EPTHow important is it for StarCraft II to get a new balance…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net129 Posts
| ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
IMHO, the biggest issues are: 1) Cannon Rush - Maybe say cannons can only be built near Forge or Nexus. 2) Void Ray + proxy Battery - Maybe batteries can only be built near Cyber Core or Nexus 3) Protoss ground is too weak in PvZ. There is no way to fight Lurker/Brood with Protoss ground. I have no idea how to fix this. Maybe add a Stalker range upgrade so they can stay relevant in the late game. 4) Protoss air has been buffed to the point where Zerg can 100% prepare for it and still die. Obvious fix would be nerfing Void Ray in one way or another but maybe adjust Phoenix such that Mutas are viable again. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
look at bw. | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
Terrans especially, I think, are pretty sick of the m/u and all the different very strong cheeses Protoss can use. There is additionally a perception, whether well-founded or not, in the Terran community that Protoss mid- and late-game is easier, demands significantly less multitask and APM to achieve successful outcomes, and therefore should be avoided. As a result, the Terran meta has converged on aggressive play and all-ins in the mid-game as a response to Protoss's perceived lategame power. It 'feels' like Terran doesn't have many options on how to play, and it is very difficult and mentally stressful to play the proscribed style that is perceived as being 'most consistently' able to defeat Protoss. | ||
|
QOGQOG
828 Posts
| ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Then you have all those EU terran complaining about protoss, but what would they change? And Protoss barely wins any tournaments as is, so is it really necessary? I feel a lot of it is in perceptions. Protoss feels unfair, but it isn't, and imo, its' in fact kind of bad. | ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
I'd like more map rotation though. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
It's really dumb. I'd say a patch is pretty critical for at least my continued interest in the game. Protoss is a bit of a joke right now. For the top 20 players I think the game is balanced, for everyone else Protoss is just more winning for the same amount of effort / mistakes. | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24192 Posts
On September 08 2021 03:07 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: We are seeing proxy voidray battery build number god-knows-how-many right now in sOs vs Heromarine. It's really dumb. I'd say a patch is pretty critical for at least my continued interest in the game. Protoss is a bit of a joke right now. For the top 20 players I think the game is balanced, for everyone else Protoss is just more winning for the same amount of effort / mistakes. more or less my stance. So yeah, extremely important imo | ||
|
darklycid
3374 Posts
On September 08 2021 03:07 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: We are seeing proxy voidray battery build number god-knows-how-many right now in sOs vs Heromarine. It's really dumb. I'd say a patch is pretty critical for at least my continued interest in the game. Protoss is a bit of a joke right now. For the top 20 players I think the game is balanced, for everyone else Protoss is just more winning for the same amount of effort / mistakes. While there are definitely some strategies that lead to toss having the advantage in 6k and below (2sg void comes to mind) i think it's kinda unfair to put it onto general protoss strength, needs probably some delicate changes that i sadly don't see coming. | ||
|
TheWildShooter
79 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 08 2021 02:37 [Phantom] wrote: I think it's important, but I don't think it will happen. It's not as easy to just balance patch something as you need to analyze a lot of data to try to be as impartial as possible. So while changing stats is easy, making that analysis is not. A lot of people are saying things like nerf the VR or something, but the VR sucked before it's buff and PvZ was in an awful spot. It's still awful in a variety of ways for both races, but changing the VR would make it worse. Not easy ? If i was paid to give back the old school style to SC2, i won t be afraid at all about my chance of failure. | ||
|
Poopi
France12761 Posts
On September 08 2021 02:37 [Phantom] wrote: I think it's important, but I don't think it will happen. It's not as easy to just balance patch something as you need to analyze a lot of data to try to be as impartial as possible. So while changing stats is easy, making that analysis is not. A lot of people are saying things like nerf the VR or something, but the VR sucked before it's buff and PvZ was in an awful spot. It's still awful in a variety of ways for both races, but changing the VR would make it worse. Then you have all those EU terran complaining about protoss, but what would they change? And Protoss barely wins any tournaments as is, so is it really necessary? I feel a lot of it is in perceptions. Protoss feels unfair, but it isn't, and imo, its' in fact kind of bad. How can it be that bad since they won the most money in 2021? They should make the VR rush less strong in PvT without making PvZ too imbalanced, but on the other hand the PvZ meta seems pretty horrible as well. I think terrans would be less angry about TvP mid game / late game if the early game was ok / no more proxy void ray as strong etc? Since it could allow some other options | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On September 08 2021 02:37 [Phantom] wrote: I think it's important, but I don't think it will happen. It's not as easy to just balance patch something as you need to analyze a lot of data to try to be as impartial as possible. So while changing stats is easy, making that analysis is not. A lot of people are saying things like nerf the VR or something, but the VR sucked before it's buff and PvZ was in an awful spot. It's still awful in a variety of ways for both races, but changing the VR would make it worse. Not easy ? If i was paid to give back the old school style to SC2, i won t be afraid at all about my chance of failure. There is a mod/tool dedicated to create balance (i don t remember what s the name), there s nothing new under the sun, pros players advice would be precious, the main objective would be to avoid difference in result between someone with 150 and someone with 300 APM. The most important thing that you have to do is to make the ground more impactfull on the game. Sight of view in fog of war more present, ground vegetation add specific bonus.. etc... or ground which slow some units. It s not so hard. This game has been done for Professionnal Esport, not for a large community. Blizzard has used the pro scene as a rocket space. | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
Changes feel small enough but have potential to help shift the meta, which is all I really want both as a spectator and a player. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On September 08 2021 05:50 Ctone23 wrote:
Changes feel small enough but have potential to help shift the meta, which is all I really want both as a spectator and a player. I like the second two. The problem with the battery nerf is that Protoss actually needs defensive batteries to not die. The problem is offensive batteries which is I would prefer a rule that impacts just the offensive use of batteries. I suggested forcing them to be made close to Nexus or Cyber Core. A softer alternative would be a rule that they warp in extra slowly if not near a core or Nexus. Proxy battery anything is horrendous and totally against the intent of the battery, but batteries are really needed if we want to avoid Protoss going back to just 2 base all ins ever game. | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On September 08 2021 06:02 meadbert wrote: I like the second two. The problem with the battery nerf is that Protoss actually needs defensive batteries to not die. The problem is offensive batteries which is I would prefer a rule that impacts just the offensive use of batteries. I suggested forcing them to be made close to Nexus or Cyber Core. A softer alternative would be a rule that they warp in extra slowly if not near a core or Nexus. Proxy battery anything is horrendous and totally against the intent of the battery, but batteries are really needed if we want to avoid Protoss going back to just 2 base all ins ever game. Slower warp in if not near a nexus is an interesting thought. I figure an energy reduction would not affect the battery overcharge ability so the defensive use would still be strong, but maybe not. | ||
|
nesmah
France26 Posts
In my opinion, it's really important to have a balance patch rapidly. This is so boring to watch in every tournament proxy void + battery, and it's also very frustrating to see how this strategy is ridiculously simple to execute and how hard it is to hold. Also, in TvP i don't think a protoss that take a third at 3'30 (or less) with only one unit and batteries, and cannot be punish by the terran is legit. A good nerf should be that battery could only be build in a range of a nexus and increase the cost of batteries by +50 or +75. | ||
|
freelifeffs
97 Posts
now go ahead and flame me. i probably deserve it lol | ||
|
91matt
United Kingdom147 Posts
On September 08 2021 06:23 freelifeffs wrote: this is gonna be an unpopular opinion but zerg suffers. zerg is just getting rekt unless its serral, reynor, dark or rogue. pick any random spot in gm or even master if you want and chances are very high that this guy has by far the best winrate against zerg. just humor yourself and try it. it took me 11 random profile openings until i found someone for whom it wasnt the case. doesnt matter if terran or protoss btw. last time i checked rankedftw (why is it down btw?) zerg percentage in gm and master was around 20%. dont think any race has ever been this low. pretty much every tournament zerg gets rekt before the ro8. so yes i believe we need a balance patch. not only because of balance because sure, the top zergs are still winning stuff sometimes, but more because of fun. playing sc2 is not fun atm when you are zerg. its a miserable experience. legit miserable. i was consistently at 5400k mmr for the past 3 years. since that patch some seasons ago i struggle to reach 4900. its painful. now go ahead and flame me. i probably deserve it lol zvt is really hard on this map pool/patch, overall its a good matchup but very hard. zvp protoss players are basically playing single player at this point, they don't have to scout/worry about much except queen walks, and if you're not a top player its very hard to not just get rolled over by air units. It honestly looks pathetic when someone tries an early game all in on a protoss, how easy it is to hold it. playing zerg is absolute misery you're 100% right, there won't be many z players left if they don't patch something | ||
|
QOGQOG
828 Posts
On September 08 2021 06:41 91matt wrote: zvt is really hard on this map pool/patch, overall its a good matchup but very hard. zvp protoss players are basically playing single player at this point, they don't have to scout/worry about much except queen walks, and if you're not a top player its very hard to not just get rolled over by air units. It honestly looks pathetic when someone tries an early game all in on a protoss, how easy it is to hold it. playing zerg is absolute misery you're 100% right, there won't be many z players left if they don't patch something Zerg being too weak is an.. interesting take. I will say that of all the races, Zerg is the one that most needs a fundamental redesign. Too bad it will never get one. | ||
|
Vintage98XX
3 Posts
I'd be happy with just more regular maps. | ||
|
freelifeffs
97 Posts
On September 08 2021 07:44 Vintage98XX wrote: The game is basically fine for 99.99% of us. For maybe 10 people in the world it needs a balance patch. I'd be happy with just more regular maps. it is exactly the other way round. game is fine for 10 people, for 99% its cancer. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On September 08 2021 07:27 QOGQOG wrote: Zerg being too weak is an.. interesting take. I will say that of all the races, Zerg is the one that most needs a fundamental redesign. Too bad it will never get one. Protoss is an eldritch concoction of whole army teleports, battery overcharges, a-move deathballs and 1-hit game ending disruptors. Zerg has major over-reliance on the queen and poor AA otherwise, but other than that their design in this phase of LotV is pretty solid IMO. And Terran has always been at least decent design wise. Protoss is a mess. And currently, it's a mess that's just way too effective compared to T and Z for much of the playerbase, including a fair bit of the pro scene. So we get the unenviable position of watching mostly games with the race that wins through proxy voidrays and teleporting carrier armies. | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
PvZ in general just needs a massive amount of help. It's the worst it's been in a long time. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
It's bad, there needs to be a patch, or at least community feedback on the issue. But for there to be community feedback there needs to be a balance team who cares/has a vision for the game, and honestly I doubt there is anyone even in charge of SC2 balance anymore, it's considered a classic and there will almost certainly be zero changes unless it is like an absolutely game breaking problem. Blizzards current stance on Lurkers in ZvP is probably along the lines of, "Well Carriers are really cool units, why is everyone complaining that they are the go to?" Or some other Blizzard logic. | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
On September 08 2021 11:54 Beelzebub1 wrote: Uh yes, very much so in fact, ZvP is going through a very big metagame drought where Lurkers are so strong that they make Protoss ground armies obsolete, with the Viper exasperating the situation big time. This is making Protoss play very defensively and turtle to a big air army, which then becomes so strong that it requires extremely precise playing on the Zergs end to counter an army that essentially uses 100 apm to control and the Zerg can die even if completely prepared for it. It's bad, there needs to be a patch, or at least community feedback on the issue. But for there to be community feedback there needs to be a balance team who cares/has a vision for the game, and honestly I doubt there is anyone even in charge of SC2 balance anymore, it's considered a classic and there will almost certainly be zero changes unless it is like an absolutely game breaking problem. Blizzards current stance on Lurkers in ZvP is probably along the lines of, "Well Carriers are really cool units, why is everyone complaining that they are the go to?" Or some other Blizzard logic. There is no Blizzard, at least not for StarCraft. Absolutely noone left at blizzard can even come close to know anything about the meta game or balance of starcraft2. Our only chance is ESL talking to pros and personalities and coming in with a list of changes for blizzard, then they will assign some random dev that knows nothing about this game the task of implementing the changes and releasing it to prod. | ||
|
QOGQOG
828 Posts
