimal) progress on the PvZ front. I'd say a change of map pool could already have an effect, but the ladder season still goes for another month so no luck there.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
Spoilers much?
|
GSL spoilers: + Show Spoiler +Those PvZs were soul crushing. Game two of Dark versus Creator was yet another example of what I mentioned in my last post. In the live thread people pointed out Creator delayed his warp gate 12 seconds to get early tech but that misses the point. PvZ's first 5 minutes is now balanced so sharply on a knife-edge that anything less than perfect timing and doing the exact right build and tactics at the right time without being able to know when to do so can end with protoss dead. Creator did the most defensive version of the standard opening. He didn't even send out his adept to scout and he still lost his core and Dark still was able to break down nearly the whole wall. Even with an additional zealot or two from warp gate he would have at best just barely held on and it would have been an even game despite Dark doing what should have been a committed all-in. When the game ended, Dark had three hatcheries and could at any point easily could have transitioned into a macro game.
Not that the other games looked much better. You can say "but it's Dark", but that doesn't discount that the extreme majority of PvZs look like this now. Protoss tries to kill workers and anything less than killing a crippling number of workers usually results in an even game or zerg somehow ahead. Dark wasn't even trying to be cost efficient in some of those games but his production advantage was such that it didn't matter. Against both Zest and Creator, Dark threw away tons of units to disruptors and took what were clearly unfavourable fights (game one of Dark vs. Zest comes to mind. Dark attacked into an obvious concave and lost most of his army) but still won because the protoss players could not match production.
Now that pro zergs have remembered that macro hatches exist again, the disparity in production in PvZ is only going to get worse.
Unless the map pool changes drastically, I just don't see how this matchup is going to be fixed without significant changes to the early game.
|
On September 02 2020 15:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them. Terran beats Protoss all the time, you hyperbolic balance whiner. You can google vods yourself. I suggest some Clem from this DH fall.
Clem is one of the top players, of course he will be able to beat players who are not on his level.
GSL Last night
+ Show Spoiler + Taeja got man-handled by creator. The guy who looked completely helpless vs dark in his match. Taeja scouted the proxy void ray and built a bunker beside it and STILL wasn't able to stop it. Game 1 he lost because of a proxy gateway adept preventing him from getting the orbital to have the scan he would of needed for DTs.
Everything I spoke about in my posts were on display in the GSL. Yet you attack me and call me a balance whiner because I am discussing what the game is displaying??? You realize I play RANDOM?? MY name is LITERALLY RANDOMPLAYER. God help you.
|
On September 03 2020 03:17 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 15:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 02 2020 11:41 RandomPlayer416 wrote:On September 01 2020 12:44 AssyrianKing wrote: To be honest, TvP is sort of alright from a Terran players perspective
And the only reason I thought of the carrier buff to its BW state is because the Battlecruiser is pretty much identical in stats (besides the jump ability), just do a small test patch and see if it's too overpowered or not
Finally, in aware of how quick people max out now. It was already quick when we had a 6 worker start, and the 12 worker start has just made it ridiculous What does "sort of alright" even mean? I'm genuinely curious what level you play at and why you think this match up is sort of almost fair. Further more if you can find any vods of Terran beating Protoss I'd be interested to see them. Terran beats Protoss all the time, you hyperbolic balance whiner. You can google vods yourself. I suggest some Clem from this DH fall. Clem is one of the top players, of course he will be able to beat players who are not on his level. GSL Last night + Show Spoiler + Taeja got man-handled by creator. The guy who looked completely helpless vs dark in his match. Taeja scouted the proxy void ray and built a bunker beside it and STILL wasn't able to stop it. Game 1 he lost because of a proxy gateway adept preventing him from getting the orbital to have the scan he would of needed for DTs.
Everything I spoke about in my posts were on display in the GSL. Yet you attack me and call me a balance whiner because I am discussing what the game is displaying??? You realize I play RANDOM?? MY name is LITERALLY RANDOMPLAYER. God help you.
No, I'm calling you a hyperbolic balance whiner because you're complaining that terran cannot ever win, which is very obviously false.
If Clem winning is too much for you, you can look at Arctur beating Drogo, although I am not sure where to find the VODs of that.
I'm not even trying to argue that terran are in a good spot vs toss, just that your hyperbole is ridiculous. Blink DTs are just really really really really dumb.
As for Taeja, losing to a proxy void ray he scouted is 90% on him. He clearly hasn't played against it enough and reacted badly. The 10% is for Creator reacting well to Taeja scouting it and trying to take down the pylon before it could get off the ground. Creator dropping a shield battery and a second pylon was a great response, and broke Taeja's counter. Taeja didn't adapt and his base was entirely open. If he had reacted with a factory and a cyclone, he would have been fine.
I wouldn't take getting trashed by Dark as a signal of anything other than that Dark is very good.
|
On September 03 2020 04:18 Acrofales wrote:
No, I'm calling you a hyperbolic balance whiner because you're complaining that terran cannot ever win, which is very obviously false.
If Clem winning is too much for you, you can look at Arctur beating Drogo, although I am not sure where to find the VODs of that.
I'm not even trying to argue that terran are in a good spot vs toss, just that your hyperbole is ridiculous. Blink DTs are just really really really really dumb.
As for Taeja, losing to a proxy void ray he scouted is 90% on him. He clearly hasn't played against it enough and reacted badly. The 10% is for Creator reacting well to Taeja scouting it and trying to take down the pylon before it could get off the ground. Creator dropping a shield battery and a second pylon was a great response, and broke Taeja's counter. Taeja didn't adapt and his base was entirely open. If he had reacted with a factory and a cyclone, he would have been fine.
I wouldn't take getting trashed by Dark as a signal of anything other than that Dark is very good.
So creator goes from being described as one of the weakest players to make the RO24 by artosis and tasteless then proceeds to literally steam roll Taeja no problem at all by doing no-risk proxy builds.
All you've proven is your ability to nit-pick at the wording I have used. Would it make you feel better if I said "The off chance the Terran player is on another level compared to his or her opponent is the only real chance Terran has at winning vs a protoss player barring some drastic, unforseen error on account of the protoss player."
Doesn't really matter I guess. At the end of the day the game is in blizzards hands and I don't have a great deal of faith in them to figure things out or get changes right.
|
On September 03 2020 04:40 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 04:18 Acrofales wrote:
No, I'm calling you a hyperbolic balance whiner because you're complaining that terran cannot ever win, which is very obviously false.
If Clem winning is too much for you, you can look at Arctur beating Drogo, although I am not sure where to find the VODs of that.
I'm not even trying to argue that terran are in a good spot vs toss, just that your hyperbole is ridiculous. Blink DTs are just really really really really dumb.
