EPTBalance Patch 5.0.11 PTR Patch Notes
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
bela.mervado
Hungary387 Posts
| ||
|
Gescom
Canada3370 Posts
On January 24 2023 06:29 bela.mervado wrote: Phantom, can you post your replay please. LOL. And he's copy-pasting the same tears on Reddit, too. Lame... | ||
|
TossHeroes
281 Posts
On January 24 2023 06:35 Gescom wrote: LOL. And he's copy-pasting the same tears on Reddit, too. Lame... The amount of terrans tears in this thread is quite entertaining I guarantee majority of these posters in this thread are gold league, however, they talk and act like they are grandmasters | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
Honestly terrible, but sc2 is in a state where we should be happy that there are any patches at all i guess, even if it means that the zerg illuminati can run wild. Oh well. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12156 Posts
So no, if this ends up how we have reason to fear it may, I'm not particularly happy about it. | ||
|
{Frozen}
16 Posts
On January 25 2023 00:57 Nebuchad wrote: I thought that before this patch the state of SC2 was pretty damn fine. Truly it had been years since the game felt as competitive as it felt before this patch. For this reason I was really surprised we were having a patch. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 25 2023 00:57 Nebuchad wrote: I thought that before this patch the state of SC2 was pretty damn fine. Truly it had been years since the game felt as competitive as it felt before this patch. So no, if this ends up how we have reason to fear it may, I'm not particularly happy about it. I agree in the short term, but longterm you need some shakeup through patches for the game to stay somewhat fresh imo. But certainly not like this, both in its content and the way of release... The zerg illuminati are real. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3364 Posts
Zerg illuminati using the fact that people want a fresher game to push in their Zerg agenda, for shame.. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 25 2023 02:55 ejozl wrote: Mmm I would say shaking up things work in the short term, but for the long term we just need the game to be in a solid state. Zerg illuminati using the fact that people want a fresher game to push in their Zerg agenda, for shame.. I mean for the appeal of the game in the longterm there need to be switchups here and there. Whereas a solid state of the game is great until the meta becomes so figured out and stale that it becomes boring. Maps can switch things up too, but 1) the choice of maps in sc2 is incredible conservative 2) maps aren't as potent as changes which switch up unit dynamics But i see what you are saying, yes in the short term figuring out a patch is quite fun, but you want it to create a solid foundation when it is figured out too. Totally. I guess maybe super longterm would be what i meant then :D | ||
|
Vision_
861 Posts
On January 25 2023 03:21 The_Red_Viper wrote: 1) the choice of maps in sc2 is incredible conservative 2) maps aren't as potent as changes which switch up unit dynamics Yes I agree. I still wonder why terrans, zerg and protoss build their base far from the minerals. Why don t just build aside ?  | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12156 Posts
On January 25 2023 02:27 The_Red_Viper wrote: I agree in the short term, but longterm you need some shakeup through patches for the game to stay somewhat fresh imo. But certainly not like this, both in its content and the way of release... The zerg illuminati are real. To be thorough I think some of the things in the patch might surprise us. Imagine how hard you counter lategame runbys with an archon in the wall, this has to be significant. Vipers will also die a lot more than they do now. Carriers get nerfed but you're already losing in this patch if you build a bunch of carriers, tempests are already the better option. The most concerning thing for toss is by far the disruptor imo | ||
|
MJG
United Kingdom932 Posts
I agree in the short term, but longterm you need some shakeup through patches for the game to stay somewhat fresh imo. But certainly not like this, both in its content and the way of release... Brood War didn't need lots of patches to stay fresh... | ||
|
tigera6
3347 Posts
On January 25 2023 21:22 MJG wrote: Brood War didn't need lots of patches to stay fresh... Brood War doesnt have mechanics like Boosted Medivac, Nydus and WARP GATE, which make the balance through map design easier, thats what Artosis said on his stream. | ||
|
Argonauta
Spain4906 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10325 Posts
At least I'm happy they included Developer comments. Would have been better for the PTR so we can discuss properly, but it sounds like they're listening at least! I'm not happy with the Raven changes reducing the lategame power and being less useful for mech, but oh well... Seems that the Interference Matrix nerf is still gone, so the cheaper and faster to build Raven will be even nicer to add to your army to lock down Archon/Immortal/Carrier/Tempests! Maybe it'd even be viable against Immortal/Archon armies in the mid game, instead of using only ghosts. Cyclone being able to target air (and carriers!!) easier and having slightly more effective lock on range are nice changes for mech And same with the viking being able to micro a little better I guess there is still many things to be happy about with this patch, if things are imbalanced then they will surely address it in another future patch On January 24 2023 01:01 syndbg wrote: Suppose you actually thought a bit before immediately blaming the balance team. In that case, you'd realize that by increasing the collision size of some gateway units, you're severely affecting the potential of adepts/zealots offensively and defensively. Fewer adepts/zealots in mineral lines is a huge change, just cause protoss can't place a gateway unit. The "protoss