On September 08 2021 08:12 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Protoss is an eldritch concoction of whole army teleports, battery overcharges, a-move deathballs and 1-hit game ending disruptors. Zerg has major over-reliance on the queen and poor AA otherwise, but other than that their design in this phase of LotV is pretty solid IMO. And Terran has always been at least decent design wise. Protoss is a mess. And currently, it's a mess that's just way too effective compared to T and Z for much of the playerbase, including a fair bit of the pro scene. So we get the unenviable position of watching mostly games with the race that wins through proxy voidrays and teleporting carrier armies. I'd love Protoss to get a redesign as well, I just don't think it needs one as much. Just something to nerf proxied batteries would fix most legitimate complaints. Moving warp gate later in the tech tree and giving Protoss an actual tier 3 spellcaster would be nice, and would admittedly require big changes, but I don't think those are as necessary. What you're posting is a combination of balance whine (Zerg has rapid repositioning with creep speed and nydus, Terran with stim and medivac boost, so I'm not sure why recall is so unspeakably horrible) and fundamental design issues not specific to Protoss (the 'horrible horrible damage" of disruptors is not fun, but widow mines and banes end the game in faster and even less interesting ways). Whereas Zerg can't readily be fixed. Getting rid of or redesigning the queen requires changing not just multiple units but a lot of basic mechanics. And even doing that wouldn't address the fundamental weirdness of a race that seems to be about out expanding your opponent and therefore being able to wear them down through inefficient trades then switching over the mid to lategame into having the most cost efficient units in the game. I mean, I get that they need something to break turtled positions, but the best spellcasters in the game + ways of generating infinite free units + lurkers? Feels like at least one of those should be trimmed. | ||
|
xelnaga_empire
627 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
Balancing should be done via maps | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
And we need to have map rotation again, playing on the same maps gets stale. | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom818 Posts
That doesn't mean the game couldn't do with some changes to shake up the meta. For example, it is becoming pretty tiresome seeing Zerg players try to use Queen walks to end ZvP games before the Protoss can get to Skytoss, whilst also knowing that the Protoss has no option but to go Skytoss because of how badly Protoss ground armies compete with Lurker/Viper. This would require a dedicated team to properly assess the changes and their impact, however, and I don't believe Blizzard is willing to dedicate those kinds of resources to a legacy game. | ||
|
her0craft
11 Posts
| ||
|
Luolis
Finland7097 Posts
On September 08 2021 19:50 her0craft wrote: the game is in the best state it has ever been in terms of diversity of strategies. Hahahahahaha. It's funny when you can recognize that someone's only ever played Lotv ever so clearly from one post alone. | ||
|
Syn Harvest
United States191 Posts
This being said at the very upper echelon of pro play this is irrelevant. The T and Z players can hold off the all ins with relative ease normally. Also they can control the late game armies well enough to pick the protoss apart. Or their multi tasking is so god like they can pull the Toss apart before he gets to that level. The game is broken on a fundamental level that can't be fixed. Under the upper echelon of pro players Protoss is simply easier to play and that is a fact. At the pro level Protoss can't quite compete with Terran and Zerg without a high level of trickery involved. This is a fundamental game design flaw and at this point can't be fixed. Blizzard has abandoned the game so no balance patch is coming. For RTS fans we now sit and wait for Frost Giant to hopefully finish their game and it be awesome. For Starcraft fans I am sorry. | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
By the way, I don't think a game having a legacy title necessarily means thats the reason for no balance patch. HOTS is a legacy game and get's monthly or bi monthly patches, the last one of which really shook up the meta game and was great for overall balance. SC2 needs the same treatment, people still play and watch this game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
The ability to get new balance patches, as an option to tweak something broken, or merely to freshen things up is absolutely critical. Especially as the mechanism to balance around maps doesn’t quite work the same as it does in BW | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
Special tried to counter a classic push from a Terran (bio/tanks/vikings/1 or 2 ravens) with banshee turning around Bunny's army, it was really interesting and Special do really well in this game even if at the end, he loses it. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Look at any other popular game and new patches will regularly shake things up to give players new tools to play with. That's just how game development works these days, bring in variety through new content. | ||
|
zalem95
Peru184 Posts
Even if we could discuss interesting points about balance they wouldn't change anything. | ||
|
starvingbox1
18 Posts
| ||
NonY
8748 Posts
| ||
|
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On September 09 2021 05:30 NonY wrote: i think it's important for blizzard to do it because they said they'd do it. it'd be a huge hit to blizzard's reputation if they ended sc2 with this broken commitment. I'm unsure if it's sarcasm or not, but I think Blizz has multiple more pressing reputation problems than not patching Starcraft 2. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On September 09 2021 05:30 NonY wrote: i think it's important for blizzard to do it because they said they'd do it. it'd be a huge hit to blizzard's reputation if they ended sc2 with this broken commitment. While I feel that a patch is needed for SC2's sake, as a fan of SC2, I'm not sure about this one  For Blizzard as a whole, it'd be like an ice-lolly in an avalanche at this point. | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
But we may be in a post patch world. The current state of the game might be its final state, so I’ve tried to get used to that. | ||
|
112StaminaX
37 Posts
Only then can you have a look at the balance. this would be even better if the 10 games you sample have a very good mix of players. The reason i bring this up is ive seen way too many complaints over cannon rushes and some of the pro players that stream never seem to die to it . . .so it cant be a problem, of course the issues lie in how easy these are executed in the leeauges but we have to ignore this. this is what id like to see before balance is raised but for me, ive always liked the idea of having a unit of the month, buff something of each race and watch different strategies be developed rather than MU's getting stale | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On September 09 2021 06:23 washikie wrote: I think it’s very important especially for pvz. The meta is stale and the way it evolved is really boring and uninteresting. But we may be in a post patch world. The current state of the game might be its final state, so I’ve tried to get used to that. More than most matchups, it’s usually an arms race of Protoss finding new timings, Zergs figuring out optimal defences and it eventually stabilises into whatever lategame comps are the thing being reached with greater and greater regularity. PvZ has generally always sucked because there’s no appreciable skirmish-focused midgame, which is exacerbated further by LoTVs shorter early thru midgame. Protoss doesn’t want to be out on the map unless they’re trying to kill you, or trying to fake out that they’re trying to kill you. TvZ conversely isn’t exactly flowering with tons of new innovations, but it feels considerably less stale because each matchup has a lot of skirmishing for position, tactical supremacy etc. I suppose in SC2 we’ve never seen some real extended periods of the game being left alone, a la WC3 never mind BW, equally even within the (relatively) brief span of patches PvZ tends to get rather mapped out and stagnant. If this is to be the final patch, well there have certainly been worse metas we could have left things be. | ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2824 Posts
I think that's the biggest issue in SC2--personally, humbly. That and just Protoss in general being pretty poorly designed compared to its predecessor. | ||
|
oGsChess
23 Posts
| ||
|
SiegfriedSC
9 Posts
On September 08 2021 02:37 [Phantom] wrote: And Protoss barely wins any tournaments as is, so is it really necessary? I feel a lot of it is in perceptions. Protoss feels unfair, but it isn't, and imo, its' in fact kind of bad. This isn't true anymore, in 2021 a Protoss player won 7 out of 13 Premier events, and 9 of 16 Major events. Just because they're not winning in Code S doesn't mean they're not winning at all. | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2384 Posts
On September 09 2021 10:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: I consistently think that widow mines, banelings and disruptors just make for exceptionally frustrating games where shit swings in a millisecond because of a unit that isn't even difficult to control in the first place. Thanks for saying this. I only watch pro games so I don't have the best grasp on the reality, and especially the reality for an average player, but there was a whole thread about how disruptors suck and are poorly designed and I'm just there the whole time thinking "how are they really that different to widow mines when it comes to RNG or swingy design?". | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On September 09 2021 10:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: I consistently think that widow mines, banelings and disruptors just make for exceptionally frustrating games where shit swings in a millisecond because of a unit that isn't even difficult to control in the first place. I think that's the biggest issue in SC2--personally, humbly. That and just Protoss in general being pretty poorly designed compared to its predecessor. Disruptors are actually just a terrible bastardization of the Reaver, worst unit in the game imo. I love mines, they rely on positioning from the Terran and are APM intensive to unburrow so they don't shoot too early, and they are APM intensive for a Zerg to dodge, it adds a big skill element to the match up. Random shots be damned, sometimes in war it's better to be lucky then good. Banelings are a decent unit I think, they are still critical in ZvT, you can't always fight a Terran with Roaches. Warpgate imo is the worst design aspect of Protoss, it's been beaten to death for years, but it's still just such a glaring design mistake that sounded cool on paper but just makes for terrible balance. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On September 09 2021 05:30 NonY wrote: i think it's important for blizzard to do it because they said they'd do it. it'd be a huge hit to blizzard's reputation if they ended sc2 with this broken commitment. they haven't promised to patch the game. They have only said they will continue patching the game as necessary. But it's debatable if it's really necessary. edit: Ah... I think I missed the sarcasm with the Blizzard reputation | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On September 09 2021 12:37 Beelzebub1 wrote: Disruptors are actually just a terrible bastardization of the Reaver, worst unit in the game imo. I love mines, they rely on positioning from the Terran and are APM intensive to unburrow so they don't shoot too early, and they are APM intensive for a Zerg to dodge, it adds a big skill element to the match up. Random shots be damned, sometimes in war it's better to be lucky then good. Banelings are a decent unit I think, they are still critical in ZvT, you can't always fight a Terran with Roaches. Warpgate imo is the worst design aspect of Protoss, it's been beaten to death for years, but it's still just such a glaring design mistake that sounded cool on paper but just makes for terrible balance. There comes a point where beyond some basic counter splits that the cool and taxing stuff you can do with mines stops being possible and it becomes a basic crapshoot as to whether the mine player gets huge hits and cleans up, or hits whiff and they get wiped. Overall I don’t mine-d them, but while it can be exciting to see if it’s a huge hit or not, it can be a bit silly. Maybe it’s genuine stubbornness over making a new unit rather than bringing the Reaver over. I would suspect it’s a nightmare to bring into SC2 with its speedy progression into maxed confrontations. Either it’s reliable damage but borderline impossible to manually target 4+ reavers and it either wipes out chunks of the enemy or doesn’t (kinda like mines), or you make it’s scarabs whiff like they are known to in BW which makes it super frustrating to use. I mean Collosus have never been a particularly beloved unit with their reliable AoE damage because there’s never really been a need (or possibility) to manually target 5/6 of them for maximum effect, nor is there all that reliable counter-play. A lot of units that work great in BW do so because they’re generally engaging in either lower supply skirmishes, or at higher supplies it’s still spread out a lot more. SC2 is maxed clumps more often than not and AoE units have to have this taken more into account. It feels like maybe despite its flaws the disruptor is a better suited unit to SC2. And man I fucking love Reavers! Yeah wall of text for earlier, a sentence for this. Warp gate in its current form is a bad design choice that requires multiple bad design choices on top of it to balance. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8224 Posts
| ||
|
purakushi
United States3300 Posts
1. Formation movement - not necessarily allowing players to change it on the fly but generally to spread units more. This feature was introduced to the editor in https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/starcraft2/23471116/starcraft-ii-4-13-0-ptr-patch-notes 2. Higher than 200 max supply. Perhaps 250. Unit food costs are higher compared to BW, which is not inherently bad, but larger armies would be great. | ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Many zergs, from bronze to master rely on just macro to get there. Zerg macro is the hardest at the beginning and then in plat/diamond becomes the easiest due to only needing one building and the superior eco Zerg can get. So they win a lot of games due to macro and then get hit in the face by a brick wall when that's no longer enough. Also I'm sorry, but the Reaver is not a good unit. It looks cool, and it even existed in the SC2 alpha, but it sucks and is unusable without a prism. Disruptors, as binary as they are and I hope they aren't in SC3, are a much better unit. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On September 10 2021 02:23 [Phantom] wrote: Imo, if a Zerg just dies to an a+click sky toss army they don't deserve to be in that league. I always recommend zergs to play Terran for at least a month so they improve their strategy and decision making. It's honestly pathetic how bad the Zerg players I get matches against are. They are too used to a+click their armies thanks to their superior eco and win everything, that they barely use infestors/vipers or flank. If the Zerg has lurkers, Corruptors, infectors/vipers there is literally no way a Protoss can a+click and win unless the Zerg doesn't use any abilities. Many zergs, from bronze to master rely on just macro to get there. Zerg macro is the hardest at the beginning and then in plat/diamond becomes the easiest due to only needing one building and the superior eco Zerg can get. So they win a lot of games due to macro and then get hit in the face by a brick wall when that's no longer enough. Also I'm sorry, but the Reaver is not a good unit. It looks cool, and it even existed in the SC2 alpha, but it sucks and is unusable without a prism. Disruptors, as binary as they are and I hope they aren't in SC3, are a much better unit. Wait til you see how bad the protoss players are Honestly skytoss is the easiest composition to use *somewhat* effectively in the entire game. At least roaches and zealot archon can get stuck in chokes. On the other hand, the amount of reactive spellcasting Zerg needs to effectively fight it is definitely non-trivial. I honestly don't see how you can look at those two lategame armies, or the current state of the top end of ladder, and think that the Zerg players being bad is the problem. Even ShowTime said that he thinks Protoss is easier to play than other races for players below his level on a recent pylon show. Lambo's first piece of advice about fighting skytoss before going into composition and tactics is don't, it's really hard. | ||
