I've been wanting to make this post for a long time, and seeing how the thread about Infested terrans started to talk about the lurker qutie a bit I thought this was finally time to do it.
I believe the Lurker is a unit that is, simply put,way too strong and that nerfing it would enable Zerg to be buffed in other areas to help vs Sky Toss.
Let's go over why I believe the Lurker is too strong:
Health: 200 Costs: 150/150 (Cost of the hydra+cost of morphing to lurker). Range: 8 (10 with upgrade). Movement Speed: 4.13 Base Damage: 20 (30 vs armored).
With these stats, it means that it has more health than a tank, while costing only slightly more. And it is much more tankier than a Disruptor which are the comparable siege units from other races. But let's see how it fares against the Protoss Ground Army.
-6 lurkers 1 shot:
Stalkers
Sentries
High Templar
DT survive with 2 health.
-7 lurkers 1 shot:
Stalkers
Sentries
HT
DT.
Disruptor
Zealot survives with 15 health. Adepts with 4 health.
-8 Lurkers 1 shot:
Stalkers
Sentries
HT
DT
Disruptor
Zealot
Adept
-8 Lurkers 2 shot:
Immortal
Colossus
Archon survives with 40 health.
What this means is that, basically, 8 Lurkers counter every single Protoss ground unit. And it gets worse with upgrades.
They will one shot every single gateway unit, two shot immortals and Colossus, and even though Archons survive with 40 health, due to the short range of the Archon (3) it means lurkers can hit them twice before the archon actually gets to them, making them only able to hit them once before dying. Furthermore, Lurkers deal full damage to all units hit by it, compared to Siege tanks where only the units in the middle, oftentimes only one, receive the full damage, with units farther away receiving 50% or 25% depending on the distance. This means Lurkers can wipe a whole Protoss army in 1-2 shots if they manage to hit it all at once (this will be relevant later on).
Add to that the fact lurkers will not be alone, and roach/hydra/ling/bane will also deal damage, a Protoss Ground army can completely disappear in the 1.43 seconds it takes for Lurkers to deal 2 shots.
Even though most of the time they aren't engaging the full army, they end up working like busted liberatiors where they both kill units instantly in their atack range, except that the lurker deals damage to multiple units.
This sounds absolutely broken, but surely there must be counterplay right? That's right, let's look at what its strengths and weaknesses are.
Strengths:
Very high splash damage siege unit.
Long Range.
Area Control.
Good against clumps of units.
Good at defense.
Invisible without detection.
Weaknesses:
Can't attack air.
Need to burrow to attack which limits its mobility.
Vulnerable while Burrowing.
Can't move while burrowed, which limits its attack range so you need to position them correctly and the enemy can move to avoid them.
That means there are three ways to beat them:
1.-Going Air. 2.-Out maneuver them by attacking far away places, abusing their lack of mobility, and getting out before they get there or killing them as they are positioning and burrowing. 3.-Go around them and not fight the area they are defending, trying to hit the location you are targeting using a different path or angle outside of their range.
The first one is self explanatory and works as well as you would think. But here is where the problems start.
Lurkers are supposed to be imobile units and yet Blizzard gave them a base speed of 4.13 (5.37 on creep). This means the Luker is the third fastest ground zerg unit, after the Zergling and Speed Roach, and it's faster than the fastest Protoss Ground unit (Speedlot 4.73). This negates its second weakness as the unit is so fast that by the time your High Templars (2.62) or your Immortals and disruptors (3.15) get anywhere, the Lurkers have been there for a while.
And it gets worse. Blizzard, for some reason I don't understand, gave the lurkers two upgrades: Range increase +2, and Burrow speed buff from 2 to 0.7 seconds. This completely negates its two other weaknesses.
1.-The Lurker is so fast you cannot attack any of the zerg bases without the lurker being there. (You cannot out mannouver them). 2.-While the lurker is vulnerable while burrowing, the upgrade makes it basically instant, and alongside its speed it guarantees the lurker is always in position. 3.-The Range increase negates attacking from different angles in current maps, as even bases with two entrances or ramps can be covered by the lurkers if they are set up between them. Even if they are out of position they can instantly reposition with the burrow upgrade. 4.-The Range upgrade outranges Psi Storm, which means 6 lurkers can insta kill HT before they even cast one if you target them. It also has the same range as Disruptors.
These upgrades are the equivalent of saying "The High Templar has 3 weaknesses, it's fragile, it's slow and it starts with no energy. Let's give him two upgrades so that it becomes as fast as a Speedlot and starts with enough energy to cast storms instantly". One of those upgrades existed in the game once, we all know how ridiculous it was, so why do these Lurker upgrades that negate 3 of their four weaknesses exist?
It is no wonder then that Protoss goes air. It's literally the only type of unit Protoss has that doesn't die in less than 2 seconds to 8 lurkers. And as all Zerg and Protoss players know, 8 Lurkers are very easy to make. It's not uncommon for games to have double that amount. Air is literally the only way to beat lurkers. The insta burrow also allows Zerg players to walk their lurkers on top of the enemy army, burrow on top of them and kill it instantly. Disruptors are able to stop the zerg from doing that and buy you some time, but since it takes two disruptor shots to kill a lurker, and Vipers come into play, the only long term solution is having mass air and HT Archon. (Archon to tank for more than a second, HT to storm units and feedback vipers, Carrier to kill the lurkers).
Zergs complain about Air Toss in PvZ, but without it there is no way for Protoss to win. That's the reason Pros kept (and keep) to this day using the shitty Adept all-in build. It doesn't work as well anymore, but it's one of the few all-ins that still work sometimes after all others were nerfed into the ground, and enable them to be slightly less predictable and not go air all games. Crucial in a Best-of-series.
This results in Protoss Air being slightly too strong, and the two races being frustrated. While PvZ has deeper issues in terms of design, I believe the game can be much better with a simple nerf to the lurker, and either a Zerg Buff or a Protoss Air Nerf to compensate.
I want to hear your thoughts about it, even if a blizzard won't really do anything. Do you agree the Lurker is too strong? How would you approach “fixing” ZvP so the Lurker and the Protoss Air weren't as oppressive? Leave down a comment below!
_________________________ The following is how I’d approach it. In a perfect world, where Blizzard still patches the game, these would be my realistic balance changes:
Luker:
Remove Luker Upgrades.
The Lurker is way too useful. It's great at defending harass (just burrow one near a hatchery), it's great at defending pushes and delaying them, which buys time for zerg to produce more units (underated side effect), it's great at sieging, and in basically every situation. The upgrades make them even better and they don't need them at all. Removing them, and maybe nerfing it's movement speed, would help Protoss have some ground counterplay for them.
Alternatively: Pick one:
Make Lurker deal full damage to the first uni or two it hits, but reduce damage to the rest of the units. (Like the Siege Tank).
Reduce Lurker Movement Speed.
Increase Lurker supply by 1.
I think reducing its speed or changing the way its splash work would help open up more possibilities for ground armies to counter the Lurker. Even though in a direct engagement Lurkers would still beat the Protoss Ground Army, this would at least enable the protoss to out maneuver them or use disruptors and templars a little more effectively.
To compensate: Zerg Buffs:
Remove Pathogen Glands. Infestors now start with the upgrade.
This would help Zerg Players Deal with Sky Toss and Void Rays better, as Infestors would come into play earlier and not have to use resources for the energy upgrade. Fungal is a good counter to Void Rays. I pick this instead of nerfing VoidRay speed as before that buff VR were useless, and it's good protoss has one unit that can give them some map control.
Since this would promote infestor plays, maybe more Zergs would discover Fungal is incredibly strong against carriers, as Interceptors need to move to deal damage and have only 2 range. Which means that it's the only unit in the game that fungal not only slows, but makes it actually unable to atack at all, making it a good counter to carriers. Alongside Neural Parasite, corruptors or Vipers Air Damage ability this would be an effective counter.
See: Zombie Grub video with just 600 visits:
_____ These are just my thoughts, but please feel free to suggest different changes or give your opinion in the comments.
Removing abduct and nerfing lurkers hard with the trade off being infestors coming with the energy upgrade already?
All youre doing is making skytoss+ disruptors even stronger than it is now. Essentially making the current problems with protoss destroying the game on ladder even worse than it already is.
Instead of fixing the boring meta, you are doubling down on it, by nerfing some of the stronger tools against it.
Dont get me wrong, I do think lurkers are too strong, but if it happens, you absolutely need to nerf at least void rays, and probably disruptors.
Also, while abduct is stupid OP, removing that spell would have to be mixed in with a complete zerg t3 rework. You dont understand how bad zerg would be vs toss without abduct, carriers would be insanely strong. Disruptors would completely control the ground. If abduct is removed, broodlords need a buff.
I agree that the lurker is what is really holding back Protoss ground from being viable, or basically have a timer on when it's okay to use them.
it doesn't help that to kill a lurker it takes 3 storms, (or 2 storms with 40 hp leftover) and once that they have the burrow upgrade it's so easy for lurkers to move out of them and hard to really push into with a ground force. it takes 2 disrupter hits but vipers end up counter disrupters very easy once it gets to that point.
I think the reduced damage after the unit gets hit or maybe if the unit was massive that would help a lot. it could help change out protoss can engage them with archons at the front but still making it hard to charge right into.
a slight movement speed nerf should also be in order i think as a lot of higher tier Protoss units are really immobile
I had a negative first blush towards this post and the changes, but I think the proposed buff for pathogen glands could work. It wouldn't affect the other matchups much.
That said.
Lurkers are supposed to be imobile units and yet Blizzard gave them a base speed of 4.13 (5.37 on creep). This means the Luker is the third fastest ground zerg unit, after the Zergling and Speed Roach, and it's faster than the fastest Protoss Ground unit (Speedlot 4.73).
Lurkers have to be able to position themselves fast. They are not just a Zerg Siege tank. Lurkers should feel powerful and scary. Watching Serral or Dark burrow them as they murder enemy forces retreating is satisfying as all can be. Lurkers in SC2 are a completely different beast than SC1, and I like their role. I honestly don't see them as THE problem in PvZ. If you made them even -1 point slower they would feel clunky, and good luck watching disrupter balls blast them to smitheerings.
Protoss gateway units in general have been out of place since WoL. I would love to see another slight buff to gateway units while proxy warp ins getting nerfed. Void Rays should be glass cannons, not fucking ice skating death lasers. It's been said to death, but SC2's group selection and death balls, combined with very strong air units make the game far more one-dimensional in some situations than it needs to be.
If a lurker nerf is necessary, then just removing the burrow speed upgrade is more than enough imo. That way, lurkers can still reposition themselves quickly from one side of the map to another, but they are severely nerfed when it comes to actively engaging into an opposing army.
Without commenting on the post in general I find it hard to imagine a situation where 8 lurkers hit your unit(s) simultaneously and it's not your fault
Another ridiculous suggestion by Phamtom, it's sad but I know he unironically thinks buffing the mana of the infestor compensates the abduc removal and could stop protoss for going to skytoss lol Will be nice when d2 players will stop to act as if they figured out thé game.
