|
On March 09 2022 17:40 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
Look at it the other way: nobody was complaining when DTs didn’t have blink that « they absolutely need blink ». Making it less obnoxious than it is atm and allow more time to react / thus more counter play and making it less of a « free meal » move for protoss is probably a good thing.
Yes, I think this is the most relevant point. Nobody was complaining when DTs didn't have blink. Just as nobody was really complaining when WMs were invisible. For whatever reason, the Blizzard balance team decided to give DTs blink, and take away the invisibility of WMs (but they gave back invisibility to WMs via the armory in a later patch), when nobody was asking for this.
|
On March 09 2022 18:16 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 17:40 Poopi wrote:On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
Look at it the other way: nobody was complaining when DTs didn’t have blink that « they absolutely need blink ». Making it less obnoxious than it is atm and allow more time to react / thus more counter play and making it less of a « free meal » move for protoss is probably a good thing. Yes, I think this is the most relevant point. Nobody was complaining when DTs didn't have blink. Just as nobody was really complaining when WMs were invisible. For whatever reason, the Blizzard balance team decided to give DTs blink, and take away the invisibility of WMs (but they gave back invisibility to WMs via the armory in a later patch), when nobody was asking for this.
The DT change is an extremely welcome one tbh. There is not enough counterplay to DT squads slicing through PFs in lategame, expensive though those squads may be.
|
On March 09 2022 18:35 [PkF] Wire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 18:16 xelnaga_empire wrote:On March 09 2022 17:40 Poopi wrote:On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
Look at it the other way: nobody was complaining when DTs didn’t have blink that « they absolutely need blink ». Making it less obnoxious than it is atm and allow more time to react / thus more counter play and making it less of a « free meal » move for protoss is probably a good thing. Yes, I think this is the most relevant point. Nobody was complaining when DTs didn't have blink. Just as nobody was really complaining when WMs were invisible. For whatever reason, the Blizzard balance team decided to give DTs blink, and take away the invisibility of WMs (but they gave back invisibility to WMs via the armory in a later patch), when nobody was asking for this. The DT change is an extremely welcome one tbh. There is not enough counterplay to DT squads slicing through PFs in lategame, expensive though those squads may be.
Agreed. The nerf to blink for DTs was definitely needed and will help to balance PvsT much more.
|
In general, I like the fact that there *is* a patch. I think these changes are definitely interesting. I don't claim to be able to predict everything. (I am a bit saddened, even though I play Z, that one gat expand void ray in pvp is nerfed, but I guess that's a side effect.)
I do hope that, in general, they will be a bit more ambitious for pvz late game. In that: the goal should be that (about) equally difficult armies to control-late game scenarios are won by the player with the better control. Currently, this doesn't seem the case. This is why top Z's generally dominate P: they have more to do and thus more ways to show their skill. It would be better if P's army control was *more difficult* but also in a way that if you *do* it better than your opponent, you can gain more value out of it.
Harstem's suggestion of getting rid of the career is a radical but probably a good idea. Or, in any case, change something.
My general philosophy is that units should be designed with diminished marginal utility in mind. So that there is a treshhold where 'more' is not better. Broodlords can be amazing, but they are easily countered... because they don't actually shoot air units.
One way of doing this with carriers could be: make their damage output to either air or ground weaker so that if you have (almost) pure carrier or whatever, you are weak against either ground *or* air. (Obviously this should be paired with buffs on other fronts.) But the idea is: it should never be a good idea, like with broodlords, to get more than a few. I'd even be fine that you buff carriers a bit in the area where they are 'good' as long as you make them weaker in the area where they are 'bad'. So that you need more diversity. I am not saying this is the best or only way, but the idea of diminished marginal utility (and even negative marginal utility) should definitely be something to keep in mind. Allmost all other good designed units have it. But with carriers it just feels like: let's just get more with a little bit of support from templars and we are good to go. (Again: not true on the highest level.)
Edit: a different way of doing this - again, just spitballing - is to nerf the damage of interceptor attacks but give them an ability that lowers the damage output of opponents. This means that a few carriers are a good thing, but you need something *else* to actually kill the opponent units. Again: this is just me spitballing to explain the concept of diminished marginal utility, not saying that his is the end all by all that will end all discussions.
|
Czech Republic12128 Posts
On March 09 2022 19:27 AdrianHealeyy wrote:
In general, I like the fact that there *is* a patch. I think these changes are definitely interesting. I don't claim to be able to predict everything. (I am a bit saddened, even though I play Z, that one gat expand void ray in pvp is nerfed, but I guess that's a side effect.)
I do hope that, in general, they will be a bit more ambitious for pvz late game. In that: the goal should be that (about) equally difficult armies to control-late game scenarios are won by the player with the better control. Currently, this doesn't seem the case. This is why top Z's generally dominate P: they have more to do and thus more ways to show their skill. It would be better if P's army control was *more difficult* but also in a way that if you *do* it better than your opponent, you can gain more value out of it.