|
Draddition
United States59 Posts
On September 10 2021 03:31 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Wait til you see how bad the protoss players are Honestly skytoss is the easiest composition to use *somewhat* effectively in the entire game. At least roaches and zealot archon can get stuck in chokes. On the other hand, the amount of reactive spellcasting Zerg needs to effectively fight it is definitely non-trivial. I honestly don't see how you can look at those two lategame armies, or the current state of the top end of ladder, and think that the Zerg players being bad is the problem. Even ShowTime said that he thinks Protoss is easier to play than other races for players below his level on a recent pylon show. Lambo's first piece of advice about fighting skytoss before going into composition and tactics is don't, it's really hard. This all to also ignore the things that exaggerate everything terrible about skytoss. Cannons and shield batteries make it very difficult to break a protoss before they decide to move out. They also mean you can't distract a protoss with small runbys- and committing with a large enough force means you probably don't have the army supply to fight skytoss on the front lines. Recall means you can't base trade, and also means protoss can just nope out of a fight when you do piece together a good battle vs skytoss. All this makes it feel like strategy isn't really involved in the match-up. It's all mechanics, and a lopsided affair | ||
|
darklycid
3374 Posts
| ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 09 2021 06:07 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: While I feel that a patch is needed for SC2's sake, as a fan of SC2, I'm not sure about this one For Blizzard as a whole, it'd be like an ice-lolly in an avalanche at this point. idk what has made you give blizz so much good will that they could break this commitment and you dont think it'd be a huge hit to their reputation. the more blizzard game communities i'm involved in, the more i learn about some disappointing things it doesnt have to be much. just some tweaks that nerf the most popular things right now. some people have some great ideas on more drastic redesigns but that takes a lot more work for them to think about all the possible ramifications. they just gotta throw a bone to fulfill their commitment | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On September 10 2021 04:23 NonY wrote: idk what has made you give blizz so much good will that they could break this commitment and you dont think it'd be a huge hit to their reputation. the more blizzard game communities i'm involved in, the more i learn about some disappointing things it doesnt have to be much. just some tweaks that nerf the most popular things right now. some people have some great ideas on more drastic redesigns but that takes a lot more work for them to think about all the possible ramifications. they just gotta throw a bone to fulfill their commitment I just don’t think blizzard cares about Starcraft or rts anymore. As for protecting their reputation, with all the other stuff going on with blizzard patching sc2 would be like trying to bale water from a cruise ship with a bucket. Don’t get me wrong I think the game needs a patch but I don’t think blizzard will do anything. Maybe if we are lucky esl or some esports org will give us new maps and patches, and blizzard will let them but i don’t think that is to likely either. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On September 10 2021 04:23 NonY wrote: idk what has made you give blizz so much good will that they could break this commitment and you dont think it'd be a huge hit to their reputation. the more blizzard game communities i'm involved in, the more i learn about some disappointing things it doesnt have to be much. just some tweaks that nerf the most popular things right now. some people have some great ideas on more drastic redesigns but that takes a lot more work for them to think about all the possible ramifications. they just gotta throw a bone to fulfill their commitment What reputation at this point? Aside from other non-game related controversies, I don’t really care for Diablo but 3 seemed to put a lot of noses out of joint. SC:Remastered wasn’t terrible, equally it’s in pretty stark contrast in areas to the care given to the last AoE2 effort. Warcraft Reforged was such an unmitigated clusterfuck, which was one of my favourite games ever and I still haven’t played it. Indeed I can’t even play my old, retail version. If you were to ask me the same question a decade ago I’d have been pretty confident Blizz would still touch up SC2 from time to time, even if not wholesale they had such a good record in maintaining their games. Now it would be a nice bonus but one I’m treating very much a as a hope and not an expectation. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
that they'll provide updates to games they say they'll provide updates for. or even more generally that if they say they'll do something, they'll do it. i feel like im being gaslit about the concept of a reputation lol. i thought what i was saying was obvious even though no one had said it yet, that everyone would agree with it reputation: a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic i dont know of them having a reputation for breaking commitments about what games they'll support but it's important to their business that their customers believe them when they say they'll support a game. if they break this commitment, then i think it's a big deal for their reputation in this regard like you guys realize that there are dozens of people whose careers depend on the health of the competitive sc2 scene? and last october blizz said that everything pertinent to their careers that blizzard has been doing they'll continue to do? and now if they just dont do it, i dont see how you guys dont think that's a big deal and shouldn't be considered a huge hit to their reputation by the community at large. you cant just create an esport that people base their careers on and say you'll continue to support the game and then just stop. that's a massive scumbag move to the people who might have chosen to move on from a game that the developer is going to let die | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8224 Posts
On September 10 2021 05:25 NonY wrote: that they'll provide updates to games they say they'll provide updates for. or even more generally that if they say they'll do something, they'll do it. i feel like im being gaslit about the concept of a reputation lol. i thought what i was saying was obvious even though no one had said it yet, that everyone would agree with it reputation: a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic i dont know of them having a reputation for breaking commitments about what games they'll support but it's important to their business that their customers believe them when they say they'll support a game. if they break this commitment, then i think it's a big deal for their reputation in this regard like you guys realize that there are dozens of people whose careers depend on the health of the competitive sc2 scene? and last october blizz said that everything pertinent to their careers that blizzard has been doing they'll continue to do? and now if they just dont do it, i dont see how you guys dont think that's a big deal and shouldn't be considered a huge hit to their reputation by the community at large. you cant just create an esport that people base their careers on and say you'll continue to support the game and then just stop. that's a massive scumbag move to the people who might have chosen to move on from a game that the developer is going to let die Esports careers don’t last. Especially not in SC2. Eventually every player’s career will come to an end or they’ll have to move onto other games. | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On September 10 2021 04:23 NonY wrote: idk what has made you give blizz so much good will that they could break this commitment and you dont think it'd be a huge hit to their reputation. the more blizzard game communities i'm involved in, the more i learn about some disappointing things it doesnt have to be much. just some tweaks that nerf the most popular things right now. some people have some great ideas on more drastic redesigns but that takes a lot more work for them to think about all the possible ramifications. they just gotta throw a bone to fulfill their commitment It wouldn't be a huge hit to their rep because: 1) Very few people, comparatively, care about SC2. 2) For the same reason an unpaid parking ticket doesn't affect the reputation of a convicted murderer. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On September 10 2021 05:25 NonY wrote: that they'll provide updates to games they say they'll provide updates for. or even more generally that if they say they'll do something, they'll do it. i feel like im being gaslit about the concept of a reputation lol. i thought what i was saying was obvious even though no one had said it yet, that everyone would agree with it reputation: a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic i dont know of them having a reputation for breaking commitments about what games they'll support but it's important to their business that their customers believe them when they say they'll support a game. if they break this commitment, then i think it's a big deal for their reputation in this regard like you guys realize that there are dozens of people whose careers depend on the health of the competitive sc2 scene? and last october blizz said that everything pertinent to their careers that blizzard has been doing they'll continue to do? and now if they just dont do it, i dont see how you guys dont think that's a big deal and shouldn't be considered a huge hit to their reputation by the community at large. you cant just create an esport that people base their careers on and say you'll continue to support the game and then just stop. that's a massive scumbag move to the people who might have chosen to move on from a game that the developer is going to let die My point is merely that Blizzard has far less at stake because reputationally they’ve already taken so many hits. Yes the community will be pissed off if such a move happens, but surprised or earnestly disappointed? SC:R still isn’t feature complete, hell there are even novel bugs. Warcraft Reforged is missing more features from the original than it has. Co-op has been a popular mode for many in SC2 and it got shelved, etc etc. They did also pull the rug out from their Heroes of the Storm eSports scene. It’s not like there isn’t precedent in that regard either. I’m unsure what facet of this base argument constitutes gaslighting. | ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic a PARTICULAR habit or characteristic. it's not some general thing where you aggregate all the things you know about someone or something and give them a score, with a positive score meaning they have a good reputation and a negative score meaning they have a bad reputation. they can have a reputation for doing particular things or behaving particular ways. as far as i know they do not have a reputation for doing this. if they fail to deliver a patch, then in my estimation of them i will think of them as having a reputation for either lying or breaking commitments about supporting games. bringing up the DFEH law suit / unsafe workplace issues, or the bad job they did with remakes, or whatever else, has nothing to do with if they are known or not known to say "we are going to support this game" and then not support it. using the concept of a reputation to just tally good things and bad things and then saying they have a reputation for doing good things or a reputation for doing bad things is a pretty impotent use of the concept that'd be confusing to anyone who has used it to illuminate particular and specific things it's bizarre to somehow connect their penchant for one thing to their penchant for doing a completely different thing just because both of those things are considered bad behavior | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
) | ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
On September 10 2021 05:25 NonY wrote: that they'll provide updates to games they say they'll provide updates for. or even more generally that if they say they'll do something, they'll do it. i feel like im being gaslit about the concept of a reputation lol. i thought what i was saying was obvious even though no one had said it yet, that everyone would agree with it reputation: a widespread belief that someone or something has a particular habit or characteristic i dont know of them having a reputation for breaking commitments about what games they'll support but it's important to their business that their customers believe them when they say they'll support a game. if they break this commitment, then i think it's a big deal for their reputation in this regard like you guys realize that there are dozens of people whose careers depend on the health of the competitive sc2 scene? and last october blizz said that everything pertinent to their careers that blizzard has been doing they'll continue to do? and now if they just dont do it, i dont see how you guys dont think that's a big deal and shouldn't be considered a huge hit to their reputation by the community at large. you cant just create an esport that people base their careers on and say you'll continue to support the game and then just stop. that's a massive scumbag move to the people who might have chosen to move on from a game that the developer is going to let die Nony, didn't they literally do that in heroes of the storm? They told us in Novemeber HGC would continue. Then December comes and it's cancelled and all the pros, staff, writers, ended up without a job. TL had literally invested quite a bit (relatively of course) in purchasing masterleague.net and hiring programers to make it something better, and then they announced that it was gone. ...Then again, Heroes of the Storm was patched like 2 weeks ago with balance changes, and they did release some new skins like 1-2 months ago, so it's not completely abandoned. I do think there might be another patch though, as they have commitments with both ESL and GSL, which are external companies. Whereas HGC was an in-house production. | ||
|
Tommy131313
Germany152 Posts
On September 08 2021 06:41 91matt wrote: zvt is really hard on this map pool/patch, overall its a good matchup but very hard. zvp protoss players are basically playing single player at this point, they don't have to scout/worry about much except queen walks, and if you're not a top player its very hard to not just get rolled over by air units. It honestly looks pathetic when someone tries an early game all in on a protoss, how easy it is to hold it. playing zerg is absolute misery you're 100% right, there won't be many z players left if they don't patch something I totally agree, though it might be worth trying a new and better balanced map pool first, before you start messing around with complex unit balancing. Maybe it's just a feeling, that zerg is kinda the new terran... incredibly high potential, but incredibly hard to use it to a full extent #playlikereynor | ||
|
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
NonY
8748 Posts
