|
Northern Ireland27250 Posts
On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:
Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ:
1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball.
2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible.
Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch.
The third part of that realm is ‘has limited knock-on impact and relatively predictable effects’
Making any kind of significant tweak to larva/injects is close to the biggest knock on change one could make, second only perhaps to a complete change or removal of Warpgate
All early game Zerg builds are tailored around the income/larva dynamic that is currently at play. High level Zerg play in general is centred around nailing injects with a number of hatches that corresponds to mining locations.
Now, as with Warp Gate I actually agree that a more wholesale re-evaluation is needed, but the one thing that isn’t is simple, and easy to observe the impact of.
How do you assess the impact of other changes at a time where Zerg are effectively having to relearn basically all of their builds and adjust to having macro hatches be a necessity?
|
Northern Ireland27250 Posts
On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ: 1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball. 2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible. Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch. Edit: Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 06:15 Big-t wrote:
Wow, I love all those suggestions <3
Only the queen one not. Would love to see the queen quantity to be depended to the hatchery quantity instead. Like maximum two queens per hatch. Or one queen per hatch but buff her. Might work with just having the Queen cost Larva rather than build directly from the Hatchery, so that there's more of a cost to getting them out.
That would make Zerg absurdly vulnerable at certain points in time.
In early game against T let’s say, you’re by default going to be down 8 lings, or 4 drones, or a mix of the two by going up to only 4 queens.
We’re used to the boring 4 lings dancing with a single reaper until that first Queen pops, to the extent that Tastosis make fun of it being so uneventfully
Now a Zerg will have to drone cut for that specific timing, or be left with 2 lings in defend, which isn’t actually enough to shoo off the reaper. 3 rax reaper gets super nasty, or a naked three rax rush will be bloody difficult to hold if you’re cutting eco or army to get a Queen out.
Queens are too catch-all as a defensive unit. I certainly don’t like that but Zerg also need them, they’re too integral at this point to defending certain timings.
Zerg still need a Queen by default, it’s not a corner they can cut, currently. This proposal just makes Zerg have less stuff, and lategame this change would IMO be fine, but early game there’s some razor thin timings at play and Zerg can’t afford to have less stuff, nor not have Queens
|
On March 10 2022 07:36 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:
Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ:
1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball.
2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible.
Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch. The third part of that realm is ‘has limited knock-on impact and relatively predictable effects’ Making any kind of significant tweak to larva/injects is close to the biggest knock on change one could make, second only perhaps to a complete change or removal of Warpgate All early game Zerg builds are tailored around the income/larva dynamic that is currently at play. High level Zerg play in general is centred around nailing injects with a number of hatches that corresponds to mining locations. Now, as with Warp Gate I actually agree that a more wholesale re-evaluation is needed, but the one thing that isn’t is simple, and easy to observe the impact of. How do you assess the impact of other changes at a time where Zerg are effectively having to relearn basically all of their builds and adjust to having macro hatches be a necessity?
I mean, I think Zerg should get some high impact changes, given it's been years of them dominating at the pro level. Making tiny adjustments might eventually fix things, but who knows how many patches will actually happen? The issue wasn't fixed with that approach the last time Blizzard felt like patching the game regularly.
Beyond that, the other changes are all pretty small. Queen walks go out of the meta being literally the only thing matters for Zerg. I don't want to say that change is meaningless—I think it's a good idea, and will improve PvZ—but even that ostensibly big change only really matters in PvZ and even then not in every game.
If there's a time to try one big thing, it would be with this patch.
On March 10 2022 07:48 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ: 1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball. 2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible. Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch. Edit: On March 10 2022 06:15 Big-t wrote:
Wow, I love all those suggestions <3
Only the queen one not. Would love to see the queen quantity to be depended to the hatchery quantity instead. Like maximum two queens per hatch. Or one queen per hatch but buff her. Might work with just having the Queen cost Larva rather than build directly from the Hatchery, so that there's more of a cost to getting them out. That would make Zerg absurdly vulnerable at certain points in time. In early game against T let’s say, you’re by default going to be down 8 lings, or 4 drones, or a mix of the two by going up to only 4 queens. We’re used to the boring 4 lings dancing with a single reaper until that first Queen pops, to the extent that Tastosis make fun of it being so uneventfully Now a Zerg will have to drone cut for that specific timing, or be left with 2 lings in defend, which isn’t actually enough to shoo off the reaper. 3 rax reaper gets super nasty, or a naked three rax rush will be bloody difficult to hold if you’re cutting eco or army to get a Queen out. Queens are too catch-all as a defensive unit. I certainly don’t like that but Zerg also need them, they’re too integral at this point to defending certain timings. Zerg still need a Queen by default, it’s not a corner they can cut, currently. This proposal just makes Zerg have less stuff, and lategame this change would IMO be fine, but early game there’s some razor thin timings at play and Zerg can’t afford to have less stuff, nor not have Queens
Yes, if the Queen cost Larva, you'd need to make some other adjustments for early game stability. Didn't say otherwise. But I think it's important to talk about changes that make Zerg have to make difficult choices and slow their snowball, and adjusting the Queen is central to making both those changes.