I agree on the premise of lurker pushing toss into air i disagree on the changes (toss main), not sure what the best changes would be but the proposed ones are just a straight buff to toss i believe.
Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
On August 30 2021 20:58 BisuDagger wrote: Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
This is actually very interesting as it also gives reason to possibly have some Ravagers in Zerg army with Lurkers. They probably could have some other changes or upgrades that make them more useful later for example allowing zealots go through them and make EMP destroy them. Generally anything that allows more mid fight interactions outside of just splitting is great.
Its tough because the Viper was introduced originally to give Zerg tools to deal with Protoss ground and aerial deathballs, so a nerf like that would completely flip the late game in Protoss's favor, Zerg would have to all in every game because air deathballs would be virtually unbeatable.
The only nerf that Lurkers need is removal of Adaptive Talons, it was in the game before anyone figured out how to use the Lurker so it was there as a kind of incentive, but now that the Lurker is dominating it can either be way scaled back or honestly just removed entirely, not all units need 2 upgrades imo.
I'll say this only reading a little bit of the thread like the true sigma male that I am, but if skytoss didn't exist yea the lurker would need a range nerf almost 100%.
Thing is by the time lurker becomes broken you usually have unit they can't shoot so it's alright, but skytoss games are sad so I completely understand why you would want a more ground based lategame
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Did you watch Dark against Skytoss in the previous GSL?
On August 30 2021 20:58 BisuDagger wrote: Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
This is actually very interesting as it also gives reason to possibly have some Ravagers in Zerg army with Lurkers. They probably could have some other changes or upgrades that make them more useful later for example allowing zealots go through them and make EMP destroy them. Generally anything that allows more mid fight interactions outside of just splitting is great.
Zealot charge ability could allow the zealot to pass through the force field. I also liked the idea of finding a role for ravagers. Pairing them with lurkers would be pretty neat.
As a spectator I really wish toss vs zerg had viable lategame ground armies. Coming from broodwar it feels wrong to me that a maxed out air army can just kill maxed out ground in a straight up fight (in brood war carriers need to micro and abuse terrain to beat goliaths while in sc2 it seems like carriers + 2 psi storms can shred any number of hydras).
I feel like Phatom's changes are too much of a nerf to zerg: abduct seems essential for current pvz. Perhaps just
1. remove lurker burrow upgrade (this makes disruptor etc. much more effective) 2. make void rays require a fleet beacon.
I'm not sure about 2. since I'm a pretty shit player, but my reasoning is that void rays in the opening seem super annoying and stagnate the game. They force zerg into queens + droning + late game (or an all-in timing) and remain pretty viable throughout the game. By requiring fleet beacon, toss has to find other tools early game, but they still have the late game tools of before. This effectively keeps toss late game at same strength but makes transitioning there a lot trickier which seems fair.
Also, getting rid of void rays early should basically preserve PvT in its entirety while just removing the stupid proxy void that just kills terrans for no reason.
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Did you watch Dark against Skytoss in the previous GSL?
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Did you watch Dark against Skytoss in the previous GSL?
Yes? How is this relevant?
Dark literally went Queen-Infestor Fungal+Microbial Shroud against Carriers and took out all the interceprtor. You sure you didnt miss that game against Parting?
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Did you watch Dark against Skytoss in the previous GSL?
Yes? How is this relevant?
Dark literally went Queen-Infestor Fungal+Microbial Shroud against Carriers and took out all the interceprtor. You sure you didnt miss that game against Parting?
Fungal damages and slows interceptors, it doesn't stop them. See the fungaled interceptors still flying towards the ultra I'm not sure you watched it.
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Yeah. Protoss would still go skytoss if their ground army was competitive, because it's an insanely strong comp that (with the current void and battery) you can tech straight into with almost no redundancy. You jump right into your endgame comp that ignores terrain, has a ton of health and can fight at good range with basically just a-move and the use of 1 caster like HT / ruptor. For everyone not playing against Dark and Serral, it's an obviously good choice if you want / have to play out a macro game.
Removing Zerg's best / only tool to chip at it and cost-effectively create weaknesses wouldn't make us see more toss ground, it would just make Zerg die harder to skytoss.
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Did you watch Dark against Skytoss in the previous GSL?
Yes? How is this relevant?
Dark literally went Queen-Infestor Fungal+Microbial Shroud against Carriers and took out all the interceprtor. You sure you didnt miss that game against Parting?
Fungal damages and slows interceptors, it doesn't stop them. See the fungaled interceptors still flying towards the ultra https://youtu.be/Tcf8-X0fpoo?t=8490 I'm not sure you watched it.
Wrong game though, and the Fungal did not hit the Interceptor well enough, the Infestor get chased way by Templar and Immportal. In the game against Parting (game 4 @ 20:15 gametime), Dark hit most of the Interceptors, slow them down and took them out.
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
Yeah. Protoss would still go skytoss if their ground army was competitive, because it's an insanely strong comp that (with the current void and battery) you can tech straight into with almost no redundancy. You jump right into your endgame comp that ignores terrain, has a ton of health and can fight at good range with basically just a-move and the use of 1 caster like HT / ruptor. For everyone not playing against Dark and Serral, it's an obviously good choice if you want / have to play out a macro game.
Removing Zerg's best / only tool to chip at it and cost-effectively create weaknesses wouldn't make us see more toss ground, it would just make Zerg die harder to skytoss.
The general point is still true tho i think, so a nerf to skytoss probably should be paired with a slight nerf to the lurker (and i think both could hopefully make pvz more interesting).
removing both Upgrades is way overkill. Back when they had 9 range they weren't even used that much - 8 range max would make them insanely bad. I think just reverting the range buff and have them back at 9 will probably be enough. I don't expect any balance changes though.
and that change would remove Lurkers from ZvT so it's maybe better this way
On August 30 2021 20:05 Nebuchad wrote: Without commenting on the post in general I find it hard to imagine a situation where 8 lurkers hit your unit(s) simultaneously and it's not your fault
Yeah maybe in my post it made it seem like it was the most common scenario. While it does happen, normally it doesn't. Still the point is more that any ground unit that enter the lurker attack range are instantly killed, forcing you into air.
On August 30 2021 23:09 datastuff wrote: Is this gaslighting zergs into thinking it's their fault for toss going skytoss lol. Also btw fungal hasn't stopped interceptors for years.
You're right, it doesn't stop them completely anymore, but they become so slow that they can barely deal damage.
Ok, maybe forget about the Viper abduct removal. Even though it's ridiculous I agree that's getting into major rework territory and I wanted to focus on the Lurker.
nerfing shield batteries and buffing zealots would improve this matchup (actually every protoss matchup). it'd make lurkers easier for protoss to handle and make defensive protoss teching builds (like carriers) easier for zerg to handle
Good post. Lurker/Viper trumps every Protoss ground army and this is a large part of the reason that Protoss air was buffed in the first place. I think Protoss and Zerg players would both like the matchup more if the default metagame Protoss army were ground-based. This can't happen without either giving Protoss something with which to counter Lurker/Viper, or a nerf to Lurker/Viper.
As far as the specific solutions you've offered, I agree that nerfing the Lurker *and* the Viper at once is probably a bit much. If I were balancing the game I'd make smaller tweaks first and see what happens. Removing one of the Lurker upgrades is probably a good start. I also think they move way too fast, I wonder about reducing their move speed off creep or something.
I like the idea of buffing the Infestor, too. Maybe giving the energy upgrade for free and also increasing the radius of fungal by 0.5 or 1?
It never made sense to me that a seige unit has insane dmg/high hp/armored/mobile AND requires detection. Look at all the other seige units in the game, liberator,tank,tempest all have apparent weaknesses. Lurkers have none and basically guarantees trades in ur favor
The lurker really is too strong. It's even stronger in ZvT, but i find the changes that you propose kind of weird. Getting rid of the two upgrades doesn't "nerf" the lurker, it effectively removes it completely from the game. That could be reasonable if you counterbalanced other options in zerg late game, but even with the lurker broken as it is ZvT and ZvP are not exactly zerg favored in the late game.
At the same time, looking at the infestor problem doesn't really "deal" with the zergs mid game anti air problem. And it's not really only in ZvP, ZvZ right now is basically in a "blind counter mutas every game" kind of state, because the zergs antiair option is just not good enough in midgame. So you get in a situation where zergs rely on queens for midgame antiair, since hydras are garbage against air units, and because of that the only option that they have is to turtle forever.
And i don't buy the argument that skytoss is a "fine composition", it really isn't. Air units, by default, are far less interesting as primary composition because they're not (in most maps) affected by the terrain. Their interactions are a lot more straightforward and not nearly as cool as, let's say, both players with ground units trying to outmanouver each other.
_________________
So, basically, i think when analysing the matchup, we can identify a couple problems (there are other problems in ZvP, like the queen walk, but let's just focus on the lurker vs air interaction):
- The lurker, like you said, doesn't really have weakness besides air units in the late game. So there's no interaction, it's basically just: Do you have the units to deal with it or not?
- Zerg doesn't have a reliable mid game antiair. Corruptors are really good, but they are so when they have a lot of support. Queens are really, really good, but they are purely defensive units. Hydras, in a vacuum, are ok-ish, but when you consider the fact that they are ground units, and how weak they are against banes / storms / disruptors, they are quite bad.
- Skytoss is strong, in the fact that until a certain point it's easier to play with skytoss than it is to play with zerg. That is not to say that it's imba, because zergs have found good ways to deal with it, and those ways force a lot of micro on the protoss part too, but it really isn't a cool composition, and it forces an ultra defensive playstyle from the zerg, where both sides can't really break one another.
- You didn't put this part on your post, but i feel like broodlords, if skytoss isn't viable, are still really strong, so there's that.
To deal with that:
- A much more elegant solution, in my opinion, would be making the lurker cheaper, but a lot weaker, and basically a midgame unit that doesn't scale well into the late game. To do that you could reduce it's health, it's damage, remove the upgrades, and probably buff it's base burrow speed just a little bit.
- Nerf the attack speed of the broodlords while increasing their damage (so it has less broodlings, making it easier for ground armies to move around and engage)
- Buff the hydra antiair so it can deal with air units even with less supply.
- Change the power of the late game zerg from the lurker to the ultra (i think a good starting point would be removing the armored tag of the ultra, leaving it without tag, while reducing the health, armor and cost of the unit to 200/200)
The ultra is a unit with really defined strenghts and weakness, and just because of that they are already a lot more interesting to play against and with. You would have to be careful with the tweaking though because i don't think anyone wants a repeat of ZvT in 2016~2017.
Like i said before, i agree that the lurker is a really big problem, but your proposed changes don't really modify anything. Hell, no one even gets hydras or lurkers anymore against double stargate openings, it's basically queen walks or just going for broodlords / ultras, a shitton of spores, and queen, viper and infestor support.
what a stupid post, honestly. lurkers are a snowball unit, in even games a nice concave of immortal archon chargelot storm destroys any realistic amount of lurkers. additionally, they can be chipped away by storms or straight up one shotted for free by 2 disruptors.