As for Taeja, losing to a proxy void ray he scouted is 90% on him. He clearly hasn't played against it enough and reacted badly. The 10% is for Creator reacting well to Taeja scouting it and trying to take down the pylon before it could get off the ground. Creator dropping a shield battery and a second pylon was a great response, and broke Taeja's counter. Taeja didn't adapt and his base was entirely open. If he had reacted with a factory and a cyclone, he would have been fine.
I wouldn't take getting trashed by Dark as a signal of anything other than that Dark is very good. So creator goes from being described as one of the weakest players to make the RO24 by artosis and tasteless then proceeds to literally steam roll Taeja no problem at all by doing no-risk proxy builds. All you've proven is your ability to nit-pick at the wording I have used. Would it make you feel better if I said "The off chance the Terran player is on another level compared to his or her opponent is the only real chance Terran has at winning vs a protoss player barring some drastic, unforseen error on account of the protoss player." Doesn't really matter I guess. At the end of the day the game is in blizzards hands and I don't have a great deal of faith in them to figure things out or get changes right. Taeja has looked consistently terrible in TvP since his return. What Creator did was extremely high risk, but he executed it well and Taeja didn't execute his defense. If you want to complain about balance, watch any PvZ this season.
|
On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals).
I forgot every single time a pro wins it's because of balance.
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On September 03 2020 04:40 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 04:18 Acrofales wrote:
No, I'm calling you a hyperbolic balance whiner because you're complaining that terran cannot ever win, which is very obviously false.
If Clem winning is too much for you, you can look at Arctur beating Drogo, although I am not sure where to find the VODs of that.
I'm not even trying to argue that terran are in a good spot vs toss, just that your hyperbole is ridiculous. Blink DTs are just really really really really dumb.
As for Taeja, losing to a proxy void ray he scouted is 90% on him. He clearly hasn't played against it enough and reacted badly. The 10% is for Creator reacting well to Taeja scouting it and trying to take down the pylon before it could get off the ground. Creator dropping a shield battery and a second pylon was a great response, and broke Taeja's counter. Taeja didn't adapt and his base was entirely open. If he had reacted with a factory and a cyclone, he would have been fine.
I wouldn't take getting trashed by Dark as a signal of anything other than that Dark is very good. So creator goes from being described as one of the weakest players to make the RO24 by artosis and tasteless then proceeds to literally steam roll Taeja no problem at all by doing no-risk proxy builds. All you've proven is your ability to nit-pick at the wording I have used. Would it make you feel better if I said "The off chance the Terran player is on another level compared to his or her opponent is the only real chance Terran has at winning vs a protoss player barring some drastic, unforseen error on account of the protoss player." Doesn't really matter I guess. At the end of the day the game is in blizzards hands and I don't have a great deal of faith in them to figure things out or get changes right. TaeJa’s all-time Code S TvP was 17-41 (29.3%) even before today’s matches and including times where he was clearly a stronger player than he is nowadays.
Clem winning doesn’t count because he’s an outlier in skill, TaeJa losing in a matchup he’s historically bad at at Code S level is indicative of imbalance?
As was said before TaeJa didn’t respond well either which didn’t help. Although for the record I was against buffing voids partly for this reason.
Creator probably was one of the weaker players sure, still a good player. him and TaeJa’s shape is probably quite close these days, if TaeJa maybe shades it. Whatever gap there is between those two is certainly narrower than the gap between Trap and Spear, and of the 3 Terrans eliminated so far Special didn’t even have to play a Protoss.
Yes you play random, but maybe you just suck at TvP, probably not helped by you leaving if you roll that matchup. Doesn’t make you unbiased by any stretch, everyone has their biases.
Not meant to be insulting, it’s hard to be good at so many different matchups with different demands. For the record as a Protoss/Terran player my best matchups have always been PvT and TvP. My best race is Protoss and my best matchup since WoL has always been PvT (55-70%), worst matchup by a distance has also always been PvZ (30-40%), although I was decent at TvZ.
Now I do think PvZ is kind of horrible too, but me sucking at it is entirely down to not having the killer instinct to hit good timings.
|
On September 03 2020 07:34 Wombat_NornIron wrote:
TaeJa’s all-time Code S TvP was 17-41 (29.3%) even before today’s matches and including times where he was clearly a stronger player than he is nowadays.
Clem winning doesn’t count because he’s an outlier in skill, TaeJa losing in a matchup he’s historically bad at at Code S level is indicative of imbalance?
As was said before TaeJa didn’t respond well either which didn’t help. Although for the record I was against buffing voids partly for this reason.
Creator probably was one of the weaker players sure, still a good player. him and TaeJa’s shape is probably quite close these days, if TaeJa maybe shades it. Whatever gap there is between those two is certainly narrower than the gap between Trap and Spear, and of the 3 Terrans eliminated so far Special didn’t even have to play a Protoss.
Yes you play random, but maybe you just suck at TvP, probably not helped by you leaving if you roll that matchup. Doesn’t make you unbiased by any stretch, everyone has their biases.
Not meant to be insulting, it’s hard to be good at so many different matchups with different demands. For the record as a Protoss/Terran player my best matchups have always been PvT and TvP. My best race is Protoss and my best matchup since WoL has always been PvT (55-70%), worst matchup by a distance has also always been PvZ (30-40%), although I was decent at TvZ.
Now I do think PvZ is kind of horrible too, but me sucking at it is entirely down to not having the killer instinct to hit good timings.
Being bad at a matchup doesn't mean my points are invalid. I've yet to see anyone suggest a way Terran can get ahead, just the classic "youre bad at the game" trolling.
All I'm saying is youre constantly playing from behind, of course you can outplay your opponent but given the way ladder works, what are the chances of that happening?
I figured out a way to deal with TvP, just insta-quit and report my opponent for cheating so it wont match us again. Since no one will listen and only care about the friggin aligulac or whatever, just gonna do my part in bringing the win % down.
|
On September 03 2020 08:19 RandomPlayer416 wrote: I figured out a way to deal with TvP, just insta-quit and report my opponent for cheating so it wont match us again. Since no one will listen and only care about the friggin aligulac or whatever, just gonna do my part in bringing the win % down. "It's strange how people think actual statistics are more important than my personal experiences" is not an argument, and "I suffer so much I have to falsely report my opponents" is worse. As for actual balance in TvP, I don't think someone massively outmatched (Spear) and someone particularly terrible at the matchup (Taeja) have a lot to tell us. Not saying it's perfectly balanced or anything, but it looks a lot more winnable than PvZ.
|
On September 03 2020 08:19 RandomPlayer416 wrote: I figured out a way to deal with TvP, just insta-quit and report my opponent for cheating so it wont match us again. Since no one will listen and only care about the friggin aligulac or whatever, just gonna do my part in bringing the win % down.
