|
On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
If SC2 was slowed down just slightly, it would be great and make it much more accessible a game.
It was slowed down successfully by discouraging deathballs and adding more units that zone and make the game more about smaller/spread out engagements, and more interaction on both sides, but it was also sped up since units' speed kept getting faster and faster. It kind of sucks that, especially if this patch goes through, it'll feel like a third of all units got their speed buffed over time, and we could have instead nerfed the speed of other units slightly instead, or come to some middleground.
Anyway, if the game speed was 10% slower, or if the DPS overall was decreased by ~15%, those would already be significant help in making micro and reacting more manageable for people who aren't fast, and make it feel more about thinking and less about speed. Age of Empires is slower but less popular. I think it's a misbelief slowed down gamespeed makes the game more accessible Age of Empires is a bad example because it's boring to watch I'm not saying that SC2 should be as slow as WC3 (or any other RTS for that matter) because that would be awful, just that SC2 needs to find its own sweet spot in terms of game speed. Warcraft III, on its own terms, hit a pace that was enjoyable for both viewership and players. it had a snappy early-game that was unsettled by the unpredictability of item drops, which led towards intense mid-game skirmishes and dramatic micro battles. what stands WC3 apart is the comeback potential. that's what made it exciting for me. imagine Maru vs herO. Maru is down 60 supply vs herO's max. herO is ready to push in and land the killing blow. now take herO out of the chair and swap him with a low master player. Maru still loses from this position 90% of the time. WHY? because no amount of micro can overcome a severe supply deficit in SC2. to win from this position, Maru doesn't just need his opponent to play poorly. he needs the opponent to fuck up spectacularly beyond all belief hatch a similar scenario in WC3 and what happens? Moon, Infi or Grubby win 90% of the time, in large part because the game is paced in favour of miracle micro. SC2 is a numbers game first and a micro battler a very distant second. I suggest that the gulf between these 2 things should be narrowed so that micro can become more exciting and meaningful.
I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
|
On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HbZ4584.png)
Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf).
No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players.
|
On January 09 2023 21:50 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 21:42 tigera6 wrote:
Its good that they still making change and testing, but how is this going to make it into IEM? Then again, these are more like "fine tuning" than change, they know that Ghost Snipe range nerf got pushed back so they extend it a bit, same with Hydra speed, Cyclone micro and Disruptor Ball AoE. no, these are not minor changes protoss has a chance at winning if this patch doesnt go live, if it does as is, 100% zerg wins
I mean these are fine-tune from the previous version of the patch change (v1.7?). At this point, its likely that these change will go through after they iron out the exact values. The question is whether they want to make it for IEM for not.
|
On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
If SC2 was slowed down just slightly, it would be great and make it much more accessible a game.
It was slowed down successfully by discouraging deathballs and adding more units that zone and make the game more about smaller/spread out engagements, and more interaction on both sides, but it was also sped up since units' speed kept getting faster and faster. It kind of sucks that, especially if this patch goes through, it'll feel like a third of all units got their speed buffed over time, and we could have instead nerfed the speed of other units slightly instead, or come to some middleground.
Anyway, if the game speed was 10% slower, or if the DPS overall was decreased by ~15%, those would already be significant help in making micro and reacting more manageable for people who aren't fast, and make it feel more about thinking and less about speed. Age of Empires is slower but less popular. I think it's a misbelief slowed down gamespeed makes the game more accessible Age of Empires is a bad example because it's boring to watch I'm not saying that SC2 should be as slow as WC3 (or any other RTS for that matter) because that would be awful, just that SC2 needs to find its own sweet spot in terms of game speed. Warcraft III, on its own terms, hit a pace that was enjoyable for both viewership and players. it had a snappy early-game that was unsettled by the unpredictability of item drops, which led towards intense mid-game skirmishes and dramatic micro battles. what stands WC3 apart is the comeback potential. that's what made it exciting for me. imagine Maru vs herO. Maru is down 60 supply vs herO's max. herO is ready to push in and land the killing blow. now take herO out of the chair and swap him with a low master player. Maru still loses from this position 90% of the time. WHY? because no amount of micro can overcome a severe supply deficit in SC2. to win from this position, Maru doesn't just need his opponent to play poorly. he needs the opponent to fuck up spectacularly beyond all belief
hatch a similar scenario in WC3 and what happens? Moon, Infi or Grubby win 90% of the time, in large part because the game is paced in favour of miracle micro.SC2 is a numbers game first and a micro battler a very distant second. I suggest that the gulf between these 2 things should be narrowed so that micro can become more exciting and meaningful.