|
Praise be to the intern that poured his determination into creating changes that could improve PvZ.
Guys... We got a queen nerf. We actually got a queen nerf. This is a big deal.
And void ray nerf. Good!
Also, lurkers are the reason PvZ needs to transition into air toss, and lurkers got a nerf.. so maybe the transition window from ground to air will open up a bit.
I'm stoked about the changes.
|
Northern Ireland27250 Posts
On March 10 2022 07:55 QOGQOG wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 07:36 WombaT wrote:On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:
Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ:
1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball.
2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible.
Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch. The third part of that realm is ‘has limited knock-on impact and relatively predictable effects’ Making any kind of significant tweak to larva/injects is close to the biggest knock on change one could make, second only perhaps to a complete change or removal of Warpgate All early game Zerg builds are tailored around the income/larva dynamic that is currently at play. High level Zerg play in general is centred around nailing injects with a number of hatches that corresponds to mining locations. Now, as with Warp Gate I actually agree that a more wholesale re-evaluation is needed, but the one thing that isn’t is simple, and easy to observe the impact of. How do you assess the impact of other changes at a time where Zerg are effectively having to relearn basically all of their builds and adjust to having macro hatches be a necessity? I mean, I think Zerg should get some high impact changes, given it's been years of them dominating at the pro level. Making tiny adjustments might eventually fix things, but who knows how many patches will actually happen? The issue wasn't fixed with that approach the last time Blizzard felt like patching the game regularly. Beyond that, the other changes are all pretty small. Queen walks go out of the meta being literally the only thing matters for Zerg. I don't want to say that change is meaningless—I think it's a good idea, and will improve PvZ—but even that ostensibly big change only really matters in PvZ and even then not in every game. If there's a time to try one big thing, it would be with this patch. Show nested quote +On March 10 2022 07:48 WombaT wrote:On March 10 2022 07:00 QOGQOG wrote:Two suggestions for actually improving PvZ: 1. Nerf larval inject so that Zerg has to build macro hatches even if they aren't Dark, thus slowing the Zerg macro snowball. 2. Make Time Warp speed friendly ground units attack and movement speeds, thus making late game ground and the Mothership less terrible. Trying to keep these in the realm of "very easy and simple to implement" which is probably all that will happen with this patch. Edit: On March 10 2022 06:15 Big-t wrote:
Wow, I love all those suggestions <3
Only the queen one not. Would love to see the queen quantity to be depended to the hatchery quantity instead. Like maximum two queens per hatch. Or one queen per hatch but buff her. Might work with just having the Queen cost Larva rather than build directly from the Hatchery, so that there's more of a cost to getting them out. That would make Zerg absurdly vulnerable at certain points in time. In early game against T let’s say, you’re by default going to be down 8 lings, or 4 drones, or a mix of the two by going up to only 4 queens. We’re used to the boring 4 lings dancing with a single reaper until that first Queen pops, to the extent that Tastosis make fun of it being so uneventfully Now a Zerg will have to drone cut for that specific timing, or be left with 2 lings in defend, which isn’t actually enough to shoo off the reaper. 3 rax reaper gets super nasty, or a naked three rax rush will be bloody difficult to hold if you’re cutting eco or army to get a Queen out. Queens are too catch-all as a defensive unit. I certainly don’t like that but Zerg also need them, they’re too integral at this point to defending certain timings. Zerg still need a Queen by default, it’s not a corner they can cut, currently. This proposal just makes Zerg have less stuff, and lategame this change would IMO be fine, but early game there’s some razor thin timings at play and Zerg can’t afford to have less stuff, nor not have Queens Yes, if the Queen cost Larva, you'd need to make some other adjustments for early game stability. Didn't say otherwise. But I think it's important to talk about changes that make Zerg have to make difficult choices and slow their snowball, and adjusting the Queen is central to both making both those changes.