I must live in a weird timeline where Protoss suddenly thinks they can't beat lurkers with a ground composition anymore even though they did for years.
Did buffing Voidrays lead to Protoss forgetting that the weakness of the lurker is that their AoE is super narrow? This makes them an easy target for surrounds and units with high dps like the immortal.
This feels like a propaganda piece written by a diamond league player.
On August 31 2021 03:26 freelifeffs wrote: what a stupid post, honestly. lurkers are a snowball unit, in even games a nice concave of immortal archon chargelot storm destroys any realistic amount of lurkers. additionally, they can be chipped away by storms or straight up one shotted for free by 2 disruptors.
On August 31 2021 05:52 Railgan wrote: I must live in a weird timeline where Protoss suddenly thinks they can't beat lurkers with a ground composition anymore even though they did for years.
Did buffing Voidrays lead to Protoss forgetting that the weakness of the lurker is that their AoE is super narrow? This makes them an easy target for surrounds and units with high dps like the immortal.
This feels like a propaganda piece written by a diamond league player.
And this sounds like propaganda written for a diamond league player: unless Zerg seriously overextends and sends nothing along with the lurkers, how exactly is Protoss going to surround them? They certainly aren't going to do so if the lurkers are on creep and the Zerg player is, you know, not actively on fire or otherwise indisposed.
On August 30 2021 23:21 angry_maia wrote: As a spectator I really wish toss vs zerg had viable lategame ground armies. Coming from broodwar it feels wrong to me that a maxed out air army can just kill maxed out ground in a straight up fight (in brood war carriers need to micro and abuse terrain to beat goliaths while in sc2 it seems like carriers + 2 psi storms can shred any number of hydras).
I think the BW comparison is good: in that game, carriers work on the basis of catching opponents off guard and micro around terrain. Going into them is situational, and the are other reasonable options for Protoss (well, against Terran anyway; air units other than corsairs are pretty bad vs Zerg). Trying to achieve something similar in SC2 seems desirable, but difficult. Nerfing lurkers would have to be part of the solution though—only other thing I can think of is replacing the Mothership with a ground based spellcaster that could fight lurkers in some way. (Or I guess changing existing spellcasters as has been suggested, but that would have more impact sooner in the game.)
On August 30 2021 20:58 BisuDagger wrote: Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
Really interesting idea... but can Protoss afford Sentries late game?
The solution imo is to remove Adaptive Talons from the game entirely, it was an upgrade for a different time when the Lurker was a newly introduced unit and there needed to be heavy incentives to utilize it. That time has long since passed, we all know the Lurker is damn good.
On August 30 2021 20:58 BisuDagger wrote: Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
This is actually very interesting as it also gives reason to possibly have some Ravagers in Zerg army with Lurkers. They probably could have some other changes or upgrades that make them more useful later for example allowing zealots go through them and make EMP destroy them. Generally anything that allows more mid fight interactions outside of just splitting is great.
Not sure how viable this is though. Aside from doing number changes/removal/tweak to damage here and there, I don't think the intern at blizzard can implement this.
On August 30 2021 20:58 BisuDagger wrote: Let’s make forcefields relevant in late game. Lurker spines cannot go under/pass through forcefields. You could effectively shut lurkers down and force them to move.
This is actually very interesting as it also gives reason to possibly have some Ravagers in Zerg army with Lurkers. They probably could have some other changes or upgrades that make them more useful later for example allowing zealots go through them and make EMP destroy them. Generally anything that allows more mid fight interactions outside of just splitting is great.
Not sure how viable this is though. Aside from doing number changes/removal/tweak to damage here and there, I don't think the intern at blizzard can implement this.
I m not sure of what you say... Did you check the possibility to code that ? I don t think lurker attack "work" as a basic attack. I think his code looks like more to a spell, so you can interrupt the spell.
There s also some deep work in modifying the abduct spell (not expected..unfortunetly), if community wish massive units be abducted less far...
In terms of balance, it seems more revelant for community to modify the gameplay instead of caracteristics.
I personally feel that PVZ is fine. However the matchup is currently dominated by two units: the lurker and the carrier. Both sides from the start of the game are thinking "how do I stop or manage if the other guys makes lurkers/carriers?". It's similar to how dominant proxy robo was in PVP before the shield battery buff . My entire PVZ playstyle is trying to force the zerg to NOT make lurkers or to make them at a point in the game where they aren't that useful. I agree with the OP that lurkers should be nerfed.
What I would recommend is adding an upgrade to disruptors or to templars that increases the damage of their spells or abilities to burrowed units. Disruptors should one shot lurkers and templars should be able to kill lurkers with one or two storms if the lurker is not microed. Because it affects only burrowed units, it'll be a highly specific change targeting lurkers.
Disruptor lurker dynamics work fine and are interesting, the problem there is with vipers being so ridiculous. The nerf I would do is to make the viper a ground unit. Abduct is still abusive ownage but now at least they aren't supremely mobile and the HT + disruptor vs lurker + viper dynamic should be pretty neat to watch.
On August 31 2021 15:58 Russano wrote: Disruptor lurker dynamics work fine and are interesting, the problem there is with vipers being so ridiculous. The nerf I would do is to make the viper a ground unit. Abduct is still abusive ownage but now at least they aren't supremely mobile and the HT + disruptor vs lurker + viper dynamic should be pretty neat to watch.
A ground unit viper would have a physical explanation for being able to pull massive stuff without being massive itself. The ground viper is really good at digging their heels in when pulling.
The funniest comparison on Lurkers is 6 range in sc1 and 10 range in sc2. The developers actually wanted Cannons to be able to outrange Lurkers in sc1, which is interesting with how we see them used now in sc2. I think the Lurker breaks up the death ball more than it adds to it, so they kinda need to be strong, just like the siege tank is. Burrow upg is ridiculous though. I always thought Lurker attack should do 30 dmg to all units instead of 20+10, but with slower travel speed on the spines, so that you can do the micro, which the developers kept talking about upon release of the Lurker in sc2. You rly can't outmicro the spines as it is now, or it's def. not worth it to do so.
On August 31 2021 15:17 Sunburn74 wrote: I personally feel that PVZ is fine. However the matchup is currently dominated by two units: the lurker and the carrier. Both sides from the start of the game are thinking "how do I stop or manage if the other guys makes lurkers/carriers?". It's similar to how dominant proxy robo was in PVP before the shield battery buff . My entire PVZ playstyle is trying to force the zerg to NOT make lurkers or to make them at a point in the game where they aren't that useful. I agree with the OP that lurkers should be nerfed.
What I would recommend is adding an upgrade to disruptors or to templars that increases the damage of their spells or abilities to burrowed units. Disruptors should one shot lurkers and templars should be able to kill lurkers with one or two storms if the lurker is not microed. Because it affects only burrowed units, it'll be a highly specific change targeting lurkers.
Disagree, either Adaptive Talons or Sub Spines need removed, there doesn't need to be an upgrade to counter everything, sometimes you can just nerf something.
Yes, this discussion is moot. There will be no patches. But for what's worth I agree lurkers are overpowered, at least around diamond level. On masters and upwards I assume people just get good enough with disruptors and scouting that they can counter lurkers.
But this is extremely finicky micro, that requires a level of mechanics that lower level players (diamond and below) generally don't have. Miss one set of novas at max range and the game is over basically.
And it really makes PvZ at the diamond level quite crap to play. As a protoss player if you don't two base all-in but go up to three bases before attacking then your zerg opponent almost certainly will have defensive lurkers and your ground army is useless unless you micro it perfectly. (Given the kind of fairly solid macro you can expect from a diamond 2+ zerg)
That is the main thing that drives protoss players that lack the mechanics to kill 8+ lurkers with disruptors (basically hitting every nova every time against them) to go straight into air or 2 base all-in. Because that is all they can do. At least to their minds. If anyone has any guides on countering lurkers without disruptors, skytoss or all-ining then please do share it. There are a lot of frustrated protoss players out there that would love to know how.
And forcing players down a specific route be it sky toss or all-ins really just makes the game less fun to play. Even if it isn't an issue on higher levels, because there players have the mechanics and micro to deal with it even when going for a normal macro build.
My suggestion for how to rebalance lurkers (if that were to ever be done, which it probably won't) would be to actually give them even more damage, but reduce the rate of fire, hence retaining the dps (and the "holy shit they shred my entire army!" scariness of them) but making it easier to get out of range. (Like you would vs tanks for instance) Thus emphasizing the lurkers role as a siege unit, and emphasizing catching them on the map, or not attack into them. Again: like siege tanks. And I guess removing the adaptive talons (lurker burrowspeed) upgrade would go towards the same thing.
To pretend Lurkers are the sole reason for skytoss is pretty disingenuous, especially when we consider the standard opener in PvZ right now is multiple void rays as the first tech choice- this isn't a response to lurkers, its a deliberate choice.
It's also not unreasonable for lurker based armies to just be better than protoss ground armies. Someone has to have an eventual advantage in that stage. Considering Zerg air units are pretty terrible in most fights, it SHOULD be zerg that has a better ground army- and air units are a completely reasonable direction for Protoss to be able to respond. Air units should be support for dealing with Lurkers, not a standalone army.
My (totally hypothetical) suggested would be to shift Voids to do more damage vs armored, and less vs light units while making Carriers significantly worse vs ground (maybe just make vs ground and vs air a different attack type). Additionally, make Lurker's morph from Roaches, not Hydras. This way making decent counters to Lurkers (Immortals, Disruptors, Void Rays) is a more natural progression for Protoss to make, while still allowing a range of options for Zerg to balance out a composition to fight back.
Obviously there would need to be a number of small tweaks to units around this, but I think these changes would actually allow for ZvP late game to become a game of balancing armies, not just massing 1-2 unit types because they counter everything.
I’m totally down with the lurker being potent, it just feels off as to what its role and feel should be.
Having your zone controlling siege unit running forward at a decent pace and insta-burrowing on top of enemy forces, even discounting wider balance considerations just doesn’t really feel remotely right.
Tankivacs got rightly discarded for negating the interesting positional dance that siege tanks elicit and that was an interaction that required multiple units and pickup/dropping.
This reminds me of way back when mech players claimed that the viper was the only thing that prevented aggressive mech and if it was nerfed then we would see aggressive mech far more often. When blinding cloud was nerfed we did see some aggressive mech, but you know what the smart players did? They turtled even harder because why wouldn't you. I really see some similarities in this thread from others. Nerfing the lurker isn't going to make toss players go ground more often, it's just going to make the air tosses turtle even harder.
Frankly I think Blizzard made a mistake when deciding that they wanted Zerg to dominate the ground and Toss to dominate the air. Gameplay really should be more focused on ground based styles because it's the style that allows the players with the best multi-tasking to thrive and out macro and out position their opponents. Air support should still be a viable part of the game, but that's all it should be, support. Strategies where you just sit there and build static and max out on an extremely powerful army shouldn't be that strong. So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
On September 01 2021 09:41 Hunta15 wrote: This reminds me of way back when mech players claimed that the viper was the only thing that prevented aggressive mech and if it was nerfed then we would see aggressive mech far more often. When blinding cloud was nerfed we did see some aggressive mech, but you know what the smart players did? They turtled even harder because why wouldn't you. I really see some similarities in this thread from others. Nerfing the lurker isn't going to make toss players go ground more often, it's just going to make the air tosses turtle even harder.
