How do you feel about the new PTR patch notes?
Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net115 Posts
| ||
AdrianHealeyy
114 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
Maybe Immortals + storm will have a small revival too cause of the lurker change. I definitely think offensive shield battery stuff should be nerfed in the ground, that stuff has been a true horror. Disclaimer : Did not play in over 2 years. | ||
VladSlymor
72 Posts
As a tournament spectator, I agree the changes - although positive - seem quite small. Not sure it will address the complaints about race distribution at the top. | ||
midhigh
49 Posts
| ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On March 10 2022 20:30 Liquid`Ret wrote: I feel like removing the threat of queen walks and increasing void ray build time and cost slightly will make going straight sky toss just easier? I suppose that zerg going straight corrupter will be a bit more powerful. But I feel like making a bunch of cannons is pretty good against that. We will have to see! Maybe Immortals + storm will have a small revival too cause of the lurker change. I definitely think offensive shield battery stuff should be nerfed in the ground, that stuff has been a true horror. Disclaimer : Did not play in over 2 years. Lambo thinks the increased build time will make a corrupter response to voidray opening viable. If that's true, going straight to skytoss will be basically impossible - it'll be the same thing as a terran trying to go straight to BCs - they'll just die. | ||
MockHamill
Sweden1793 Posts
Just remove 75 hitpoints from the Carrier and SC2 will be a better game. | ||
depressed1
51 Posts
P.S. Can't wait to watch another ZvZ finals. Because patch doesn't change a n y t h i n g | ||
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
The proxy shield battery thing always made me think just a bit less of SC2 as a game. Lurker and WM changes are also pretty sensible. Curious to see how the queen / void stuff pans out. Glad to see them address it, but I'll have to see the changes in action. Would like to see something that makes the actual lategame protoss deathball harder to use but more effective with a very high level of control, but IDK what that would look like. | ||
JJH777
United States4284 Posts
| ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
The reason why a patch was probably a good idea was that protoss is clearly getting destroyed, so it should be the main thing that the patch attempts to fix. But the community doesn't like to watch protoss play or to play against protoss. As a result instead of attempting to fix the glaring issue in the game right now, they've tried and fixed issues with their own watching or playing experience. | ||
vyzion
306 Posts
On March 10 2022 23:51 depressed1 wrote: How do you feel about the new PTR patch notes?: Dead inside. Absolutely no feelings for. P.S. Can't wait to watch another ZvZ finals. Because patch doesn't change a n y t h i n g sounds kind of like you're depressed...1... | ||
Vindicare605
United States15720 Posts
No one is really complaining about Drilling Claw Widow Mines. People that complain about Widow Mines complain about early game drops wiping out workers. Nerfing Drilling Claws doesn't really do anything about that. And while I think the Dark Templar are really strong late game with the Blink Upgrade I don't really see it as an issue since they are so expensive anyway. Thrilled that proxy Void Ray/Battery builds are basically being decapitated. Hated that shit, it was allowed to live for long enough. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15720 Posts
On March 11 2022 00:15 JJH777 wrote: It won't change anything about Zerg dominance in tournaments. If we want Zerg to stop dominating tournaments we need a more fair map pool that doesn't ALWAYS favor Zerg in Best of Sevens. Pride of Altaris? What the fuck even is that map? Get rid of it immediately. Now that Queen walks are being removed Zerg lost the one big cheese they had on smaller maps especially vs Protoss. Put some smaller maps in the pool, stop making every pool every year so damn Zerg favored. | ||
Pentarp
186 Posts
On March 11 2022 00:24 Nebuchad wrote: My feelings are that this is what happens when you ask people who are involved in a community to do a patch. The reason why a patch was probably a good idea was that protoss is clearly getting destroyed, so it should be the main thing that the patch attempts to fix. But the community doesn't like to watch protoss play or to play against protoss. As a result instead of attempting to fix the glaring issue in the game right now, they've tried and fixed issues with their own watching or playing experience. Do you really think that gimmicky proxy shieldbattery is good for Protoss and the general health of the scene? Do you not see how Protoss pros will benefit from nerf to queen walks, luker burrow speed, widow-mine burrow speed? You keep claiming that Protoss is "clearly getting destroyed". But when builds that are strong vs protoss are getting nerfed, you're not celebrating or even cautiously optimistic. /edit The fact that you don't even acknowledge it as 'a step in the right direction' shows how you don't have a modicum of integrity when discussing balance. | ||
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
On March 11 2022 09:41 Pentarp wrote: Do you really think that gimmicky proxy shieldbattery is good for Protoss and the general health of the scene? Do you not see how Protoss pros will benefit from nerf to queen walks, luker burrow speed, widow-mine burrow speed? You keep claiming that Protoss is "clearly getting destroyed". But when builds that are strong vs protoss are getting nerfed, you're not celebrating or even cautiously optimistic. /edit The fact that you don't even acknowledge it as 'a step in the right direction' shows how you don't have a modicum of integrity when discussing balance. Dude every attack that protoss does is gimmicky and every attack that terran does is mastermind clever trickery, we know how you guys pretend adjectives work. I do believe that it's healthy for a strategy game to have ways to end games early, yes. But regardless, even if I thought it was unhealthy for the scene I wouldn't approach a balance patch looking only at stuff I don't like, I would also try and produce a balance result that is connected with the current balance situation, and two nerfs in PvT, including a pretty large one, compensated by a non-specific terran nerf so small that even xelnaga_empire likes the patch, isn't gonna do that. Yes of course protoss will benefit from no queen walks lol. Nerfing the lurker is a good idea and I can see a few games where the protoss lost stupidly and they wouldn't have with this patch. Zerg will be weaker against protoss than it was, and that is good. Do I think that's enough for me to start watching games again? No lol I don't think that, not even close. | ||
Vindicare605
United States15720 Posts
On March 11 2022 09:56 Wrathsc2 wrote: good changes but they just needed to nerf z a little more. specifically the baneling imo I can't think of a single thing you could do to the Baneling that wouldn't be catastrophic for Zerg. It's such a one dimensional unit that nerfing any part of it would be very damaging indeed. The Queen on the other hand does so many things that you can nerf individual parts of her and she's still super strong and super important. But the Baneling? Any nerf to its hp, damage, or speed would be super damaging to it and Zerg REALLY relies on those units in every match up. So we'd first need to ask, what are we nerfing Banelings against? Terran? Protoss? Against Workers? Then how would we go about doing it that wouldn't impact the areas we aren't trying to nerf it. I just don't see anything they could do to it without it being massive. | ||
angry_maia
291 Posts
On March 10 2022 23:49 MockHamill wrote: I like the patch but would like to see a Carrier nerf. Playing against skytoss was awful, and it is not fun watching either. Just remove 75 hitpoints from the Carrier and SC2 will be a better game. I think the Carrier should just not exist, and I say this as a protoss fan/player. It's got almost no micro potential, and Harstem even made a whole video about all of the issues around it. That being said, nerfing the carrier out of existence will require some kind of buff for late game toss, especially against zerg. | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
On March 11 2022 10:55 Vindicare605 wrote: I can't think of a single thing you could do to the Baneling that wouldn't be catastrophic for Zerg. It's such a one dimensional unit that nerfing any part of it would be very damaging indeed. The Queen on the other hand does so many things that you can nerf individual parts of her and she's still super strong and super important. But the Baneling? Any nerf to its hp, damage, or speed would be super damaging to it and Zerg REALLY relies on those units in every match up. So we'd first need to ask, what are we nerfing Banelings against? Terran? Protoss? Against Workers? Then how would we go about doing it that wouldn't impact the areas we aren't trying to nerf it. I just don't see anything they could do to it without it being massive. It's been nerfed before. Relatively recently, even, when Zerg was just killing Protoss every game by a-moving into their armies. I really disagree with this sort of extreme conservatism when that's left Zerg busted at a pro level for years. At some point, you have to try a big change. | ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
| ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
it is an urgent patch to remove the super broken stuff. that's what this feels like to me, some initial emergency patching before they introduce more experimental changes. I'm sure that it will be followed with a bigger patch in the future, one that cracks open the lategame and improves on some fundamental gameplay. I look forward to that, but it would have been completely out of place in this patch we're seeing now | ||
Legan
Finland280 Posts
How many people that currently play have actually played on PTR already? | ||
Pentarp
186 Posts
