EPTZergs would still be able to have mobility across the map, but it would take more effort on their part to reach the point where it is nearly impossible to attack them without their knowing beforehand.
Balance Patch 5.0.11 PTR Patch Notes - Page 15
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chewbacca.
United States3634 Posts
Zergs would still be able to have mobility across the map, but it would take more effort on their part to reach the point where it is nearly impossible to attack them without their knowing beforehand. | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On December 16 2022 23:53 Chewbacca. wrote: One change that I was thinking about that I'd be interested in seeing play out is if they made it so only "Active" creep tumors (Ones that have the ability of creating another one) provided vision. Zergs would still be able to have mobility across the map, but it would take more effort on their part to reach the point where it is nearly impossible to attack them without their knowing beforehand. It seems interesting but what if a player just turn around the last tumor then enter beside into the creep without being seen... ? On the paper i like it but i feel your idea a bit strange. Actually i would prefer : only the active tumor is visible, when killed the previous last become visible after a cooldown (in adding an armor and hp). But what s the most important for a pro player, have invisible tumors or a kind of fast (as it is now) creep system ? | ||
|
Ahli
Germany355 Posts
1. changing targets cancels the attack (so you won't damage anything if you keep swapping targets) 2. you can now cancel the attack via Stop when a friendly unit was targeted In the live patch, attacks are only cancelled by death, unburrow, and activating hold fire (and when going down a deep cliff). With cancelling, I mean that the attack does not go to its full distance, the spine row stops prematurely. If I were Blizzard, I would reverse that and only remove the validator that cancels attacks when it goes down into the deep pit | ||
|
Beelzebub1
1004 Posts
I still would be more of a fan of a slightly more impactful Sentry buff, alongside a separate patch to redesign the Raven. It's great that the balance council is willing to change units this far into SC2's life, it really is. But those types of balance changes imo are best reserved for their OWN patch, those are very big changes that are going to change the way the Raven operates in all match ups, it's not just a stat buff/change. | ||
|
sirokop
5 Posts
On December 15 2022 03:27 Moonerz wrote: I agree a lot of people are going overboard but imo the reasons are a few things. Hydras seem to be in a good spot and I think a lot of people feel they fill their role well enough. Hopefully if they do get buffed its not everything currently on the PTR. Most the zerg nerfs dont really seem like legit nerfs either lol. Kind of like false flags to keep the peace for lack of a better term. Nerfing Toss and Terran lategame when they seem to be somewhat on equal footing with zerg lategame. I dont think either T or P was oppressive in the lategame. I do agree that perhaps ghosts were a bit too much of a catch all vs Z, but you need to distribute power to other units to compensate which doesnt seem to be the case. It seems to me that Zerg has been accepted as the best late game race and it cant be contested (or else theres nerfs) so we generally run into a "stop them before they get there" meta and lategame for P and T is the mixup. Then you add that hydras are getting stronger it will make the mid game tougher to abuse and once the all ins get figured out Zerg is right back to being at an advantage forcing games to go late. Who knows, I havent messed with it but maybe the viper nerf wipl be a bigger deal than people think but imo consume is the bigger issue there than delay post yoink. This. Not to say that a balance council made of competitive players isn't a good idea, but it always seemed to me that some smart long-term viewers and low level-players have a much clearer and less biased understanding of what the true balance is. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12152 Posts
That being said I really don't think it's as certain that zerg is winning this trade as people are saying. Some of the changes look good for them. With as many changes at the same time I find it a little presomptuous to argue as if we had a real notion of what it's going to look like. Of course I also see that InfCereal isn't whining about the patch so there's a decent chance that it breaks zerg based on that alone. | ||
|
Athenau
569 Posts
On December 18 2022 04:10 Nebuchad wrote: The main thing that annoys me about this is that we haven't been in such a cool state for the game in so long. Serral can lose to Bunny or Byun, a lot more matchups aren't a foregone conclusion than they've been in a long time. That being said I really don't think it's as certain that zerg is winning this trade as people are saying. Some of the changes look good for them. With as many changes at the same time I find it a little presomptuous to argue as if we had a real notion of what it's going to look like. Of course I also see that InfCereal isn't whining about the patch so there's a decent chance that it breaks zerg based on that alone. If it does turn out to be Zerg favored, what do you think is more likely, Blizzard fixing the issue promptly, or waiting six months while pro-Zergs try to gaslight everyone into thinking the situation is fine? | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12152 Posts