Frankly I think Blizzard made a mistake when deciding that they wanted Zerg to dominate the ground and Toss to dominate the air. Gameplay really should be more focused on ground based styles because it's the style that allows the players with the best multi-tasking to thrive and out macro and out position their opponents. Air support should still be a viable part of the game, but that's all it should be, support. Strategies where you just sit there and build static and max out on an extremely powerful army shouldn't be that strong. So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
Well this would obv be combined with skytoss nerfs/zerg buffs vs skytoss so in your analogy turtle mech would have been nerfed to prevent this from happening
On September 01 2021 09:41 Hunta15 wrote: So I agree that lurkers should be nerfed, but skytoss should be gutted along with them.
That's what OP said
No, OP mentions nothing about gutting skytoss. It mentions buffing Zerg against it, which is different (especially given that, IMO, much of the problem with skytoss is how easy it is to get into and how overtuned the voidray and carrier are).
The OP's suggested counterbuff to help vs skytoss was pitiful, and the original post also came with a suggestion to remove abduct of all things, which is the only effective source of chip damage Zerg has vs skyball.
So, the major buffs the last patches were: Shield battery overcharge, Void ray 50 minerals cheaper. And the patch before was thor buff and lurker range change (from 9 range to 8, with a new upgrade to 10 range). And main suggestions coming out of this thread seems to be remove adaptive tallons and revert the void ray buff?
Seems to make sense to me. That said I do think that if there was a good guide how to deal with mass lurkers in the PvZ mid game without airtoss or disruptor micro that could quite possibly be enough.
Lurker aside, I wonder if part of the zerg domination these past years actually derives more from the queen. Instead of serving its macro/support purpose, the defensive strength of this unit in the early game has made it so that both the vP and vT matchup don't really start until the 5-6 minute mark. Up until then, you mostly drone up to 60-70 while queens alone defend all aggression save dedicated allins. A queen taking more of a backseat role rather than as the main combat unit would make the early game more dynamic and perhaps not let Z amass quite that amount of lurkers so early.
On September 02 2021 01:52 Calliope wrote: Lurker aside, I wonder if part of the zerg domination these past years actually derives more from the queen. Instead of serving its macro/support purpose, the defensive strength of this unit in the early game has made it so that both the vP and vT matchup don't really start until the 5-6 minute mark. Up until then, you mostly drone up to 60-70 while queens alone defend all aggression save dedicated allins. A queen taking more of a backseat role rather than as the main combat unit would make the early game more dynamic and perhaps not let Z amass quite that amount of lurkers so early.
How do you suggest nerfing queens without zerg falling super far behind to BC opening or carrier opening? Or hell, even void rays would be a huge pain. BC and Carriers often hit about same time as lair finish, sometimes before. Please dont say spores...
I would be fine with a nerf to queen combat stats if you could make it so that ravagers attack air. This way zergs defensive comp would be roach ravager, and their defensive comp could also pressure without being all-in, making for more dynamic games where zerg isnt just defending all games or all-inning with queens.
Btw, zerg domination is only because of the players themselves, not the race per say. Zerg is least populated race in GM/masters, is often most under represented in tournaments. Its basically just Rogue and Dark in korea, and just Serral and Reynor in EU.
Rogue and Dark have been top players for over 5 years.
I think it's a problem as that makes air units better comparared to ground units, however I don't think you can fix that without starcraft 3.
It's very strong since you can clump your units in 1 point, which enable them to hit at once. Ground units when they fight only the front ones attack. You either need to get closer, or wait for the units to move around themselves to be able to atack, which limits their effective DPS, this is not true for air units.
However if they had collision box, air units would be pretty useless, specially capital ships. Imagine carriers or BC trying to attack. They are so slow and so big that only a couple would be able to atack, as the rest would be out of range. Just the size of a BC/Carrier is the equivalent of about 4-5 range, so it would be a big nerf. And then they are so slow they would take forever to move around other units and they would be useless.
That being said....Since massing them wouldn't be as effective due to the collission box and how slow they are, people would be incentiviced to only make a couple, say like 4. This would make them more of support units. Though in that case I think they would require a buff or some extra utility, specially the carrier. Alongside a possible supply increase to stop them from massing them.
Appart from that, it would be both a nerf and a buff to units like mutas. On one hand they wouldn't be able to clump them together and 1 shot things. On the other they would be much more resistant to splash damage. This would need a lot of rebalancing.
It wouldnt be a problem if the air units were designed properly like in broodwar.
A quick air units that can attack ground and air should do very little damage versus ground, basically always lose vs ground to air units. (Void rays and mutas are too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that attacks ground and air should still lose to ground to air units, but not as badly. (Carriers and BCs perform too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that can only attack ground should always beat ground no matter what. (Current thor vs broodlords isnt good design at all)
I feel like starcraft2 fails hard to follow these standard rules ( Even in magic the gathering, flying tag has a big stats cost).
Carriers, BCs, void rays and mutalisks to a smaller extent should not perform this good against a unit like hydralisk or stalkers.
Not only ground units have the weakness of terrain, but they are also vulnerable to super ground splash such as disruptors, colossus, lurkers and siege tanks; to which air units dont care.
I feel like in 2021 the unit stats and abilities are breaking a lot of fundamental rules of RTS. Battlecruisers being a mobile early game worker harass unit is also another broken rule in my opinion. But i feel like the ground to air issues are the biggest ones
I think the direction of the post is fine but the suggested changes are clearly not very good. Phantom admits Protoss air is overtuned, then suggests making it stronger by proxy (A big limitation of Skytoss is that vs lurkers and broods having ground support with it can be very difficult, and you really want templar / archon ground support to deal with corruptors) while giving Zerg nothing substantial in return (removing an upgrade generally only helps with timings, which Zerg already has plenty of in ZvP) and significant Zerg nerfs.
I like the idea of rebalancing the game to make ground vs ground more viable, because I think ground based armies make for more interesting and fun games, but the suggested changes clearly favor one race over the other to the extent of making it hard to take Phantom seriously.
that's cool, but i'm not holding my breath, seems like if they do patch the game it'll be a long time from now. They still haven't allowed purchase of the classic skins
that's cool, but i'm not holding my breath, seems like if they do patch the game it'll be a long time from now. They still haven't allowed purchase of the classic skins (specifically the ultra/bc/carrier)
I support removing Lurker upgrades. On a similar note lets remove liberator range, terran building armor and make spores and canons less massable. The game has become too turtley
It wouldnt be a problem if the air units were designed properly like in broodwar.
A quick air units that can attack ground and air should do very little damage versus ground, basically always lose vs ground to air units. (Void rays and mutas are too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that attacks ground and air should still lose to ground to air units, but not as badly. (Carriers and BCs perform too good vs hydras and stalkers)
A slow air unit that can only attack ground should always beat ground no matter what. (Current thor vs broodlords isnt good design at all)
I feel like starcraft2 fails hard to follow these standard rules ( Even in magic the gathering, flying tag has a big stats cost).
Carriers, BCs, void rays and mutalisks to a smaller extent should not perform this good against a unit like hydralisk or stalkers.
Not only ground units have the weakness of terrain, but they are also vulnerable to super ground splash such as disruptors, colossus, lurkers and siege tanks; to which air units dont care.
I feel like in 2021 the unit stats and abilities are breaking a lot of fundamental rules of RTS. Battlecruisers being a mobile early game worker harass unit is also another broken rule in my opinion. But i feel like the ground to air issues are the biggest ones
Those core design decisions are problems, although the UI constraints and how the eco works also mitigate the power of air in BW.
Mutas are pretty bloody good anyway, if you could select unlimited mutas and stack them they’d clean house. You don’t really have the eco to equivalently mass Carriers or BCs etc with relative ease.
I do still 100% agree basically. I guess I’ll give my thoughts rules/of thumb and how I think they’re adhered to.
1. Skirmishers should get blasted if they aren’t finding holes of little resistance.This one is broadly true at least, outside of mutas vs Protoss (which is more an issue of them having garbage ground to air dps), and I guess phoenixes snowballing at times. Banshees and libs both don’t have a good time against defensive cover, I think this is broadly OK.
2. Generic air and capital ships should trade badly with anti-air specialists if out-positioned - This can be true, sometimes especially if marines are involved and get under stuff in sufficient number. Hydras less so, and stalkers lack of DPS and taking extra damage vs voids really hurts here.
3. Air siege should get wiped if you can flank or isolated, but be potent against ground from a distance or an advantageous - This is, broadly true I think. Getting pinned down against Tempests or broods and you’re going to have a bad time, if you can ambush them in the open they’ll have an extremely bad time. Although I really don’t like the Thor, it’s so bulky and slow to manoeuvre and either completely shreds things or does nothing, Jesus I wish they’d just stopped tweaking the Thor and gave a Goliath equivalent.
Going back over things actually, in isolation I don’t think the air units deviate that far from solid general design concepts, although with the crucial caveat of - in isolation.
Stalkers are pretty garbage in any kind of engagement where there’s a lot of something and you need to kill it quickly. Their damage output is so bad, although they’re excellent at stopping medivacs or against low numbers of skirmishers. Archons you have to fly over and start waving ‘hello I’m here’ and you might get hit. Likewise storm.
Protoss having awful ground to air is a big part of the problem. Zergs have big gaps between the Queen-centric early and midgames up until they get all their potent anti-air tools later on.
Those issues aside, it’s more other unit interactions and that you can blob your air + add a few big AoE hitters to zone out ground than each individual air unit being terribly designed.
The bad ground to air is a very good point, the only reason units like the Viper were even introduced is because Zerg had very limited ways of defending themselves against mid/late game air armies, same for Stalkers and just how terrible they are vs. air units of more or less anything other then small numbers of medivacs.
I would support an across the board anti-air buff to ground units for both Zerg and Protoss, maybe give Hydras and Stalkers some baseline damage bonus vs. air, its not a very elegant change but neither was the spore crawler anti muta buff but that still had very positive effects on the game.
Sadly, this "balance team" or whatever we have going on now doesn't even give monthly or bi monthly updates on how they feel the state of the game is, which is a shame because SC2 really has always had more potential.
On September 03 2021 00:50 Beelzebub1 wrote: The bad ground to air is a very good point, the only reason units like the Viper were even introduced is because Zerg had very limited ways of defending themselves against mid/late game air armies, same for Stalkers and just how terrible they are vs. air units of more or less anything other then small numbers of medivacs.
I would support an across the board anti-air buff to ground units for both Zerg and Protoss, maybe give Hydras and Stalkers some baseline damage bonus vs. air, its not a very elegant change but neither was the spore crawler anti muta buff but that still had very positive effects on the game.