I feel like you're primarily annoyed with the fact that micro and macro both matter in SC2, and that you wish only micro mattered. Also, the more comeback potential a game has, the less the gameplay up until that moment matters, so there definitely needs to be a balance where gaining a lead means something.
I also don't see your Maru vs. herO hypothetical as a fair comparison. They're both playing the entire game, and if you've created a scenario where one player has played so much better that they're definitionally in a basically-unlosable situation, then yes, tautologically they pretty much deserve to win unless something very unlikely happens. And even with that being said, we've seen players go full-foreigner and throw games before, or other players claw victory from the jaws of defeat. Playing poorly in the early game shouldn't be rewarded with having an equal chance of victory in the late game, unless they made up for the deficit somehow. And every competitive, skill-based game (that isn't a literal coinflip) gets to a point where "player X wins from this position 90% of the time", and that's a good thing because one player deserves that lead from playing well (or from their opponent playing poorly).
|
The cyclone change is, IMO, more significant than it appears. Cyclones tend to take chip damage when they stop to lock on to longer range units (6 range+), now there's a greater chance that they'll get the lock without penalty. It also allows more of them to lock on at once. In general, range changes are some of the most consequential buffs you can get in this game, so I wouldn't underestimate the impact here.
The other changes are whatever, and the fact that they're softening the viper abduct nerf (which has been barely noticeable in the games so far) is just wtf.
|
Vision, Range and Move speed increases, all work towards making the game more claustrophobic, in the sense that the two players are closer to each other. And I think they are all a bit too big in SC2.
If you want to mount a come back as a surperior player vs. an inferior player (mechanically), you need time for this mechanical ability to take effect. You use space to create this time. Either you put an obstacle in the way, be it some backstab attack that the other player has to deal with. Or you move around, using mobility to slow down the push, and taking away vision. Then strong AoE needs to be an availability to make it possible that a smaller army can beat a bigger army. Else it just becomes a build order game. Big range units are stronger vs AoE, they don't need to commit as hard when battling. They also work better together when split vs. lower range units. There are other factors as well, such as defenders advantage and positional advantages and such. For instance, if you stand atop a ramp, imagine how much worse Roaches perform breaching that ramp vs. a bigger range unit like the Stalker, or Hydralisk.
Now lets say that Roaches are trying to defend atop the ramp and Stalkers try to attack the position from the low ground. If vision doesn't ruin it for the Stalker player, in a sense, the Stalker player BECOMES the defender, because of the range advantage.
I think Roach battles, while they get blamed for being boring, probably because of the stats of the unit and a long history of Roach vs. Roach in ZvZ's, they are a lot more intricate than Marine vs. Marine battles, or Stalker vs. Stalker (no Blink). The small ranges make position matter a lot more. This is the same with mass Archon usage, it gets blamed for being a-move, but it is really not. If it was a-moved the other player would abuse the hell out of that. But because of the Archon having only 3 range, the army is super positional. We see a lot of hold position being used, pulling back one side and etc. I'm thinking mostly of PvZ here.
The movespeed being buffed is such a cliché and genuinely makes the game worse. Players didn't find WoL too fast, but this all changed with HotS. The Medivac speed boost changed the entire game. This was done by David Kim to overbuff the 'exciting' units to enhance the viewing experience. The mistake here is that the Medivac became so strong that play not utilizing this unit becomes subpar (we can see the same effect with the current Warp Prism). So this not only made Terran play more 1-dimensional, but also had effect on the rest of gameplay. Because Medivacs are so strong, Mutalisks not only got a speed boost, but regeneration as well. Oracles that started out a slower unit, got an incredible speed boost. The Protos Mothership Core was so that Protoss could even deal with these faster Medivacs and Mutalisks. And even Phoenix got +1 range to deal with these Mutalisks. Hydralisks didn't even have a speed upgrade prior to HotS. Since then we've had an INSANE amount of speed increases, not to mention fast units implemented. And it's just kind of silly when you think about it. Mutalisk speed increased to fight off faster Medivacs, then Overseer speed being buffed so they can keep up with the Mutalisks fighting of Widow Mines, then Dark Templars getting Blink, because the unit is underutilized, it's laughable. And we wonder why people think this game is too fast.
