En Taro Adun We are excited to push Patch 5.0.11 to PTR which features various amounts of balance, bugfixes, and quality of life improvement done by our community members.
Zerg
Creep Tumor
Cooldown increased from 11 to 13 seconds. Sight range reduced from 11 to 10.
Hatchery, Lair and Hive
Creep spread interval decreased from 0.3 to 0.25. Sight range increased from 10,11,12 to 12.
Viper
Added 0.71 second Cast Finish Time to abduct (can not move or use other abilities during this time). Ultralisk
Reduced size by 12.5%. Increase range slop from 1 to 1.4 (range target can move before miss).
Hydralisk
Muscular Augments move speed bonus increased from 0.79 to 1.05. Damage point reduced from 0.15 to 0.1.
Brood Lord
Move speed increased from 1.97 to 2.3.
Broodling
Duration reduced from 5.71 to 3.57.
Ravager
Build time increased from 12 to 17 seconds. Protoss
Shield Battery
Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%.
Observer
Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82. Model size increased by 17.5%. Archon
Can now fit between single-gap walls. (Collision size with other units unaffected). High Templar
Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82. Disruptor
Purifier Orb radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35.
Carrier
Interceptor shields reduced from 40 to 30. Interceptor attack target priority reduced from 20 to 19. Interceptor flying radius around target increased.
Sentry
Build time reduced from 26.4 to 22.9 seconds.
Forge
Level 1 upgrades research time reduced by 7 seconds. Level 2 upgrades research time reduced by 9 seconds. Level 3 upgrades research time reduced by 11 seconds. Terran Ghost
Enhanced Shockwaves upgrade removed. Base EMP radius increased from 1.5 to 1.75. Steady Targeting is canceled if the target moves more than 13.5 range away from the ghost while casting (Cast range is 10).
Banshee
Hyperflight Rotors upgrade time reduced from 121 to 100 seconds. Hyperflight Rotors cost reduced from 150/150 to 125/125.
Cyclone
Mag-Field Accelerator damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs all. Sensor Tower
Radar range reduced from 30 to 27.
Raven (rework)
Gas cost reduced from 200 to 150. Build time reduced from 43 to 30 seconds. Starting Energy increased from 50 to 75. Interference Matrix duration reduced from 11 to 8 seconds. Anti-Armor Missile armor reduction reduced from 3 to 2. Corvid Reactor upgrade removed. Auto Turret energy cost increased from 50 to 75.
Misc Bug fixes / QOL Changes
All Units
Follow acquire range reduced from 5 to 2 (Units will switch to attacking from moving when within this range of the follow target). Dark Templar
Attack blink delay reduced from 0.75 to 0.71 seconds (standardized number on Normal game speed).
Factory
Increase maximum spawn radius by 1.
Widow Mine
Reduced random unburrow/burrow delay from 0.36 seconds to 0.18 seconds (average time remains the same). No longer targets Zerg Eggs without a manual order.
Cyclone
Fixed an issue where lock-on could enter cooldown while the Cyclone is loaded into a medivac. Lock On no longer targets Zerg Eggs without a manual order. Shield Battery
Fixed an issue where repeatedly issuing a Stop command could increase the shield regen rate.
Adept
Fixed an issue where Adepts could not be ordered to cancel the Shade ability when selected with Adepts who are not finished warping in. Can now be ordered to load into a warp prism while shading, automatically cancelling the shade. Queen
Fixed an issue where initial Creep Tumors could be canceled. No longer unable to receive certain orders for 0.6 seconds after spawning.
Lurker
Attacks will no longer be blocked by certain low-ground terrain features.
Orbital Command
Fixed an issue where MULE could be cast targeting refineries close to Command Centers. Hydralisk
Fixed an issue where Hydralisks attacked faster at melee range. Fixed an issue where Morph to Lurker would be canceled with a Smart command issued immediately after the Morph command.
Stasis Ward
Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20. Units affected by Stasis can be issued any non-build commands instead of only move commands, to be acted upon stasis expiring.
Raven
Fixed an issue where units affected by Interference Matrix could not be issued Stop commands. Fixed an issue where units affected by Interference Matrix would walk forward below their Attack range when given Attack Move commands. Nydus Worm
Fixed a visual bug introduced in the previous patch (nydus creep behavior).
Mutalisk
Fixed an issue where Mutalisk’s attack launch sound would play each time the attack bounced.
Zergling
Fixed an issue where Zerglings could not receive queued Morph to Baneling commands. Zergling/Swarm Host
Fixed an issue where Zerglings and Swarm Hosts could not be given commands while unburrowing.