If you actually you do that, it's a really shitty thing to do. Abusing the system and making people possibly have to investigate the players for cheating is extremely selfish just because you don't like the matchup. I hope you're joking.
|
On September 03 2020 08:19 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 07:34 Wombat_NornIron wrote:
TaeJa’s all-time Code S TvP was 17-41 (29.3%) even before today’s matches and including times where he was clearly a stronger player than he is nowadays.
Clem winning doesn’t count because he’s an outlier in skill, TaeJa losing in a matchup he’s historically bad at at Code S level is indicative of imbalance?
As was said before TaeJa didn’t respond well either which didn’t help. Although for the record I was against buffing voids partly for this reason.
Creator probably was one of the weaker players sure, still a good player. him and TaeJa’s shape is probably quite close these days, if TaeJa maybe shades it. Whatever gap there is between those two is certainly narrower than the gap between Trap and Spear, and of the 3 Terrans eliminated so far Special didn’t even have to play a Protoss.
Yes you play random, but maybe you just suck at TvP, probably not helped by you leaving if you roll that matchup. Doesn’t make you unbiased by any stretch, everyone has their biases.
Not meant to be insulting, it’s hard to be good at so many different matchups with different demands. For the record as a Protoss/Terran player my best matchups have always been PvT and TvP. My best race is Protoss and my best matchup since WoL has always been PvT (55-70%), worst matchup by a distance has also always been PvZ (30-40%), although I was decent at TvZ.
Now I do think PvZ is kind of horrible too, but me sucking at it is entirely down to not having the killer instinct to hit good timings.
Being bad at a matchup doesn't mean my points are invalid. I've yet to see anyone suggest a way Terran can get ahead, just the classic "youre bad at the game" trolling. All I'm saying is youre constantly playing from behind, of course you can outplay your opponent but given the way ladder works, what are the chances of that happening? I figured out a way to deal with TvP, just insta-quit and report my opponent for cheating so it wont match us again. Since no one will listen and only care about the friggin aligulac or whatever, just gonna do my part in bringing the win % down.
dude you are bad at TvP and you are a cunt just git gud
check like every other TvP and see the 4 hellion drop getting 10+ probe kills you can proxy the starport and even if that is scouted/killed, you can build the medivacs at home and follow it up with a 2 mine drop into the other side of their base
at >your< level tosses can't use disruptors but you can land the whole screen wide EMP on them easily then you just stim and a-move terran easy race
stop rewatching A*ilo vods
User was warned for this post
|
On September 03 2020 12:48 bela.mervado wrote:
dude you are bad at TvP and you are a cunt just git gud
check like every other TvP and see the 4 hellion drop getting 10+ probe kills you can proxy the starport and even if that is scouted/killed, you can build the medivacs at home and follow it up with a 2 mine drop into the other side of their base
at >your< level tosses can't use disruptors but you can land the whole screen wide EMP on them easily then you just stim and a-move terran easy race
stop rewatching A*ilo vods
LOL this is what you get every single time. I bet this guy is in gold league.
"whole screen emp" "just stim and a-move" "cunt" "git gud"
Even if a hellion drop is fortunate enough to get "10+ probes" which they never do *at my level*, the protoss player is STILL ahead on probes and your drop is basically a trade. Did you ever think that if EVERY player does a 4 hellion drop that by now even the most brain dead protoss player knows the timing and when to expect it and how to handle it??
There is literally nothing to be said to people like you, you're incapable of having a discussion and just throw out insults when someone says something you dont like.
|
oops! i value my TL account much more than that
<3 much love
|
On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals).
I hope you are not serious!
Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here
I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts
|
I was checking out the SC2 Blizzard Forums.... Never again
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special?
Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help!
Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously.
|
On September 03 2020 18:51 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special? Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help! Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously. I can't tell what you are trying to argue. Are you saying TvP is okay or TvP is protoss-favoured? I don't see anyone arguing that protoss is struggling in PvT so I presume you arguing TvP is difficult for terran. Regardless, you're cherry-picking statistics. Neeb beat Special in the ESL Open, but it was played on the Americas server with Special still in Korea. Moreover, the other semi-final saw Future beat Parting.
You mentioned the most recent ESL Open for the Americas server but not for the European server which had a TvT final and TvP finished 6-2 in matches.
DH Fall has Europe TvP at 13-8 but America TvP at 5-11.
And while 3 terrans have been knocked out of Code S, one of them (Special) never played against a protoss. Special was beaten by Solar and Spear. Spear was beaten 2-0 by Trap twice but I don't consider that too surprising.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 03 2020 19:14 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 18:51 deacon.frost wrote:On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S
Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special? Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help! Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously. I can't tell what you are trying to argue. Are you saying TvP is okay or TvP is protoss-favoured? I don't see anyone arguing that protoss is struggling in PvT so I presume you arguing TvP is difficult for terran. Regardless, you're cherry-picking statistics. Neeb beat Special in the ESL Open, but it was played on the Americas server with Special still in Korea. Moreover, the other semi-final saw Future beat Parting. You mentioned the most recent ESL Open for the Americas server but not for the European server which had a TvT final and TvP finished 6-2 in matches. DH Fall has Europe TvP at 13-8 but America TvP at 5-11. And while 3 terrans have been knocked out of Code S, one of them (Special) never played against a protoss. Special was beaten by Solar and Spear. Spear was beaten 2-0 by Trap twice but I don't consider that too surprising. I'm arguing that Terran is OP and that Protoss doesn't stand a chance in PvT? Look at the beginning of the thread? Check the greenish quote(at least I hope it will be green)
Edit> I mean the quote thread, begins with "Terran beats Protoss all the time"
Edit 2> Sure, result-wise Trap beating Spear isn't surprising. But people in this thread are saying that Terran is so OP that Terran beats Protoss all the time. Which is not true. Even with Terran being so OP Trap demolished Spear. Shouldn't the OPness of Terran give Spear at least a chance to beat Trap? And it didn't look so, so either Terran isn't this strong, or Spear didn't get the memo.
|
On September 03 2020 18:51 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special? Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help! Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously.