On September 10 2021 10:35 [Phantom] wrote: Nony, didn't they literally do that in heroes of the storm? they have gone out of their way to tell the public something and then failed to deliver or broken the commitment. i think they've done it a lot. for heroes and sc2 they are both the developer and the entity running tournaments. for heroes they abruptly stopped the tournaments and continued to develop the game. for sc2 they have abruptly stopped developing the game | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On September 10 2021 15:27 Riner1212 wrote: this topic is like beating a dead horse, blizzard doesnt care. Unfortunately nothing has been done by Blizzard to make me think anything else. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On September 10 2021 08:51 deacon.frost wrote: All I want is to patch out offensive shield batteries. No matter how used are they. And gimme the option to turn off the chat on ladder (not a balance patch per se )Pretty sure there is a way to do this. Under parental setting there should be a way to turn off chat. It means you won't be able to see what your teammates or opponents type and they won't see what you type. You can still see each other's pings though. | ||
|
yuisaka
Australia76 Posts
On September 10 2021 14:16 Tommy131313 wrote: I totally agree, though it might be worth trying a new and better balanced map pool first, before you start messing around with complex unit balancing. Maybe it's just a feeling, that zerg is kinda the new terran... incredibly high potential, but incredibly hard to use it to a full extent #playlikereynor Reynor 28:45 Clem in this meta | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
Clem is superior in the match up, I think that's pretty self evident at this point. I don't think there needs to be a balance patch as in balance is bad, it's more ZvP meta then anything that's the issue right now. I know PvT has some stupid stuff going on as well with proxy nonsense. | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
| ||
|
MiksukkaTV
Finland2 Posts
| ||
|
yuisaka
Australia76 Posts
On September 11 2021 06:54 Drahkn wrote: Make shield battery only buildable near a nexus,its not OP its just bad game design and 10 proxied batteries just looks silly. other then that dont touch protoss its still the weakest race at pro level. Here is to hoping blizzard wont listen to you terran and zerg crybabies all over again and make stupid balance changes ( just look what blizz did to the game thanks to your QQ during HOTS) It's just like an annoying hero everyone hates in LoL, its good vs worse players but once you get to a high skill level the hero is complete garbage, just like protoss is. Sadly Blizzard likes to make balance changes based on QQ twitch chat and pro gamers balance whining. its still the weakest race at pro level with more than 53% win rates vZ and T for months?Thats weak,because protoss cant instant win the game http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/ | ||
|
yuisaka
Australia76 Posts
| ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On September 12 2021 00:49 yuisaka wrote: its still the weakest race at pro level with more than 53% win rates vZ and T for months?Thats weak,because protoss cant instant win the game http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/ Your link shows PvT at 36% and PvZ at 56% | ||
|
yuisaka
Australia76 Posts
On September 12 2021 04:09 meadbert wrote: Your link shows PvT at 36% and PvZ at 56% thats why I said months,over all P V T is about 51-52% win rate in 12months,P V Z is about 53-54% in 12 months | ||
|
yuisaka
Australia76 Posts
On September 11 2021 06:05 jpg06051992 wrote: Clem is superior in the match up, I think that's pretty self evident at this point. I don't think there needs to be a balance patch as in balance is bad, it's more ZvP meta then anything that's the issue right now. I know PvT has some stupid stuff going on as well with proxy nonsense. T V Z is about 53-54% win rate last 12 months in pro level and top T V Z only Clem and Maru,but zerg have Serral,Reynor,Dark and Rogue which tick them out T V Z win rate will be higher than 54% ,YES it is balanced for terran players and for zerg players obviously windom mine is very unbalanced unit but terran players never take notice because T V Z require skills doesnt means it is balanced And Byun's flying tank is unbalanced but only him can use it perfectly with his style of play that time which got fixed http://aligulac.com/periods/latest/ | ||
|
Microwave699
1 Post
TvZ - just change the map pool and its fine (this map pool is very terran favored) TvP, PvZ - batteries should cost 25+ minerals, Battery Overcharge should last only 5 seconds (14 its too much) and raven should be able to disable batteries ZvP - give the disruptor a second mode, where his shots have extra range but only damages units that are underground | ||
|
washikie
United States752 Posts
On September 12 2021 00:54 yuisaka wrote: But in the end balance is not important anymore because there is not much people still play 1 on 1,you have to searching for mins to get a game ,so blizzard dont really care about the people who still play starcraft2 because not much thats say "few" most people who played this game move to other games and people still play this most likely are pro gamers.Even starcraft1 is 10 times fun than 2 Unless your a top ranked gm 1v1 que is almost never more than 1 minute on us and eu servers, I can’t speak for other servers but my que time in masters/ low gm has never been an issue. I also recently ranked up on eu from having no games on the server at all levels of play I never waited more than 1 minute. Even at wired times like 3 am in Central Europe I still had no problems finding games. This game may have problems but it’s still fun and has a large enough playerbase to keep it alive. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
source I do not think SC2 is going anywhere. Maybe some future RTS masterpiece will replace it but that is at least 4+ years from now. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On September 11 2021 03:48 meadbert wrote: Pretty sure there is a way to do this. Under parental setting there should be a way to turn off chat. It means you won't be able to see what your teammates or opponents type and they won't see what you type. You can still see each other's pings though. Ooh, gonna parent myself, yiss. Will give it a try, it's a more overdo but should work. | ||
|
Xamo
Spain876 Posts
At this point, I don't think that Blizzard, left alone, can come up with a good patch. Their "autocratic with best intentions" patch management model requires a knowledge I doubt they have right now. We'd need to move to a democracy - i.e. the community will have to agree on a certain set of changes to be tested. This task seems too complex for direct democracy to work - the likes of polls open to the whole community are too confusing  But it may be possible to solve it by indirect democracy: the community could agree on a "House of Balance". It could be composed, for example, by one member of every race voted by the whole community, one member of every race voted by the players, two members named by ESL, two members named by Blizzard, one member voted by SC2 teams and one member voted by the map making community. Of course, all of them should be volunteers. I think this House of Balance would be more successful than any other alternative, because it would include many points of view. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On September 12 2021 22:52 Xamo wrote: Although the overall balance of the game seems ok at pro level (the better player normally wins), I'd say the meta is becoming too one-dimensional. A patch is required to open up new options in each matchup. At this point, I don't think that Blizzard, left alone, can come up with a good patch. Their "autocratic with best intentions" patch management model requires a knowledge I doubt they have right now. We'd need to move to a democracy - i.e. the community will have to agree on a certain set of changes to be tested. This task seems too complex for direct democracy to work - the likes of polls open to the whole community are too confusing But it may be possible to solve it by indirect democracy: the community could agree on a "House of Balance". It could be composed, for example, by one member of every race voted by the whole community, one member of every race voted by the players, two members named by ESL, two members named by Blizzard, one member voted by SC2 teams and one member voted by the map making community. Of course, all of them should be volunteers. I think this House of Balance would be more successful than any other alternative, because it would include many points of view. Brilliant idea honestly, I'd like if there could also be a high level random player as well. Not that any of this will happen but yea I agree with your first point, Blizzard doesn't even have anyone with the necessary metagame knowledge to do even the simplest of patches at this point. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
Frankenberry
Denmark302 Posts
And as a viewer of SCII I'm no longer interested in the "epic" 20+ minute long PvZ games with skytoss and spores. I turn of the stream off or skip ahead on youtube when those games are on. They are just as boring as Raven vs. Swarm Host back in HotS. | ||
|
bFunc
3 Posts
| ||
|
alisaidul
1 Post
| ||
|
Rocky red 777
1 Post
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
Drahkn
186 Posts
On September 13 2021 00:28 FabledIntegral wrote: All of my SC2 friends and myself stopped playing after the most recent balance iteration however long ago. I don't really care how balanced it is, playing against mass void rays because Protoss can't go ground due to Lurkers was absolute shit to play against. What you just said here I can use as a perfect example of how bad peoples logic is in this game, Blizzard would probably nerf the void ray without compensating ground because they would actually think protoss goes void ray because its OP not because its their only option | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 20 2021 06:54 Drahkn wrote: What you just said here I can use as a perfect example of how bad peoples logic is in this game, Blizzard would probably nerf the void ray without compensating ground because they would actually think protoss goes void ray because its OP not because its their only option I'm confused at your interpretation of what I said. I said the current gameplay mechanics suck, balance aside. Also stated Protoss can't go ground due to Lurkers, which you then reiterate, so they go air. How does this highlight how bad people's logic is in this game? | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On September 30 2021 11:52 FabledIntegral wrote: I'm confused at your interpretation of what I said. I said the current gameplay mechanics suck, balance aside. Also stated Protoss can't go ground due to Lurkers, which you then reiterate, so they go air. How does this highlight how bad people's logic is in this game? Yea I too was a bit lost reading that lol I've said it before and I'll say it again, either reduce Lurker health so that tanks and storm can efficiently fight them or remove Adaptive Talons entirely. The range upgrade is more of a need then something broken, without it tanks would hard counter entirely. AT however is broken, it removes a key weakness that is central to the Lurkers design philosophy. | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7097 Posts
| ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On September 30 2021 21:55 Luolis wrote: Well the game is not fun to play at all, so would be nice if something was changed. Obviously that's a pipe dream and will never happen with Blizzard at the helm. I think the only way SC2 can get any support at all is if someone else buys it. Activision does not care about Starcraft. It doesn't make them money, to Activision, Starcraft doesn't exist. | ||
|
asro71
2 Posts
| ||
|
Aesto
44 Posts
| ||
|
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
| ||
|
weiliem
2061 Posts
Seriously they just sit in base, build batteries cannons voidrays carriers. What's the fun in playing against that? | ||
|
112StaminaX
37 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On October 02 2021 16:51 weiliem wrote: Remove protoss air units entirely and the game is playable again. Seriously they just sit in base, build batteries cannons voidrays carriers. What's the fun in playing against that? Where is the fun in playing like that either? Oh well. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3571 Posts
On October 02 2021 01:13 asro71 wrote: Honestly it's probably best that they don't, seems like more often than not Blizzard just makes the game worse when they change anything with the game. so you prefer WoL 1.0? what a meaningless post : D | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3340 Posts
I personally like the "latest" blizzard patches, so I think the game would get better with a few more changes, tho not changes for the sake of changes. Balance wise Terran is a bit too strong and design wise there's a few things I would rly want changed, but the game stands and functions well, so I can't say it's absolutely necessary. | ||
|
jorumba
Germany7 Posts
| ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On October 02 2021 23:27 jorumba wrote: I think players are complaining a lot all the time about balance issues. I think they should relax and calm down. Analyse your replay and learn from what you've done wrong than always complain about the imbalanceness. When I started to learn from watching my replays I saw that it's not imbalanceness, but my own wrong game play. Learn to understand the game of SC2. It's a wonderful balanced game at the moment. gl hf everybody. Your JORUMBA. Except nobody is talking about that for the most part. We are talking about metagame issues that have popped up over the years, necessitating a balance patch to keep this game in a healthy state of play. The dominance of the Lurker, the inclination to play hyper defensively and set up mass Skytoss armies, these are real issues facing the top level of play which most of us watch pretty religiously, I think most SC2 players with brains know that anything below the GM level can always be countered by more skill. | ||
|
Zealos
United Kingdom3571 Posts
On October 02 2021 23:00 ejozl wrote: If he genuinely thinks blizz only makes bad changes, then it's fair to say, please don't change my game. I personally like the "latest" blizzard patches, so I think the game would get better with a few more changes, tho not changes for the sake of changes. Balance wise Terran is a bit too strong and design wise there's a few things I would rly want changed, but the game stands and functions well, so I can't say it's absolutely necessary. if he genuinely thinks blizz only makes bad changes, he's an idiot | ||
|
PinoKotsBeer
Netherlands1385 Posts
| ||
|
asro71
2 Posts
On October 02 2021 21:25 Zealos wrote: so you prefer WoL 1.0? what a meaningless post : D No, hence the "more often than not". To elaborate, blizzard seems to be fine with minor balancing, number tweaks, etc, but design changes seem to be on the whole negative, i.e. somehow deciding that the game desperately needed to have more free unit strategies when broodlord infestor was already destroying the game at the end of WoL. The sheer boredom of the swarm host era probably did more to kill this game than anything else, at least until now. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
#1. The overall powerhouse that has become the Lurker needs to be examined, and either the HP needs to be reduced or Adaptive Talons needs to be removed. This unit is dominating the metagame in every match up, even ZvZ. Every single game is just a rush for Lurkers, this is bad. #2. Proxy shield batteries are ridiculous and pure cancer both on ladder and in high level matches, this was supposed to be a defensive tool only. #3. This is a bigger one that I don't think would ever be covered in a single patch, but the power of aerial armies in general has always been troublesome. I don't think the game is in some broken state or anything, but ZvP is suffering alot because of the power of the Lurker, that is a top priority imo. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