How many patches indeed?
Incremental tweaks may not fix things quickly enough. A really big, experimental patch may break the game, how quickly is it fixed in an era we weren’t even sure if we’d get this patch?
It’s very dependent on what support remains and is planned.
Being more radical I’m down with, if there’s a longer term commitment to shake things up for the better, and subsequently stabilise the game where (almost certain) broken interactions appear that pros can’t just figure out solutions for.
There are only a handful of patches in SC2’s existence that have really radically changed much, and that’s including the two expansions.
|
Why do lurkers need a speed upgrade for burrow?
|
Good to see changes!
Community balancing?
Seems like a good start.
|
I wonder if one thing they might have considered is giving lurker (or, heck, maybe even widow mines) an unburrow time. While, it is kind of ridiculous when you catch unburrowed lurkers and they still are able to burrow and blow you up, it might be more significant that you can catch them in a bad position, even burrowed, and they can just scoot away.
|
People should pick up on this being done by community effort. At least pro players are part of this. However if these changes need to be agreed in some what bigger group then we should limit our expectations on changes we expect. There may agree that Void Rays need to be nerfed and do some numerical changes. They may even agree that unit X needs redesign, but disagree how the redesigned unit should play like. Thus changes will probably be much more limited. Personally I would expect them at most being able to agree on new simple ability or upgrade, like an upgrade that makes adept's attack reduce armor..But big changes like one that makes economy of one race totally different will not happen.
Another thing is that Blizzard clearly does not have much resources allocated on SC2, and based on the latest ladder pool the people aren't that familiar with the game and don't have time for frequent updates. Thus, them being able to implement some new design on unit etc. and iterate it based on feedback, is very unlikely. Even the mistakes in the post demonstrate lack of knowledge in the game details, like calling Shadow Stride blink and talking about effectiveness instead of burrow time.
|
On March 10 2022 00:44 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 14:16 angry_maia 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?
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.
This could be replaced by rogue warlock and druid in hearthstone...
|
Overall I'm really liking this patch! Such a nice surprise.
These are mostly small numbers changes but they are significant and help!
Proxy shield battery stuff should still work but will be a little weaker. Draining battery energy can be more of a thing vs proxy void rays.
I always felt void rays having both the movespeed buff and the minerals/build time buff was too much, so this is just reverting that yay. It was weird having a 200/150 unit with 4 supply too.
Void rays should be a little less of a go-to unit, and at the same time queen walks shouldn't be dead but will take a bit more work to pull off. Both void timings and queen timings will be delayed a little.
DT blink squads are cool, but them sniping PFs or jumping on your army was a little too punishing. Especially for mech on a big map, they really need to rely on PFs, so even if a 10 DT hit squad is expensive, it really makes things hard. Even less than a second delay will help with reaction times or allow you to kill 1-2 more DTs before they get away. And DTs blinking on small groups of bio and such should still work, but again they might lose 1-2 more DTs now. This should in general help Terran lategame TvP and not be as punishing if they try to break their forces into small groups.
WM drilling claw being nerfed is fine I think, it's a slight nerf to mech but it doesn't really matter for mech I think. Making drops a little more reactable is fine, makes it less stressful/punishing for everyone.
Lurker burrow upgrade nerf yay! Even 1/3 of a second slower should help. It was ridiculous before seeing a lurker army chase down a protoss/terran army, running forward and burrowing, unburrowing and running forward again. Now if they try to chase, say if before they were able to burrow/unborrow 3 times and get 3 hits off, now it'll take 1 more full second to do that. So the first 2 hits may hit a few less units, and the 3rd hit might not connect very well anymore.
I do wonder if Lurker mobility can be nerfed more though somehow. I wonder if they need to be as fast and mobile as they are if they are supposed to hold ground, or harass (in which case they can be dropped or such).
Queen not being able to transfuse off creep - never thought of it but it sounds good. There's plenty of ways to spread creep, like Nydus and Overlord. The only issue I can think of was the already mentioned 2 Queens at the ramp in ZvZ to defend vs early ling floods. That might be a problem...