Roach
Fixed an issue where Morph to Ravager would be canceled with a Smart command issued immediately after the Morph command.
Liberators
Fixed an issue where Liberators could not be given certain orders immediately after being ordered to unsiege.
Worker Units
No longer need to wait for full deceleration before beginning to attack. Ghost
Steady Targeting (Snipe) can now be manually canceled.
THOSE ULTRALISK BUFFS! WE'RE FINALLY HERE! THEY ARE FINALLY NERFING THEIR SIZE SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN SAYING THEY SHOULD DO SINCE THE FUCKING WOL BETA! HOLY SHIT THEY ARE FINALLY DOING IT!
Creep got nerfed again lol. Justifiably so. Glad they are buffing hatcheries a little bit so it doesn't get out of hand in the early game.
Abduct is getting a small nerf? I love it! It's tiny but it gives you the chance to feedback or snipe the Viper as it's casting.
Hydralisk change interesting. Faster, but weaker damage?
Broodlord speed buff makes me annoyed, if Vikings have to be unreasonably slow so do Broodlords. Should come with an offsetting buff to Viking speed, no one is gonna mind a slightly faster Viking that you can't run from as easily.
Disruptor nerfs and HT buffs? I like.
Ghost changes are interesting. Adding some counterplay options to Snipe instead of outright nerfing it? That's a remarkably smart change that I'm not accustomed to seeing from the Blizzard balance team. They even added a manual cancel option to the spell! I love this!
Sensor Tower nerfs? Why?
And another Raven rework. Nerfing Interference Matrix I like, it addresses how oppressive the Raven is in TvT atm, without really killing its usefulness vs Protoss. Auto Turret energy increase is off set a little bit by the starting energy buff but in the long run it's a nerf because now Ravens can't drop as many turrets per Raven. Again trying to nerf how effective Massing Ravens can be.
Anti Armor nerf doesn't really affect much. I guess the reasoning here is that this spell like the rest is having more of an impact in TvT than in the other match ups so it's ok to cut its effectiveness a little. Makes sense I guess.
shield battery overcharge getting a nerf is long overdue,
forge upgrade nerf being slightly reverted is a welcome change.
Overall i am a fan of the patch, other than the carrier nerf which I think is unwarranted, especially considering that battlecruiser and broodlords are not getting similar nerfs.
This looks fairly good. Not sure why the Carrier is getting nerfed right now and I'm a little concerned about the fast Brood Lords, but we'll see how that plays out.
Edit: I would have liked to see more to help Mech out. Even as a niche option it feels pretty bad now.
On December 08 2022 08:54 AkashSky wrote: shield battery overcharge getting a nerf is long overdue,
forge upgrade nerf being slightly reverted is a welcome change.
Overall i am a fan of the patch, other than the carrier nerf which I think is unwarranted, especially considering that battlecruiser and broodlords are not getting similar nerfs.
No one is using Battlecruisers and Broodlords are getting buffed. They are buffing Protoss while nerfing Skytoss that is oppressive in late game PvZ all over the ladder. It's logical.
Hydralisk change interesting. Faster, but weaker damage?
Thats not what an attack point is.
Is the forced delay between an attack animation and any new order given. It's what makes a unit microable (marines have a really low damage point for example).
Loving the quality of life change altought, you know the worker attack thingy is gonna make probe and SCV harrass vs terran a pain. I'm liking that they up the responsivness from a lot of units.
As for the actual patch, I certainly didn't expect anything that massive to hit anymore. Not sure who get the big end of the stick. I'm a bit affraid of the conjonction of an ultra buff + a brood lord buff + a ghost nerf + a carrier nerf + a disruptor nerf, hopefully the viper nerf is enough to save us from late game zerg fiesta. Altought not sure how the Brood ling duration will change how the unit, my feeling is that the brood ling die before hitting most of the time anyway, but I could be wrong.
here's my prospective as a m1/gm terran player I think a lot of these changes are reasonable, but im not a fan of some:
what I like:
Archon change:
this is just a qol change that should have been in the game from the start, its was super stupid in pvz especially, I don't think anyone can complain about this change. Nice!
Observer change:
even though it will be a bit annoying I'm good with this it was a weird thing to nerf way back then. The one interaction i don't like about this is its now just that little bit harder to scan and kill and obs spotting for 4 gate blink stalker as terran, still I'm good with it.