In BW, only three lurkers are needed to kill marines but considering the speed of the game, it can't be the same on SC2. There s a lot of possible tweaks but definetly, lurkers are as strong against units with light armor as heavy... The first thing which has to be considered by blizzard is to allow marines to survive against 3 hits of Lurkers. 20+10 against armored changes to 15+15 against armored, like that, 4 lurkers are needed to one shot a marine | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
But seriously the BC warp mechanic is just ridiculous. It should be put behind an upgrade or require vision or something... | ||
|
Kenjutsu89
1 Post
I feel that a lot of the tweaks that happened while I was away from the game have left it in an excellent place and fixed a lot of long standing design issues. No it's not perfect, not every match is epic and varied play, and there has always been a metagame that develops and shifts from time to time. Despite the metagame, there is far more varied play in Starcraft 2 than there used to be, tons of strategic variation, a high level of skill and experience in professional play that is regularily pumping out epic matches and epic series, a constant stream of epic content. I feel like forums often end up being echo chambers of people complaining, and I have seen the same names on starcraft 2 forums complaining about the game for going on 10 years, rarely do people talk about what is great about the game. But to those of us who devote years of our lives to playing and being fans of the game, surely there must be something great about it that makes it worth the hours we invest? Personally I think Starcraft 2 has achieved a delicate state of balance that is exceptional for an RTS of this nature, we might never see another RTS get to this level. So now that SC2 is being left alone by blizzard development, I am concerned that the current team would not be able to properly implement a large design change and might just make the game much worse. I would maybe be on board with trying out some very small tweaks depending on how they were tested and implemented. Otherwise, I think this game is at the stage where the map makers can keep the game fresh, and we can accept the imperfections knowing the layers of beauty the game has to offer. If you don't see any value in the game in its current state, maybe its time to move on to something else. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On October 20 2021 17:12 Kenjutsu89 wrote: Hating on Starcraft 2 has kind of always been a part of the Team Liquid forum culture (as well as the dumpster fire of the official starcraft forums, to a much larger degree). From my perspective as somebody who left the game back when there were flying tanks and 8 armor ultralisks and came back years later to a completely changed game, I believe the game balance and state of the game is the best its ever been. No it's not perfect, there are things to criticize, but I feel the game is left in an excellent spot compared to what it has been in the past. There is quite a lot more variation in play compared to what there has been in prior iterations of the game. I think some people are looking at the past with rose coloured glasses, remembering the good series and epic games and forgetting the many game breaking exploitabe mechanics that have existed in most versions of the game. Remember 3 hour swarm host games? Remember broodlord infestor? Remember raven spam, late game collossus death balls, etc.? I feel that a lot of the tweaks that happened while I was away from the game have left it in an excellent place and fixed a lot of long standing design issues. No it's not perfect, not every match is epic and varied play, and there has always been a metagame that develops and shifts from time to time. Despite the metagame, there is far more varied play in Starcraft 2 than there used to be, tons of strategic variation, a high level of skill and experience in professional play that is regularily pumping out epic matches and epic series, a constant stream of epic content. I feel like forums often end up being echo chambers of people complaining, and I have seen the same names on starcraft 2 forums complaining about the game for going on 10 years, rarely do people talk about what is great about the game. But to those of us who devote years of our lives to playing and being fans of the game, surely there must be something great about it that makes it worth the hours we invest? Personally I think Starcraft 2 has achieved a delicate state of balance that is exceptional for an RTS of this nature, we might never see another RTS get to this level. So now that SC2 is being left alone by blizzard development, I am concerned that the current team would not be able to properly implement a large design change and might just make the game much worse. I would maybe be on board with trying out some very small tweaks depending on how they were tested and implemented. Otherwise, I think this game is at the stage where the map makers can keep the game fresh, and we can accept the imperfections knowing the layers of beauty the game has to offer. If you don't see any value in the game in its current state, maybe its time to move on to something else. PvZ is in one of the worst states it has ever been imo. For the other matchups I agree but PvZ really is shit right now | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
PvZ is in one of the worst states it has ever been imo. For the other matchups I agree but PvZ really is shit right now Yea it used to be one of my favorite match ups to watch, now half the games are 28 + minute long posture contests. I wonder though what could actually be done to alleviate this, PvZ on Aligulac has Protoss at a 54 % win rate vs Zergs so nerfing the Lurker would be kind of unjustified (even though I do feel like they're too strong) without touching some aspects of Protoss, who is at a 49% win rate vs. Terran atm. So it would be pretty difficult to balance Protoss to be less dominant against Zerg while not gutting them against Terrans. | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
|
SpecKROELLchen
Germany151 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6802 Posts
| ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
Edit: Mind I don't necessarily mean 6. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3096 Posts
On October 20 2021 17:56 Charoisaur wrote: PvZ is in one of the worst states it has ever been imo. For the other matchups I agree but PvZ really is shit right now I mean PvZ has always been the "problem" matchup since the beginning of SC2 and at every stage thereafter (and before that in BW). IMO it's now as balanced and stable as it's ever been, the problem, such as it is, being that it has been trending towards a relatively predictable set of relatively static strategies. We haven't seen that many games on the new maps, though, so maybe they'll shake things up a bit. But I mean, we should really all be thankful that we are no longer in an archon toilet or swarm host or blink all-in or infestors > everything meta anymore. Both players have a good shot at most stages of the game, even if void ray openings queen walks mass lurkers and carrier balls do recur a bit often for maximum enjoyment. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On October 25 2021 23:35 Captain Peabody wrote: I mean PvZ has always been the "problem" matchup since the beginning of SC2 and at every stage thereafter (and before that in BW). IMO it's now as balanced and stable as it's ever been, the problem, such as it is, being that it has been trending towards a relatively predictable set of relatively static strategies. We haven't seen that many games on the new maps, though, so maybe they'll shake things up a bit. But I mean, we should really all be thankful that we are no longer in an archon toilet or swarm host or blink all-in or infestors > everything meta anymore. Both players have a good shot at most stages of the game, even if void ray openings queen walks mass lurkers and carrier balls do recur a bit often for maximum enjoyment. Has anything in SC2 had such a decline from ‘holy shit that was fucking cool’ the first time we saw it to ‘god this so so silly’ as the humble archon toilet? | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 25 2021 23:35 Captain Peabody wrote: I mean PvZ has always been the "problem" matchup since the beginning of SC2 and at every stage thereafter (and before that in BW). IMO it's now as balanced and stable as it's ever been, the problem, such as it is, being that it has been trending towards a relatively predictable set of relatively static strategies. We haven't seen that many games on the new maps, though, so maybe they'll shake things up a bit. But I mean, we should really all be thankful that we are no longer in an archon toilet or swarm host or blink all-in or infestors > everything meta anymore. Both players have a good shot at most stages of the game, even if void ray openings queen walks mass lurkers and carrier balls do recur a bit often for maximum enjoyment. I'd much rather play blink all-in, infestors, or soul train than skytoss vs lurker. It's arguably my least favorite iteration of the game AFTER swarm hosts. Slightly worse than brood lord infestor than me. Nothing will be as bad as swarm host though. Swarmhost was worse because it could be used potentially in all 3 MUs. | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
On October 20 2021 22:23 jpg06051992 wrote: Yea it used to be one of my favorite match ups to watch, now half the games are 28 + minute long posture contests. I wonder though what could actually be done to alleviate this, PvZ on Aligulac has Protoss at a 54 % win rate vs Zergs so nerfing the Lurker would be kind of unjustified (even though I do feel like they're too strong) without touching some aspects of Protoss, who is at a 49% win rate vs. Terran atm. So it would be pretty difficult to balance Protoss to be less dominant against Zerg while not gutting them against Terrans. No it wouldnt. Nerfing void rays would have almost 0 impact on PvT. | ||
|
MarianoSC2
Slovakia1855 Posts
I actually thing balance is the best its been right now, would see it as something like P>Z=T=P and the PvZ is only slightly imbalanced on lower levels at PRO play it seems more or less even. The biggest problem is that the game is becoming stale and thus boring, at least for me. Balance patch might disrupt some of the very solid balance that was established but it might make the game a lot more interesting. I would trade perfect balance for more action and fun any time. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany6802 Posts
On October 26 2021 11:38 Snakestyle11 wrote: No it wouldnt. Nerfing void rays would have almost 0 impact on PvT. Prismatic allignment from +6 vs armored to + 3 vs armored (and the air weapon upgrades accordingly) would help Zerg a lot. The other option would be to make Hydras (+Shroud?) more viable | ||
|
Fran_
United States1024 Posts
| ||
|
Freeborn
Germany421 Posts
| ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15878 Posts
On October 26 2021 23:25 Freeborn wrote: The biggest Problem is that protoss is still not winning anyhting at all. blame Zest for throwing the last GSL finals | ||
|
xelnaga_empire
627 Posts
The problem is PvsT, where Protoss continues to abuse blink DTs and voidray + shield battery rushes. Something needs to be done to give Terran a better chance to defend against blink DTs (as HeroMarine demonstrated on his stream, a PF and multiple WMs around the PF cannot stop about 6 blink DTs from killing the PF). And voidray + shield battery rush is terrible, because of the last buff to voidrays. | ||
|
darklycid
3374 Posts
On October 27 2021 02:36 xelnaga_empire wrote: TvsZ is balanced and has been the most balanced non-mirror matchup in the last 2 years. I wouldn't touch that. The problem is PvsT, where Protoss continues to abuse blink DTs and voidray + shield battery rushes. Something needs to be done to give Terran a better chance to defend against blink DTs (as HeroMarine demonstrated on his stream, a PF and multiple WMs around the PF cannot stop about 6 blink DTs from killing the PF). And voidray + shield battery rush is terrible, because of the last buff to voidrays. While I agree that blink dt is too good in the late game and I didn't see Gabe's clip, a lib and 3-4wm actually do a pretty good job vs dts from what I've seen. Obviously a pf will still die when like 8-12 dts blink on it but the dts most of the time die too and 8-12 dts is quite the investment. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On October 26 2021 23:25 Freeborn wrote: The biggest Problem is that protoss is still not winning anyhting at all. Protoss has won 7 of 17 premier tournaments this year. They also have 7 second places. If we want to talk about winning tournaments, terran has only won 3. | ||
|
darklycid
3374 Posts
On October 27 2021 04:30 InfCereal wrote: Protoss has won 7 of 17 premier tournaments this year. They also have 7 second places. If we want to talk about winning tournaments, terran has only won 3. I was told only one player winning doesn't count (and i don't count NA let's be real) | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Winning percentages in early rounds do not mean much if races are not equally represented in the early rounds. As an extreme example, imagine you invited Serral and the 31 best Protoss players to a tournament. If Serral has the 1 seed and defeats the 32 seed in the first round and 16 seed in the second round before falling to the 8 seed then this would not prove that Zerg is overpowered vs Protoss. If anything it is evidence in the other direction. There are a lot of tournaments where Zergs are underrepresented and then go on to have winning records because Serral/Reynor do well. This does not prove that Zerg is overpowered. A lot of Protosses like to look at Aliguac's rankings at the top and say it proves that "at the top" Protoss is under powered. There is only 1 Protoss in the top 8 so that shows that Protoss is under powered right? This gets tricky. If you look at the PvT matchup you will see that there are 4 Terran and 4 Protoss with a rating over 3k. If you look at PvZ you will see 3 Protoss and 3 Zerg over 3k. So if PvT and PvZ are even at the top how is Protoss underpowered overall at the top? The answer is PvP. There are no Protoss players whose PvP is over 3k because that matchup rewards skill less than the other matchups. The result of this that top Protoss players like Zest, Trap, Parting, Zoun and Showtime actually do pretty well against Terran and Zerg, but on average they most struggle against other Protoss players. This isn't because Protoss is over powered. It is because the PvP is not rewarding their skill as much as the other matchups. Really, blizzard has done a very good job of balance at the top. None of this applies to lower leagues and just because a meta is balanced does not mean it is fun. I am already on record as hating proxy cannon anything and proxy battery anything, but we should give them credit for what they have done which is balance 3 very different races very equally. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 28 2021 00:00 meadbert wrote: Balance is actually good right now. Aligulac is a great source of information, but some of it is misinterpreted. Winning percentages in early rounds do not mean much if races are not equally represented in the early rounds. As an extreme example, imagine you invited Serral and the 31 best Protoss players to a tournament. If Serral has the 1 seed and defeats the 32 seed in the first round and 16 seed in the second round before falling to the 8 seed then this would not prove that Zerg is overpowered vs Protoss. If anything it is evidence in the other direction. There are a lot of tournaments where Zergs are underrepresented and then go on to have winning records because Serral/Reynor do well. This does not prove that Zerg is overpowered. A lot of Protosses like to look at Aliguac's rankings at the top and say it proves that "at the top" Protoss is under powered. There is only 1 Protoss in the top 8 so that shows that Protoss is under powered right? This gets tricky. If you look at the PvT matchup you will see that there are 4 Terran and 4 Protoss with a rating over 3k. If you look at PvZ you will see 3 Protoss and 3 Zerg over 3k. So if PvT and PvZ are even at the top how is Protoss underpowered overall at the top? The answer is PvP. There are no Protoss players whose PvP is over 3k because that matchup rewards skill less than the other matchups. The result of this that top Protoss players like Zest, Trap, Parting, Zoun and Showtime actually do pretty well against Terran and Zerg, but on average they most struggle against other Protoss players. This isn't because Protoss is over powered. It is because the PvP is not rewarding their skill as much as the other matchups. Really, blizzard has done a very good job of balance at the top. None of this applies to lower leagues and just because a meta is balanced does not mean it is fun. I am already on record as hating proxy cannon anything and proxy battery anything, but we should give them credit for what they have done which is balance 3 very different races very equally. If the game is balanced then the representation of victors and runner ups should be balanced too over the time. It's not. We can discuss the representation of the top players over the region locked areas, but when region locked areas clashes it still doesn't looked balanced. And t o be fair, most fans don't care about balance, they want to see their race to win some big stuff. The last 7 World Champions were Zergs. Terrans have at least the Code S. Protoss players have what, NA? Edit> Out of those 7 WC titles for Zergs we had soO, Dark, Rogue(2 IEMs, 1 Blizzcon), Serral and Reynor. So you cannot even blame it on a dominance of 1 player when 5 different Zergs dominate the most prestigious title of them all where all the excuses fade away. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On October 28 2021 00:50 deacon.frost wrote: If the game is balanced then the representation of victors and runner ups should be balanced too over the time. It's not. We can discuss the representation of the top players over the region locked areas, but when region locked areas clashes it still doesn't looked balanced. And t o be fair, most fans don't care about balance, they want to see their race to win some big stuff. The last 7 World Champions were Zergs. Terrans have at least the Code S. Protoss players have what, NA? Edit> Out of those 7 WC titles for Zergs we had soO, Dark, Rogue(2 IEMs, 1 Blizzcon), Serral and Reynor. So you cannot even blame it on a dominance of 1 player when 5 different Zergs dominate the most prestigious title of them all where all the excuses fade away. So you are giving the standard Protoss explanation and there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. It is harder for Protoss to win major tournaments, but the reason is neither PvT nor PvZ. The reason Protoss players struggle to win major tournaments in PvP. The problem is the best Protoss players can be eliminated early by worse players in an unfortunate PvP. It is crazy that a regular GSL has not gone to a Protoss player since today's freshmen in college were in middle school, but it may not be because PvZ or PvT are imbalanced. If you look at TvX you will see the matchup with the least dominance is TvP. Marus has 3239 in TvT Clem has 3327 in TvZ Clem only has 3156 in TvP Again, this is not because Protoss is OP vs Terran. Zest is only 3132 in PvT so Clem is still favored vs Zest. The issue is that Protoss introduces a bit of luck into the matchup which means making a long run in a tournament is harder for a good Protoss player. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 26 2021 11:38 Snakestyle11 wrote: No it wouldnt. Nerfing void rays would have almost 0 impact on PvT. It wouldn't definitely impact the ability to proxy void. The mere threat of a build, even if it's not performed, will have an impact on the game. Think of TvP in BW, where T has to prepare for fast DT regardless of whether or not the opponent actually goes fast DT. On October 27 2021 02:36 xelnaga_empire wrote: TvsZ is balanced and has been the most balanced non-mirror matchup in the last 2 years. I wouldn't touch that. The problem is PvsT, where Protoss continues to abuse blink DTs and voidray + shield battery rushes. Something needs to be done to give Terran a better chance to defend against blink DTs (as HeroMarine demonstrated on his stream, a PF and multiple WMs around the PF cannot stop about 6 blink DTs from killing the PF). And voidray + shield battery rush is terrible, because of the last buff to voidrays. While this is extremely surprising to me unless the blink was used to actually dodge the widow mine shots, I don't think it's a terrible thing for Terran to have to be more prepared against blink DTs late game. Don't get me wrong, super frustrating to play against myself when I played as Terran vs Protoss lategame, but I wouldn't put blink DTs on par with anything like lurker defense or some substantially bigger issues with the game right now. | ||
|
tigera6
3219 Posts
On October 28 2021 01:51 meadbert wrote: So you are giving the standard Protoss explanation and there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. It is harder for Protoss to win major tournaments, but the reason is neither PvT nor PvZ. The reason Protoss players struggle to win major tournaments in PvP. The problem is the best Protoss players can be eliminated early by worse players in an unfortunate PvP. It is crazy that a regular GSL has not gone to a Protoss player since today's freshmen in college were in middle school, but it may not be because PvZ or PvT are imbalanced. If you look at TvX you will see the matchup with the least dominance is TvP. Marus has 3239 in TvT Clem has 3327 in TvZ Clem only has 3156 in TvP Again, this is not because Protoss is OP vs Terran. Zest is only 3132 in PvT so Clem is still favored vs Zest. The issue is that Protoss introduces a bit of luck into the matchup which means making a long run in a tournament is harder for a good Protoss player. I think the reason is simply because Protoss doesnt have an S-rank player what can consistently perform at the greater stage. Stats was the last one who is considered as such during his 2018-2019 run, but got faced with Maru in GSL and Serral in the global tournament at their peak. Trap, the best Protoss player at the moment to many people eyes, seems to not able to keep his supremely high level at critical moment, and lost because he grossly under-performed (in Code S, IEM, DH Global ect.). Zest, Parting and MaxPax are at the level where they can take a series or two from Serral/Clem/Maru/Dark/Rogue, but they are not able to pull together a string of victories to win a tournament. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7187 Posts
On October 28 2021 01:51 meadbert wrote: So you are giving the standard Protoss explanation and there is a lot of truth to what you are saying. It is harder for Protoss to win major tournaments, but the reason is neither PvT nor PvZ. The reason Protoss players struggle to win major tournaments in PvP. The problem is the best Protoss players can be eliminated early by worse players in an unfortunate PvP. It is crazy that a regular GSL has not gone to a Protoss player since today's freshmen in college were in middle school, but it may not be because PvZ or PvT are imbalanced. If you look at TvX you will see the matchup with the least dominance is TvP. Marus has 3239 in TvT Clem has 3327 in TvZ Clem only has 3156 in TvP Again, this is not because Protoss is OP vs Terran. Zest is only 3132 in PvT so Clem is still favored vs Zest. The issue is that Protoss introduces a bit of luck into the matchup which means making a long run in a tournament is harder for a good Protoss player. Looking at the last five GSLs from the Quarterfinals onwards, matches that eliminated a Protoss were, + Show Spoiler + 11 TvP 3 PvP 6 ZvP At least in GSL, PvP is definitely not Protoss' problem. There are a ton of other problems, including having the top Protoss player be Trap, someone who has an allergy to winning GSL, but there are also just no real top Protoss players that aren't extremely flawed. Its basically just Trap. As to why there aren't really any top Protoss players is its own question. Could be Protoss being shit, could be all of retirements, could be history, I don't really know, but I have a very hard time seeing PvP as the reason why Protoss has such a crap time in tournaments. | ||
|
darklycid
3374 Posts
| ||
|
Tal
United Kingdom1014 Posts
On October 28 2021 16:05 darklycid wrote: Just wanna chime in and say pvz may be more or less balanced but void rays make it a garbage matchup to watch so a patch is def need imo. They also just aren't very fun to play against. Yes, there are counters which work, but I'd rather the battles you get with Zerg and Protoss ground armies. | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
On October 28 2021 16:16 Tal wrote: They also just aren't very fun to play against. Yes, there are counters which work, but I'd rather the battles you get with Zerg and Protoss ground armies. Nothing is more fun than spending first 8 minutes of the game just chasing void rays rotating from your 3rd/4th to your main. Fun interaction. Out of position once?? Lose a base or lair or like 5-6 queens. Meanwhile protoss has to mess up immensely to lose even one void ray. Just lame as hell to play. Imagine one race core unit is a flying unit thats fast and good against everything all around. The response to that is ground unit that are super slow and clunky and cant really maneuvre off creep and arent particularly good against ground. Just unfun to play. and reflects hard in the drop of zerg population since the void ray nerf. This patch literally killed almost half the zerg population at highish level of ladder. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
Why was that nerfed again? Obliterating vikings making late game ZvT way too zerg favored? If that's the case, then buffing PB might actually be an option. Vikings aren't used in ZvT since the thor buff, and at high levels, no one's making pure air. It's usually some combination of archons, high temp, disrupters, carriers, voids. It's really just below that level that people are going pure air, and a PB buff would help that. Kind of like how you can't go hydras against air because storm exists - You wouldn't be able to go pure air because PB exists. | ||
|
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On October 28 2021 14:09 Zambrah wrote: Looking at the last five GSLs from the Quarterfinals onwards, matches that eliminated a Protoss were, + Show Spoiler + 11 TvP 3 PvP 6 ZvP At least in GSL, PvP is definitely not Protoss' problem. There are a ton of other problems, including having the top Protoss player be Trap, someone who has an allergy to winning GSL, but there are also just no real top Protoss players that aren't extremely flawed. Its basically just Trap. As to why there aren't really any top Protoss players is its own question. Could be Protoss being shit, could be all of retirements, could be history, I don't really know, but I have a very hard time seeing PvP as the reason why Protoss has such a crap time in tournaments. The same factors that make PvP a bit of a coinflip also apply to PvT and PvZ to a lesser extent. The best Terran players dominate TvZ and even TvT more than TvP. The best Zerg players dominate ZvT more than ZvP. It is not that Protoss is bad. It is that Protoss is hard to dominate with. You have to sort of gamble with your tech choices playing both as and against Protoss and when those gambles fail you, you can lose to a lower level player. | ||
|
Eumelia Anatjari
1 Post
-------------------------------------- my project could be view on this webpage (time tracking software) | ||
|
IMSupervisor
Australia138 Posts
On October 28 2021 22:07 InfCereal wrote: Zerg did have an answer to air deathballs back at release with their stronger parasitic bomb. Why was that nerfed again? Obliterating vikings making late game ZvT way too zerg favored? If that's the case, then buffing PB might actually be an option. Vikings aren't used in ZvT since the thor buff, and at high levels, no one's making pure air. It's usually some combination of archons, high temp, disrupters, carriers, voids. It's really just below that level that people are going pure air, and a PB buff would help that. Kind of like how you can't go hydras against air because storm exists - You wouldn't be able to go pure air because PB exists. If PB was a certain kill on a Medivac it might have more of an influence on TvZ than just the Viking interaction, however all TvZ interactions would be moot if PB ignored shields and directly reduced HP. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
My solutions? - Nerf Void Ray mobility or damage, probably damage that way they can still be a nimble unit that can micro away from AA but wouldn't be able to burst down a Lair in 8 seconds while overcharged. In it's current form it's just too nimble for how quickly it can snipe buildings and how effectively they can trade vs. Queens, it's too safe, makes Zerg play very defensively unless you're Queen walking but there is definitely counters to that build. - Nerf Blinding Cloud, make it so it only reduces range by 4, this would still cripple bio forces and anything that isn't inherently long range but the unit shuts down tanks so hard with this ability when abduct also dominates tank play, this is just to give Terran some more late game defensive abilities with tanks and shake up the meta a bit, Zerg looks very strong in the late game against Terran right now. - Nerf the Lurker, either remove Adaptive Talons from the game entirely or reduce their HP. They are too good plain and simple. They are tanky as hell and can take a ton of storms or tank shots, have very long range, insane burst damage, and with AT it removes a core weakness inherent to siege units, and that's lack of mobility. Once you commit with your lurkers you should have to commit, not be able to micro them away from Biles. Just tired of tanks being hard countered in every match, it's such a cool iconic unit and it's a shame that it's hard countered by practically everything in the Protoss arsenal and now Zerg has such easy reliable ways of shutting down tank play, this leads to a more pigeon holed approach for Terrans who will favor mine play over tanks. I think some changes can be done simply for diversities sake, it's not like the changes can't be tweaked or reverted. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On October 29 2021 09:12 jpg06051992 wrote: I think a Void Ray nerf and a Lurker nerf would probably do alot to help the metagame out a bit, Zerg late game is very very dominant once Vipers and Lurkers hit the field, but without Vipers in their current iteration Skytoss would be nigh impossible to fight, but the unit also single handedly destroys mech so hard it makes it all but unviable in the top levels of play. My solutions? - Nerf Void Ray mobility or damage, probably damage that way they can still be a nimble unit that can micro away from AA but wouldn't be able to burst down a Lair in 8 seconds while overcharged. In it's current form it's just too nimble for how quickly it can snipe buildings and how effectively they can trade vs. Queens, it's too safe, makes Zerg play very defensively unless you're Queen walking but there is definitely counters to that build. - Nerf Blinding Cloud, make it so it only reduces range by 4, this would still cripple bio forces and anything that isn't inherently long range but the unit shuts down tanks so hard with this ability when abduct also dominates tank play, this is just to give Terran some more late game defensive abilities with tanks and shake up the meta a bit, Zerg looks very strong in the late game against Terran right now. - Nerf the Lurker, either remove Adaptive Talons from the game entirely or reduce their HP. They are too good plain and simple. They are tanky as hell and can take a ton of storms or tank shots, have very long range, insane burst damage, and with AT it removes a core weakness inherent to siege units, and that's lack of mobility. Once you commit with your lurkers you should have to commit, not be able to micro them away from Biles. Just tired of tanks being hard countered in every match, it's such a cool iconic unit and it's a shame that it's hard countered by practically everything in the Protoss arsenal and now Zerg has such easy reliable ways of shutting down tank play, this leads to a more pigeon holed approach for Terrans who will favor mine play over tanks. I think some changes can be done simply for diversities sake, it's not like the changes can't be tweaked or reverted. The nerf to blinding cloud seems a bit arbitrary if T isn't struggling vs Z. You can't just suggest nerfing a few units without offsetting with a nerf to the last race (or buffs to the races getting nerfed) unless you're saying T is underpowered... | ||