I'd consider Neeb the favorite vs Special. Yes Neeb was slumping, but so is Special IMO ( recent source: Dreamhack LATAM, where he barely, won coming from the LB. In GSL he was pretty bad, too)
Neither Taeja nor Creator was supposed to advance in that group. Taeja played horrible vs Creator
None of these indicate any kind of imbalance IMHO
Now if Nightmare, Hurricane, Zoun and to some degree Patience advance, we may have something to talk about
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 03 2020 19:19 Harris1st wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 18:51 deacon.frost wrote:On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special? Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help! Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously. I'd consider Neeb the favorite vs Special. Yes Neeb was slumping, but so is Special IMO ( recent source: Dreamhack LATAM, where he barely, won coming from the LB. In GSL he was pretty bad, too) Neither Taeja nor Creator was supposed to advance in that group. Taeja played horrible vs Creator None of these indicate any kind of imbalance IMHO Now if Nightmare, Hurricane, Zoun and to some degree Patience advance, we may have something to talk about look up at the edit #2. If Terran is so stronk it should give the players at least some advantage. Not saying winning advantage but at least some. Didn't happen to Spear nor Taeja nor Special. That are 3 Terrans already.
aaand another edit> Innovation lost to Stats 1-3. Is Inno slumping as well? C'mon. Also lost to Parting 2-5. Terran beats Protoss all the time. Except when you're Innovation and you play Stats or Parting (didn't saw the games, just checked Inno's page on the aligulac)
|
Northern Ireland20680 Posts
On September 03 2020 13:30 RandomPlayer416 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 12:48 bela.mervado wrote:
dude you are bad at TvP and you are a cunt just git gud
check like every other TvP and see the 4 hellion drop getting 10+ probe kills you can proxy the starport and even if that is scouted/killed, you can build the medivacs at home and follow it up with a 2 mine drop into the other side of their base
at >your< level tosses can't use disruptors but you can land the whole screen wide EMP on them easily then you just stim and a-move terran easy race
stop rewatching A*ilo vods
LOL this is what you get every single time. I bet this guy is in gold league. "whole screen emp" "just stim and a-move" "cunt" "git gud" Even if a hellion drop is fortunate enough to get "10+ probes" which they never do *at my level*, the protoss player is STILL ahead on probes and your drop is basically a trade. Did you ever think that if EVERY player does a 4 hellion drop that by now even the most brain dead protoss player knows the timing and when to expect it and how to handle it?? There is literally nothing to be said to people like you, you're incapable of having a discussion and just throw out insults when someone says something you dont like. What exactly do you expect to get if you say a matchup is unwinnable against evidence to the contrary and that you leave every TvP match and report your opponents?
|
On September 03 2020 19:21 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 19:19 Harris1st wrote:On September 03 2020 18:51 deacon.frost wrote:On September 03 2020 16:32 Harris1st wrote:On September 02 2020 23:25 deacon.frost wrote:Terran beats Protoss all the time Somebody send this to the 3 Terrans who just got knocked out of the Code S Edit> And not to mention the ESL Open where Neeb won over 2 T(semi & finals). I hope you are not serious! Neeb won the games where he was the favorite, like he should have. Nothing to do with balance here GSL Terrans lost the games where they were underdogs, like they should have. Nothing to do with balance here I really can't tell since you clown face every single one of your posts Taeja v Creator - Taeja was the underdog? AGAINST CREATOR? Special v Neeb - Special was the underdog? Seriously? Are we both talking about THE Special? Hey, Terrans are destroying Protoss players everywhere and if they're not that's because it doesn't fit our purpose they're underdogs so much even the OPness of Terran didn't help! Edit> Creator was supposed to be the weakest player of the RO24 and he outplayed Taeja in a MU which was supposed to be against Protoss. Seriously. I'd consider Neeb the favorite vs Special. Yes Neeb was slumping, but so is Special IMO ( recent source: Dreamhack LATAM, where he barely, won coming from the LB. In GSL he was pretty bad, too) Neither Taeja nor Creator was supposed to advance in that group. Taeja played horrible vs Creator None of these indicate any kind of imbalance IMHO Now if Nightmare, Hurricane, Zoun and to some degree Patience advance, we may have something to talk about look up at the edit #2. If Terran is so stronk it should give the players at least some advantage. Not saying winning advantage but at least some. Didn't happen to Spear nor Taeja nor Special. That are 3 Terrans already. aaand another edit> Innovation lost to Stats 1-3. Is Inno slumping as well? C'mon. Also lost to Parting 2-5. Terran beats Protoss all the time. Except when you're Innovation and you play Stats or Parting (didn't saw the games, just checked Inno's page on the aligulac)
At this point I'm pretty sure TvP is balanced.
We have multiple Terrans whining here that Toss OP and we have multiple Protoss whining Terran OP. That leaves me with the only conclussion: Nerf Zerg
|
As a Zerg player it's kind of unenjoyable to see Terran in such a weak state at the moment, this isn't too unexpected considering Protoss has been receiving quite a few minor buffs while Zerg is suffering from a few minor nerfs, but for Zerg to be nerfed and TvZ to still be so in Zerg's favor is really a testament to the problem.
Probably time to lay on the buffs for Terran, I wouldn't mind the balance team revisiting things like merging vehicle/aerial weapons and armor again to maybe open up some more synergy between the compositions. Something kind of on the small side wouldn't hurt, and if that doesn't push the win rates up, something small again.
Balance is close but now we are bearing the full brunt of the games economy and macro mechanics coming back to haunt us. Things like MULE, Inject and Warp Gate have fundamentally made balance a serious challenge, and with the faster economy start has only exasperated the issue.
Personally I wouldn't mind a more global change like reverting the starting worker count to 10. It's been made clearly obvious that Zerg benefits the most heavily, since that change is huge and probably won't happen, lets focus on some cost/numbers/upgrade buffs for Terran, lets focus on things that can be done.
|
NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol.
If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps.
|
I think the following changes would be good for the game. 1. Increase cannon build time by 5 seconds. Cannon rushing is not OP but it is an awful experience to play against for normal players. This will improve the life of ladder players without having much impact on pro level. 2. Maybe decree tank build time by 5 seconds? It would make Terran slightly better in the midgame which means Zerg and Protoss can not rush into the late game.
|
On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. Your link to balance says that the game is more balanced now compared to the average throughout SC2 history. It kind of negates your narrative. Add to that your comment of buffing underused units. That is something that the balance team has been doing continuously. Most recent was the void ray. We've had tweaks to reapers, ultralisk, carriers, battlecruisers, hydralisks. + Show Spoiler +Notice how every race has had changes to underused units? More unit comps are viable now than almost all of SC2. More different units are used than ever before, incorporated in games with different "standard" compositions.
|
Watching TY play TvP tonight on stream was just really sad, he was so confused and angry smashing his keyboard, nothing he tried worked, and he just kept losing to Protoss... Lategame, earlygame and midgame, he could not take a single game of protoss when I watched tonight. He might be bad at TvP I don't know, but it was so sad to watch. After a while he switched to playing Zerg instead of Terran, so then I stopped watching.