On March 11 2022 10:09 Nebuchad wrote: Dude every attack that protoss does is gimmicky and every attack that terran does is mastermind clever trickery, we know how you guys pretend adjectives work. I do believe that it's healthy for a strategy game to have ways to end games early, yes. But regardless, even if I thought it was unhealthy for the scene I wouldn't approach a balance patch looking only at stuff I don't like, I would also try and produce a balance result that is connected with the current balance situation, and two nerfs in PvT, including a pretty large one, compensated by a non-specific terran nerf so small that even xelnaga_empire likes the patch, isn't gonna do that. Yes of course protoss will benefit from no queen walks lol. Nerfing the lurker is a good idea and I can see a few games where the protoss lost stupidly and they wouldn't have with this patch. Zerg will be weaker against protoss than it was, and that is good. Do I think that's enough for me to start watching games again? No lol I don't think that, not even close. Are you seriously saying that proxy battery shield isn't gimmicky? Please stop. Given how the recent ESL ended up being ZvZ finals with 3 zergs in ro4, the changes to Zerg will likely have a bigger impact on Protoss progamers. Again, removing queen walk is huge. But you'll never be able to comprehend basic logic. | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
I do agree with artosis take on this patch though which is what does this do to increase the likelihood of us getting Protoss and Terran champions in tournament's. The answer being it doesn’t do much at all. Zerg needs some adjustments not present in this patch imo. Or the other races need buffs to there mid game pressure. The nerfs will really help the stale meta in zvp which is badly needed. The battery and void nerf is a huge improvement for ladder, I’m hoping we get to a point where we at least have to face only 2 Protoss for evrey Terran and Zerg at high mmr. I don’t think the lurker change is enough to fix lurker issues. But it’s a start. They still are way to fast for a siege unit which makes them to strong on many maps. Having a siege unit as devistating as the lurker move so fast feels wrong. The queen change will also help a lot with zvp meta. I don’t think it will really impact the best zergs though. Since serral reynor ect don’t have to rely on timings to beat toss late game. Dt change is good. The blinking on planetary thing was a bit to strong and discouraged Terran from playing a more defensive game. Protoss has alot of extremely punishing mechanics in the late game that make playing tvp frustrating. It was a bit to much of an ask to be ready to repair any planetary instantly while also dodging 15+ disruptor shots and defending warp prism harass. I think toning this down is a good change for the health of the mu. It makes expanding in the late game more enticing for Terran. It opens up options other Than just trying to break toss on 4 bases before the game drags on to long without a big decisive fight. At high level the mu might favor Terran though. I feel like toss is missing something that helps them scale with skill as much as Terran and Zerg. Terran has the multitasking/micro infinite skill ceiling and zerg has the same for macro/ drones vs unit decisions and late game caster control. Toss need something harder about them but more rewarding for good players, not sure what you can do to fix them though. To many of the late game units kind of perform optimally just by being deathball a moved. Even harass like dts or zealots is kind of set and forget, the dts or zealots almost never get to retreat so there’s no point in watching them. right now I think most toss pros differentiate themselves by minimizing mistakes and selecting smart builds. This just does not seem to scale as hard a perfecting Zerg or Terran mechanics. Making toss to Ez at most levels of play but not as competitive at the highest level. Not saying toss does not take skill btw it absolutely does but I feel like it’s just off compared to other races. Maybe a return to ground toss pvz will help with this problem. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
On March 12 2022 07:31 Pentarp wrote: Are you seriously saying that proxy battery shield isn't gimmicky? Please stop. Given how the recent ESL ended up being ZvZ finals with 3 zergs in ro4, the changes to Zerg will likely have a bigger impact on Protoss progamers. Again, removing queen walk is huge. But you'll never be able to comprehend basic logic. Gimmicky means that it has no value and it's meant to grab people's attention, especially to make them buy something. My guess is the protoss who does that to you isn't trying to sell you anything, he's just after your ladder points. Kind of like when a terran proxies his starport and puts some hellions in your base to see if you instantly lose because you have one unit misplaced, I think the goal is pretty clear there as well. But let me know if you can use basic logic to come to a different conclusion. | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
| ||
DarkGamer
Germany294 Posts
| ||
Pentarp
186 Posts
On March 12 2022 10:10 Nebuchad wrote: Gimmicky means that it has no value and it's meant to grab people's attention, especially to make them buy something. My guess is the protoss who does that to you isn't trying to sell you anything, he's just after your ladder points. Kind of like when a terran proxies his starport and puts some hellions in your base to see if you instantly lose because you have one unit misplaced, I think the goal is pretty clear there as well. But let me know if you can use basic logic to come to a different conclusion. What are you even trying to say here? Just be straightforward and say this: "I don't think proxy shield-battery is gimmicky and bad for the scene." Don't be such a weasel. Queen walk nerf is huge for Protoss vs Zerg. Lurker burrow speed nerf is a good step towards making ground Protoss viable vs Z. Widowmine burrow speed is a nerf to mass widow-mine drops that Maru and other Terrans use at the highest levels vs Protoss. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
On March 12 2022 22:34 Pentarp wrote: What are you even trying to say here? Just be straightforward and say this: "I don't think proxy shield-battery is gimmicky and bad for the scene." Don't be such a weasel. Queen walk nerf is huge for Protoss vs Zerg. Lurker burrow speed nerf is a good step towards making ground Protoss viable vs Z. Widowmine burrow speed is a nerf to mass widow-mine drops that Maru and other Terrans use at the highest levels vs Protoss. I already said all that (except the Maru stuff that isn't very relevant). I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. | ||
Elantris
65 Posts
Like we all suddenly forgot what meta was before void buffs. I can tell you it was toss dying to ravager-bane at his third every game. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 11 2022 20:52 SHODAN wrote: bill gates ordered an emergency patch to fix the super broken stuff. DTs insta-gibbing command centers... void ray rushes... queen walks... and enough reaction time to avoid vs lurker / mine. all good stuff. maybe not the most exciting patchnotes, but that's not the point! it is an urgent patch to remove the super broken stuff. that's what this feels like to me, some initial emergency patching before they introduce more experimental changes. I'm sure that it will be followed with a bigger patch in the future, one that cracks open the lategame and improves on some fundamental gameplay. I look forward to that, but it would have been completely out of place in this patch we're seeing now Word on the street is it’s not the confirmed last patch at least, I think what you’re saying makes sense. I mean the acquisition isn’t even through yet in terms of what that all means structurally, much less how it’ll impact Starcraft 2’s future. So as a placeholder of sorts it’s not too bad. Apart from the tip of the pyramid of the playerbase and competitive balance/enjoyment at the pro level I think it’s a great patch just in quality of life terms. This has been a bit understated rather a lot. I can’t begin to imagine how annoying battery cheeses are to play against. I’ve always felt DTs jumping and instagibbing things was just a wonky interaction that’s been retooled for a little more change to counter. I’m old, on semi- permanent hiatus rather infamously, mines that don’t basically insta-burrow, likewise Lurkers pop into the ground a little slower. Even by small degrees slowing down the pace a little is no bad thing | ||
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On March 13 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote: Word on the street is it’s not the confirmed last patch at least, I think what you’re saying makes sense. I mean the acquisition isn’t even through yet in terms of what that all means structurally, much less how it’ll impact Starcraft 2’s future. So as a placeholder of sorts it’s not too bad. Apart from the tip of the pyramid of the playerbase and competitive balance/enjoyment at the pro level I think it’s a great patch just in quality of life terms. This has been a bit understated rather a lot. I can’t begin to imagine how annoying battery cheeses are to play against. I’ve always felt DTs jumping and instagibbing things was just a wonky interaction that’s been retooled for a little more change to counter. I’m old, on semi- permanent hiatus rather infamously, mines that don’t basically insta-burrow, likewise Lurkers pop into the ground a little slower. Even by small degrees slowing down the pace a little is no bad thing Oh to see the contents of my own heart spelled out for me. You speak truth. Seeing these patch notes is the first time in years I've felt vaguely interested in playing ladder again. Just knowing battery cheeses and voidray openers are going to be easier to face makes me happy and curious to try playing again. The two burrow speed changes are also good overall (especially as someone who likes playing with ravagers and mutas a lot more than lurkers in ZvZ). | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On March 13 2022 00:47 WombaT wrote: Apart from the tip of the pyramid of the playerbase and competitive balance/enjoyment at the pro level I think it’s a great patch just in quality of life terms. This has been a bit understated rather a lot. makes sense to balance certain elements of the game around low / mid grandmaster skill levels. that's the sweet spot where you have a fairly large sample size and enough skill involved that the balancing remains consistent with peak pro level. isn't the title of "grandmaster" supposed to carry some weight? I don't know much about pro chess honestly, but my impression as a layman is that a grandmaster chess player will have mastered the opening moves and probably won't get steamrolled by the same aggressive opening over and over. I'd rather the game was balanced so that a low / mid grandmaster can reliably hold early-game rushes against a player of similar skill. the vast majority of games at this level should be decided in the mid / late game. if you fixate on the results at the very top of the pyramid, you perpetuate some pretty lop-sided gameplay that only a handful of uber elites can get to grips with. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 13 2022 01:53 SHODAN wrote: makes sense to balance certain elements of the game around low / mid grandmaster skill levels. that's the sweet spot where you have a fairly large sample size and enough skill involved that the balancing remains consistent with peak pro level. isn't the title of "grandmaster" supposed to carry some weight? I don't know much about pro chess honestly, but my impression as a layman is that a grandmaster chess player will have mastered the opening moves and probably won't get steamrolled by the same aggressive opening over and over. I'd rather the game was balanced so that a low / mid grandmaster can reliably hold early-game rushes against a player of similar skill. the vast majority of games at this level should be decided in the mid / late game. if you fixate on the results at the very top of the pyramid, you perpetuate some pretty lop-sided gameplay that only a handful of uber elites can get to grips with. Aye 100% big lad, hope you’re keeping well btw son! Depends on the opener ofc. A naked proxy rax or a proper cannon rush can be frustrating as hell, but there’s a pretty hefty risk to doing so. Plus they’re (relatively) easily held if you do get that scout off. The two battery main augmented cheeses, of the PvZ cannon into immortal/prism and the PvT void version to me felt they tipped the scales a little too far, so I’m down with them being nerfed. Not just hard to hold, but really bloody frustrating to hold as that unit returns to full shields for the millionth time. I’m down for cheeky aggressive builds, but whatever my internal calculus on difficulty to scout vs difficulty of execution vs difficulty to hold even when not blindsided, those tipped into Protoss bullshit territory. There’s also the trend ever since WoL of making everything faster, with some pluses and minuses. I like that it’s a fast, mechanically demanding game, absolutely. I don’t think slowing it down even a little detracts from that necessarily, on my other point. It’s less punishing on us scrubs and the pros have a slightly higher margin of error to engage in counterplay with micro or to outplay their opponent strategically, tactically or positionally. | ||
SHODAN
United Kingdom1049 Posts
On March 13 2022 02:16 WombaT wrote: Aye 100% big lad, hope you’re keeping well btw son! oye mucker, fuck's the craic wiyye. add me on MSN messenger vortexofpain@hotmail.com | ||
Kitai
United States836 Posts
| ||
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10149 Posts
On March 12 2022 09:19 washikie wrote: It’s a move in the right direction. I’m glad the game is getting a patch. I do agree with artosis take on this patch though which is what does this do to increase the likelihood of us getting Protoss and Terran champions in tournament's. The answer being it doesn’t do much at all. Zerg needs some adjustments not present in this patch imo. Or the other races need buffs to there mid game pressure. The nerfs will really help the stale meta in zvp which is badly needed. The battery and void nerf is a huge improvement for ladder, I’m hoping we get to a point where we at least have to face only 2 Protoss for evrey Terran and Zerg at high mmr. I don’t think the lurker change is enough to fix lurker issues. But it’s a start. They still are way to fast for a siege unit which makes them to strong on many maps. Having a siege unit as devistating as the lurker move so fast feels wrong. The queen change will also help a lot with zvp meta. I don’t think it will really impact the best zergs though. Since serral reynor ect don’t have to rely on timings to beat toss late game. Dt change is good. The blinking on planetary thing was a bit to strong and discouraged Terran from playing a more defensive game. Protoss has alot of extremely punishing mechanics in the late game that make playing tvp frustrating. It was a bit to much of an ask to be ready to repair any planetary instantly while also dodging 15+ disruptor shots and defending warp prism harass. I think toning this down is a good change for the health of the mu. It makes expanding in the late game more enticing for Terran. It opens up options other Than just trying to break toss on 4 bases before the game drags on to long without a big decisive fight. At high level the mu might favor Terran though. I feel like toss is missing something that helps them scale with skill as much as Terran and Zerg. Terran has the multitasking/micro infinite skill ceiling and zerg has the same for macro/ drones vs unit decisions and late game caster control. Toss need something harder about them but more rewarding for good players, not sure what you can do to fix them though. To many of the late game units kind of perform optimally just by being deathball a moved. Even harass like dts or zealots is kind of set and forget, the dts or zealots almost never get to retreat so there’s no point in watching them. right now I think most toss pros differentiate themselves by minimizing mistakes and selecting smart builds. This just does not seem to scale as hard a perfecting Zerg or Terran mechanics. Making toss to Ez at most levels of play but not as competitive at the highest level. Not saying toss does not take skill btw it absolutely does but I feel like it’s just off compared to other races. Maybe a return to ground toss pvz will help with this problem. Great points and insight. About lurker mobility, I totally agree it's too mobile. I think making adaptive talons burrow even a third of a second slower will help, as 1/3 of a second is enough for most units to move 1-1.5 units away. This will make it much less effective for lurkers to fucking chase down retreating armies while burrow/unburrowing (actually wtf lol every time I see this it's so hard to watch). I wanted to point out another possible way to nerf the Lurker's mobility without directly changing the move or burrow speed, is to make the unit slightly fatter. Right now it doesn't seem uncommon for players to mass a deathball of 25 Lurkers, or 2 squads of 15 lurkers each. If we make the units a little fatter, they will be a little less effective massed. LotV units like Disruptor, Liberator, Lurker, are supposed to be units that all: 1) Help hold positions and add more defensive tools to the game 2) Can be used to siege offensively in a methodical/slow way 3) Can also be used to harass relatively effectively, so the supply in these units results in a lot of versatility 4) Are somewhat immobile and need to be setup, so are not A-move units 5) Are effective in small numbers, and not something you want to mass, thus keeping enough supply available for the main army the players need to build (and encouraging players to still make their "normal" army units) Note that the Lurker is able to siege or heavily punish players by aggressively burrow moving, and can be kind of "A moved". Liberators are pretty mobile/punishing, but at least take a second to set up all their zones, and it takes time for it to transform, and they have blindspots still. Liberators are pretty strong when massed, but since their attacks are limited to the zones, you can't stack the DPS super effectively. Lurkers meanwhile can attack any direction and work pretty well massed. I suppose they might want to see how this Burrow change effects things first, then consider further changes if needed. Another change they could do is obviously reduce their move speed a little, or maybe only off creep or something. But I think making the lurker a little fatter would be the best at ever so slightly making massing them slightly less effective. Even the slightest size change could mean that a few Lurkers are no longer in range, which would effectively reduce their DPS by ~10-15% in some situations, especially offensive ones. When defending, their fatter size should not impact as much, since you have more time to position them defensively. The fatter size would mostly impact A-moving them offensively and clumping them up. | ||
pandorasheep
73 Posts
| ||
Obamarauder
697 Posts
| ||
SpecKROELLchen
Germany150 Posts
On March 11 2022 20:52 SHODAN wrote: bill gates ordered an emergency patch to fix the super broken stuff. DTs insta-gibbing command centers... void ray rushes... queen walks... and enough reaction time to avoid vs lurker / mine. all good stuff. maybe not the most exciting patchnotes, but that's not the point! it is an urgent patch to remove the super broken stuff. that's what this feels like to me, some initial emergency patching before they introduce more experimental changes. I'm sure that it will be followed with a bigger patch in the future, one that cracks open the lategame and improves on some fundamental gameplay. I look forward to that, but it would have been completely out of place in this patch we're seeing now I want to build up on this post because i totally agree. It is healthy for the players scene and also the first step in fixing tvp. I think then what is next for following patches should be the goal to make matchups exciting to watch and play. Currently i think tvz ends up in the most epic games and there is constant interactions from start to finish so it does not get too boring. I think tvz was always one of the best matchups to watch and also players were able to show their true potential in this mathcup. And the goal should be to make tvp and pvz similary exiting and back and forward without naming specific things. I don't know if we can expect this much i am already happy that they started patching at all. And as harstem told, the group is able to make "fast follow up changes" if they find out that it does not work out. | ||