door" is legit a skill issue. No, I did consider that, and they can simply adjust the building collission size separately from collission with minerals if you're concerned about that. If it requires a little extra programming then they can do that. Also, i don't think increasing the collission size by 1 pixel would stop you from being able to fit as many zealots/adepts in your mineral line as before. And maybe it's not even a collission size issue, maybe it really is an unintended feature for zerglings to be able to move spam to wiggle past your unit. In that case, that's what should be fixed. If pros keep letting ling runbys happen, by slightly misplacing their zealot/adept, which often leads to them just losing the game, then maybe it requires too much skill to do for something that is so punishing for one player and rewarding and easy to do for the other player. Do we really want to place so much emphasis on a player having to place their unit pixel perfect? | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On January 25 2023 21:22 MJG wrote: Brood War didn't need lots of patches to stay fresh... Brood war isn't staying fresh, it's a game which has a hardcore fanbase which likes the ever same gameplay (and tbf, i can enjoy it too here and there). It also adds maps which are not as conservative as the sc2 ones which help a little. And even then you had people talk about potential patches when the remake came out, including ex proplayers. I get it, people in starcraft on the whole think that the game is good when the balance is good, but for most people it becomes quite stale after seeing the same game being played hundreds of times. Modern game design changes up the meta fairly regularly for a reason. | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2393 Posts
On January 26 2023 03:58 The_Red_Viper wrote: Brood war isn't staying fresh, it's a game which has a hardcore fanbase which likes the ever same gameplay (and tbf, i can enjoy it too here and there). It also adds maps which are not as conservative as the sc2 ones which help a little. And even then you had people talk about potential patches when the remake came out, including ex proplayers. I get it, people in starcraft on the whole think that the game is good when the balance is good, but for most people it becomes quite stale after seeing the same game being played hundreds of times. Modern game design changes up the meta fairly regularly for a reason. Changing up the meta works a lot better in team games with lots of character options to pick from. Like MOBA balance can shift and things come in and out of meta and that's fine. Then, you can just say that adaptability to different champions/metas, etc is one of the skills you are testing. It's completely different when you have three races and players are all basically locked into playing their race. Unless every patch comes out in a perfectly balanced state, and none will, you're not testing adaptability to slight shifts in meta you are straight up buffing and nerfing certain players for the sake of variety. This is unbelievably stupid, and in this sense at least the whiners are right. If the patch is bad, it's not just a change in wind direction for some players to flourish and others to wither, it's hurting the game. Of course then some of those whiners go on to point out the comparative number of Zerg champions and claim that that lack of variety is evidence the game is not in a good state and shoot themselves in the foot lol In a properly competitive game, the best will distinguish themselves. Looking at what cream rises to the top is not evidence of balance or imbalance, not when you have like what, ~30 players competing in GSLs. That said, it's certainly true that if one race is best when played optimally, even if it's harder to do so, your game has issues in that to be most competitive you essentially have to pick that race and learn it (and then your pro matches all go mirrors woooooo). How can you tell when your game is slightly, secretly unbalanced at the top top top top level, as opposed to just the current crop of good players ending up disproportionately in one race? It's very difficult. You certainly can't do it by clicking a Liquipedia link and counting up numbers all less than 20 and ignoring hundreds of years of statistical knowledge, that's for sure. I am a BW guy so maybe I am biased, but I think when you are sitting on a good competitive game, you do lock in the base game. Honestly there could be a little less variety in BW maps and I don't even think that would be terrible. Games like Go and Chess are great evidence that you can have a "stale" game and it still be fascinating, and offer plenty of room for players to have playstyles, for trends in play to shift, and for skill to be differentiated. The only reason I'm pro patch in this case is because TvZ was not a fun match to watch (or presumably play for at least one side) when it went lategame. I don't think SC2 is sitting in quite the same spot BW is where we can just lock it in and Stockholm Syndrome everyone into liking it yet. | ||
|
tigera6
3347 Posts
| ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2393 Posts
On January 27 2023 11:56 tigera6 wrote: I dont think the patch changed much on the current Meta, imo. Zerg still does Hydra-Ling-Bane for the most part in TvZ, and they still trying to stay away from making Muta for the most part, at least from games I have seen. And Ultra is being used sparingly like it used to be. If anything, I believe it strengthen the meta by making unit that being used a lot, outside of Ghost, being used more. ZvP and PvT are pretty much the same as well. The goal is not to shake up the units used necessarily, but to shake up the dynamics of the games. If TvZ still tends towards lategames where T is kinda forced to Ghost turtle to stand a chance, and Z has little answer to Ghost turtle if they do, then the patch has failed. | ||
|
cakiri
10 Posts
| ||
| ||