Sadly, this "balance team" or whatever we have going on now doesn't even give monthly or bi monthly updates on how they feel the state of the game is, which is a shame because SC2 really has always had more potential.
They should've increased the supply cost for massive units years ago, make it 8 instead of 6. Makes them less mass able but they can keep some strength and indirectly buffs midgame units
From a zerg perspective, you fail to mention how long it takes to get lurkers. It feels like I am waiting an eternity for that lurker den to finish building and then lurkers are not viable offensively until the fast burrow upgrade, which you need to have the infestation pit, then hive, and then wait for that upgrade to finish. It literally takes a massive amount of time to get lurkers upgraded. And while all that tech is happening, which is basically like Tier 4 status, Zerg is vulnerable to almost any kind of all-in from protoss. And all Z will have is hydras...which are hard countered by damn near every toss unit except maybe low numbers of VRs. Also, how does zerg counter an HT/archon based army? Broodlords?? Another tier 4 tech that takes forever. I'm not sure what the complaint is here.
On September 03 2021 00:50 Beelzebub1 wrote: The bad ground to air is a very good point, the only reason units like the Viper were even introduced is because Zerg had very limited ways of defending themselves against mid/late game air armies, same for Stalkers and just how terrible they are vs. air units of more or less anything other then small numbers of medivacs.
I would support an across the board anti-air buff to ground units for both Zerg and Protoss, maybe give Hydras and Stalkers some baseline damage bonus vs. air, its not a very elegant change but neither was the spore crawler anti muta buff but that still had very positive effects on the game.
Sadly, this "balance team" or whatever we have going on now doesn't even give monthly or bi monthly updates on how they feel the state of the game is, which is a shame because SC2 really has always had more potential.
They should've increased the supply cost for massive units years ago, make it 8 instead of 6. Makes them less mass able but they can keep some strength and indirectly buffs midgame units
Wouldn't be a bad change either, I know capital ships are a staple Starcraft unit so I know getting rid of them entirely is impossible but I've personally never found Brood Lords nor Carriers exciting units to watch or play against. The BC teleport thing also caused one of the stupidest metagames in Starcraft history so yea also not a fan lol
I think this all just goes to show why TvZ is the best match up in the game, you rarely see masses of capital ships because Zergs have great responses to BC and Terran has great responses to BL, so it's more of a mid game unit tug of war. ZvP is like, "If I attack, I die, so I just either survive timing attack or wait for him/her to make a mistake first."
As a silver Terran player with no relation to this post, I would like to say I have no idea what I'm saying It was really beginner-friendly and it made complete sense, now I want to hear a detailed explanation for why it should stay the same
To show just how stupid the " 8 lurkers are unbeatable argument for ground toss" here is Maxpax killing 12+ lurkers of reynor while barely losing anything by just amoving into them.
On September 18 2021 22:33 Railgan wrote: To show just how stupid the " 8 lurkers are unbeatable argument for ground toss" here is Maxpax killing 12+ lurkers of reynor while barely losing anything by just amoving into them.
You're not serious right? 12 Lurkers without any support against an almost maxed out Protoss army.... Not to mention Maxpax then attacked and lost everything to the left-over Lurkers Reynor had
IMO queens are even a bigger problem than lurkers. It is now normal to see 10+ queens in zvt and zvp and they are basically invincible because of transfuse.
On September 18 2021 22:33 Railgan wrote: To show just how stupid the " 8 lurkers are unbeatable argument for ground toss" here is Maxpax killing 12+ lurkers of reynor while barely losing anything by just amoving into them.
You're not serious right? 12 Lurkers without any support against an almost maxed out Protoss army.... Not to mention Maxpax then attacked and lost everything to the left-over Lurkers Reynor had
The point of this thread was 8 lurkers counter every protoss ground. Here we saw 4, lurkers getting attacked, reynor retreat them with 2 losses and dispatch other two on his bases, 7 other lurkers are engaged in the chasing but flee back into 7 other lurkers, considering he lost one lurker on the first pack it was 13 lurkers during the final engagement. The flank at the end helped but the fight was largely frontal, the spines always went against the main army. Zelotes aside, he lost 3 archons, 2 immortals while killing 16 lurkers, 2 fleeing in the process, the lurkers had no support, that's fair, maxpax outplayed reynor on this one and got a superb trade on a frontal assault against lurkers. As far as the toss max out army, well you're mostly right, maxpax had zelotes on harass and 4 immortals and a good chunk harassing.
During the fight later, maxpax pushed with a shit ton of zelotes as buffer without his 3 archons who had max shield while the lurkers were sustained by queens transfuse, his army value wasn't that good when he pushed, prolly inferior or equal at best to reynor's. It's the same dynamic as queen/ultra vs bio which can't os them. If he waited a bit, I am pretty sure he was crushing it.
On September 18 2021 22:33 Railgan wrote: To show just how stupid the " 8 lurkers are unbeatable argument for ground toss" here is Maxpax killing 12+ lurkers of reynor while barely losing anything by just amoving into them.
You're not serious right? 12 Lurkers without any support against an almost maxed out Protoss army.... Not to mention Maxpax then attacked and lost everything to the left-over Lurkers Reynor had
The point of this thread was 8 lurkers counter every protoss ground. Here we saw 4, lurkers getting attacked, reynor retreat them with 2 losses and dispatch other two on his bases, 7 other lurkers are engaged in the chasing but flee back into 7 other lurkers, considering he lost one lurker on the first pack it was 13 lurkers during the final engagement. The flank at the end helped but the fight was largely frontal, the spines always went against the main army. Zelotes aside, he lost 3 archons, 2 immortals while killing 16 lurkers, 2 fleeing in the process, the lurkers had no support, that's fair, maxpax outplayed reynor on this one and got a superb trade on a frontal assault against lurkers. As far as the toss max out army, well you're mostly right, maxpax had zelotes on harass and 4 immortals and a good chunk harassing.
During the fight later, maxpax pushed with a shit ton of zelotes as buffer without his 3 archons who had max shield while the lurkers were sustained by queens transfuse, his army value wasn't that good when he pushed, prolly inferior or equal at best to reynor's. It's the same dynamic as queen/ultra vs bio which can't os them. If he waited a bit, I am pretty sure he was crushing it.
I think the point of this thread is that an army with 8+ lurkers beat every Protoss ground composition, not that 8 Lurkers alone beat everything..... ofc nobody believes that, that would be stupid
Zerg, being the defender, will always come on top of Terran and Protoss (the agressors) at the end of any meta cycle, since all attack strategies are figured out. Otherwise, Terran and Protoss will be OP (there is no deterministic way by zerg to defend an attack). Unfortunately, this is how the game works, as you can never perfectly balance 3 different races. Right now, we have more than figured out the current meta, and if there are no more patches coming (doesn't seem like it), then yes, expect most tournaments to be won by zergs unless they have a really off day. All protoss and Terran attack strategies are known and top zergs have memorized the counter strategy to the tee, thats why Raynor and Serral have a 90% (or even 100% I remember its something crazy) winrate against protoss.
On September 19 2021 01:22 kingism wrote: Zerg, being the defender, will always come on top of Terran and Protoss (the agressors) at the end of any meta cycle, since all attack strategies are figured out. Otherwise, Terran and Protoss will be OP (there is no deterministic way by zerg to defend an attack). Unfortunately, this is how the game works, as you can never perfectly balance 3 different races. Right now, we have more than figured out the current meta, and if there are no more patches coming (doesn't seem like it), then yes, expect most tournaments to be won by zergs unless they have a really off day. All protoss and Terran attack strategies are known and top zergs have memorized the counter strategy to the tee, thats why Raynor and Serral have a 90% (or even 100% I remember its something crazy) winrate against protoss.
Serral is slightly over 70% on Aligulac, Reynor slightly below.
Which also will include matches where they were developing to their current level, but also includes giant mismatches in things like online cups etc.
By contrast Flash managed 70+ in all matchups, the vast majority of which were in the highest theatres of play in Brood War. Nobody in GSL comes that close to that from memory, and the top WC3 guys post absolute monster win rates too.
As time goes by Zergs should perform a bit better, minus patches that reset the meta, in the manner you describe, but for a variety of reasons SC2 doesn’t quite lend itself to outright dominance in the manner you outline.
@WombaT, you are looking at the all time winrate (includes all the matches they lost when they first started out). If you look at the form tab (which is last 40 matches or so), Serral and Reynor both currently have a > 83% winrate against P. Actually, when I checked in July, Serral or Reynor's winrate was over 90% against P. I would say a close to 90% winrate at the highest level doesn't scream "balanced". No player from any race should be able to do that against the other top players in other races consistently (spanning months to year(s) like Serral and Reynor in this current patch) for a game to be truly balanced IMO.
On September 19 2021 02:26 kingism wrote: @WombaT, you are looking at the all time winrate (includes all the matches they lost when they first started out). If you look at the form tab (which is last 40 matches or so), Serral and Reynor both currently have a > 83% winrate against P. Actually, when I checked in July, Serral or Reynor's winrate was over 90% against P. I would say a close to 90% winrate at the highest level doesn't scream "balanced". No player from any race should be able to do that against the other top players in other races consistently (spanning months to year(s) like Serral and Reynor in this current patch) for a game to be truly balanced IMO.
Fair but they’re both amazing players. There’s just not a Protoss player outside of Korea who can hang.
Clem has been consistently beating them, and they’re very good at vT as well. Even a player as good as Heromarine is mincemeat to those two, almost every time.
Outside of those two, Zerg don’t exactly dominate the rest of the Euro brackets, would say to me that Serral and Reynor are just atypically brilliant players.
On September 19 2021 01:22 kingism wrote: Zerg, being the defender, will always come on top of Terran and Protoss (the agressors) at the end of any meta cycle, since all attack strategies are figured out. Otherwise, Terran and Protoss will be OP (there is no deterministic way by zerg to defend an attack). Unfortunately, this is how the game works, as you can never perfectly balance 3 different races. Right now, we have more than figured out the current meta, and if there are no more patches coming (doesn't seem like it), then yes, expect most tournaments to be won by zergs unless they have a really off day. All protoss and Terran attack strategies are known and top zergs have memorized the counter strategy to the tee, thats why Raynor and Serral have a 90% (or even 100% I remember its something crazy) winrate against protoss.
This is true but oversimplified. What carries zerg right now is close to perfect information. Even in a figured out meta, if you have several aggressive builds and it's unclear to the zerg which one is coming, he could implement an incorrect defense. You then balance that because you want information to be hard to get, not impossible, otherwise the reactive race becomes underpowered.
Today information gathering for high level zergs is relatively easy. There are only three or four different things that the toss could be doing, and some of them are countered in similar ways. The issue is basically that in the meta today whenever a zerg is caught off guard by something it's because they failed. You can't really outplay them strategically, you just have to hope that they fuck up, or that they're much worse at the game than you in which case you could outplay them mechanically. I can't imagine that it's fun to play in those conditions.