MJG
United Kingdom478 Posts
At the professional level, offensive Shield Batteries are no more frequent nor no more successful than Bunker rushes, and we don't see offensive Bunkers being made more difficult to repair! | ||
zatic
Zurich15241 Posts
On March 15 2022 18:38 MJG wrote: The Shield Battery change irks me because it's clearly aimed at placating Masters league balance whiners. At the professional level, offensive Shield Batteries are no more frequent nor no more successful than Bunker rushes, and we don't see offensive Bunkers being made more difficult to repair! Maybe, but if there is a change that will make the game better for everyone below pro level without hurting the pro level gameplay why not go for it? | ||
MJG
United Kingdom478 Posts
On March 15 2022 18:46 zatic wrote: Maybe, but if there is a change that will make the game better for everyone below pro level without hurting the pro level gameplay why not go for it? Because changing too many variables at once has a habit of causing unintended consequences. For example, Shield Batteries will be much weaker when used to create defensive bulwarks in split-map scenarios, despite that having nothing to do with the intended impact of the change. It will also be much weaker to place defensive Shield Batteries prior to placing a new expansion, despite this sometimes being preferable (especially at the natural in PvP!), and this also has nothing to do with the intended impact of the change. To be honest, if low-level players don't like cheese being part of the game then that's too bad. Aggressive rushes have always been a part of RTS and they always should be. Unless a cheese is dominating the professional scene in an oppressive manner, they really shouldn't need looking at. | ||
DarkGamer
Germany294 Posts
On March 15 2022 19:16 MJG wrote: Because changing too many variables at once has a habit of causing unintended consequences. For example, Shield Batteries will be much weaker when used to create defensive bulwarks in split-map scenarios, despite that having nothing to do with the intended impact of the change. It will also be much weaker to place defensive Shield Batteries prior to placing a new expansion, despite this sometimes being preferable, and this also has nothing to do with the intended impact of the change. To be honest, if low-level players don't like cheese being part of the game then that's too bad. Aggressive rushes have always been a part of RTS and they always should be. Unless a cheese is dominating the professional scene in an oppressive manner, they really shouldn't need looking at. i dont know why, but i feel like MJG is our beloved canon rusher / proxy void-ray protoss ;-) by a serious side: when pro players of all races welcome a nerf of the shield-battery, it cant be that wrong. | ||
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
I get that worry. I can see why someone might not like the patch as a result of it. But dear Lord I cannot even fathom complaining about the shield battery change. That shit was the responsible for so many of the absolute worst early games. It was (and until the patch goes live, is) awful. A stain upon the otherwise shining polished beacon that SC2 is in the RTS landscape. And, to boot, is just brutally unfair to face at lower levels where it's common to lose a ravager / cyclone somewhat early on (especially if you have ping). Flying high health voidrays and teleporting immortals that autoheal faster than the total DPS you can put on them at that phase in game is, in no uncertain terms, bullshit. It should never have existed, and the fact that it's being addressed makes me feel so much warmer and happier about SC2. | ||
ejozl
Denmark3172 Posts
On March 16 2022 00:50 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Whether the concern is well-founded or not, I can understand being worried that high level ZvP lategame is still going to be Serral yoinking things til the protoss leaves. I get that worry. I can see why someone might not like the patch as a result of it. But dear Lord I cannot even fathom complaining about the shield battery change. That shit was the responsible for so many of the absolute worst early games. It was (and until the patch goes live, is) awful. A stain upon the otherwise shining polished beacon that SC2 is in the RTS landscape. And, to boot, is just brutally unfair to face at lower levels where it's common to lose a ravager / cyclone somewhat early on (especially if you have ping). Flying high health voidrays and teleporting immortals that autoheal faster than the total DPS you can put on them at that phase in game is, in no uncertain terms, bullshit. It should never have existed, and the fact that it's being addressed makes me feel so much warmer and happier about SC2. Why is there no nerf to the Battlecruiser then? | ||
AzAlexZ
Australia3302 Posts
On March 16 2022 16:30 ejozl wrote: Why is there no nerf to the Battlecruiser then? yeah why not a nerf to BC'S then, it fulfills your complaints about both Voidrays and Immortals | ||
MJG
United Kingdom478 Posts
On March 15 2022 21:37 DarkGamer wrote: i dont know why, but i feel like MJG is our beloved canon rusher / proxy void-ray protoss ;-) by a serious side: when pro players of all races welcome a nerf of the shield-battery, it cant be that wrong. It's not the personal impact of the change that bothers me. Even though I'm a big fan of Cannon rushes and proxy Void Rays, the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit has more than one page. I'll just do some other dumb bullshit instead. It's also not the content of the change that bothers me. This change actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, which is more than can be said for some of the other balance changes Blizzard have implemented in the past. It's that the change is being made because low-level players whined for it that bothers me. Bunker rushes are more prevalent than Shield Battery rushes in professional games, and they're just as powerful as Shield Battery rushes in low-level games, but are Bunkers going to repair 50% slower if they're built on the "wrong" side of the map? They're not, and so I don't see why Shield Batteries should change either. Anyway, it's pointless worrying about it now because the changes have already gone through. | ||
MockHamill
Sweden1793 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 16 2022 16:30 ejozl wrote: Why is there no nerf to the Battlecruiser then? It’s a reasonably strong opener that can transition into a whole different TvZ style. It’s a bit silly granted but it’s a pressure opening that can move into macro games with Battlemech. You get even less mech if it’s toned down. It’s also not generally a ‘I will kill you now’ cheese opener, although can be. The top folks deflect it fine. I’m fine with neutered battery cheeses, as Claus said there’s some ridiculous interactions like Immortals healing quicker than they’re being damaged. They don’t make for cool games to watch either, and from friends that play they are the most frustrating all-ins to play about precisely for the ‘I’m going to kill this thing!’ followed by ‘oh no it’s back to full HP. | ||
Hider
Denmark9237 Posts
I think it will have effectively zero effect vs planetaries which was the main issue. Obviously it will be a nerf in unit vs unit combat but I never felt as if that was the main issue. A more effective change might be to just specifically target reduced damage vs buildings. | ||
Hider
Denmark9237 Posts
On March 16 2022 16:30 ejozl wrote: Why is there no nerf to the Battlecruiser then? Honestly BC's should never had had teleports. I think it makes banshee's somewhat obsolete as BC's almost does the same thing as well while having far more general utility. However, currently it is a necessity to make mech works as it somewhat makes mech safe vs swarm hosts. If you remove swarm hosts from the game, BC teleport could also be removed. I doubt we get blizzard to make any type of larger change though. | ||
Jerubaal
United States7676 Posts
On March 16 2022 18:41 MockHamill wrote: The changes are so good that I am almost contemplating playing some SC2 again. But then I remember that Carriers still exists. What I don't understand is, if these builds are ruining every game you play, why not counter those builds? | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 17 2022 08:30 Jerubaal wrote: What I don't understand is, if these builds are ruining every game you play, why not counter those builds? "Just counter the carrier build bro." | ||
washikie
United States752 Posts
On March 15 2022 18:38 MJG wrote: The Shield Battery change irks me because it's clearly aimed at placating Masters league balance whiners. At the professional level, offensive Shield Batteries are no more frequent nor no more successful than Bunker rushes, and we don't see offensive Bunkers being made more difficult to repair! have you ever watched HAS play? | ||
QOGQOG
817 Posts
Have you ever seen Has win a major tournament? | ||
MJG
United Kingdom478 Posts
I'm not really sure what your point is. I didn't say that we never see offensive Shield Batteries, only that they're no more frequent than Bunker rushes. | ||
Hider
Denmark9237 Posts