|
AssyrianKing
Australia2111 Posts
| ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On October 29 2021 09:12 jpg06051992 wrote: I think a Void Ray nerf and a Lurker nerf would probably do alot to help the metagame out a bit, Zerg late game is very very dominant once Vipers and Lurkers hit the field, but without Vipers in their current iteration Skytoss would be nigh impossible to fight, but the unit also single handedly destroys mech so hard it makes it all but unviable in the top levels of play. My solutions? - Nerf Void Ray mobility or damage, probably damage that way they can still be a nimble unit that can micro away from AA but wouldn't be able to burst down a Lair in 8 seconds while overcharged. In it's current form it's just too nimble for how quickly it can snipe buildings and how effectively they can trade vs. Queens, it's too safe, makes Zerg play very defensively unless you're Queen walking but there is definitely counters to that build. - Nerf Blinding Cloud, make it so it only reduces range by 4, this would still cripple bio forces and anything that isn't inherently long range but the unit shuts down tanks so hard with this ability when abduct also dominates tank play, this is just to give Terran some more late game defensive abilities with tanks and shake up the meta a bit, Zerg looks very strong in the late game against Terran right now. - Nerf the Lurker, either remove Adaptive Talons from the game entirely or reduce their HP. They are too good plain and simple. They are tanky as hell and can take a ton of storms or tank shots, have very long range, insane burst damage, and with AT it removes a core weakness inherent to siege units, and that's lack of mobility. Once you commit with your lurkers you should have to commit, not be able to micro them away from Biles. Just tired of tanks being hard countered in every match, it's such a cool iconic unit and it's a shame that it's hard countered by practically everything in the Protoss arsenal and now Zerg has such easy reliable ways of shutting down tank play, this leads to a more pigeon holed approach for Terrans who will favor mine play over tanks. I think some changes can be done simply for diversities sake, it's not like the changes can't be tweaked or reverted. TvZ is extremely well balanced right now. I don't think a nerf to Zerg just to make tanks better is a good idea at all. PvZ oriented nerfs to the lurker and voidray make sense though, I'm on board for all that. Thoughts on the lurker: The lurker is currently as much a brawler unit as a siege unit. If we want to change it for the sake of PvZ ground (with a solid nerf to skytoss too pls), there are two directions it could go. Direction 1: Keep the fast burrow, but nerf the range. This would really solidify them in the brawler role, where Zerg would be encouraged to jump on positions quickly. This feels like it's closer to the role lurkers actually fill in practice right now. Direction 2: Nerf mobility and burrow speed, keep range. This would settle them as a siege unit. In this case, I'd say with reduced mobility they'd probably even need +1 additional range (having them be immobile and still snipeable by ghosts as they are now would be stupid). This seems to be what people want the lurker to be? | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On October 29 2021 06:59 IMSupervisor wrote: If PB was a certain kill on a Medivac it might have more of an influence on TvZ than just the Viking interaction, however all TvZ interactions would be moot if PB ignored shields and directly reduced HP. Forgot about medivacs. Interacting with shields is an interesting idea. You could do something like +damage to shields, or ignore shields like you said. It's an interesting idea, I think. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3096 Posts
Zerg and Terrans seem to always complain more loudly about things they find annoying about Protoss, but imo the ability for Protoss to get to a strong lategame army is a key feature of the matchup, is not negotiable, and removing it would make the matchup much worse. There does seem to be a perfectly reasonable consensus on the current problems with the matchup, though, which boils down to (1) Void Ray & skytoss openings being massively stronger and more reliable than all other Protoss alternatives, & (2) the Lurker being too all-around strong against midgame Protoss ground armies, both of which have the effect of funnelling Protoss into rushing to build up lategame skytoss armies as soon as possible rather than going for ground-based or mid-game strats. Which does indeed get annoying for both sides. The issue, then, is not with lategame PvZ itself, it's that too many PvZ games end up going to lategame. The solution is to encourage strategic diversity in both Protoss and Zerg in the earlier phases of the game, something that could theoretically be achieved by some combination of nerfing Void Rays and/or Lurkers and/or buffing alternatives on both sides. Obviously everything balance-related is very theoretical at this point though, and it might make more sense to think about map features that would help. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
Unless they have and I just couldn't find it of course but still, crazy that HOTS gets patches and has a very tiny pro scene (I almost never see Khaldor with over 1.5K) where the last Dreamhack finals between Clem and Serral had like 13K or something. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
I was asking if the over-use of Queens at pro level could be a consequence of the strenght of medivacs which are able to sustaining the bio-ball at 12 hp by seconds. At pro level, It seems Zerg aren t able to catch and circle bio-ball with banes and glings and i think it s an issue as the TvZ is snow-balling so fast. What s your opinions here ? Would you agree if Medivacs healing spell would be decrease in favor of a little bit bonus "regarding Marines base hit points" ? Maybe Queens are necessary because they are used to wait hydralisks which are T2 unit ? (and because hydralisks aren t slow outside creep with the good upgrade) | ||
|
Snakestyle11
191 Posts
Queens are massed because they are the only accessible anti air unit zerg has for a long time,and the only anti air unit that isnt super fragile. Without mass queens, here are many things that will give you nightmare : - 2-3 oracle build with good control. - Mass void ray builds - if you play too light on queen, one engagement will cost you the game right away. - Battlecruiser opening. 5:30 one BC can be in your base. 6:20 or so, 2 BCs can be in your base. Fast hydra doesnt work, fast spire is too late, spores get maneuvred around. Mass queen is only answer. Again, like vs void ray, you need alot to be safe. -Medivac dropping up and down near ledges. Without good number of queens, you have no way to push the medivac out, and marines can get insane efficiency vs zerglings using walls and ledges. Again, cannot have hydras or mutas in time for first 16marine 2 medivacs. Also, unlike any other zerg unit, queen can only be made one at a time per hatchery, and cannot be made if youre researching lair, burrow, or overlord speed. This means you have to produce them PROACTIVELY, instead of reactively. You cant wait to get the scout off and be like oh i need more queens now. You have to continually produce them all game to be safe. Its alot safer to overproduce queens than to underproduce them. So I would say the reason pros always mass queen in all matchups is because zerg ground to air is very weak other than queens, and that you cant produce queens quickly. Also air to ground from other race is too strong early game for how mobile it is. Hydras are failing at their job hard. I would be surprised if hatchery tech hydra would even be overpowered. It would get figured out pretty fast. If you nerf queen any more than now, zerg will be a dead race. You wont get past the early mid game on even terms ever. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 29 2021 15:51 AssyrianKing wrote: I wonder how 2 supply siege tanks would work :D This tank could have been controlled by infested Terrans :D | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
On October 30 2021 22:08 Snakestyle11 wrote: Responding to above post, the *overuse of queens at pro level* as you call it has nothing to do with medivac or one unit in particular. Even less to do with the heal per second of medivac...? Honestly thats kinda confusing you would think that. Queens are massed because they are the only accessible anti air unit zerg has for a long time,and the only anti air unit that isnt super fragile. Without mass queens, here are many things that will give you nightmare : - 2-3 oracle build with good control. - Mass void ray builds - if you play too light on queen, one engagement will cost you the game right away. - Battlecruiser opening. 5:30 one BC can be in your base. 6:20 or so, 2 BCs can be in your base. Fast hydra doesnt work, fast spire is too late, spores get maneuvred around. Mass queen is only answer. Again, like vs void ray, you need alot to be safe. -Medivac dropping up and down near ledges. Without good number of queens, you have no way to push the medivac out, and marines can get insane efficiency vs zerglings using walls and ledges. Again, cannot have hydras or mutas in time for first 16marine 2 medivacs. Also, unlike any other zerg unit, queen can only be made one at a time per hatchery, and cannot be made if youre researching lair, burrow, or overlord speed. This means you have to produce them PROACTIVELY, instead of reactively. You cant wait to get the scout off and be like oh i need more queens now. You have to continually produce them all game to be safe. Its alot safer to overproduce queens than to underproduce them. So I would say the reason pros always mass queen in all matchups is because zerg ground to air is very weak other than queens, and that you cant produce queens quickly. Also air to ground from other race is too strong early game for how mobile it is. Hydras are failing at their job hard. I would be surprised if hatchery tech hydra would even be overpowered. It would get figured out pretty fast. If you nerf queen any more than now, zerg will be a dead race. You wont get past the early mid game on even terms ever. I didn t say medivacs are the only reason of why Zerg could mass a single unit. I said as you are according in the end of your post, that Queens are enought beefy do deal with every other kind of air units (everyone know that) but also against bio-ball (thankfull to their healing spell). And you also admit that Queens are mandatory to push back medivacs during drops. as your explanations are long, I wonder if you don't take people for idiots And i never talked about nerf Queens in this post. But of course since Zerg play-style depends of creep expand, Z is really struggling against air harrasement, that s why Queens seems so legit at your eyes I talked about Queens in a scenarii in particulary, when Terran is pushing at the end of the mid game. | ||
|
Vinekh
129 Posts
| ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
But as the game is so much faster, there s no reason to commit in the mid game, hiding an hatchery inside his own basis. I m pretty sure as the economy goes on, Zerg player hasn t the option to make more units with this kind of strategy (and paying a queen per basis) like in hots era, probably because of the un-necessary risk to run in bankrupt (in doing that) I think it s a consequence of reducing half of mineral field to 900 | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
On October 30 2021 22:53 Vinekh wrote: Have you seen what the Blizzard 'quality' is lately ? I'd prefer if they give SC2 the BW treatment and leave it as it is. Sigh, more or less this. I wish there was a passionate and qualified group of people on a balance team, but we know there is neither anymore. It's not like balance is bad or anything, I actually really like the expanded map pool. With such a big pool there is more room for experimental maps that promote new strategies and you can't simply veto them all out. A good direction for the community I think. | ||
|
Ivymeilna
6 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 30 2021 22:08 Snakestyle11 wrote: Responding to above post, the *overuse of queens at pro level* as you call it has nothing to do with medivac or one unit in particular. Even less to do with the heal per second of medivac...? Honestly thats kinda confusing you would think that. Queens are massed because they are the only accessible anti air unit zerg has for a long time,and the only anti air unit that isnt super fragile. Without mass queens, here are many things that will give you nightmare : - 2-3 oracle build with good control. - Mass void ray builds - if you play too light on queen, one engagement will cost you the game right away. - Battlecruiser opening. 5:30 one BC can be in your base. 6:20 or so, 2 BCs can be in your base. Fast hydra doesnt work, fast spire is too late, spores get maneuvred around. Mass queen is only answer. Again, like vs void ray, you need alot to be safe. -Medivac dropping up and down near ledges. Without good number of queens, you have no way to push the medivac out, and marines can get insane efficiency vs zerglings using walls and ledges. Again, cannot have hydras or mutas in time for first 16marine 2 medivacs. Also, unlike any other zerg unit, queen can only be made one at a time per hatchery, and cannot be made if youre researching lair, burrow, or overlord speed. This means you have to produce them PROACTIVELY, instead of reactively. You cant wait to get the scout off and be like oh i need more queens now. You have to continually produce them all game to be safe. Its alot safer to overproduce queens than to underproduce them. So I would say the reason pros always mass queen in all matchups is because zerg ground to air is very weak other than queens, and that you cant produce queens quickly. Also air to ground from other race is too strong early game for how mobile it is. Hydras are failing at their job hard. I would be surprised if hatchery tech hydra would even be overpowered. It would get figured out pretty fast. If you nerf queen any more than now, zerg will be a dead race. You wont get past the early mid game on even terms ever. PRos build queens simply because they're crazy strong. Also they don't cost larvae which is a scarce resource at the start of the game. And they cost just minerals. They are the bandaid holding Zerg toghether and they need nerf as they have all them roles. Healer, macro booster, vision booster, movement booster, defender and sometimes even attacker. Also plenty units attack them instead of lings/banes(e.g. tanks), so they're great at tanking. (and duh, when nerfing queens you would have to solve the issue you're addressing) | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