And we should add that even though zerg is the reactive race, they also have a bunch of stuff that they used to throw at protoss in the few weeks where they thought airtoss was unbeatable. We don't see much swarmhosts or mutas anymore but those had good winrates as well, the reason why we don't see them is because there's not a lot of reasons to do that when you can just play standard and win unless you fuck up.
On September 19 2021 02:14 Vision_ wrote: Nobody see Dark takes his second map against Cure with a sad Nydus full of Lurkers into the natural of Cure ?....
That's what happens when a player sends his entire army home from the other side of the map. Cure should have just lifted and curbstomped Dark's natural and main or whatever expo's he wanted.
On September 19 2021 02:26 kingism wrote: @WombaT, you are looking at the all time winrate (includes all the matches they lost when they first started out). If you look at the form tab (which is last 40 matches or so), Serral and Reynor both currently have a > 83% winrate against P. Actually, when I checked in July, Serral or Reynor's winrate was over 90% against P. I would say a close to 90% winrate at the highest level doesn't scream "balanced". No player from any race should be able to do that against the other top players in other races consistently (spanning months to year(s) like Serral and Reynor in this current patch) for a game to be truly balanced IMO.
Fair but they’re both amazing players. There’s just not a Protoss player outside of Korea who can hang.
Clem has been consistently beating them, and they’re very good at vT as well. Even a player as good as Heromarine is mincemeat to those two, almost every time.
Outside of those two, Zerg don’t exactly dominate the rest of the Euro brackets, would say to me that Serral and Reynor are just atypically brilliant players.
I agree with this, Clem actually has quite a good win rate vs. Reynor and earlier in the year 3 - 0d Serral, which obviously is a feat of fucking Herculean proportions.
Can't really compare Serral to alot of people, who is really as good as him outside of the tip top Koreans? And even among the top Koreans Serral DISMANTLED Trap in the last finals so yea, Traps not exactly a slouch in PvZ.
On September 19 2021 02:14 Vision_ wrote: Nobody see Dark takes his second map against Cure with a sad Nydus full of Lurkers into the natural of Cure ?....
That's what happens when a player sends his entire army home from the other side of the map. Cure should have just lifted and curbstomped Dark's natural and main or whatever expo's he wanted.
This kind of game played by Cure in this series consisted to win every fights along the game to stay ahead in the army population, oftenly you could compare workers count between the two guys and understand how much effort he does to keep alive a scary army at the expense of his economy (i.e very low numbers of workers despite mules, but Zerg doesn t settle in a end-game economy)
The game was over because Dark couldn t extend his economy territory without trading cost efficienly, and finally Dark must lose the game in theory until such time he was enable to increase his army production.
Of course you can be critiziced about the rally point of Cure, but at this point the game was in a deadly position for both sides and the reinforcement of Cure wouldn t have not be just-in-time basis,.. but lifting barracks won t change anything cause Cure would have lost his only advantage, i.e his army size despite his low eco mode.
On September 19 2021 22:48 freelifeffs wrote: nerf queen, buff hydra. shouldve been done years ago. that queen massing is so terrible both for players and for viewers.
The early game is, from a balance perspective, the most critical phase (because it's totally unavoidable and SC2 snowballs hard).
It's hard to imagine a hydra buff at all compensating for the early game weakening a queen nerf creates.
Longer CD on transfuse might be a decent nerf for Queens, shouldn’t seriously effect the early game and prevents the endless tide of healing from all of the Transfuses popping off
Nothing to see, I just look at the number of units which have a bonus against light the result decieve me a bit : 9 only,... among 55 units in Legacy of The Void
Along the developpement, programmers must have put aside the concept of light units being faster....
On September 19 2021 22:48 freelifeffs wrote: nerf queen, buff hydra. shouldve been done years ago. that queen massing is so terrible both for players and for viewers.
The early game is, from a balance perspective, the most critical phase (because it's totally unavoidable and SC2 snowballs hard).
It's hard to imagine a hydra buff at all compensating for the early game weakening a queen nerf creates.
Yes you need to be armored or at least not light to face hellion, hellbats, oracle, adepts and banelings. But being armored means your defensive unit wouldn't be able to tank the few tank shots + would just die to any void ray attack. So zergs needs a polyvalent unit in defense in the early game which suffers some drawback offensively. Hydras won't solve it, suppressing mass queens defense would requiere a zerg hero unit like the msc and it would only be worse. At least, that's the only sort of unit I see as polyvalent enough to replace the queen as a core defensive unit in the early game.
They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens.
Probably not a good idea to give hatch tech zerg a mobile anti air without changing a LOT of stuff with it.
Would be acceptable as long as Queens were nerfed. The only reason Zergs learned long ago to lean on mass Queens is because Zerg has terrible early game anti air capabilities and even in the mid game they are expensive and unwieldy.
I haven't had the time to watch a TON of SC2 lately- so I may be off base here- but are we even seeing Lurkers in ZvP at the top level right now? Every game I've seen of ZvProtoss ground is just bane ravager crashing in over and over again, and ravagers seem to be the biggest problem. Honestly, I would seriously support just deleting ravagers and tuning the game a bit from there- maybe it would give us the incentive to finally hit shield batteries too (why TF do they still finish with so much energy?).
On September 21 2021 03:24 Draddition wrote: I haven't had the time to watch a TON of SC2 lately- so I may be off base here- but are we even seeing Lurkers in ZvP at the top level right now? Every game I've seen of ZvProtoss ground is just bane ravager crashing in over and over again, and ravagers seem to be the biggest problem. Honestly, I would seriously support just deleting ravagers and tuning the game a bit from there- maybe it would give us the incentive to finally hit shield batteries too (why TF do they still finish with so much energy?).
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
In broodwar, the Lurker had 125 health. In SC2, it has 200 health. I've seen a lot of fights where lurkers get scanned and split armies attack into them with good positioning and then still die because they get hard out dpsed by the Lurkers. Maybe just lower the hp a bit. It would be an easy change that wouldn't cause a huge shift in the meta or a require game-changing balance patch.
P.S. and while they're at it they can lower shield battery rate of shield restoration and buff overcharge to compensate, to make it less effective to use batteries offensively.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
You should be in charge of the next patch.
Thank you Honestly I've already read enough good ideas in this and similar threads that I am confident that well selected community based balance team would do the job more than fine. Unfortunately it is rather unlikely that it will ever happen but one can dream
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
It’s changing way too much at once, and ofc is super unlikely to be implemented, but as a starting point for development I think it makes a lot more sense. The Queen being so bloody good isn’t something a lot of people like. Plus your proposals would make the Zerg a little more swarmy again, which I also like.
It’s not the only decision they made that has huge knock-on effects that all kind of suck, and keep getting impounded by subsequent units slotting in.
For example Protoss warp gate working as it does basically gimping gateway tech. Protoss gets tons of AoE to compensate, a nightmare for Terrans to play against disruptors/storm/teleporting individual men in the lategame, or Zergs have to break down Skytoss every other game.
But hey, I’ve only been banging that drum for a decade :p SC2 to me is remarkably balanced and fun considering some of the core design choices being outright bad IMO.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
It’s changing way too much at once, and ofc is super unlikely to be implemented, but as a starting point for development I think it makes a lot more sense. The Queen being so bloody good isn’t something a lot of people like. Plus your proposals would make the Zerg a little more swarmy again, which I also like.
It’s not the only decision they made that has huge knock-on effects that all kind of suck, and keep getting impounded by subsequent units slotting in.
For example Protoss warp gate working as it does basically gimping gateway tech. Protoss gets tons of AoE to compensate, a nightmare for Terrans to play against disruptors/storm/teleporting individual men in the lategame, or Zergs have to break down Skytoss every other game.
But hey, I’ve only been banging that drum for a decade :p SC2 to me is remarkably balanced and fun considering some of the core design choices being outright bad IMO.
You are totally right and warpgate example is really on point. And again it could be solvable if implemented correctly however it would be even more impactful on the whole game as the changes I suggested for the Zerg tech tree which explains why blizzard was reluctant to ever touch the warpgate. Imho warpgate should be moved into later part of the game and also nerfed a bit. Example: 1. 150/150 160sec upgrade on twilight council (needs to compete for time and resources against crucial gateway units uprageds) 2. Every unit build time for regular gateway and warpgate is the same 3. Unified warp time for any pylon/warp prism. The value should be between current fast and slow warp time. 4. Warped unit is without shields to nerf instant reinforcements strength but keeping harassment potential. 5. Buff gateway units accordingly (especially build time)
With such approach you as a protoss player get to "choose" if you want to commit to warpgate tech faster or slower. Do you get blink or warp gate first? You could go for faster warpgate to harass your opponent or postpone and play defensively with upgraded units. Maybe i go double TC and hit some sick all-in timing? Or focus on robo tech turtle and get warpgate one i start pushing and harassing with warp prism?
And yes SC2 is great and fun game but it is in some areas really frustrating and "over amped" which is sad and makes people like me constantly envisioning how the game would look like if some stuff would be changed
Units warping in without shields is an excellent and pretty elegant way to nerf warpgate tech tbh, I like that, especially if it means Protoss can have the kind of early game units that Terran gets, aka ones that dont become super obsolete.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
You should be in charge of the next patch.
Thank you Honestly I've already read enough good ideas in this and similar threads that I am confident that well selected community based balance team would do the job more than fine. Unfortunately it is rather unlikely that it will ever happen but one can dream
On September 21 2021 23:55 Zambrah wrote: Units warping in without shields is an excellent and pretty elegant way to nerf warpgate tech tbh, I like that, especially if it means Protoss can have the kind of early game units that Terran gets, aka ones that dont become super obsolete.
Yes I also like very much this idea, because add options always sounds good in a strategy game
Some time ago, i ve also been pleased by the idea of paying tumors as a building, i.e with a drone (but the network can t be destroyed, the last tumor receives the ability to spawn a new one). The idea is simple..
1) zergs would have the advantage to re-expand which is great regarding how features in sc2 are punitives 2) depending the size of the map, Zerg could decide to pay more or less starting tumors, which improves decision making 3) ofc the number of larva by injection is adjusted
In this idea, you have two advantages : mechanically less frustrating for casual gamers and best decision making compared to now (which is to chose if you inject first or spawn tumor first)
As this idea would demand a ton of rework, it could be very-simplified in allowing queens to create only one tumors (or two charges ?) which is linked to his soul. If the queen dies, any new tumors can be spawn again. You can re-spawn from the last living tumor inside the network (after the head-tumor has been killed)
But to talk about the subject, lurkers could now go down from T3 to T2 because nobody uses the SH anymore. maybe I can dream again of infestors used to swing infested terrans at very very long range
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
It’s changing way too much at once, and ofc is super unlikely to be implemented, but as a starting point for development I think it makes a lot more sense. The Queen being so bloody good isn’t something a lot of people like. Plus your proposals would make the Zerg a little more swarmy again, which I also like.
It’s not the only decision they made that has huge knock-on effects that all kind of suck, and keep getting impounded by subsequent units slotting in.
For example Protoss warp gate working as it does basically gimping gateway tech. Protoss gets tons of AoE to compensate, a nightmare for Terrans to play against disruptors/storm/teleporting individual men in the lategame, or Zergs have to break down Skytoss every other game.