On March 16 2022 18:02 MJG wrote: It's not the personal impact of the change that bothers me. Even though I'm a big fan of Cannon rushes and proxy Void Rays, the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit has more than one page. I'll just do some other dumb bullshit instead. It's also not the content of the change that bothers me. This change actually achieves what it sets out to achieve, which is more than can be said for some of the other balance changes Blizzard have implemented in the past. It's that the change is being made because low-level players whined for it that bothers me. Bunker rushes are more prevalent than Shield Battery rushes in professional games, and they're just as powerful as Shield Battery rushes in low-level games, but are Bunkers going to repair 50% slower if they're built on the "wrong" side of the map? They're not, and so I don't see why Shield Batteries should change either. Anyway, it's pointless worrying about it now because the changes have already gone through. Please stop referencing GM level as low level play. To my knowledge there isn't a single protoss who has off-raced zerg or terran to 6k+ MMR while Demuslim reached it an afternoon using some protoss funssy. I understand GM level isn't pro level, but it's definitely an issue at the top 0.1%. Using the term "low-level" is deceiving and quite disingenuous It's fair to argue that protoss needs compensation buffs in other ways to win at pro level though. Although there is also another argument to be had that until protoss players have proved they can actually off-race another race to get within 500MMR of their main race (which pro terrans and zergs consistently are capable of), then they might in fact be worse players than their top terran and zerg counterparts. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
On March 17 2022 18:32 Hider wrote: Please stop referencing GM level as low level play. To my knowledge there isn't a single protoss who has off-raced zerg or terran to 6k+ MMR while Demuslim reached it an afternoon using some protoss funssy. I understand GM level isn't pro level, but it's definitely an issue at the top 0.1%. Using the term "low-level" is deceiving and quite disingenuous It's fair to argue that protoss needs compensation buffs in other ways to win at pro level though. Although there is also another argument to be had that until protoss players have proved they can actually off-race another race to get within 500MMR of their main race (which pro terrans and zergs consistently are capable of), then they might in fact be worse players than their top terran and zerg counterparts. The whole world is against you | ||
Jerubaal
United States7676 Posts
On March 17 2022 08:53 honorablemacroterran wrote: "Just counter the carrier build bro." If you can't blindly counter the composition with the longest build up time, it's either you or you're lying about how often you encounter them. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 17 2022 18:32 Hider wrote: Please stop referencing GM level as low level play. To my knowledge there isn't a single protoss who has off-raced zerg or terran to 6k+ MMR while Demuslim reached it an afternoon using some protoss funssy. I understand GM level isn't pro level, but it's definitely an issue at the top 0.1%. Using the term "low-level" is deceiving and quite disingenuous It's fair to argue that protoss needs compensation buffs in other ways to win at pro level though. Although there is also another argument to be had that until protoss players have proved they can actually off-race another race to get within 500MMR of their main race (which pro terrans and zergs consistently are capable of), then they might in fact be worse players than their top terran and zerg counterparts. I would 100% agree that setting the bar for the entirety of balance/QoL tweaks at the Serral/Maru level is absurdly high. The ladder is almost tailor made for Protoss though. They have the most aggressive pushes/all/ins, and the easiest to disguise pushes, and bo1s that are frequently blind. A pro level or high level streamer has a sufficient skill level to learn a bunch of Protoss builds that hit in the 5-10 minute range and be quite successful doing that off the bat. Aside from different mechanics, if I want to play Zerg, sure there are aggressive builds, but largely I need to know what I’m up against, how to read my opponent, the natural transitions and timings I need to do, and well, learn how to play longer macro games. 500 MMR within your main race is still impressive, but it’s still a reasonable chasm of a gap in real terms. Protoss pros absolutely could (and maybe have) done this, but it’s essentially comparing learning some builds vs learning how to play the whole game and its various phases. I mean guys like Classic, Rain, Stats have been high level pros in both SC games, there’s no way they’re not capable of getting their T or Z into the 6k+ range The curve of Protoss is pretty neatly showcased in ways on ladder. It’s relatively easy to get to the low - mid 6ks, for reasons I touched on, but it does top off. Maru’s Protoss off-race when I last looked was closer to Trap, than any Protoss is to Serral’s absurd 7.4K or whatever it was. | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
It's possible that the protoss players are weaker than the rest, it doesn't break any of the laws of reality. The probability is lower than just the race being bad but it's possible. My dude up there argued that the fact that uThermal can do some dumb builds as protoss and get high on the ladder was evidence that protoss players are weak. It isn't, lol. That's a completely tangential point that makes zero sense, and the fact that someone wouldn't see that it is tangential shows that they started from the conclusion and were trying to prove the conclusion. | ||
SharkStarcraft
Austria2141 Posts
Maybe when the GSL sees no protoss players advancing from the group stages people will be happy | ||
IcemanAsi
Israel681 Posts
I haven't played in a long while but I remember that being key in some early pool holds. ANSWERD: Apparently the creep from the bottom hatch reaches the bottom of the ramp, I honestly didn't remember that. | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
Stalkers are really good until mid game (kind of...), then they are countered by everything due to their low dps (which is the part of balance to get blink ability), even their upgrades are poor. Zealots are really strong of course but i m guessing they are really insane also against beginners while Marines or Zerglings can be considered as a cannon fodder. The blink ability kills the game because of the gap between pros and beginners, there s a ton of rework here, HeroMarine gave a try to Protoss recently and noticed the strength of stalkers at start, and even we know he s overdoing it (...) so we can assume blink isn t an ability for a basic unit. Then I would give a chance to 3 supply cost for stalkers and replace them upper in the tech tree (for example in the robotics units). They would be built for harassement or snipping, in this way i suggest to push their role further and open a place for a new basic unit. Something better but cheaper. Marines stimed dps = 14.64 (+2.44) Zerglings dps ====== 14.37 (+2.87) Stalkers dps ======= 9.73 (+0.75) ---- Bonus against armored = 3.74 (+0.75) Then if you consider only bonus damage, Stalkers seems balanced okish, but only against armored unit. Stalkers can t deal against their Zerg or Terran opposites Then assuming there is a place in a future patch, a small tweak on Stalkers will obviously ask changes for Mutalisks > Marines > Lings/Banes > Zealots > Hydralisks < Colossus < Vikings/Marauders > Stalkers..... Nice turn isn t it ? | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
You would compare zealots to zerglings and marines. Edit: Also I'm pretty sure you're using adrenal glands on that ling DPS Edit 2: I looked it up myself Marines: 9.8 Lings: 10 Zealots: 18.6 Stalkers: 9.7 Marauders: 9.3 Roach: 11.2 No upgrades of any kind ^ | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On March 18 2022 22:40 InfCereal wrote: You should be comparing marauders and roaches to stalkers. You would compare zealots to zerglings and marines. Edit: Also I'm pretty sure you're using adrenal glands on that ling DPS Edit 2: I looked it up myself Marines: 9.8 Lings: 10 Zealots: 18.6 Stalkers: 9.7 Marauders: 9.3 Roach: 11.2 No upgrades of any kind ^ An un-upgraded Zergling has more DPS than a Stalker? For those wondering about fully upgraded: Stalker 11.94 Zergling 22.60 | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
On March 18 2022 22:40 InfCereal wrote: You should be comparing marauders and roaches to stalkers. You would compare zealots to zerglings and marines. Edit: Also I'm pretty sure you're using adrenal glands on that ling DPS Edit 2: I looked it up myself Marines: 9.8 Lings: 10 Zealots: 18.6 Stalkers: 9.7 Marauders: 9.3 Roach: 11.2 No upgrades of any kind ^ Compare Stalkers to marauders ? Do you really think it s usefull ? | ||
Jerubaal
United States7676 Posts
| ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
| ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On March 19 2022 01:11 Zambrah wrote: Im not sure direct comparisons between units is going to be particularly successful given facts like speed, zerglings morphing in pairs of two, upgrades like blink, stim etc. Also health, armor, shields, etc. | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Methinks the Protoss nerfs may have gone too far. | ||
Branch.AUT
Austria814 Posts
Zerg is still inherently advantaged through the combination of best scouting with quickest production. At the highest level of play these zerg advantages haven't been overcome. Nothing is this patch changes that. I am tired of watching starcraft. | ||
ThunderJunk
United States577 Posts
We got a queen nerf. We got a voidray nerf. We got a shield battery nerf. That is all objectively excellent news. It's enough to make me feel curious about Sc2 again, but not enough to make me want to buy a new computer to be able to play it myself again. I would need bigger changes. __ The best example of farther for Zerg would be the TLO suggestion of taking away creep tumor vision (or at least radically reducing it). For Protoss, reversing the build time advantages for warpgate and gateways. Terran good. Then rebalance around the big shift. | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On March 19 2022 04:04 meadbert wrote: Methinks the Protoss nerfs may have gone too far. The only people in that picture are heromarine, serral, clem, and reynor lol | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On March 19 2022 07:51 InfCereal wrote: The only people in that picture are heromarine, serral, clem, and reynor lol What does Heromarine need with 5 accounts? | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Highest Protoss mmr on EU is currently Skillous, but he has not laddered on the new patch yet. The highest ranked Protoss on EU who has actually laddered the new patch looks to be GungFuBanda who only lost 90 mmr. Second highest is Neeb who has actually gained 64 mmr. Maybe 2022 will be the year of the Neeb comeback! | ||