What is this, 2010? Jesus christ | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On November 01 2021 18:55 deacon.frost wrote: PRos build queens simply because they're crazy strong. Also they don't cost larvae which is a scarce resource at the start of the game. And they cost just minerals. They are the bandaid holding Zerg toghether and they need nerf as they have all them roles. Healer, macro booster, vision booster, movement booster, defender and sometimes even attacker. Also plenty units attack them instead of lings/banes(e.g. tanks), so they're great at tanking. (and duh, when nerfing queens you would have to solve the issue you're addressing) If you nerfed queens, you'd probably need to buff literally every single other aspect of pre-hive-tech Zerg. Especially with the state of stargate play, you'd basically just remove Zerg (even more, given it's already disappearing at some levels of play) from the game. | ||
|
jpg06051992
United States580 Posts
| ||
|
nimbim
Germany983 Posts
| ||
|
RogerChillingworth
2824 Posts
But unfortunately the core design of the alien races is poopy relative to their predecessors. I love SC2 and think its great in its own right, especially as a spectator, but not a fraction of what it could be imo. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
I heard here that Ladder is also in a very bad shape in ZvZ, i.e if you get Lurkers first, you will win the game very probably. In fact it s not only about PvZ... And it s also ugly to see at pro level | ||
LSN
Germany696 Posts
On September 09 2021 10:16 RogerChillingworth wrote: I consistently think that widow mines, banelings and disruptors just make for exceptionally frustrating games where shit swings in a millisecond because of a unit that isn't even difficult to control in the first place. I think that's the biggest issue in SC2--personally, humbly. That and just Protoss in general being pretty poorly designed compared to its predecessor. But these are no root issues, hence you cannot fix them alone. The question is why those units exist in that way, which ultimately leads back to Terran bio firepower density + stim packs + healing + pickup by medivacs. This combination combines ultimative movement speed, ultimate firepower, the units can basically even fly with medivacs, it includes the free unit mechanic already in the early to midgame, with medivac healing which keeps units in the game that usually would be taken off (hence this is an inverted free unit mechanic). If you design a race like Terran that overpowered in mechanics of basic units, not spell-casters or slow moving lategame composition but most basic army that you start building from minute one -> then you have not much choice but giving the other races something to cover that and start the vicious circle that those things must be covered too. The only way to ever fix starcraft 2 is to get over MMMM mechanics and remove its overpowered counters, what even mutalisks take part in (as well as baneling), which became in itself problematically balanced units. Anyway the core issue is visible if you watch an automated AI fight of a stalker based Protoss army vs an MMM based Terran army. The terran army loses basically 0-3 units (due to inversed free unit mechanic) while protoss loses 25 stalkers. This is how you can make the core issue, which are root, visible. But Team Liquid Terran fanatics in users and staff deny the root issue of starcraft since release of LOTV, when they were finalized and manifested to stay forever. The game is lost since and was not worth to continue to stick with much tbh. | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
This way zerg cannot have anti-air other than queen, which together with drop defence and general terran MMMM overpoweredness in early and midgames caused the queens current position, another offset which is not root, hence noone needs to complain about the queen without addressing it's roots too. The correct design & balance position of the hydralisk is the position it had in Broodwar. A tier one unit that is slightly ahead of the marine. Here again the terran MMM(+M) design likely prevented the hydralisk to stay at its original position. Bio would overrule tier one hydras in speed, dps, effective hitpoints (with medivacs) and the ability to become flying units with medivacs to overcome cliffs and walled ramps and what not. The hydralisk simply cant be balanced around currently existing MMMM overpoweredness in tier 1. Fixing those two things. 1. break Apart terran MMMM overpoweredness and its counters, then 2. then put the hydralisk to its correct position in the game, would be able to fix Starcraft 2. And there is no single other option to fix this game other than doing those 2 things. | ||
|
Vision_
851 Posts
In slowing the game to fast (instead of very fast), community could test hard the balance deepest. Even if i m Terran biasis i can admit Medivacs sustain is too strong while hydralisks are too fragile, plus they haven t a real advantage over Marines+Medivacs. To me, Fix Bio ball consist probably to decrease the Medivacs effectiveness. The discussion of Mines is something else because I consider, as banelings that there s a problem in term of supply cost (still in head of slowing the game). Tweaks with slower game / small modification of the overall unit range scale by +10% (not for all units ofc example: marines) AOE issues(***) Banelings : supply cost 0.5 to 1, bigger box size, armor = 1, hp balance. (***) Mines : supply cost 1 to 1.5 BIO-BALL and linked Medivacs : 12 hp/s decreasing to 8 hp/s Marines Stimpack : Effectiveness reduce from 50% to 35%(***), +5 hp for marines (maybe???) Hydralisks (still fresh idea) : Range increase from 6 to 7 (dps balanced against marines+medivacs, who is better idk) Adrenals glands : a little bit decreasing Lurkers : 20+10 against armored to 15+15 against armored (Range Unchanged - try to find his place) Infestators : Return of Infested Terrans Less Air units, somes tweaks, mainly support and swiss-knife units except for mutalisks, phoenixes and oracle (merge voyd ray with oracle) No rapid fire When tumors are killed, they can respawn from the last one. Mana adjustement. Goes on. | ||
|
LSN
Germany696 Posts
Problem is stubborn terrans in this forum believe Z/P are the problematic races for this game, while actually terran is. Also the changes necessary would probably ask for an SC3 more than changing the fundamentals that much. So I support those who say let this game die in peace. On the other hand, is that actually true? Do some changes to bio and roach/hydras and so on require SC3? I am not sure about that. It would be possible, but the will is lacking I guess. Terran lays the foundation that forces the other races to be problematic with MMM that is not only little but to such an extent overpowered, compared to the scarcity of requirements (time, resources) it needs, that this breaks the balance of the game. The bioball is simply being fixed by removing the marauder from the equation, means from the tier 1 early game. The marauder should get into the position that the Zerg Hydralisk is in now, a later addition to make bio viable longer: Marine Tier 1, Marauder Tier 2, Ghost Tier 3. The Hellbat could be moved to tier one instead probably, which then as well allows smoother transitions into mech with a bio start. Of course we cant fix that equation now, cause it depends on new position of roach and hydralisk. In current position of zerg units, the marauder is problematic. The removal of the marauder from tier one could allow harsh nerfs of banelings, queen, adepts, and so on. An overpowered combination of units like MMM(+M) would have to be gas restricted, in Starcraft 2 standards, which it is not. A mineral restricted MMM is bad game design, as minerals are by map design less scarce than gas, and in addition to that the mule mechanic in combination with that creates volatility, where you do not want it, so that advantages and disadvantages do scale more than they should and comebacks are less likely, so we see one sided, frustrating matches, which is the reason why people turned their back to SC2 already in WOL. And there is much more to this. The whole structure of the game evolves around terran bio and its overpoweredness. | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic613 Posts
| ||
|
Got2Be
3 Posts
| ||
|
angry_maia
301 Posts
| ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
On February 01 2022 04:38 angry_maia wrote: what's wrong with letting roaches shoot up in exchange for a queen range nerf. There was a time when Roaches were considered a useless unit in every match up. Then they got +1 range, and became a staple unit in every match up. SC2 balance is best done in very small increments, radical redesigns will require multiple patches to balance out at the minimum. Oh and Queen range was already nerfed in the last patch and isn't even close to the issue with the unit. The issue is how tanky they are and how strong transfuse is. If the Queen get's nerfed again, a better nerf would be to make it either armored or light, so that units like the Void Ray/Stalkers can fight them straight up or so Hellions/Adepts can bully them a bit easer. | ||
|
nesmah
France26 Posts
- rework of the lurker (remove fast burrow ?) - rework of the void ray (speed ? cost ?) - rework of the battery shield (build only in a range of a nexus ?) - rework of the thor (useless unit for its cost) what else ? | ||
|
TheCheapSkate
Slovenia316 Posts
| ||
|
sirok_
33 Posts
On February 28 2022 21:09 TheCheapSkate wrote: You forgot the most abused and op unit in the game: the queen At this point, the question is not whether or not the Queen should be nerfed, but whether or not Blizzard is capable and willing to patch it. The Queen requires a SIGNIFICANT nerf while not making Zerg too vulnerable to early air. This is complex, requires testing, and, in the worse case, additional updates linked to T / P / Z early air build-time. I'm afraid Blizzard will be afraid of this complexity and opt for a bad solution that is more in line with how many employees are in charge of SC2 balance, i.e. doing nothing or opting for an insignificant Queen nerf. | ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
|
catplanetcatplanet
3829 Posts
 | ||
|
depressed1
51 Posts
I mean, no whine. That's just a honest thing. I'm tired of watching ZvZ for years. | ||
|
sirok_
33 Posts
On March 01 2022 00:13 depressed1 wrote: I think realistically patch will bring us nothing. Critical mistakes were made. Most of the changes that were made were reverted back. Like marauders/mines/observers/tempests/stalkers/hydra etc. That was just a smoke screen. LotV units can't fit well. If you want change something for real you need to have a global patch that will be addressing problems to vipers/infestrs/lurkers/banes/queens/cyclones/ghosts/mines/liberators/disruptors/shield batteries/zealots/carriers. You need to the synergies in between mech and bio openings. You need to find a way to create a fair micro/macro engagements in between sky protoss army and zerg/terran. But this is unreal. It was abandoned too long. It also pushes us to abandon the diversity in maps. I mean, no whine. That's just a honest thing. I'm tired of watching ZvZ for years. I have no doubts about your sincerity. However, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, which sounds to me like "trying to improve the game is pointless because it is so far from my ideals." The patch's goal is not to make the game ideal or perfect, but to make it significantly more dynamic and balanced than it is now, which is most likely doable without completely reinventing almost all unit stats. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
On March 01 2022 04:25 sirok_ wrote: I have no doubts about your sincerity. However, I strongly disagree with your viewpoint, which sounds to me like "trying to improve the game is pointless because it is so far from my ideals." The patch's goal is not to make the game ideal or perfect, but to make it significantly more dynamic and balanced than it is now, which is most likely doable without completely reinventing almost all unit stats. I’ve dipped my toes into watching AoE4, a game of which I know little. What little I do know does seem that there’s consensus some matchups are far from balanced. Additionally, while it’s good to watch, the micro aspect isn’t quite as fun to watch (for me), the game looks great but it’s less visceral and flashy than a high level SC2 game. Warcraft 3 isn’t close to perfect balance, a game I’m much more familiar with. BW requires every trick in the mapmaking book to balance. I’ve never played an RTS with genuinely asymmetric factions that approaches perfect balance. Much less one that fulfils everyone’s expectations on how the game ‘should’ play and what skill sets it should reward or make viable. Or what is considered good design in interactions. Despite often justified complaints the game’s balance across the board isn’t that bad at all. Certainly it’s close enough that some tweaks could at least improve things, especially with more experimentation in maps. There are underlining design choices and interactions that make it, at this stage very, very unlikely to have blizzard root and branch tweak things more radically. But yeah, can it be better than it is now with minor tweaks and experimentation? 100% Even if SC2 is just getting the kind of love HoTS gets, with input from knowledgeable players and nothing more than that, it beats settling on this as the final patch | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
Which is why I prefer to play AOE4 where mechanics are still important but you can actually outhink and beat opponents by playing smarter. In SC2 it is not really possible to do that anymore. SC2 is still awesome to watch, but it does not really feel like a RTS to play. More like a task simulator where you need execute lots off different tasks as fast and precise as possible. If SC2 was patched regulary being able to adapt to patches and figuring out new builds would matter more than just micro and mulitask better than your opponent. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland24310 Posts
SC2 doesn’t just settle into a groove where it’s more and more about mechanical execution, Zerg have a higher ceiling there than Protoss especially. And are the defensive reactive race that has more flexibility to adjust to trickery to boot. At the highest level the top Zergs can look nigh unstoppable when they’ve figured out the meta fully. On the flip side for us plebs who don’t have those stellar mechanics some matchups can be extremely difficult. In the absence of deeper redesigns, a patch that isn’t utter trash will improve things just by resetting things for a while. I think we also need a bigger map pool that accommodates more non-standard and also a few matchup specific maps too, which could help. There’s some variance, they’re not totally identikit but the standard maps are pretty similar in layout and flow. There’s not a huge amount of features where clever players could pose different questions. With long stretches without other changes, and pros grinding maps that are very similar for months and months, it seems inevitable to me that given how Zerg especially works they’re going to do pretty well. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17601 Posts
On March 01 2022 21:11 MockHamill wrote: I think the main problem with SC2 is that is has turned into a game that almost exclusivly is decided by mechanics. If your opponent has better mechanics you will lose, almost no matter what you do. Which is why I prefer to play AOE4 where mechanics are still important but you can actually outhink and beat opponents by playing smarter. In SC2 it is not really possible to do that anymore. SC2 is still awesome to watch, but it does not really feel like a RTS to play. More like a task simulator where you need execute lots off different tasks as fast and precise as possible. If SC2 was patched regulary being able to adapt to patches and figuring out new builds would matter more than just micro and mulitask better than your opponent. try out my SC2 Randomizer extension mod @WombaT bigger map pool with more vetoes available is a great idea, it allows pros to adapt their map selection more quickly than tournaments are able to, so we can better avoid all of the maps that we discover to be imbalanced even in the middle of a tournament | ||
|
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
| ||