Another idea is that Transfuse has 1 (or melee range) range when off creep. There can still be queen walks and they can still transfuse even without bringing creep, but a hurt queen can only be transfused by the queens touching them. So if you target the queens on the outside of the queen ball, the queens near them will run out of transfuses and you can pick them off. Maybe this won't be a big enough nerf to queen walks, but it'd allow the 2 Queens at the ramp in ZvZ to work. Also, with melee Transfuse range off creep, Queens can't support attacking Roach/Ravager and stuff as well. You'd have to try to have Queens spread out amongst the Roach Ravager, but doing so would mean the Queens can be picked off easier since they aren't balled up. With melee range off creep, Queens trying to move between bases early in the game can still support each other if they walk together.
|
On March 10 2022 09:45 Big-t wrote:
Why do lurkers need a speed upgrade for burrow?
Because while Infestor/Broodlord was broken (for the second time) no Zerg was making Lurkers and so when Blizzard gutted Infestor/Broodlord they felt they had to compensate somewhere so they buffed the Lurker which didn't need buffs but Blizzard decided to do it so that it didn't feel like Zerg was getting gutted without compensation.
Unsurprisingly the Lurker is now overtuned and getting toned back again because it never needed a buff to begin with.
|
What do you think the standard opening will be in PvZ? We go back to the situation pre-previous-patch and I think there was no opening that gave P a fair game. There was a reason whyVoids were buffed back then.
Multiple Oracle into Phoenix into Disruptor?
|
On March 09 2022 04:31 91matt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2022 04:28 InfCereal wrote:On March 09 2022 04:27 91matt wrote:
Just encourages skytoss even more, since there no queen walk. No one wants to play 40min-1hr games all the time. If anything zvp is going to be even worse to play I dunno, it's going to take a full 36 extra seconds, and 300 more minerals to get the 6 void hit squad off a 2sg void opener. From the zerg's AA preparation perspective, that's eons. Plus, it's going to delay the protoss third. You can't do anything aggressive except queen walk vs skytoss, It doesn't discourage it at all. Also delaying the third by 6 seconds is hardly going to change the meta. Queen walk should go, but so should making voids and skytoss behind it and dragging the game out all the time. Patch just makes it even easier to play the lamest style in the game.
Voids are getting a huge cost increase though. That cannot be downplayed. Suddenly every Abduct and Parasitic Swarm is going to get even more valuable.
|
On March 11 2022 04:50 Xamo wrote:
What do you think the standard opening will be in PvZ? We go back to the situation pre-previous-patch and I think there was no opening that gave P a fair game. There was a reason whyVoids were buffed back then.
Multiple Oracle into Phoenix into Disruptor?
Oracle openers are going to reign supreme I think. Oracles are going to swoop in for their few early drone kills then I think they will be on creep control duty to contain Queens to their side of the map while the Protoss takes a fast third, especially now that they know the fast third will be safe from a Queen walk as long as the Oracles are being active.
Might start seeing the early Adepts be used defensively in conjunction with the Oracles to help clean creep aggressively while keeping tabs on the Zerg.
Pure conjecture obviously, but I honestly believe that without the threat of a Queen walk, Protoss is going to secure their thirds very reliably and enter the mid game on a better footing with a stronger economy.
|
I'm a zerg player and I think it's a bit disingenuous for Protoss to say that their ground build aren't "viable". Ever since Carrier got the interceptor cost buff back in 2018 the Skytoss meta has drowned out any need for Protoss to experiment with ground base composition in the end game. Skytoss is just so clearly the best composition that there's no point in trying to do anything else. It's like me complaining that I never ride my bike anymore since I got a car. Why would I when a clearly superior alternative is available?
I feel like we're been discussing balance the wrong way. A strategy isn't necessarily bad when it's powerful, it's bad when there's not enough of a meaningful risk in picking it versus something else. When there's clearly ONE best choice available it leads to a stagnated meta and that's the most harmful to the game. Voidray opening aren't bad because voidray are powerful, they're bad because they're clearly the best way to open at the moment. Skytoss/storm aren't bad because they're OP, they're bad because it's obviously the most powerful unit composition available in the match up, so why wouldn't you go for it 100% of the time. This is in contrast to TvZ lategame where both sides are constantly updating their army composition based on what the other side is doing, because there's no ideal composition for either races in this match up.