Moonerz
United States411 Posts
Makes que times much more bearable for streaming | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 19 2022 04:04 meadbert wrote: Methinks the Protoss nerfs may have gone too far. Pretty sure that: 1) That ladder ranking is wrong based on both SC2revealed and the in-game GM and contender ladders. 2) The real ladder rankings are basically the same as they were before the patch. I think you are looking for any excuse to complain. | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 19 2022 09:33 meadbert wrote: Looks like Showtime dropped 236 points today and MaxPax dropped 309 points. Highest Protoss mmr on EU is currently Skillous, but he has not laddered on the new patch yet. The highest ranked Protoss on EU who has actually laddered the new patch looks to be GungFuBanda who only lost 90 mmr. Second highest is Neeb who has actually gained 64 mmr. Maybe 2022 will be the year of the Neeb comeback! This is also incorrect. | ||
RKC
2847 Posts
A lot of my working friends pick Protoss (followed by Terran). Even a Zerg diamond friend admits not being able to play more than 3-4 games in a row as Zerg, and that he off-races when he wants to 'chill out' from stress. And even though his Zerg game is miles ahead of Protoss, he's still able to rank quite high on ladder with Protoss (although still lower than Zerg). All this is anecdotal, of course. But I think there's a strong case to be made that ladder dominance does not necessarily translate to pro level balance. Recreational players play the game at different conditions and for different motivations than pros. | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Nephest shows GungFuBanda at 6761 mmr. It seems like your list is missing some folks. Nephest also has HiddenSquid at 6773 and Neeb at 6727. https://www.nephest.com/sc2/?season=50&queue=LOTV_1V1&team-type=ARRANGED&eu=true&mas=true&gra=true&page=0&type=ladder&ratingAnchor=99999&idAnchor=0&count=1#ladder-top | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 19 2022 13:41 meadbert wrote: Nephest shows GungFuBanda at 6761 mmr. It seems like your list is missing some folks. Nephest also has HiddenSquid at 6773 and Neeb at 6727. https://www.nephest.com/sc2/?season=50&queue=LOTV_1V1&team-type=ARRANGED&eu=true&mas=true&gra=true&page=0&type=ladder&ratingAnchor=99999&idAnchor=0&count=1#ladder-top nephest is wrong. you can cross check it against the ladder in game. There's no one at that MMR in GM or Contender. | ||
tskarzyn
United States499 Posts
On March 11 2022 00:24 Nebuchad wrote: My feelings are that this is what happens when you ask people who are involved in a community to do a patch. The reason why a patch was probably a good idea was that protoss is clearly getting destroyed, so it should be the main thing that the patch attempts to fix. But the community doesn't like to watch protoss play or to play against protoss. As a result instead of attempting to fix the glaring issue in the game right now, they've tried and fixed issues with their own watching or playing experience. Unfortunately, buffing protoss always leads to bad players dominating good ones at every level. If you want to buff protoss, you need to fix its design first. That starts with removing warp gate. | ||
samAel1
Poland26 Posts
| ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11353 Posts
On March 19 2022 17:11 tskarzyn wrote: Unfortunately, buffing protoss always leads to bad players dominating good ones at every level. If you want to buff protoss, you need to fix its design first. That starts with removing warp gate. Yeah I feel similarly about the marine. What a shit unit, responsible for so much wrong in this game. But no one cares that I think that either. | ||
Beelzebub1
997 Posts
The balance council thing really needs to keep their finger on the pulse of ZvP though, keep it up guys, toning down the early game Queen walk was definitely a small step in the right direction. | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
On March 19 2022 14:27 honorablemacroterran wrote: nephest is wrong. you can cross check it against the ladder in game. There's no one at that MMR in GM or Contender. I just logged on to EU and checked and <SENTX>GunGFuBanDa has 6761 mmr in Masters 1 in division Alzadar Omicron Are you excluding non GMs? | ||
Jerubaal
United States7676 Posts
On March 19 2022 12:58 RKC wrote: A lot of my working friends pick Protoss (followed by Terran). Even a Zerg diamond friend admits not being able to play more than 3-4 games in a row as Zerg, and that he off-races when he wants to 'chill out' from stress. And even though his Zerg game is miles ahead of Protoss, he's still able to rank quite high on ladder with Protoss (although still lower than Zerg). I find this statement funny because, especially as a P, it seems like Terran is just flipping through their rolodex of game-ending maneuvers, and if I don't catch all of them, I just lose. | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
On March 19 2022 01:11 Zambrah wrote: Im not sure direct comparisons between units is going to be particularly successful given facts like speed, zerglings morphing in pairs of two, upgrades like blink, stim etc. Set Blink ability on a basic unit is questionable for a RTS game, that s all i said. I don t promote playstyle which lead to injury players because they clicked too much. | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 17 2022 22:14 Jerubaal wrote: If you can't blindly counter the composition with the longest build up time, it's either you or you're lying about how often you encounter them. I was mocking you because carriers are not a build. | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 20 2022 02:02 Jerubaal wrote: I find this statement funny because, especially as a P, it seems like Terran is just flipping through their rolodex of game-ending maneuvers, and if I don't catch all of them, I just lose. How many game ending maneuvers do you think Terran has? | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
On March 20 2022 03:09 honorablemacroterran wrote: How many game ending maneuvers do you think Terran has? Well, if you count 1 ghost as 1 game ending maneuver, then at least 25 | ||
Jerubaal
United States7676 Posts
On March 20 2022 03:07 honorablemacroterran wrote: I was mocking you because carriers are not a build. On March 20 2022 03:09 honorablemacroterran wrote: How many game ending maneuvers do you think Terran has? I would be delighted to engage with any points you put forward, should you choose to present them. | ||
Sprog
New Zealand83 Posts
On March 19 2022 20:50 Nebuchad wrote: Yeah I feel similarly about the marine. What a shit unit, responsible for so much wrong in this game. But no one cares that I think that either. I'm not sure "no one", speaking quite absolutely there... I would agree that the marine is a bit too cost efficient. What's your issue/s with said unit? DPS / cooldown between attacks / immediate targeting retarget shifting/ perhaps range / contributes to deathballs? On another note, played a few Diamond 1-2 games ~4k mmr. PvZ seems to be in a better spot overall. Lurker spam can be worked around with army movement and decent robo unit control. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2169 Posts
Same with Protoss. Different all ins, different missdirection, different cheeses, they are great at that, and thus it makes sense they do well on ladder. However on a Best of 3, 5,7 it's when they start to suffer, or on longer torunaments because secrets are out. Other players are not caught offguard cause they see them play or they are playing multiple games. Protoss might be the "mechanically easiest" but it's also the race by far the most punishing of mistakes. It's also the least versatile (slow, needs to move on clumps, slow tech switches, needs bandaids like shield batteries overcharge just to not die, hell even having to wall vs zerg is the biggest band aid balance possible). All of this, combined makes Protoss good on ladder, but not as great on tournaments, and that's simply a design issue that will not be easily fixed just with balance. | ||
tskarzyn
United States499 Posts
On March 19 2022 20:50 Nebuchad wrote: Yeah I feel similarly about the marine. What a shit unit, responsible for so much wrong in this game. But no one cares that I think that either. Sorry things haven't panned out as you may have hoped they would. Try unplugging for a while. Focus on what's important. Stop making excuses for yourself. GL HF, you can do it! | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 21 2022 08:10 tskarzyn wrote: Sorry things haven't panned out as you may have hoped they would. Try unplugging for a while. Focus on what's important. Stop making excuses for yourself. GL HF, you can do it! He’s not wrong to be fair | ||
RKC
2847 Posts
On March 21 2022 06:35 [Phantom] wrote: Protoss dominates ladder because of the same reason cheese is so prevalent. Ladder is a a best of 1 and cheese is super strong in a best of one. Same with Protoss. Different all ins, different missdirection, different cheeses, they are great at that, and thus it makes sense they do well on ladder. However on a Best of 3, 5,7 it's when they start to suffer, or on longer torunaments because secrets are out. Other players are not caught offguard cause they see them play or they are playing multiple games. Protoss might be the "mechanically easiest" but it's also the race by far the most punishing of mistakes. It's also the least versatile (slow, needs to move on clumps, slow tech switches, needs bandaids like shield batteries overcharge just to not die, hell even having to wall vs zerg is the biggest band aid balance possible). All of this, combined makes Protoss good on ladder, but not as great on tournaments, and that's simply a design issue that will not be easily fixed just with balance. Yes, well said indeed. And that's why most recreational players don't fancy playing Zerg (the more passive and reactive race) on ladder. It's stressful and frustrating to deal with cheeses and coin-flips, almost every game. Very few players have the mechanics like Serral and Reynor to play optimally and deflect all-ins at ease. | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