I want to put this post to a close, so I will just end by saying: Increasing movespeeds further is a mistake. I think the Hydralisk speed buff is fine, if you remove the +1 range upgrade (I do think Hydralisk should've always been a "fast" unit). Buffing the Observer speed, which is already a broken detector unit is especially a mistake. The Ultralisk size decrease is also a mistake and it looks terrible.
Decreasing Protoss ability to survive allins (Shield Battery, Disruptor nerf) is a mistake.
---
It should also be said that increasing the accessibility of getting units, removing upgrades, decreasing build times and resource costs, these also further this problem of making the game faster. Because more options can come at you at an earlier time all at once. You really just have to blink and eyelid and already Carriers are out, the build time decrease on this unit is probably the only problem it has, it's a pretty weak unit.
|
On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:
imagine Maru vs herO. Maru is down 60 supply vs herO's max. herO is ready to push in and land the killing blow. now take herO out of the chair and swap him with a low master player. Maru still loses from this position 90% of the time. Not true, check Harstem's channel where he debunks exactly this myth.
A few people said "even I'd win from this position, it's unlosable" - and then Harstem destroyed them in the span of 2 minutes. He went from "it's impossible to win" to "it's impossible to lose" position in 2 minutes, because he's that much better than low masters players. Usually after a single minute it was obvious he'll win and it won't be even close.
And Maru is even stronger, he or Serral / Dark / Reynor / herO would probably crush any non-pro GM in 2 minutes in this situation.
|
On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players.
I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ".
Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing.
I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes.
|
On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes.
They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate.
|
On January 10 2023 00:00 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate.
Yeah I wouldn't even consider a 0.07 speed reduction a nerf at all
|
Those 1.9 changes are...
Eh.
Not inspiring.
|
On January 10 2023 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:00 Athenau wrote:On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate. Yeah I wouldn't even consider a 0.07 speed reduction a nerf at all
Okay, what about the Disruptor change? There's another 0.25 in the radius, small but there.
What about the snipe change? Another small 0.5 change, small but there.
If the Viper buff (which this entire change to the Viper just sucks in general imo) wasn't there would it be okay because it would be a small Zerg nerf and a small buff for the other races?
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
|
On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:On January 10 2023 00:00 Athenau wrote:On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate. Yeah I wouldn't even consider a 0.07 speed reduction a nerf at all Okay, what about the Disruptor change? There's another 0.25 in the radius, small but there. What about the snipe change? Another small 0.5 change, small but there. If the Viper buff (which this entire change to the Viper just sucks in general imo) wasn't there would it be okay because it would be a small Zerg nerf and a small buff for the other races? You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree? No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Using the ESL cups to judge balance is... disingenous to word it carefully. The strongest Zerg in the EU cup was Rattata, of course Zerg won't win it.
The problem people have is that Zerg has been dominating for a long time now and win more than 50% of tournaments. I don't complain that Disruptors and Ghosts are slightly rebuffed but that doesn't adress the fundamental problem with this patch as it's still a clear net Zerg buff which is in the current situation just mind-boggling.
|
On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch.
And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do.
Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen?
|
On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen?
Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither.
Pride of Altaris is statistically fine  Pride of Altaris LE
|
On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:On January 10 2023 00:00 Athenau wrote:On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate. Yeah I wouldn't even consider a 0.07 speed reduction a nerf at all Okay, what about the Disruptor change? There's another 0.25 in the radius, small but there. What about the snipe change? Another small 0.5 change, small but there. If the Viper buff (which this entire change to the Viper just sucks in general imo) wasn't there would it be okay because it would be a small Zerg nerf and a small buff for the other races? You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree? No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
No, because the fundamental issue hasn't been fixed. For Terran, the power removed by the Ghost nerf hasn't been reallocated elsewhere. And for Protoss, it's debatable if the minor gateway and upgrade buffs adequately compensate for the disruptor nerf.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes.
the nerfs are a joke. disrupttor nerf change from 1.35 to 1.37? and then 0.07 speed reduction that's not noticeable? and a BUFF to the already barely noticeable viper nerf?
get out of here with that bs
This is insulting. The balance council is treating us like idiots with these changes. I don't respect any of them which at best are clueless and at worst malicious. This is ridiculous and shameless, You guys at the balance council are shameless.