Sad how frustrated Pro Terran players are with TvP, but I guess thats how it has to be since it's all ballanced according to you guys. I for one do not enjoy the state of the game right now. Glhf.
|
On September 04 2020 01:00 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. Your link to balance says that the game is more balanced now compared to the average throughout SC2 history. It kind of negates your narrative. Add to that your comment of buffing underused units. That is something that the balance team has been doing continuously. Most recent was the void ray. We've had tweaks to reapers, ultralisk, carriers, battlecruisers, hydralisks. + Show Spoiler +Notice how every race has had changes to underused units? More unit comps are viable now than almost all of SC2. More different units are used than ever before, incorporated in games with different "standard" compositions.
guess you didnt get the irony i put in my post. Obviously the game is in a really good state right now and blizz is basically going in the right direction of buffing underused units. we got PvZ and TvZ as close to 50% as it gets with TvP slightly going a bit too far in P favor. but overall its awesome to see, never have we had such a long balanced time with so many different strats possible.
if blizz keeps going (there are still 2-3 units/upgrades per race that need some love) sc2 keeps staying awesome :-)
|
Another thing I noticed, when a ravager shoots a Bike, even if there are two forcefields on top of each other, they Bile shoots both of them down?
|
On September 04 2020 10:24 AssyrianKing wrote: Another thing I noticed, when a ravager shoots a Bike, even if there are two forcefields on top of each other, they Bile shoots both of them down? Bile acts as a massive unit. If a forcefield is touched by a massive unit it dissipates.
|
Ok I'm korean and ive been translating brood war/sc2 content for fun for while. You can check my post history. I do some stuff as snows youtube translation now.
https://streamable.com/02tkjo
Parting says this in this clip exactly. I haven't looked at other part.
Honestly, I think PvT ballance will be bit ruined. Well....tsk....I believe that protoss will be advantageous in both early and mid game. As the game goes on to late game, protoss is better so... Terran players will try to end before this happens in early game. Since terran players know this, they will try to end it early-mid game.
|
On September 03 2020 23:41 Beelzebub1 wrote: As a Zerg player it's kind of unenjoyable to see Terran in such a weak state at the moment, this isn't too unexpected considering Protoss has been receiving quite a few minor buffs while Zerg is suffering from a few minor nerfs, but for Zerg to be nerfed and TvZ to still be so in Zerg's favor is really a testament to the problem.
Probably time to lay on the buffs for Terran, I wouldn't mind the balance team revisiting things like merging vehicle/aerial weapons and armor again to maybe open up some more synergy between the compositions. Something kind of on the small side wouldn't hurt, and if that doesn't push the win rates up, something small again.
Balance is close but now we are bearing the full brunt of the games economy and macro mechanics coming back to haunt us. Things like MULE, Inject and Warp Gate have fundamentally made balance a serious challenge, and with the faster economy start has only exasperated the issue.
Personally I wouldn't mind a more global change like reverting the starting worker count to 10. It's been made clearly obvious that Zerg benefits the most heavily, since that change is huge and probably won't happen, lets focus on some cost/numbers/upgrade buffs for Terran, lets focus on things that can be done.
Yeah this is the key
Don t forget the change of the number of larva by injection (4 to 3)... I enjoy your comments cause it s very near from my opinion and i haven t enought ease to read every comments here and explain clearly how the game drastically change since the start of LotV
|
On September 05 2020 01:43 Vision_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 23:41 Beelzebub1 wrote: As a Zerg player it's kind of unenjoyable to see Terran in such a weak state at the moment, this isn't too unexpected considering Protoss has been receiving quite a few minor buffs while Zerg is suffering from a few minor nerfs, but for Zerg to be nerfed and TvZ to still be so in Zerg's favor is really a testament to the problem.
Probably time to lay on the buffs for Terran, I wouldn't mind the balance team revisiting things like merging vehicle/aerial weapons and armor again to maybe open up some more synergy between the compositions. Something kind of on the small side wouldn't hurt, and if that doesn't push the win rates up, something small again.
Balance is close but now we are bearing the full brunt of the games economy and macro mechanics coming back to haunt us. Things like MULE, Inject and Warp Gate have fundamentally made balance a serious challenge, and with the faster economy start has only exasperated the issue.
Personally I wouldn't mind a more global change like reverting the starting worker count to 10. It's been made clearly obvious that Zerg benefits the most heavily, since that change is huge and probably won't happen, lets focus on some cost/numbers/upgrade buffs for Terran, lets focus on things that can be done. Yeah this is the key Don t forget the change of the number of larva by injection (4 to 3)... I enjoy your comments cause it s very near from my opinion and i haven t enought ease to read every comments here and explain clearly how the game drastically change since the start of LotV What about the change from 4 larvae to 3 larvae per inject? I remember the change, but why does it matter here? It doesn't fall under the recent changes, so it isn't part of the first paragraph of Beelzebub1. A reversal of this change would be a buff to Zerg, so it isn't part of the fourth paragraph either. The second paragraph talks exclusively about Terran, so that's not it at all. By process of elimination, you are talking about this old nerf in regards to the third paragraph. I fail to see what you mean by that comment. Paraphrasing: Beelzebub1: Macro mechanics are a thing that has a negative impact on balance changes, especially when there are more workers. Vision: When the amount of workers increased, Zerg got a huge nerf to compensate.
What is it that you are trying to convey, Vision?
|
Is blizzard planning to fix tvp? Void opening forces terran to go upgraded Cyclone and mass turrets in main. Is it really how sc2 should be played with mass batteries and mass turrets at 3mins in the game?
|
United Kingdom20154 Posts
On September 10 2020 13:01 skdsk wrote: Is blizzard planning to fix tvp? Void opening forces terran to go upgraded Cyclone and mass turrets in main. Is it really how sc2 should be played with mass batteries and mass turrets at 3mins in the game?
Any particular pro games?
|
On September 05 2020 20:18 Drfilip wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2020 01:43 Vision_ wrote:On September 03 2020 23:41 Beelzebub1 wrote: As a Zerg player it's kind of unenjoyable to see Terran in such a weak state at the moment, this isn't too unexpected considering Protoss has been receiving quite a few minor buffs while Zerg is suffering from a few minor nerfs, but for Zerg to be nerfed and TvZ to still be so in Zerg's favor is really a testament to the problem.
Probably time to lay on the buffs for Terran, I wouldn't mind the balance team revisiting things like merging vehicle/aerial weapons and armor again to maybe open up some more synergy between the compositions. Something kind of on the small side wouldn't hurt, and if that doesn't push the win rates up, something small again.
Balance is close but now we are bearing the full brunt of the games economy and macro mechanics coming back to haunt us. Things like MULE, Inject and Warp Gate have fundamentally made balance a serious challenge, and with the faster economy start has only exasperated the issue.