On December 18 2022 04:55 Athenau wrote: If it does turn out to be Zerg favored, what do you think is more likely, Blizzard fixing the issue promptly, or waiting six months while pro-Zergs try to gaslight everyone into thinking the situation is fine? The latter for sure | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16056 Posts
On December 18 2022 04:55 Athenau wrote: If it does turn out to be Zerg favored, what do you think is more likely, Blizzard fixing the issue promptly, or waiting six months while pro-Zergs try to gaslight everyone into thinking the situation is fine? My one hope is that if this happens again the SC2 community IMMEDIATELY calls it out and has no patience for it. The last time, there was a big conflict of interest because it was getting mixed up in Serral's dominance and Reynor's rise that people weren't really screaming about it until half a year later. Hopefully with that experience still fresh in so many people's heads, the community will be quick to try and curb this shit before it gets out of hand again. Might be a fool's hope, but I have to hope people aren't going to let 2019 happen AGAIN, when it feels like we're just getting over the stink of it. | ||
|
QOGQOG
834 Posts
On December 18 2022 05:59 Vindicare605 wrote: My one hope is that if this happens again the SC2 community IMMEDIATELY calls it out and has no patience for it. The last time, there was a big conflict of interest because it was getting mixed up in Serral's dominance and Reynor's rise that people weren't really screaming about it until half a year later. Hopefully with that experience still fresh in so many people's heads, the community will be quick to try and curb this shit before it gets out of hand again. Might be a fool's hope, but I have to hope people aren't going to let 2019 happen AGAIN, when it feels like we're just getting over the stink of it. With Rogue and soon Dark headed to the military, it'll just be "Serral and Reynor are so amazing." | ||
|
drcassidyferrercount
2 Posts
| ||
|
dph114
30 Posts
If terrans can keep up economically with zerg, then ghost nerf is justified and it would be need to be nerfed even more, but its not, every tvz, zerg control all map at any level of play from silver to top tier pros. | ||
|
AirbladeOrange
United States2573 Posts
| ||
|
TurtleFish
11 Posts
 Starcraft scene is such a sh*tshow with these ridiculous balance patches. If you havent explored another RTS game like AOE4, you should. AOE4 has a lot more diverse strategies and units, and each player has to play more than one race in each match. | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1595 Posts
| ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom924 Posts
On December 19 2022 13:49 AirbladeOrange wrote: Did providing the reasons behind suggested changes vanish with Blizzard's active role in balancing the game? I don't understand most of these changes. Any and all accountability has completely disappeared. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
I'm also worried about the disruptor change. It will be very difficult to hit enemy units that are running and even if you do it will hit less of them...Buff the colossus if you're doing that (but you don't really want to buff the colossus right?) As for the hydra, anyone that haven't please take a loot at PRT mathces where they're used. They are completely broken. The increased speed and the increased responsiveness/retargeting make them ludicrious when kiting. They are much more effective at kiting zealots, splitting from tanks, dodging disruptors (and on top of that the disruptors got nerfed). It might seem like a small buff, but the option to micro hydras is HUGE now, and this will absolutely make them more effective and very strong. And what do other races get in return? A nerf. Congratulations zergs pros. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10324 Posts
Already gave some before but to comment on recent posts, here are some of my suggestions to make the changes more fair and consistent with the design principals and goals of LotV that the community largely agrees pushed the game into a better place and has more of what people like about BW (more spread out armies, more back and forth game, more harass and small skirmishes around map, more defender's advantage, more zoning and positioning with armies, fights that last longer, less games ending in 1 short deathball fight, etc.) 1) For Cyclone upgrade, it would be nice if the patch was +5 damage and +15 bonus to Armored. Like someone else said, the new change will ruin their interaction with stalkers too much, as well as reduce their already niche (but still situationally useful) role against units like Ultras, Immortals, Void Rays, Carriers, Battle Cruisers, etc. If we want to make it slightly more rounded of a unit, increasing their damage against non-armored units by 5 (instead of 0 currently) would already be nice for cyclone users and mech players. Don't weaken their already existing role any further. Also, don't think we need Cyclones to be better vs Queens/Ravagers/Zealots/Adepts/Zerglings/Marines/Hellions/Phoenix etc. We already have Hellions to fight vs Light units, and Cyclones are already good enough vs Queens/Ravagers/Phoenix. 