There's no need to nerf a strategy to the point where it's no longer viable, it just reduces the strategic complexity of the game and it frustrates player who are used to playing it. Instead it's better to make it more risky to deploy a particular strategy such as by buffing your opponent's ability to respond to it, or make it more of a commitment on your side if you want go for this build. To use my earlier analogy, I don't want to take away your car, but I might want to raise the price of gas to the point where you might consider riding your bike every once in a while.
|
On March 11 2022 22:39 jade11 wrote:
I'm a zerg player and I think it's a bit disingenuous for Protoss to say that their ground build aren't "viable". Ever since Carrier got the interceptor cost buff back in 2018 the Skytoss meta has drowned out any need for Protoss to experiment with ground base composition in the end game. Skytoss is just so clearly the best composition that there's no point in trying to do anything else. It's like me complaining that I never ride my bike anymore since I got a car. Why would I when a clearly superior alternative is available?
Since protoss at the highest level has not obtained good results using the skytoss build, and you still think it's a "clearly superior alternative" comparable to a car vs a bike, I think you have part of your answer there.
|
Northern Ireland27250 Posts
On March 11 2022 22:39 jade11 wrote:
I'm a zerg player and I think it's a bit disingenuous for Protoss to say that their ground build aren't "viable". Ever since Carrier got the interceptor cost buff back in 2018 the Skytoss meta has drowned out any need for Protoss to experiment with ground base composition in the end game. Skytoss is just so clearly the best composition that there's no point in trying to do anything else. It's like me complaining that I never ride my bike anymore since I got a car. Why would I when a clearly superior alternative is available?
I feel like we're been discussing balance the wrong way. A strategy isn't necessarily bad when it's powerful, it's bad when there's not enough of a meaningful risk in picking it versus something else. When there's clearly ONE best choice available it leads to a stagnated meta and that's the most harmful to the game. Voidray opening aren't bad because voidray are powerful, they're bad because they're clearly the best way to open at the moment. Skytoss/storm aren't bad because they're OP, they're bad because it's obviously the most powerful unit composition available in the match up, so why wouldn't you go for it 100% of the time. This is in contrast to TvZ lategame where both sides are constantly updating their army composition based on what the other side is doing, because there's no ideal composition for either races in this match up.
There's no need to nerf a strategy to the point where it's no longer viable, it just reduces the strategic complexity of the game and it frustrates player who are used to playing it. Instead it's better to make it more risky to deploy a particular strategy such as by buffing your opponent's ability to respond to it, or make it more of a commitment on your side if you want go for this build. To use my earlier analogy, I don't want to take away your car, but I might want to raise the price of gas to the point where you might consider riding your bike every once in a while.
Good post, I broadly agree there 100%.
The additional question is at the highest level what was Void into Skytoss.
Was it the obvious best way to play out of trickier, or harder to optimise styles, or was it increasingly the only viable way?
I don’t know, and we shall see. Do Protoss actually need that car? Maybe their commute isn’t that long and hey, riding this bike is ok actually and I feel more eco-friendly and healthier! Or maybe my daily commute is like 3 hours long each way and I’m exhausted and really, really would quite like my car back.
I think that’s the question at the crux of the matter and we’ll have to see how it all plays out.
|
On March 11 2022 23:11 Nebuchad wrote:
Since protoss at the highest level has not obtained good results using the skytoss build, and you still think it's a "clearly superior alternative" comparable to a car vs a bike, I think you have part of your answer there.
And yet they keep using it. 100% of all protoss late game ends up in the same place, clearly because Protoss player THINKS that this is the best thing they have available to them, simply because it's the simplest, straightest path to the late game.
This is exactly my point, you have a strategy that on the surface is flexible, powerful, with the least amount of risk in getting you to the game you want to play, so why bother trying anything else? You say they have not received the best result, but this is against the top level players, against mid range players the composition still works exceedingly well. A car is not the best choice for all situation, but most of the time it's the most convenient one, so you just use it.
Look at lurker in TvZ and see how that meta played out. For a long time only Reynor was reliably using it and it took many months for the other pros to start adopting it. Why? Because it wasn't OBVIOUS at first what the potential of the range upgrade could do for the match up. It was something that encouraged experimentation and ultimately it helped grow the meta and made TvZ a much more dynamic match up, more than say if ling ultra was clearly the BEST option.
Now look at how the Skytoss meta developed. Practically from the moment Blizzard dropped the price of interceptor Protoss players immediately start massing carriers because it was the obvious thing to do. When Voidray got the build time and speed buff mass voidray immediately became the default meta because it was so clearly a good build. THAT'S the problem that we're talking about here. When you introduce changes that are so obviously meant to push the meta one way it drowns out the conversation and it discourages experimentation.
|
You ask "why bother trying anything else" rhetorically but I already gave you an answer. If you mostly lose vs the very best players using that strategy, then that's an incentive to try something else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