Personally I wouldn't mind a more global change like reverting the starting worker count to 10. It's been made clearly obvious that Zerg benefits the most heavily, since that change is huge and probably won't happen, lets focus on some cost/numbers/upgrade buffs for Terran, lets focus on things that can be done. Yeah this is the key Don t forget the change of the number of larva by injection (4 to 3)... I enjoy your comments cause it s very near from my opinion and i haven t enought ease to read every comments here and explain clearly how the game drastically change since the start of LotV What about the change from 4 larvae to 3 larvae per inject? I remember the change, but why does it matter here? It doesn't fall under the recent changes, so it isn't part of the first paragraph of Beelzebub1. A reversal of this change would be a buff to Zerg, so it isn't part of the fourth paragraph either. The second paragraph talks exclusively about Terran, so that's not it at all. By process of elimination, you are talking about this old nerf in regards to the third paragraph. I fail to see what you mean by that comment. Paraphrasing: Beelzebub1: Macro mechanics are a thing that has a negative impact on balance changes, especially when there are more workers. Vision: When the amount of workers increased, Zerg got a huge nerf to compensate. What is it that you are trying to convey, Vision?
It s probably harder for a zerg to inject periodically when the timer goes bigger.
Then, i didn t check it but the developpement of a zerg is smoother in the build order process with 3 inject per hatch (i mean less sequenced, maybe the reason of the 12 seconds difference at start between Z and T or P since LotV - Blizzard has reduced time research of stim and warp gate to balance things but there s maybe still an issue with scouting)
i do mention that there s no problem with the amount of larva by inject cause it s proportional
PS : anyway it s always hard to modify core parameters without big consequences on the game.
|
I just checked old changes : Hatchery spawns one larva every 15 game seconds in HotS and 11 game seconds in LotV
A SCV has always been done in 12 game seconds, so
With the factor speed, it represents (15-12)/1.4 = 2.14
So with 6 workers of difference, Zerg approximatively won 2.14 x 6 = 13 seconds.
This 13 seconds has a huge impact at pro AND casual level, whatever stim, warp gate and bunker time reduction (into scouting, build order, gas harvesting,etc...)
(check my old post date 2020/03/14 : https://tl.net/forum/starcraft-2/557533-the-beginning-of-an-answer)
Do Blizzard explain us these changes ? I think not.. Why ? Everybody knows.. It s like if Blizzard has never admitted his mistake. If they had been fair with us, they would have applied modification on stim and warp gate directly while they only modified in consequence the bunker time construction (to avoid proxy)
|
The reason larva went from 15 seconds to 11 is because they fixed the in-game clock to be real time. Previously the in-game clock was based around the game running at normal speed, so if you ran the game at faster (which is what the multiplayer does), a minute in-game was actually only 42ish seconds of real time. The build time for SCVs used to be 17 in-game seconds in HOTS and WOL, and now is 12 in-game seconds because of the clock change. Same for probes and drones.
|
Yes but in my test i checked about 12 seconds difference and we are talking about with your help :
(17-15) x 6 = 12 game seconds i.e 12 / 1.4 = 8.5 seconds (real time)
so i don t know exactly the other reason for an eventually bigger delay between HotS and LotV.. But in definitive there s about 10 seconds (maybe more..) which have disappeared after HotS in favor of Z
And even nobody cares cause the game wasn t so good at this time, it will always be reminded as a treatise.
|
I actually kind of hold the opposite view. I think that large changes to Zerg are needed, and the matchups should be rebalanced around that.
Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech.
I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras.
Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general.
Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings.
We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate.
___
Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup.
Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting.
TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups.
|
On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps.
http://aligulac.com/periods/275/
PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg.
So I'm not sure your source back ups your point.
|
On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point.
Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier.
+ Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world...
|
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... It's not really one week cause you can pretty clearly see from the link you had in your first post that PvT win rates have been 53-54% since June. And 53-54 is generally the range where people start to consider a match-up statistically imbalanced. Although player quality in the samples is extremely diverse so I wouldn't think of these winrates as more than a trend.
|
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing.
|
Lurker PvZ thoughts: Throwing some suggestions out for PvZ again. Lurkers and Vipers seem to be 2 units that are very strong in ZvP, while not being core units in ZvT. So I feel looking at these to help Protoss makes sense. First off, Lurkers seem very good vs Protoss, niche/bad vs Bio, and fine vs Mech.
1) What if Lurker base/bonus dps was adjusted to be less niche vs Bio, less powerful vs Protoss? And keep the same total damage per hit to keep its burst which is important for positioning, while slightly decreasing attack speed so it's less massable for big fights due to overkill? This would emphasize its positional strength.
Currently Lurkers do 20+10 damage. What if it was reworked to 22+8 for example, and nerf attack speed by 10%. It now does the same initial burst damage, which is important for dissuading pushes and slowing movement. It does the same dps vs Bio, but now it does less dps vs Protoss. The slightly lower DPS also makes it less massable vs Protoss. I've seen Serral just mass an army of mostly Lurkers and a few Hydras, and just run at a Protoss army and burrow... pretty sure that is not how they're meant to be used.
You could push these changes harder and make it like 24+6 and nerf attack speed by 10-15% if you want to make it even better vs Bio and even worse vs Protoss. The Lurker seems too good as a massable army unit vs Protoss, and wouldn't hurt making them more useful vs Bio, so I think this is the logical direction to go. Keep same damage per hit vs Armored, slightly buff base damage, and decrease attack speed a little.
2) What if Lurker HP was slightly nerfed to 180? This would have to be considered in tandem with reworking its attack. It feels pretty tanky right now, if it was slightly more fragile (while having the same or slightly better attack or burst strength) it would also help emphasize its identity as a positional zoning unit. Lower HP will mean it's still good at bursting down small forces quickly, and dissuading bigger armies. While if a big army is confident and wants to commit, it will have an easier time breaking a small Lurker position. Right now as Protoss, even if you catch Lurkers pushing forward and burrowing, even if you attack before they burrow it can wreck your army, and it's hard to snipe a few as a poke and back off. So making them slightly more glass cannon-y seems like a good direction. Lurkers in BW costed 125/125 and had 125 HP, now they are 150/150 and have 200 HP. More HP is important because damage density is higher in SC2, but maybe 180-190 is enough.
3) What if Lurker Den building isn't separate anymore and you have to morph Hydra Den into it? Yes it would mean you'd need to get both Hydra upgrades, as well as Lurker Den, and then also Lurker upgrades. It would be a lot. But isn't that OK for a Zerg? You don't need to get all those upgrades at once, it's Zergy to have lots of evolution choices and pick the ones you want (I know it's balanced such that you want all of them, but still). If you want to upgrade Hydras fast and also get Lurker tech, you could just build 2 Hydra Dens and have 1 upgrade while the other morphs into Lurker Den. If you want to save money you would decide between upgrading Hydras or just upgrade to Lurker Den for Lurkers. This could slow down Lurker tech a bit which could help vs Protoss. So many games I see Zerg is able to get Viper + Lurker while Protoss still only has Colossus/Disruptor tech and no HTs, and the Zerg just wins due to that.