Here something i defend as "a small tweak": NeoSteel Armor : In addition of actual bonus, the upgrade decrease building time construction from 29 to 20. I would like to help players of struggling against creep spreading. I think 20 isn t "too committing" for a first tweak. I know widow mines are able to do it, but i would like to see another way to stand ground, which requires less APM (unlike widow mines) NB: Missile turrets has a build time equal to 18, it s also a good argument in favor of this tweak In compensation, the planetary forteress could be weaker, for example, decrease armor from 3 to 2. Dark templars damage could be balance like that from 45 to 35 + 10 (against armored or light) | ||
InfCereal
Canada1740 Posts
| ||
alpenrahm
Germany628 Posts
| ||
Vision_
720 Posts
On March 21 2022 22:07 InfCereal wrote: The combat creep spread, you want to let bunkers gain armour faster? I want Terran to settle bunkers in front of creep before end game. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 22 2022 00:16 Vision_ wrote: I want Terran to settle bunkers in front of creep before end game. For what particular reason? | ||
RKC
2847 Posts
Has there ever been a meaningful nerf to creep spread? Now, I don't think the current state of creep spread is hugely imbalanced. But I do feel it adds up to a long list of checklist to tick off in order to kill a good Zerg. And also, it makes Queens as a super cost-efficient unit. | ||
honorablemacroterran
188 Posts
On March 22 2022 00:36 RKC wrote: Creep spread is probably one of the more underrated ability in the Zerg's arsenal. It's depressing when Protoss and Terran forces moving out to clear out creep tumours in early game counts as such a critical step to stop Zerg from snowballing into full macro mode (as opposed to actually killing workers or units). Has there ever been a meaningful nerf to creep spread? Now, I don't think the current state of creep spread is hugely imbalanced. But I do feel it adds up to a long list of checklist to tick off in order to kill a good Zerg. And also, it makes Queens as a super cost-efficient unit. Most zergs lack the mechanics/APM to spread it as well as the top pros but when the top pros do it there is no counterplay at all because it's costless to them and they can just respread an entire area as soon as it gets cleared as we've seen many times in TvZ. | ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On March 22 2022 00:36 RKC wrote: Creep spread is probably one of the more underrated ability in the Zerg's arsenal. It's depressing when Protoss and Terran forces moving out to clear out creep tumours in early game counts as such a critical step to stop Zerg from snowballing into full macro mode (as opposed to actually killing workers or units). Has there ever been a meaningful nerf to creep spread? Now, I don't think the current state of creep spread is hugely imbalanced. But I do feel it adds up to a long list of checklist to tick off in order to kill a good Zerg. And also, it makes Queens as a super cost-efficient unit. Agreed, although I don’t think the potency of good creep spread is remotely underrated. I think most of us here consider it one of the strongest facets of what makes elite Zergs so hard to beat. I don’t recall particular nerfs, there may have been minor tweaks but they don’t spring to mind. I like the evolution of strategy games over time, part of what makes the genre fun. That said, I don’t think creep’s attributes were built with quite how good modern elite players are at spreading it in mind. | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
There s multiple reasons : - For beginners, Hold the front line to allow access to ressources later in the game. - For professionnals, avoid the mandatory tactic of building multiples planetary forteress to settle asap in end game (...so a small and tought nerf to balance properly) Depending on the distance, if the terran has settled a small advanced post, he must defend and take this position during 20 seconds while his SCV(s) are working. It helps player with lower APM to control nevralgic point. But to aim this goal, Terran player needs to cut the production of few SCV, and settle faster. SCV has also to comeback, and there s still an indirect economic loss due to the travel. In other terms, if this tactic (which consists to build bunkers to retard creep spread) works out, the price of a bunker could be increased a little bit. Then if he wants to keep some marines alive while Zerg player is counter attacking, he has to put them inside the bunker(s), allowing him to slow the Zerg dominance, in a case of a Terran retreat. By now, a lot of marines (pros or beginners) can be catched off guard and the marines losses can directly stop the game. As many of other untested modifications, the tweak reason is to make the game less frustrating and punishing. Question : Zerg could probably lack of weapons (break the wall/line) if the tactic help Terran to win the economic war. NB : Im still for a comeback of IT ;D | ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
| ||
bela.mervado
Hungary336 Posts
On March 22 2022 01:05 WombaT wrote: I don’t recall particular nerfs, there may have been minor tweaks but they don’t spring to mind. there were a few nerfs/changes over the years, the latest ones were - creep spreads slower - recedes much faster after a tumor cleanup (it was quite noticeable after the patch) - you can no longer cancel a creep tumor (this hurts noobs like me, i sometimes fuck up with a misclick, but most pros don't give a fuck they just do rapidfire brrrrrt spread. with hellion harass in your face, it was unfair that they could cancel the tumor and respread it again later. now Z have to commit, and spread that tumor, and risk T sniping them asap) | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
On March 22 2022 02:12 Zambrah wrote: The question is do bunkers outweigh just stutterstepping backwards against Banelings, I think theyd need a lot of additional strength for the answer to that question be yes Yes it s the problem, in a professionnal game. But as i said, if the bunker cost is increased, it can work as a first sink. Then, IT can be thrown with a longer range as foded canon... I know Banelings is the most viable solution against Terrans and Roachs would suffer a lot from this tactic, so maybe then something can be found in favor of Zerg play-style Then, you can t be sure of that, so many times I see Zerg wasting tons of minerals/gas on PF. | ||
Coffeeling
Finland250 Posts
On March 11 2022 13:40 QOGQOG wrote: It's been nerfed before. Relatively recently, even, when Zerg was just killing Protoss every game by a-moving into their armies. I really disagree with this sort of extreme conservatism when that's left Zerg busted at a pro level for years. At some point, you have to try a big change. Took a look at Baneling patch notes: Weapon damage changed from 20 (+15 vs light) to 18 (+17 vs light). Weapon damage changed from 18 (+17 vs light) to 16 (+19 vs light). laughs in Ghost Those patches took the amount of Bane hits to kill a Ghost from 5 to 5,55 (=6) and then 6.25 (=7) | ||
Vision_
720 Posts
On March 24 2022 23:00 Coffeeling wrote: Took a look at Baneling patch notes: laughs in Ghost Those patches took the amount of Bane hits to kill a Ghost from 5 to 5,55 (=6) and then 6.25 (=7) Yes banelings units are the core of the problem... Maybe Banelings could switch to T2 unit, getting bigger, explode slighty stronger but with one supply (and with a good armor, maybe 2). This would be the simpliest way if you doesn t want to modify the overall balance. If they do that, they have also to nerf a little bit the healing ability of Medivacs. For Protoss, idk,.. I find Stalkers really bad in scaling but it s a problem because if they are too strong at the end of the game they could snowball easily against Terran which are not so fast on ground. but i m pretty sure everybody has his own opinion about stalkers weakness | ||
Drahkn
162 Posts
Widowmine burrow time should have been nerfed on normal widowmines. All in all in true Blizzard fashion, Protoss is the most struggling race at competitive level yet still ends up getting the heaviest nerfs of all 3 races. You couldn't make this shit up, been here for every big patch since game was released in 2010, you have basically been spitting in the face of pro gamers who play Protoss since release. Here is a freebie for you if you really want the game to improve: Make Zerg viper unable to abduct massive units, the unit is so cost efficient it is disgusting and its impossible to trade with them, one feedback they get healed by a queen and back in business. Long term cost efficiency on Viper is beyond insanity and should have been nerfed years ago. Reduce Lurker range and damage, force zergs to commit to a fight with lurkers, they should not be able to siege with them. Zerg has brood lords for that job. That's 2 changes that will stop forcing Protoss to go air and dying to mass corrupter, and actaully give Protoss a chance on the ground, evaluate after some time if more nerfs are needed. | ||
Zambrah
United States6832 Posts
On March 25 2022 04:26 Vision_ wrote: Yes banelings units are the core of the problem... Maybe Banelings could switch to T2 unit, getting bigger, explode slighty stronger but with one supply (and with a good armor, maybe 2). This would be the simpliest way if you doesn t want to modify the overall balance. If they do that, they have also to nerf a little bit the healing ability of Medivacs. For Protoss, idk,.. I find Stalkers really bad in scaling but it s a problem because if they are too strong at the end of the game they could snowball easily against Terran which are not so fast on ground. but i m pretty sure everybody has his own opinion about stalkers weakness I dont think Stalkers being strong lategame is a problem vs Terran, and the Terran ground army is hardly slow between boosted medivacs and Stim. Giving Protoss more Bio Ball-esque options would be nice, given its Protoss it wont be able to just be relied upon literally every game like a Bio Ball but an army thats decently mobile and not entirely reliant on slow expensive tech units and can skirmish and disengage would be nice. | ||