Harstem's suggestion of getting rid of the career is a radical but probably a good idea. Or, in any case, change something.
My general philosophy is that units should be designed with diminished marginal utility in mind. So that there is a treshhold where 'more' is not better. Broodlords can be amazing, but they are easily countered... because they don't actually shoot air units.
One way of doing this with carriers could be: make their damage output to either air or ground weaker so that if you have (almost) pure carrier or whatever, you are weak against either ground *or* air. (Obviously this should be paired with buffs on other fronts.) But the idea is: it should never be a good idea, like with broodlords, to get more than a few. I'd even be fine that you buff carriers a bit in the area where they are 'good' as long as you make them weaker in the area where they are 'bad'. So that you need more diversity. I am not saying this is the best or only way, but the idea of diminished marginal utility (and even negative marginal utility) should definitely be something to keep in mind. Allmost all other good designed units have it. But with carriers it just feels like: let's just get more with a little bit of support from templars and we are good to go. (Again: not true on the highest level.)
Edit: a different way of doing this - again, just spitballing - is to nerf the damage of interceptor attacks but give them an ability that lowers the damage output of opponents. This means that a few carriers are a good thing, but you need something *else* to actually kill the opponent units. Again: this is just me spitballing to explain the concept of diminished marginal utility, not saying that his is the end all by all that will end all discussions.
Does this apply to lurkers?  When talking about carriers we need to mention lurkers, they are linked together 
|
Finally the virologists and military tacticians can return to their original calling as game balancing experts
|
|
|
This is the most thoughtful, gameplay-focused balance patch I can remember. Queen nerf may be too severe, but love everything else.
|
Starcraft 2 is alive again！
|
Queen
Can no longer transfuse off creep
I hope my recommendation does work.
|
I like this. Its great that we actually get a patch and if this really is the first step towards more patches I think its really good for the game. People are so negative but with the "progamer balance council" cooking up more patches I feel a bit hopeful about the future of this game for the coming year.
|
On March 09 2022 21:24 Andi_Goldberger wrote:
I like this. Its great that we actually get a patch and if this really is the first step towards more patches I think its really good for the game. People are so negative but with the "progamer balance council" cooking up more patches I feel a bit hopeful about the future of this game for the coming year.
If it's the same progamers that have given us only gigantic maps where you don't have to fight to expand until you take a 5th base for the past 5+ years, excuse me if I'm not feeling hopeful.
|
On March 09 2022 18:16 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 17:40 Poopi wrote:On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
Look at it the other way: nobody was complaining when DTs didn’t have blink that « they absolutely need blink ». Making it less obnoxious than it is atm and allow more time to react / thus more counter play and making it less of a « free meal » move for protoss is probably a good thing. Yes, I think this is the most relevant point. Nobody was complaining when DTs didn't have blink. Just as nobody was really complaining when WMs were invisible. For whatever reason, the Blizzard balance team decided to give DTs blink, and take away the invisibility of WMs (but they gave back invisibility to WMs via the armory in a later patch), when nobody was asking for this.
Lol there were definitely complains when mines were invisible. If u say there weren't then I say there weren't complains when ghosts didn't have sun sized emps so we can remove those as well
|
On March 09 2022 19:54 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 19:27 AdrianHealeyy wrote:
In general, I like the fact that there *is* a patch. I think these changes are definitely interesting. I don't claim to be able to predict everything. (I am a bit saddened, even though I play Z, that one gat expand void ray in pvp is nerfed, but I guess that's a side effect.)
I do hope that, in general, they will be a bit more ambitious for pvz late game. In that: the goal should be that (about) equally difficult armies to control-late game scenarios are won by the player with the better control. Currently, this doesn't seem the case. This is why top Z's generally dominate P: they have more to do and thus more ways to show their skill. It would be better if P's army control was *more difficult* but also in a way that if you *do* it better than your opponent, you can gain more value out of it.
Harstem's suggestion of getting rid of the career is a radical but probably a good idea. Or, in any case, change something.
My general philosophy is that units should be designed with diminished marginal utility in mind. So that there is a treshhold where 'more' is not better. Broodlords can be amazing, but they are easily countered... because they don't actually shoot air units.
One way of doing this with carriers could be: make their damage output to either air or ground weaker so that if you have (almost) pure carrier or whatever, you are weak against either ground *or* air. (Obviously this should be paired with buffs on other fronts.) But the idea is: it should never be a good idea, like with broodlords, to get more than a few. I'd even be fine that you buff carriers a bit in the area where they are 'good' as long as you make them weaker in the area where they are 'bad'. So that you need more diversity. I am not saying this is the best or only way, but the idea of diminished marginal utility (and even negative marginal utility) should definitely be something to keep in mind. Allmost all other good designed units have it. But with carriers it just feels like: let's just get more with a little bit of support from templars and we are good to go. (Again: not true on the highest level.)