But hey, I’ve only been banging that drum for a decade :p SC2 to me is remarkably balanced and fun considering some of the core design choices being outright bad IMO.
You are totally right and warpgate example is really on point. And again it could be solvable if implemented correctly however it would be even more impactful on the whole game as the changes I suggested for the Zerg tech tree which explains why blizzard was reluctant to ever touch the warpgate. Imho warpgate should be moved into later part of the game and also nerfed a bit. Example: 1. 150/150 160sec upgrade on twilight council (needs to compete for time and resources against crucial gateway units uprageds) 2. Every unit build time for regular gateway and warpgate is the same 3. Unified warp time for any pylon/warp prism. The value should be between current fast and slow warp time. 4. Warped unit is without shields to nerf instant reinforcements strength but keeping harassment potential. 5. Buff gateway units accordingly (especially build time)
With such approach you as a protoss player get to "choose" if you want to commit to warpgate tech faster or slower. Do you get blink or warp gate first? You could go for faster warpgate to harass your opponent or postpone and play defensively with upgraded units. Maybe i go double TC and hit some sick all-in timing? Or focus on robo tech turtle and get warpgate one i start pushing and harassing with warp prism?
And yes SC2 is great and fun game but it is in some areas really frustrating and "over amped" which is sad and makes people like me constantly envisioning how the game would look like if some stuff would be changed
Yeah I like it.
My issue is the lack of trade off. Mobility of reinforcement versus, something. Anything!
Warp gate is just outright better than gateway production, when it should be worse outside of the whole ‘warping’ thing. It just cuts a strategic decision, much as the Queen being so good makes it a no-brainer to build a bunch of Queens.
Less strategic decisions and you’ve less variety in strategy too. Strategy encompasses more than x build order.
I’m a little biased, I personally like macro cycles and find the Terran and Zergs to be a bit more satisfying. I’d love the Protoss cycle to be a bit more mechanically demanding.
And hey you open up variety. Do you just pump out tons of units and chrono your gateways like a champ and try to bludgeon your opponent with pure macro, or start getting funky with warp gates and the positional advantage they give you?
But hey I don’t think we’ll see such radical changes, but I hope the next Starcraft or the next comparably good RTS keeps these kind of tradeoffs in mind.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
If you don’t nerf airtoss to compensate. Which you could do.
Outside of 2/3 base timing attacks why would any non-suicidal Toss, outside of a huge skill disparity go ground against Zerg? It’s basically suicide in a late game.
Lurkers, especially with caster support absolutely butcher Protoss ground armies, from frequently used compositions to fantasy theorycraft compositions. They outrange most, need detection to hit and vipers can either yoink stuff on or blinding cloud.
The current Sky toss meta is absolutely a mother of invention thing.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
I ve heard about DNS opinion regarding "Queens walk", it seems to cut most of the gateway-robot opening from what i ve understand.
Could be the conclusion of SC2 ? Queens heal roachs with rapid fire and breaks all robot-builds
Wiki Quote Transfusion Multiple applications of Transfusion in rapid succession each heal for 75 health, but the 50 health over time effect does not stack, i.e., will be applied only once.
Wiki Quote Transfusion Multiple applications of Transfusion in rapid succession each heal for 75 health, but the 50 health over time effect does not stack, i.e., will be applied only once.
I'd like to see a video of a zerg doing a queen walk against a robo opening.
On September 20 2021 07:10 Snakestyle11 wrote: They could just give ravagers are an attack against air, and nerf queens. It would on the other hand completely remove hydras from the game, so probably bad design wise in that regard.
It would however make the game more dynamic, as in the units zerg builds to be safe in the early game could also be used to pressure, so both sides of the matchup would be a little less greedy and make more ground forces in the early and mid game. It would lead to more trades on both sides of the map, instead of zerg defending on mass queen all game or all inning with queens.
It would also lead to robo openings becoming more meta in pvz, and having a mid game where protoss and zergs both split their army in two or more while protoss tries to secure a 4th base, leading to more ground trades and less passive stargate play / queen all ins.
I really think overall it would make for a much better game, to play and to watch, than the current snooze fest of zerg defends on mass queens for 10minutes or all-in with queens, because they have no viable GroundtoAir unit other than queens.
The decision in early SC2 development to move hydras to T2 was a bad one. It leads to a lot of problems. 1. You cannot nerf queen as it is the only Zerg unit with the anti air in the early game. 2. Lurker being an upgrade to hydras must be further away in the tech tree pushing it to T3 and needs to be ridiculously strong to compete against other T3 options (both Zerg and T/P) 3. Hydras on T2 kinda have to deal a lot of dmg which leads them to be expensive (2supply 100/50) and with combination of relatively low health a glass Cannon unit kind of hard to be balanced. It either rolls over opponents army with superior dps or gets evaporated by any AoE. Imho the whole hydra/lurker tech branch should be moved a step down and the units be adjusted (toned down) to that: cheaper, weaker, more massable - proper Zerg style. Cheaper T1.5 hydra might open the possibilities for Zerg to play differently than amass queens as the only anti air option and also queen might be finally nerfed to more fit a role of a supporting and macro unit not catch-all swiss scissors unit. Faster and cheaper T2 lurker might become an alternative to baneling AoE in the midgame and provide actually fun interactions against not maxed-out armies.
We actually have to nerf the queens and move from there. I'm not saying "nerf the queens and be done". But without changing the queens we can't move forward as the whole Zerg game stands on the band aid which is queen. After the queen nerf we can 1) Introduce a new unit/upgrade - e.g. roaches shooting up 2) Move hydra down the tree in a weaker state with an additional upgrade 3) Do something else to battle the air units issue, but without nerfing queens we won't move forward.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
I ve heard about DNS opinion regarding "Queens walk", it seems to cut most of the gateway-robot opening from what i ve understand.
Could be the conclusion of SC2 ? Queens heal roachs with rapid fire and breaks all robot-builds
Wiki Quote Transfusion Multiple applications of Transfusion in rapid succession each heal for 75 health, but the 50 health over time effect does not stack, i.e., will be applied only once.
I'd like to see a video of a zerg doing a queen walk against a robo opening.
This isn t exactly what you want but I found this video where Lambo is explaining that this opening is working against absolutely every Protoss build in particulary robot opening (except blink-stalker which has to be scouted). I don t think i m saying bullshit and probably, this all-in can be more and more aggressive depending the timer you re pushing...
Actually if Lambo says it s working there s no reason to doubt about that
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
No reason to get triggered I just don't think on pro level the reason everyone goes Skytoss is because it's that good but that the other options kinda suck for the mentioned reason. Whether skytoss is balanced at top 100 level is another discussion which I don't have an opinion to.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
No reason to get triggered I just don't think on pro level the reason everyone goes Skytoss is because it's that good but that the other options kinda suck for the mentioned reason. Whether skytoss is balanced at top 100 level is another discussion which I don't have an opinion to.
Skytoss is incredibly good at a high level, I don't know how you've reached the conclusion it isn't.
Just because the top 2-3 zergs beat it doesn't mean it's not good. It's killing the zerg population of this game.
Aligulac has pvz at about 60%, you don't see that very often for a matchup even if the data is not always useful on it's own.
Seems like some people are happy for the game to head towards 70% protoss and everyone else just quit. But Serral will still win so...balanced?
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
I think that bar is too high for a healthy game and it’s not just because Skytoss is strong either. It’s not particularly fun to play and it’s certainly not fun to play against and it’s not a particularly good watch either.
I agree that a lurker nerf without any other changes would be terrible, but Sky Toss is as fleshed out as it currently is partly due to buffs encouraging more experimentation, partly as the Protoss collective seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of playing ground-based armies into the lategame.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
I think that bar is too high for a healthy game and it’s not just because Skytoss is strong either. It’s not particularly fun to play and it’s certainly not fun to play against and it’s not a particularly good watch either.
I agree that a lurker nerf without any other changes would be terrible, but Sky Toss is as fleshed out as it currently is partly due to buffs encouraging more experimentation, partly as the Protoss collective seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of playing ground-based armies into the lategame.
If you nerf Skytoss straight up at the top level PvZ lategame will become unwinnable again. More reasonable would be a nerf to Voidrays so Toss players can't just skip the midgame and go directly to Skytoss.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
I think that bar is too high for a healthy game and it’s not just because Skytoss is strong either. It’s not particularly fun to play and it’s certainly not fun to play against and it’s not a particularly good watch either.
I agree that a lurker nerf without any other changes would be terrible, but Sky Toss is as fleshed out as it currently is partly due to buffs encouraging more experimentation, partly as the Protoss collective seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of playing ground-based armies into the lategame.
If you nerf Skytoss straight up at the top level PvZ lategame will become unwinnable again. More reasonable would be a nerf to Voidrays so Toss players can't just skip the midgame and go directly to Skytoss.
And what makes you come to that conclusion? I never heard any Protoss Pro Player say they can only win with Skytoss. Only that winning with Skytoss is the easiest. If your argument is "well I never see Ground Protoss" I don't think that argument works here as players simply pick the best / easiest option.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
I think that bar is too high for a healthy game and it’s not just because Skytoss is strong either. It’s not particularly fun to play and it’s certainly not fun to play against and it’s not a particularly good watch either.
I agree that a lurker nerf without any other changes would be terrible, but Sky Toss is as fleshed out as it currently is partly due to buffs encouraging more experimentation, partly as the Protoss collective seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of playing ground-based armies into the lategame.
If you nerf Skytoss straight up at the top level PvZ lategame will become unwinnable again. More reasonable would be a nerf to Voidrays so Toss players can't just skip the midgame and go directly to Skytoss.
It feels you need to change a few parts to ideally make Protoss ground more viable at the very highest level in real late game and make Skytoss less oppressive in the current meta.
As you say, I don’t agree that Skytoss is a better, easier lategame option that Protoss players are using, it’s borderline the only port of call. Likewise mech is bloody rare these days and it’s not for lack of trying.
I fear say, just a void nerf without doing other things just makes the Skytoss transition harder and more open to busts, but alternatives to Skytoss aren’t good so Protoss will have a hard time.
On the other hand, I’m unsure how to square this particular circle, but hey it’s not my job! As long as players are as good as they are now and Vipers can yoink high value ground units into high range lurkers, making ground more viable just seems really difficult.
I can’t think of many occasions where there’s an air-centric late/super-lategame meta that was actually good, and not just in PvZ. I’ll happily wear my Protoss colours proudly but if a meta sucks, it sucks.
On September 22 2021 05:44 BonitiilloO wrote: Is there any top player giving his opinion on this matter?
IDK I am top 100 in EU.
My thoughts are: The Lurker isn't the reason Protoss doesn't go Ground. The reason is because Skytoss is so strong.
It is the same like back in the day when Protoss complained they have to open Stargate every Game versus Zerg cause of Ling Drops.
Then Ling Drops got nerfed and Protoss kept Opening Stargate every game just more aggressive.