On September 11 2020 01:35 ThunderJunk wrote: I actually kind of hold the opposite view. I think that large changes to Zerg are needed, and the matchups should be rebalanced around that.
Specifically, I think that Ravagers should require Lair and Hydras should be able to be made at Hatchery tech.
I say this because Ravagers limit protoss and terran defensive options in the early game: Forcefield-based sentry builds are not viable anymore, and Terran NEEDS a high ground to defend the roach ravager allin so the tanks don't get biled down. This severely limits map design choices. Also, zerg can't really be aggressive at T1 if either T or P opens early air because they have no T1 AA besides the queen. WIth the newly buffed voidray, it seems like the right time to give zergs earlier access to hydras.
Switching those two unit requirements around wouldn't change any of the zergling / baneling / muta strategies at all, which are a really fun part of the game - and what people seem to think is so good about TvZ in general.
Also, non-range-upgraded lurkers would be available at earlier timings.
We currently never get to see lurkers or hydras in small numbers in any matchup, and that's unfortunate.
___
Terran is in a great spot design-wise. I say this because TvT is an excellent and dynamic matchup.
Protoss is in a great spot design-wise too. PvP has never been more interesting.
TvP is problematic because a maxed-out protoss army is very dense, and generally has enough disruptors to force terran to retreat and take damage in the process. Just add +1 collision radius to the disruptor so lategame micro against deathballs is slightly less horrible. I think people would be amazed how much difference that would make in the matchup without affecting other matchups.
I feel you have good points and unless we're overlooking some things, it seems like this could be a really good change. Going even further, if Zerg can get Hydras earlier, then we can nerf Queen/Spores since they are no longer the only AA. Making Hydras as AA would make things more interesting as it would take Larvae up too, whereas Queen/Spore you only lose a few Larvae for Spores.
I was surprised that Ravager didn't need Lair tech, when I first tried Zerg recently. I always thought it was Lair tech (even though I know Ravager rush exists).
Being less limiting to map design and build orders (Protoss can Forge FE again!) are big plusses. It's just weird to me that you can get both Roach and its evolution at the same tech level. I mean it was like that with Hydra+Lurker in BW I guess, it feels Zergy, but I think having Ravager/Lurker tech be T2 while Roach/Hydra is T1 could be cool. It's more weird with Ravager being at T1 because you don't need a Ravager Den. Lurker Den is at least an additional tech building.
Also someone mentioned, what if Bile only takes down 1 FF at a time, and can't take down multiple FF if they're overlapping? I think it could be a small but good change, but imagine what if you could protect a canon or unit with a FF as well? It probably won't be enough to make FFEs work against Ravager rushes though.
|
On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing.
There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad...
|
On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 )
|
On September 11 2020 20:44 darklycid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 )
Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.).
|
On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world...
You can take 2 minutes to check the previous lists to see its a very steady trend, terran hasn't had a positive WR for months.
TvZ varies a bit but PvT roams around 55-54%.
|
On September 11 2020 21:20 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 20:44 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 ) Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.). I mean i disagree pretty heavily there on current PvZ but w/e. I don't think you can take Zerg in Code S as a good point for your arguments when even 2019 Zergs didn't do too hot in kr outside of the top ones (e.g. season 3 also had only 8 zergs qualified etc.), and i don't think u wanna argue for pvz being balanced in 2019
|
On September 11 2020 21:58 darklycid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 21:20 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 20:44 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 ) Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.). I mean i disagree pretty heavily there on current PvZ but w/e. I don't think you can take Zerg in Code S as a good point for your arguments when even 2019 Zergs didn't do too hot in kr outside of the top ones (e.g. season 3 also had only 8 zergs qualified etc.), and i don't think u wanna argue for pvz being balanced in 2019
no one talking about 2019, reading helps ;-)
i am just talking last 1-2 months after patches - who cares about before, the patches are live now, thats all that matters, we just have to see how patch will go and already you see a clear trend of pvz being more than fine for toss:
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
from 45% in january to 51% in august.
so when we look back in 1-2 months PvZ will be more than fine for toss ;-)
|
On September 11 2020 23:12 Decendos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2020 21:58 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 21:20 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 20:44 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 19:39 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 17:12 darklycid wrote:On September 11 2020 03:55 Decendos wrote:On September 11 2020 02:27 Lexender wrote:On September 03 2020 23:50 Decendos wrote:NERF EVERYTHING!!! Clearly the game is in a horrible state right now. Completely unplayable as we can see here http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ and in tournament distribution....lol. If anything blizz should try to buff underused units and upgrades on all races to make the game have more viable strats and unit comps. Balancewise its fine, its just that every race has too few backbone unit comps. http://aligulac.com/periods/275/PvT and TvZ have about the same WR that PvZ had that unleashed the 2 patches that nerfed zerg. So I'm not sure your source back ups your point. Really? One week as source? Guess next week will look completely different with the strong performance of zerg players in EU dreamhack qualifier. + Show Spoiler +all zergs out except the two best players in the world... Yeah yeah it's only reynor and serral, meanwhie the zergs that are out did things like overdrone heavily vs commited adept attacks and stay on hydra lurker viper vs mass carrier ht, guess what if you do so obvious mistakes Zerg is not too strong. The problem lies within the races strenghts and tools at the level reynor/serral/dark/rogue are playing. There is literally 0 indicator that pvz is zerg favored after last balance patch with nerfs to zerg and buffs to toss. It's simply to early and recent tournaments show pretty balanced see Gsl this season or EU qualifiers. Other than that it's just too early. If anything pvt looks bad... Ah yes gsl with the whopping 8-1 ZvP (also gsl since last patch is a way too low sample size fwiw). I agree that pvt looks bad once it comes to the disruptor blink dt phase and toss gets to stabilize, but from what i've seen in wcs so far pvz doesn't look imbalanced with Zergs playing really suboptimal, which even 2019 could be the case where noone would think pvz isn't zerg favored (even tho noone would be so dumb to go hydra lurker viper vs skytoss in 2019 ) Yeah way too small sample size and only 5 zergs qualifying so including qualifiers GSL its definetly even matched. I think the game is in a pretty great spot now balancewise except the mentioned lategame in PvT. I enjoy the different strats in every MU (some need some buffs for all races but hey blizz is getting there seeing voidbuffs etc.). I mean i disagree pretty heavily there on current PvZ but w/e. I don't think you can take Zerg in Code S as a good point for your arguments when even 2019 Zergs didn't do too hot in kr outside of the top ones (e.g. season 3 also had only 8 zergs qualified etc.), and i don't think u wanna argue for pvz being balanced in 2019 no one talking about 2019, reading helps ;-) i am just talking last 1-2 months after patches - who cares about before, the patches are live now, thats all that matters, we just have to see how patch will go and already you see a clear trend of pvz being more than fine for toss: http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/from 45% in january to 51% in august. so when we look back in 1-2 months PvZ will be more than fine for toss ;-) I wouldn't call out reading comprehension if my own was bad, i was comparing current amount of kr zergs in gsl with 2019 season 3 which isn't much different even tho zerg was veeery good late 2019
Ofc recently pvz numbers wise seems to be getting better but at the end mostly Zergs win bc at the tip top lvl Zerg has the tools and mechanics available to just not lose if played righ, also the state of the mu isn't that great with alot still hanging on adept shenaigans or the Zerg fucking up.