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
User was warned for this post. | ||
Woosixion
112 Posts
On March 22 2022 01:05 WombaT wrote: Agreed, although I don’t think the potency of good creep spread is remotely underrated. I think most of us here consider it one of the strongest facets of what makes elite Zergs so hard to beat. I don’t recall particular nerfs, there may have been minor tweaks but they don’t spring to mind. I like the evolution of strategy games over time, part of what makes the genre fun. That said, I don’t think creep’s attributes were built with quite how good modern elite players are at spreading it in mind. i feel the same way about MMM... players have gotten so ridiculously good at marine micro since 2010 that the amount that you can get done with just 16 of them is silly.. | ||
661
71 Posts
On March 11 2022 13:40 QOGQOG wrote: It's been nerfed before. Relatively recently, even, when Zerg was just killing Protoss every game by a-moving into their armies. I really disagree with this sort of extreme conservatism when that's left Zerg busted at a pro level for years. At some point, you have to try a big change. What games are you watching? | ||
nojok
France15837 Posts
On March 25 2022 04:26 Vision_ wrote: Yes banelings units are the core of the problem... Maybe Banelings could switch to T2 unit, getting bigger, explode slighty stronger but with one supply (and with a good armor, maybe 2). This would be the simpliest way if you doesn t want to modify the overall balance. In the earlier parts of the game they give so much flexibility as the zerg player can wait almost the last second to morph his lings into banelings (or simply just spend that money elsewhere if he does not need them) and in the late game it feels like they're increasing the zerg max supply because they're not really a half supply unit, in a rather cost inefficient way I admit. Maybe simply increasing their morph time significantly would be enough, I'm clueless tbh. | ||
Lorch
Germany3657 Posts
| ||
WombaT
Northern Ireland20755 Posts
On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote: Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design. Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out. I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense. | ||
Charoisaur
Germany15616 Posts
On April 13 2022 22:50 WombaT wrote: Balance wise perhaps at certain phases over SC2’s lifespan, design wise though? I don’t think there’s anything fundamentally broken about the baneling as a unit. They have an obvious downside in having to be expended to attack, and there are counter-measures from splitting, walling or (less so nowadays) forcefielding them out. I think there’s core problems in an RTS design sense with the other two you mentioned for sure, less sure with the baneling in that sense. there's nothing "fundamentally broken" with any of those things, when people use this phrase they just mean "this is not my preferred design" and they want to make themselves sound more important. So if Banelings are not his preferred design then that's how it is. I completely disagree with that view but it's not any less legitimate than complaining about the design of other "fundamentally broken" units. | ||
meadbert
United States681 Posts
Top 13 accounts on KR are either Zerg or Terran. Note that this includes Creator's off-race Terran. His Protoss is around 100 MMR lower. | ||
Lorch
Germany3657 Posts
On April 14 2022 00:25 Charoisaur wrote: there's nothing "fundamentally broken" with any of those things, when people use this phrase they just mean "this is not my preferred design" and they want to make themselves sound more important. So if Banelings are not his preferred design then that's how it is. I completely disagree with that view but it's not any less legitimate than complaining about the design of other "fundamentally broken" units. Yes I have replaced any mention of "I dont like this" with "This is fundamentally flawed" in my dictionary, thank you for pointing that out. RTS is about farming ressources and using them to produce units, broodlord and swarm host create (potential) infinite units while the amount of ressources always stays the same (unlike say the carrier which has to pay minerals for interceptors). Infested terrans from energy were similiar, but less severe since you did invest energy afterall. So by nature these go against the very fundamentals of RTS design, which is what I would call fundamentally broken. There is a reason that these have fluctuated between completely breaking the game and being close to useless over the history of SC2. The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon. Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core. SC2 has several of these flawed designs that lead to weird bandaids as blizzard has been unwilling to change these core fundamentals of the game ever since the original beta when people began to point these things out. As for banelings: Usually an RTS comes down to trading more cost efficiently than your opponnent if you are on an even playing field. You can start trading cost innefficiently when you are economically ahead. Banelings, since they destroy everything that doesn't fly, allow you to trade cost inefficiently and still come out ahead. You could make a similiar argument against scourge in SC 1, but since those only target flying units and involve a lot more control to be used effectively, they are more niche in both usecase and impact on trade efficiency. | ||
Lucasmus
34 Posts
The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon. Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core. I wonder what would happen if units warped in far away would be significantly worse. For example units that are warped in outside range of a Nexus are warped in with 0 shield. | ||
THERIDDLER
Canada101 Posts
| ||
Draddition
United States57 Posts
On April 14 2022 21:26 Lorch wrote: Yes I have replaced any mention of "I dont like this" with "This is fundamentally flawed" in my dictionary, thank you for pointing that out. RTS is about farming ressources and using them to produce units, broodlord and swarm host create (potential) infinite units while the amount of ressources always stays the same (unlike say the carrier which has to pay minerals for interceptors). Infested terrans from energy were similiar, but less severe since you did invest energy afterall. So by nature these go against the very fundamentals of RTS design, which is what I would call fundamentally broken. There is a reason that these have fluctuated between completely breaking the game and being close to useless over the history of SC2. The ability to create units anywhere on the map with little to no risk factor involved kinda explains itself. This was bandaided somewhat decently with slow vs fast warp ins, but again goes against the very core concept of units being made by production facility. If you think back to the original PvP meta in WOL, in any other RTS circumstance you would have had to make 4 gateways in your opponnents base to achieve the same affect. This huge risk was replaced by spending 100 minerals on a pylon. Due to warpin being a thing, gateway units have had an incredibly hard time being properly balanced. The initial bandaid was the force field, which was about as anti counter micro as you could possibly design an ability. Nowadays you see a ton of shield batteries thrown down, in HOTS it was the mothership core. SC2 has several of these flawed designs that lead to weird bandaids as blizzard has been unwilling to change these core fundamentals of the game ever since the original beta when people began to point these things out. As for banelings: Usually an RTS comes down to trading more cost efficiently than your opponnent if you are on an even playing field. You can start trading cost innefficiently when you are economically ahead. Banelings, since they destroy everything that doesn't fly, allow you to trade cost inefficiently and still come out ahead. You could make a similiar argument against scourge in SC 1, but since those only target flying units and involve a lot more control to be used effectively, they are more niche in both usecase and impact on trade efficiency. I've never really agreed with this idea. It's not like there is a textbook (as far as I know) on the fundamental rules of RTS. As far as general RTS guidelines that most people try to abide by, Starcraft is unique and great because it challenges these thoughts. That's what allows for the asymmetric design that makes the game so interesting. Tech progression for Terran and Protoss is extremely fast without (significant) threat. Terran (and to a lesser extent Zerg) can abandon a position with little cost by simply moving buildings away. Protoss unit production is frontloaded. Larvae allow zerg to leverage production in any direction at a moments notice. Terran bio, overlapping protoss splash, excess zerg map vision, the list goes on. Almost everything in Starcraft goes against what many would consider traditional rules of RTS. The question is if these units go TOO far. Swarmhosts obviously went too far, providing damage from an extremely safe position. Broodlords tend to be in a pretty good spot- they provide a unique way of dealing damage, but are extremely vulnerable. | ||
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On April 13 2022 21:22 Lorch wrote: Banelings, just like free units, warp gates etc. are just poor design choices. You can bandage fix all of them to get a playable game, but fundamentally they are just broken by design. ... I'm just gonna choose to believe that this is satire | ||
Aeceus
United Kingdom1278 Posts
| ||
| ||