Edit: a different way of doing this - again, just spitballing - is to nerf the damage of interceptor attacks but give them an ability that lowers the damage output of opponents. This means that a few carriers are a good thing, but you need something *else* to actually kill the opponent units. Again: this is just me spitballing to explain the concept of diminished marginal utility, not saying that his is the end all by all that will end all discussions.
Does this apply to lurkers? When talking about carriers we need to mention lurkers, they are linked together
Lurkers have diminishing value (in a way): one void ray kills them effortlessly. 
But yes, these concepts also apply to lurkers. One way of nerfing lurkers is that the splash of lurkers doesn't stack (as much). That would, imo, be cool design. You could even increase their base power a bit, yet nerf them as a mass like that. So the power of one lurker goes up, but the power of 15 goes down.
Again: I am not married to any of these ideas. I am not a game designer. But those are ways to create diminishing marginal utility in army compositions.
|
nice..
now do the new ladder season for BW, too. please.
thanks
|
On March 09 2022 08:39 honorablemacroterran wrote:Are you upset?
No, just disappointed that this is all they came up with. It imo won't do much to truly help potential balance concerns and it certainly doesn't do much to bring in a fresh experience either. The former ofc remains to be seen, it's mostly conjecture at this point, the latter is probably outside this "team's" reach, arguably the more important aspect to keep people playing though.
It's at least nice to see that there is potential for new patches, but this one doesn't get me excited.
|
So I actually really like that they're doing a "small" numbers-y balance patch.
IMO SC2 is not at a state where it needs or would benefit from another "shake it up" "refresh the game"-style balance patch. In part bc there's no longer a team in place to instantly react to problems, in part just bc the game imo has been in a pretty good place since the last big patch, in part bc I find a good 90% of the big "design" complaints and suggestions ppl have terrible and game-breaking, and in part bc, idk, I was watching BW in 2007, I like stability.
As for the individual changes, they seem overall very good I think. I'm extremely glad that Queen walk is being addressed. I was never sold on the idea that Void Rays were such a huge problem--I liked that (with the obvious exception of VR all-ins, which it's good that they addressed) they were a mostly defense-oriented unit that stabilized the matchups and wasn't just another all-in--but apparently everyone hated that esp the Toss pros so fine. But the Queen walk imo was the main thing making the PvZ matchup cancer, and hopefully both sides now have some room to breathe and actually try strats that don't revolve around this one terrible doom push with the literal slowest units in the game.
All the other changes look good with the proviso that I have no idea how impactful they'll actually be. Making Toss less vulnerable to WM drops and timing pushes in the mid-game is good, obviously. Making it a little harder to burrow-unburrow Lurkers also seems fine. These are small numbers though?
The only change that I might disagree with is the DT late game change. IMO PvT lategame seems to me to be on the verge of becoming Terran-favored for a while, and I'm a bit afraid that with the DT crutch removed that might become very apparent. And just anything that gives Toss lategame something to do out on the map besides the Air Deathball is very good. But again, apparently all the Terran pros hated it so fine, I just hope lategame DTs stay relatively viable anyway.
Thanks to everyone who worked to make this actually happen! Very good to see the scene continuing to be Not Dead. Let's keep it up.
|
On March 09 2022 14:16 angry_maia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
do you think harstem is biased against toss?
He is firmly in the "lower league stats are irrelevant but GM stats are magically important" camp. I suspect that he doesn't like that "lesser" Protoss are in the same league as him.
|
On March 09 2022 23:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 08:39 honorablemacroterran wrote:On March 09 2022 04:16 The_Red_Viper wrote:
lol Are you upset? No, just disappointed that this is all they came up with. It imo won't do much to truly help potential balance concerns and it certainly doesn't do much to bring in a fresh experience either. The former ofc remains to be seen, it's mostly conjecture at this point, the latter is probably outside this "team's" reach, arguably the more important aspect to keep people playing though. It's at least nice to see that there is potential for new patches, but this one doesn't get me excited.
Disagree, people are really down playing the Queen nerf when it more or less deletes Queen walks from the game. That has huge implications for Protoss. Being able to more reliably secure a third is a huge buff to Protoss in the match up.
|
On March 09 2022 14:16 angry_maia wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 11:50 TossHeroes wrote:
Oh look another patch with more Toss nerf lol
Void ray more expensive, sure Toss can live with that
DT and battery nerf? Just so the terran fanboys stop crying?
1500min 1500 gas commitment just for a “chance” to kill a 550 planetary?
do you think harstem is biased against toss?
I don't know about Harstem but we can see how this patch feels about the races.
Terran: we love the gameplay. You guys rule. Keep doing what you do.
Zerg: we love the gameplay except queen walks are stupid. Let's make the race slightly weaker, also don't do queen walks.
Protoss: we see that you were doing a bunch of things that we don't like. You would still lose the game most of the time with those options but, nothing there's no but, we'll just remove those options. It'll be fine. Just be skillful like us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