2) Disruptor Nova reduced from 1.5 to 1.35, but cooldown reduced from 21.4 to 20. Max AOE is reduced to 81%, so if make the cooldown 93% of what it is, then this won't be as big of a nerf, and make the changes moreso to make the unit a little less volatile and slightly more reliable as splash. 3) Increase Disruptor collission size a little, and in return give HTs higher movespeed as is proposed in Blizzard's patch. I would increase Disruptors' collission size a bit to be around the size of an Immortal - right now its collission is tiny, it is SMALLER than a Stalker, despite the visual model being pretty big. Increasing the size will make the unit marginally less effective in higher numbers, thus discouraging players to get a ton (like 8) disruptors for their deathball and making it very hard and stressful to approach a protoss army. You can still get a high number of disruptors, but the effective range will be lower on the disruptors that are stuck more in the back. If you want to use them at max range you need extra micro to position them before shooting. 4) Battery Overcharge shield recharge reduced from 200% to 150%, duration increased from 14 to 15 seconds. Also, Overcharge gives increases the Shield Battery's shield HP by 150. Now it's weaker in a straight up fight at your base; if the opponent is far ahead and has a 50% larger army supply, it's more possible for your opponent to outdamage the shield recharge in the early and mid game and kill that base. (Honestly we WANT to have stronger defensive options in SC2 so games end less abruptly after a player takes a lead and it's more possible to make comebacks... but I guess many people don't like Overcharge healing so fast). Also in return, the Battery has 150 more Shield HP, making it overall less volatile of a spell. It's a bit harder to just burst down the Battery immediately, and it's less punishing if the Protoss army is slightly mispositioned and unable to cover the Battery from being attacked. Also, Ravager Biles and Tanks are weaker at sniping the Battery. The +1 second is just a tiny adjustment to help maintain the overall amount 1 battery can heal your army up by. This is actually important because it encourages and allows protoss players to position their army defensively outside of their base and poke at the approaching enemy, and pull back to recharge with Overcharge, and try to buy time for Overcharge's cooldown to end so if the enemy army succeeds in reaching your base, you might have another to use. By reworking Overcharge like this, it will be less volatile of an option (heal super fast or sometimes die immediately and be useless), and push it slightly more into a "use this to recharge your army's shields while you poke and fight outside" role, rather than a "i'll just sit at the base and rely on this without doing much work" ability. Alternatively, instead of giving +150 Shields, you could also reduce the Overcharge recharge from 200% to 150%, increase duration from 14 to 15sec, but also decrease the cooldown from 60 sec to 50 sec. That way again, it encourage Protoss to use it as a way to recharge your army's shields and poke and fight outside your base, instead of saving it and sitting at your base waiting for the enemy to come. 5) Hydralisk movespeed increased as suggested by Blizzard's patch, but the damage point is NOT buffed. Or alternatively, damage point is buffed so there is also slightly less overkill with Hydras, but the movespeed is NOT buffed. Hydras are used well enough already, we really don't need to buff them (especially if we are also nerfing Carriers). Buffing both movespeed and damage point effectively increases their DPS in 3 ways. (Damage point buffs means damage hits sooner, AND also there is less overkill, and movespeed means Hydras can attack sooner). 6) Ultralisk size decreased by 12.5%, range slop is NOT buffed. With an ultra being smaller, the current 1 range slop will effectively already be increased relative to its new size. Having a smaller ultra have 1.4 range slop would be equal to giving the current ultralisk a range slop of ~1.6 units! Also, we WANT there to be stronger defender's advantage in SC2. Increasing range slop is a way to increase Ultra's ability to chase down units and thus attack into players, while nerfing the ability to kite them slightly. Keeping range slop as is means it'll still be a good defensive unit and a unit to tank when attacking into a position, but not better at chasing down units than they are now. 7) Brood Lord broodling duration decreased as suggested, but movespeed buff is toned down by half. If we're buffing Ultralisks because we want to encourage them in lategame a little more, then we need to be NERFING Broodlords, not keeping them in the same place or arguably buffing them. (Especially since the rest of the patch is nerfing Protoss lategame power by nerfing Carriers and Disruptors, and also nerfing Terran lategame power with the Ghost, and also the Raven's lategame power yet again). Even if there were no Ultralisks buffs, the Brood Lord should still be nerfed because of how much of the go-to unit they are in lategame Zerg, and especially because we are also nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame this patch! If we want Brood Lords to be less the go to lategame deathball unit, then as many have said, we shouldn't buff its weakness by making it an even MORE well rounded a go-to unit, which makes it less committal of a unit comp and harder to counter. The weakness of the Brood Lord is that it's slow so it's possible to attack elsewhere and run them in circles, possibly winning a base race. Even though this is currently their weakness, Zerg pros still mass them lategame, which means that they're just THAT good. If we increase the movement speed, it just makes it even more viable to mass them without worrying! We need to keep the Broodlord slow so it discourages players from massing them because having too much supply stuck in Broodlords means you don't have enough faster units to defend places. Or so that it encourages players to spread the Broodlords out possibly to cover more areas instead of clumping them into 1 army. 8) Revert Spore Crawler root duration, from 4 sec to 6 sec. Mass spore is too much of a thing in lategame zerg, and many pro players agree that Zerg can too easily defend harass in the early game with a high number of queens. Queens already give ample AA, it wouldn't hurt to increase Spore Crawler root time just a little. Especially if we're going to buff Hydralisks! Back then, we buffed Spore root from 6 to 4 sec and removed the need to have an Evo Chamber built, because Blizzard felt that it was a little volatlie/hard for Zerg to defend certain rushes and harass. Now that players are better and are feeling like Zerg can too easily defend everything with just Queens, why not revert the Spore Crawler root duration, which also reduces Zerg's lategame deathball power? Players also feel that Zerg got the better end of the econ changes in LotV, as they can drone up and get many expansions much faster and safer than in WoL/HotS. If Spore root is reverted from 4 to 6 sec, it might incentivize zerg players to build 1 more Spore than before in the earlygame if they want to be very safe (1 per base), and rely less on building 1-2 and sharing them between 3 bases. Overall Thoughts Seriously I am going to be so mad if this patch actually goes through, we are in such a good state with the game after many many years of careful balance changes and open discussion with the community. I don't want the game to be stuck in a stupid spot because of a patch like this for the rest of time. The changes are so poorly thought out and are going against many of the design principles that LotV strived for. It is totally biased, unfair, and inconsistent game design wise, to buff Hydralisks and Ultralisks (and arguably BLs too), but not give the same kind of love to units that are actually used much less like the Thor. Imagine if we buffed the Thor's movespeed and decreased the size 12.5%, to make them less clunky, used more often in the lategame instead of the Ghost, and to get shots off better (similar goals with the Hydra and Ultra buffs). And I don't think anyone's asking for the Thor to be buffed in such a way because even if it's not seen every game in every MU, it has a good role already. Or imagine if Cyclones got 2 straight up buffs like Hydras and Ultras, instead of a change that probably will nerf them overall slightly. Imagine if Cyclone's Upgrade gave +5 damage and +15 to armored so that it's a small straight up buff while making them more well rounded, and also that bug with Cyclones moving closer than they actually need to Lock On was fixed (similar to buffing Ultra range slop, or Hydra damage point, or all the "QoL" changes they did that nerfed Interference Matrix, or buffed Lurker burrow/unburrow time, etc.) | ||
|
Phattyasmo
United States68 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10324 Posts
For example, why can't we buff Hellion damage from 8 (+6 vs Light) to 9 (+5 vs Light)? Especially with the Raven nerfs and AA missile nerfs, which also makes Hellion comps/squads weaker. The fact that this wasn't buffed along with the AA missile nerf is kind of proof that the balance committee isn't putting enough care into addressing side effects of the proposed changes, or are choosing to neglect certain unit comps. Hellions are maybe the unit that pairs best with the Raven because of the mineral and gas ratio. (Other than the Marine, which the AA missile nerf is actually for). I refuse to believe the balance committee wanted the AA missile nerf to also nerf Hellion comps. Hellion having 9 damage vs non-light will not make them suddenly beat Stalkers, Roaches, Marauders, Queens, or ruin any other interaction. Yet it will be a small change that will still help mech comps regardless, by making Hellion slightly more rounded of a unit. Also, what if Blue Flame's upgrade was changed from +5 vs Light, to +1 (+4 vs Light) for example? If Cyclones are going to be worse against armored units like Stalker/Immortal/Roaches, then it would be nice if Hellions were even slightly better vs those units. Doing 10 damage to non-Light units with Blue Flame instead of the current 8 damage would be nice, and it really won't ruin anything. We can give very significant buffs to Zerg units that are already good and useful, but not even tiny incremental ones that'd help weaker strategies/comps. (Why not buff Sentry damage from 6 to 10, heck even 8, if we want Gateway armies to be stronger?) | ||
| ||