___-
|
On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:15 Charoisaur wrote:On January 10 2023 00:00 Athenau wrote:On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. They're the smallest possible changes they can make in response to the public outcry. If someone was a member of the ShadowZerg conspiracy this is absolutely how they'd operate. Yeah I wouldn't even consider a 0.07 speed reduction a nerf at all Okay, what about the Disruptor change? There's another 0.25 in the radius, small but there. What about the snipe change? Another small 0.5 change, small but there. If the Viper buff (which this entire change to the Viper just sucks in general imo) wasn't there would it be okay because it would be a small Zerg nerf and a small buff for the other races? You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree? No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
The only real significant result in those cups was Byun beating Dark to win the one he won. I watched that series and Dark just did 3 ravager all-ins in a row to lose that series.. He was literally using a build that got a significant nerf in PTR. That says absolutely nothing about how balance will play out.
|
On January 10 2023 01:39 [Phantom] wrote:Show nested quote +On January 09 2023 23:50 Beelzebub1 wrote:On January 09 2023 22:44 Charoisaur wrote:On January 09 2023 21:07 syndbg wrote:The latest batch of changes. Overall tweaks to the power dynamic of HTs vs vipers, disruptors vs hydra and some tweaks to raven's strength while addressing cyclone dmg nerf vs armored (e.g town halls) by buffing lock-on range. Also, ghost slightly more reliable with its snipe trades. Okay, I'm losing hope in the balance council, all the feedback they got is that the patch is grossly Zerg favored and all they do is extremely minor value changes (some of them reducing the minor Zerg nerfs even like the Viper one wtf). No one can tell me the council isn't run by Zerg players. I mean, it is a Hydra speed nerf, a reduction of the Disruptor nerf and a snipe buff ultimately lol I'm not sure this latest patch iteration is the best example of the, "shadow Zerg cabal ". Still, that being said, this patch has no business going out before a major tournament when they are still doing little changes every day or two. I'd say we need a minimum of another month of testing. I mean what's the rush? Hopefully our community casters can maybe get a bit more time, put together a couple of Bo7 match ups between all 9 match ups. I know the ESL open cup and Wardii already did some stuff but then the balance team went and made a few more changes. the nerfs are a joke. disrupttor nerf change from 1.35 to 1.37? and then 0.07 speed reduction that's not noticeable? and a BUFF to the already barely noticeable viper nerf? get out of here with that bs This is insulting. The balance council is treating us like idiots with these changes. I don't respect any of them which at best are clueless and at worst malicious. This is ridiculous and shameless, You guys at the balance council are shameless.
Hey don't worry about it. Just rely on luck to overcome any balance issue you have on ladder!
|
On January 10 2023 01:15 syndbg wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2023 00:52 tigera6 wrote:On January 10 2023 00:36 Beelzebub1 wrote:
You are aware I'm sure that the ESL balance testing winners were MaxPax, Byun and Dark, I mean, how imbalanced is it really? Wouldn't Zerg be overperforming in these cups if it was imbalanced to such a large degree?
No disrespect intended with anything I'm saying, just trying to have an honest discussion. I'll reiterate that I think this patch has no business going forward in it's current form without further testing despite appearing, for all intent and purposes, pretty balanced.
Zerg doesnt over-perform because they dont play in open cup in general. Dark is the only one who play consistently since the patch rolls out. Solar, Ragnarok, Lambo, Reynor and Serral are not playing those enough. I know Scarlett has been streaming alot but even she doesnt play Open Cup on this new patch. And I am sure the people who are in the balance committee, or caster who care about it, will look at this whole thread as another balance complain and trying to be toxic. But we are just speaking out mind, and while most of us cant tell a build order timing down to seconds, we understand the game enough to know have some good prediction about what the change would do. Remember how we all think it was stupid to have Pride of Altaris in the map pool last year into IEM, guess what happen? Not really, you folks don't really understand anything, and me neither. Pride of Altaris is statistically fine https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Pride_of_Altaris_LE
You gotta do a better research than that, among all the premiere tournament played on that map pool, Pride of Altaris has been played a whopping 45 times in 5 tournaments (TSL 8, Last Chance, ST1, DH Valencia Regional, ST1 and half of Code S1). Why? because its so bad that its been vetoed to shit by most Terran and even Protoss players against Zerg.
And during IEM, Zerg has 100% winrate on that map, the only Terran picked that map was Maru against Serral and he got smashed like a bug.
So yeah, please dont say that map is "fine", its making me throw up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