Everytime you nerf something in SC2 the other Races will just try to play greedier and greedier. If you nerf Lurkers Protoss will keep playing Sky but even greedier and more aggressive with more Disruptors / Archons / Storm.
That's not really true on pro level. Skytoss doesn't have that high of a success rate. Often it loses vs Queen walks and even if the Zerg goes for macro Serral/Dark/Rogue regularly dismantle it. And still Protoss players keep trying it instead of going for ground
What even is the point of any Discussion on SC2 if Top 100 isn't good enough? If you think only the opinion of the top 40 in the World matter (or whatever arbitrary line you pick) then why even post in these threads at all.
I think that bar is too high for a healthy game and it’s not just because Skytoss is strong either. It’s not particularly fun to play and it’s certainly not fun to play against and it’s not a particularly good watch either.
I agree that a lurker nerf without any other changes would be terrible, but Sky Toss is as fleshed out as it currently is partly due to buffs encouraging more experimentation, partly as the Protoss collective seemed to have hit a brick wall in terms of playing ground-based armies into the lategame.
If you nerf Skytoss straight up at the top level PvZ lategame will become unwinnable again. More reasonable would be a nerf to Voidrays so Toss players can't just skip the midgame and go directly to Skytoss.
And what makes you come to that conclusion? I never heard any Protoss Pro Player say they can only win with Skytoss. Only that winning with Skytoss is the easiest. If your argument is "well I never see Ground Protoss" I don't think that argument works here as players simply pick the best / easiest option.
As a proper lategame option?
There are plenty of brutal ground-based kill timings, they’ve been Trap’s bread and butter for a bunch of his tournament wins.
What you don’t see much is a proper slugfest lategame where Protoss stay in the ground. I’m sure they exist but I can’t recall many in the vaguely recent past.
There’s the issue of predictability and keeping something in your pocket. If ground-based lategame Toss was actually good at all you’d see it more, especially in prep tournaments.
Bio is better than mech TvZ, but you still see the odd mech game to throw something different out. Hell I’ve seen more mech v Protoss one-off builds than a Protoss player playing for a lategame without taking to the air.
I’ve seen wonky games where timings haven’t quite killed a Zerg and Protoss can’t easily transition to Skytoss after their committee so they stay on ground tech for a while, I’ve not seen many games where it’s clear the Protoss plans to go mano o mano in a macro game without going Skytoss
Could just be the sample of games I particularly choose to warch.
Corruptors are broken Hydralisks are expensive Queens works out Queens / Roachs / Ravagers is a threat Toss player rushs skytoss
ps :
roach + queen = 320 hit points + 1 armor /// cost 225 minerals + 25 gas +++ transfusion
immortal = 300 hit points + 1 armor /// cost 275 minerals + 100 gas
The transition to skytoss is rushed because if the player try to defend with ground units, he would miss in gas and territory control, be in danger in the race to harvest resources for expand to new bases. More the game goes, more Zerg player would be able to tech and reach out to a confortable late game... Finally what is absolutely insane is massing carriers units (or battlecruiser for example) in a small area cause they haven t collision box. In comparaison, massive ground units are interesting because they are strong but clumpy (bothering movement) while air units doesn t suffer from this important feature of positionning.
Also, Mutalisks, Vikings and Phoenix are well designed and there is an obvious place for support units despite vipers can punish/frustrate so much.. Then I can t speak from an Esport view but i imagine Tempest could be usefull if his range return as desinged at start (from 10 to 15) and massive units like carriers and battlecruisers were removed (unless find a solution to overlapping problem units in Air... i.e concentrate too much strenght into a single position)
I agree that the Lurker needs to be more immobile. It's a bit messed up watching Lurkers able to chase ground armies down by burrowing and unburrowing.
Probably the burrow speed upgrade should be removed or reworked. 2 seconds to burrow is fine. It allows clear counterplay and keeps their role as positional units. Allowing them to be both fast and also burrow/unburrow quickly just confuses its design.
We shouldn't be seeing Lurkers able to chase down ground armies that are trying to run away.
An eventual sexy solution to slightly tweak lurkers without too much changes :
1) Removed armored tag 2) Reduce hit points from 200 to 140 3) Damage reduce from 20 ( + 10 against armored) to ( + 6 against armored ) 4) Ghost : 'Steady Targeting' decreased from 170 to 130 + 40 against armored
Here the list with bonus against armored in LoTV :
All these units will now do less damage to Lurkers , in proportion damage inflicted by Lurkers are reduced by proposition 3)
Stalker (+5), Immortal (+30), Void Ray (+4/+10)
Marauder (+10), Siege Tank (+10/+30), Viking (in Fighter Mode)
Spine Crawler, Lurker (+10)
List of armored units affected :
Stalker, Immortal ---- These units are mainly concerned by the patch Colossus -------------- It doesn t matter, colossus has 9 of range and lot of hp Disruptor -------------- This unit can now one shot a Lurker but Zerg has vipers
Marauder, Siege Tank -- These units are mainly concerned by the patch Thor ------------------------- not a problem Cyclone -------------------- not a good idea, "lock on" range = 7
Roach ---------------------- could be interessant Infestor --------------------- it doesn t matter Ultralisk -------------------- Ultralisk can be more competitive Swarm Host -------------- (...) Lurker
Finally, the only remaining problem for applying such a patch comes from Ghosts with their ability 'Steady Targeting' which does 170 damage if he sn t interrupted (with 10 range). If Zerg player has an overseer to detect ghosts, they couldn t shoot easily unless if they are in larger group, otherwise they would be now able to kick ass to Lurkers. So proposition 4) has been added
1.-I Main Protoss, I've never had any Zerg ever do a queen walk on me if I opened Robo. With good targeting Robo should kill it (specially if you scout it and add templates for archons/feedback). I have, however, died when I opened Stargate and made a Robo to stop their queen walk. Now I just make more gateway units and HT/DT.
2.-If the lurker is nerfed that would make ground toss more viable but I have no doubts most would still go air. The VR has pretty big counters and was useless before the patch so that's why I suggested to buff the infestor instead. But I agree there would be need of another change.
3.-Protoss doesn't have any other viable build apart from adept glaives pushes and maybe some random shitty early all in. You can clearly see this in Bo5 or the GSL. If they had other strategies they would use them because I'm a Bo5 even if a strat is good you need to mix it up. Protoss don't, because they don't have one. Remember back when the VR was shit Protoss only did variations of the adept build which failed almost every time because all the other strategies were either nerfed into the ground or made obsolete.
Remember parting blink micro? Have you noticed how we don't see stuff like that anymore? It was nerfed into oblivion and Blink and the stalker had a much narrower window of opportunity where they are useful thanks to LoTV increased game pace. Blink is now basically used on TvP to dive on top of bunkers and snipe medivacs (not really micro) and in PvZ because it's useful to retreat. Long gone are the days of micro.
About the suggestion of Vision, I would need to do the math. Disruptors one shotting lurkers would go a long way to make ground viable. Though there is still the problem of the viper cancelling disruption nova and Lurker one shotting HT but I think it could work since now if you manage by chance or skill to get 1 disruptor hit at least you killed a lurker instead of getting nothing.
In fact after doing the maths this morning, it appears than my proposition would increase Lurkers strenght....
Imagine this new proposition :
1) Decrease speed from "very fast" to "fast" (Respect armored tag unit as most of them have "normal speed")
2) Increase supply cost from 3 to 4
3) In return, cooldown attack is increased from 1.43 to 1.27 (+12.5% for example), damage does now 14 + 16 against armored (instead of 20 + 10 against armored)
4) Tech tree changes to Lair
These modifications aims to keep Lurkers competitive against armored units (no damage changes, acceleration of his attack in return of a bigger supply cost) in giving them a weakness against light units. Tech change seems a solution (to me) to give a chance to Zerg player of pushing back earlier Terran All-ins.
Obviously, these changes are just expectations. Technically, hope to decrease critical mass of Lurkers, strenght against armored unit should stay the same
All these suggestions are unnecessarily complex. All thats required is remove speed burrow for Lurkers and decrease their overall speed a bit as well as nerf Viper abduct and remove siphon energy. In return remove void upgrade and nerf carriers. Problem solved.
On September 24 2021 18:27 MarianoSC2 wrote: All these suggestions are unnecessarily complex. All thats required is remove speed burrow for Lurkers and decrease their overall speed a bit as well as nerf Viper abduct and remove siphon energy. In return remove void upgrade and nerf carriers. Problem solved.
Everything you say has a name, it s called adaptative talons.
What you don t understand is that Lurkers is the only unit which is doing so well against all type of unit. In the wikipedia page, Lurkers is known to be strong against Marine, Hydralisk and Zealot (Base units with light armor), but everything in his design show that unit is awesome against armored.
In definitive the role occupied by Lurkers is too large, in other words, in comparaison too many zergs units are pointless.
I didn t play since a long ago but it s obviously not enought if you only propose to solve the problem for players with 200 APM and more....
ps : If banelings are good against light units, what lurkers are supposed to be ?
Still in the process of making the Lurker weaker against a single type of unit (light or armored), it is possible to consider fewer spine coming out of the earth in order to make the damage more random against small sized units.
Zerg ground armies are to strong vs protoss, stop thinking protoss goes air because its easier to play then ground its not the case whatsoever.
Any game of ZVP if protoss does not have an air army ready for the lurker switch you will be dead, you must end the game before lurker count gets out of control or play the ultra late game air armies. That is your 2 options as protoss.
Zerg has a huuuuuuuuuge amount of viable unit comps and playstyles to choose from, protoss has but a few and is because of this extremely predictable. While zerg is really hard to read and scout for a protoss.
You people are now suggesting nerfing the little options protoss has left as if its protosses fault the matchup is still in this mess.
It's cause of the insane whining from the community of sc2 from twitch chat to pro gamers that this matchup has never been fixed because Blizzard has always been to dumb to fix it themselves and have always been influenced by popular opinion. It's a miracle and pure luck that TVZ is a good matchup or this game would have been DEAD before it ever took off as an esport.
If you wanna fix ZVP nerf zerg ground, it might hurt a few playstyles in TVZ but it must be done.
If you wanna make protoss air crap go for it just atleast let protoss have a chance to beat zerg ground armies with their own ground army.
Lurkers has been designed from what wikipedia say, against light units. Actually this isn t the case because Lurkers are good against all, undepending of armor type.
I just looked at attack speed and compare to tanks : Tanks fire rate = 0.74 Lurkers fire rate = 1.43 (because of time between each spines)
It seems to me clear now the best way to improve Lurker is to enhance their role as Blizzard wanted. Lurker has been designed as a beefy middle siege unit with low attack speed and a very large area of effect.
Now what you want is to push his role outside the limit designed by Blizzard, which means a very low attack speed, but as Lurkers already punish too much..., you have to increase his range from 10 to 12, keeping their number of spines but slightly spaced and tweak a little bit their damage from ( 20 + 10 against armored) to ( 15 + 15 against armored).
The question is : Are units with light armor enought fast to come closer of Lurkers and kill them.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/p7PyP0H.jpg)