|
Another problem is late game terran gas dump, this was literally always a problem except in hots Raven meta. Terrans literally have no gas dump unit, both protoss and zerg can easily dump gas into strong unit. Rebalancing some terran units cost might be worth a shot. Or making irrelevant units relevant for example maybe a late game upgrade for reapers.
Also please fix Viking, It became most shitty anti-air in entire game, they literally lose to every unit they are supposed to counter. Its only role became to kill Colossus..
|
PvT is slowly going to trend more protoss-favoured over next weeks. The overcharge is very good against harassment and All-ins all game long.
|
On September 11 2020 23:51 skdsk wrote: Another problem is late game terran gas dump, this was literally always a problem except in hots Raven meta. Terrans literally have no gas dump unit, both protoss and zerg can easily dump gas into strong unit. Rebalancing some terran units cost might be worth a shot. Or making irrelevant units relevant for example maybe a late game upgrade for reapers.
Also please fix Viking, It became most shitty anti-air in entire game, they literally lose to every unit they are supposed to counter. Its only role became to kill Colossus..
This... it feels really bad not having an actual gas sink like the other races do. Blizzard gutted the original Raven too hard instead of reworking it to scale less oppressively lategame. (Limiting the amount of projectiles a single PDD can shoot down to ~3 a second so the opponent can still do steady damage, so you can't 100% block out projectiles without dumping all your energy in one position, in which case the opponent can re-engage outside of that area. And changing HSM to not do as crazy splash, while still being a single target zoning tool that can be used against things like Sieged Tanks/Deployed WPs similar to Interference Matrix. You could also re-increase the time HSM takes before locking on, or even increase Raven supply to 3).
The other races, if you get a ton of gas, you could potentially dump it all into gas heavy, powerful spellcasters. Of course, your army may not be well balanced and it may be difficult to control, but the option and potential is there. The option and potential is missing for Terran because Blizzard overreacted and gutted the Raven now (why did Blizzard think it has to be a unit you should only get 1-2 of?? What other unit besides Mothership is designed like that?? Zerg is allowed to make 30 Infestors/Vipers/Queens, Protoss can get 20 HTs/Sentries. But I guess it's not OK to make more than 2 Ravens?).
Because there is no powerful gas sink unit, it takes away much of the fun from the econ game too. There is less incentive to mass expand to get a high gas income to overpower the enemy. In BW, having more bases meant you mined minerals quicker. In SC2, you don't really have that, but you DO have econ scaling with gas, since you need more bases to have a higher gas income. And gas units tend to be strong. Terran doesn't have a powerful unit that costs more gas than minerals though now... it makes things feel incomplete .
Do they just really not want Terran to have spellcasters or something? Ghosts and Ravens are both weird enough in that their spells only work on certain unit tags... before with the old Raven it was OK, but now you have 2 niche spellcasters whose use really depends on the MU. (Ghosts are great TvP, good TvZ, rare in TvT, Ravens are now rare TvZ, good TvP, great TvT).
Even in BW, the Science Vessel was a powerful gas sink and making 10 of them was not uncommon. I guess the new/current balance team just really hated the Raven some reason (or it was a overreaction because they couldn't think of the adjustment to PDD/HSM I proposed).
|
U can always go mass Raven for Mass Disable ;-D
|
On September 15 2020 23:24 hiroshOne wrote: U can always go mass Raven for Mass Disable ;-D Thats true, new meta seems to be making like 10 ravens, and disabling every power tech unit (colosus, siegetank, disruptor, etc, etc)
|
Yeah mass disable is not bad for TvP mech. It sucks there is basically nothing to disable in TvZ though...
And of course it's great TvT. I'm just not sure I like the design of it in that MU, because part of what makes LotV great is having stronger defense, and better opportunities to harass/pressure. Units like Disruptor, Liberator, Tanks, and to some degree Lurkers and Ravagers serve both of these roles.
Having stronger defender advantage discourages and makes it harder for you to do a game ending push when you only have a small lead. This means that games can allow for comebacks and will require a lot more fighting and tactics before someone can end the game. This was a big part of why BW is great to play and watch, because things don't end suddenly as much as SC2 did in WoL/HotS. It is also a reason why TvZ has been a great MU in SC2, and TvT has been the best mirror MU throughout the years. Better harass options and more opportunities to pressure allows for more skirmishes around the map while the core areas are still being defended and both players can remain stable.
Interference Matrix contradicts this a bit however. While I think it's overall fine despite how strong it is in TvT, just because defender advantage has always been very strong in TvT, it does feel a little lame to just have a bunch of Ravens fly in and disable your tanks. It feels a lot more exciting to have to drop marines over the tanks to get them to splash themselves, or win an air battle and zone them out with Liberators or such.
When going back to classic TvT matches in WoL/HotS, those games easily went long and had lots of chaotic battles all over, while remaining mostly stable because of strong defenders advantage. However the Raven now allows you to break tanklines much easier and possibly end the game suddenly. I don't really like that, I feel there are enough ways to break tanklines in LotV (drops, liberators, BCs, buffed landed vikings, speed banshees, marauders not having to worry about PDD now, etc.)
Interference Matrix is OK in most situations where you are just disabling a few units, but mass disable feels like bad design because there isn't really counterplay to it other than "don't get disabled". I mean, maybe you can EMP the Ravens, but I'm not sure that's really worth it. HSM performed a similar role but was less effective vs tanklines, especially early and mid game. And the counterplay was to just take the L and move back temporarily and resiege. Disabled tanks can't move though, and the only interesting micro you can do to dodge it is to pick up a unit with a Medivac. In general, HSM was interesting and more dynamic as a zoning tool because you could take the hit to continue to do damage in a fight, or try to preserve the unit longer by having it back out so the HSM doesn't lock on, then return to the fight late. Disable is all or nothing, and it's easy to perform.
I think TvT is still fine as mass Ravens is still somewhat costly and commital, but I think Interference Matrix isn't the best spell design.
|
|
|
|