Raven change:
This change Mainly has implications for tvt. having the raven be a cheaper but weaker unit is honestly very nice in my opinion, this helps balance the strength of raven openings against other builds and will shake up the meta a bit. This is also a direct buff in other matchups where the raven was often a bit to cost prohibitive to be a good option in comparison to other starport units, I could see terrans experimenting with raven hellion openings vs zerg as a more creep denying focused macro opening. Vs toss I could also see this being a nice soft nerf to dt allins, which although not imba are an annoying coinflip build. Overall this is a very nice change. thumbs up. ( i dont like the buff to bad toss players though that makes it so disabled collosi wont walk into your army that comes from the bug fix)
Carrier:
as a terran player honestly carriers were never that big of a deal to begin with, probably see them 1 in 60 games, but I know that in zvp, pvp, team games, and lower levels of play they are a menace. I think nerfing them is good for the game. the priority change definitely will help lower level players deal with them. I think that since good players almost always target the carriers instead of the interceptors this change is more a qol change for metal league players. The interceptor change is also a slight buff to marines and hydras vs them which could matter when the carriers don't have splash under them and are low in number. Nice.
Banshee Hyperflight Rotors: Since this saw basically 0 competitive play and was only used in meme builds I think that buffing it is good. I could see people experimenting with it in tvz, maybe their is a build where you make 3-4 banshees with 3 cc and get this before/instead of cloak. I think their might be some niche uses for this now, but overall I dont think it changes that much, we still wont see it that often (unless I'm very wrong about how good this upgrade is)
disruptor:
this unit was to powerful when it hit a good shot. Im biased as a terran player about it admittedly but I'm not going to complain about nerfing it, I approve. ( it does kill my pvz style though, but i can live with that)
Ht move speed:
this is not that big of a change but Im ok with it, I think that it will help them stay with your army better and also let you split them up when facing banes/aoe. Im ok with it.
sentry build time:
nice small buff to defending certain allins, I'm good with that. I think it most heavily affects pvp, and pvz though.
viper abduct nerf:
this is really not that big of a nerf, but it does give you a window to fight back against having your units abducted. Nice.
Shield battery nerf & bug fix:
Shield batteries impact in not just early but midgame fights was to powerful in my opinion. in general it just was to impactful of a defensive mechanic and allowed toss to be very very greedy. Its important that toss have something like this in the game or certain allins would be busted. But it was to good. I think adjusting its power level is a good change.
Changes I'm meh about:
Creep nerf: This small enough it will only affect the very best zerg pros, most zergs are not good enough at macro to maximize the cooldown, also alot of the excessive amount of creep on the map is not due to repeat spawns of creep but mass creep spam from 13+ queens, this really does not do enough in my opinion to nerf this extremely opressive mechanic.
Ultralisk buff:
Ultras are kind of bad, but buffing them while nerfing ghosts worries me, Guess we will see how this plays out, I'm not a huge fan of buffing them given that back when they were good (8 armor patch) it was very oppressiv to play against them for terrans.
Hatchery vision range/creep spread: a buff against cannon rushes and bunker rushes. I know people don't like playing against cheese but nerfing it like this. I'm not sure its a good idea, it reduces variety instead of increasing it because we will see even less cannon/bunker rushes at a high level.
Cyclone change:
I'm not sure how to evaluate this one, on one hand this makes the cyclone more versatile, and is a nice buff against queens, on the other hand cyclones with magfield usually was used to fight armored units like stalkers and roaches, or in mech vs tempests. It also a nerf vs buildings. This might actually be a nerf, and if so an unwarranted one, I have seen 0 people claim cyclones are an imbalanced (or even a good unit). I'm not much of a mech enjoyer so my knowledge on this one is limited but I'm skeptical about this change. ehh???
ravager change:
Its a small nerf to ravager allins. and a nerf to ravager morph micro zvt. this change reduces the skill cap for zergs, instead of increasing it. and nerfs an allin that was pretty much fine. Not a fan of this change, but its not that big of a deal.
sensor tower:
I don't think this needed to be nerfed (maybe as a terran im biased) the vison range was massive and this does significantly reduce the total area revealed. On the other hand it still basically does the same thing it did before well enough that I don't think it will change anything. This is kind of like when they nerfed observer speed, its not a huge deal but also why?
Forge buff:
This is a pretty big buff to toss (especially factoring in chrono boost). I think this is very powerful, I don't really think toss needed this kind of buff. It will make gateway man in pvz even stronger, and will basically buff every type of mid to late game build toss has. I don't think toss is hurting for power level right now. Still they also got some nerfs so I guess we will see how it shakes out.
Changes I don't like:
As a terran player I hate the ghost changes (of course I do) The ghost was very strong, but its also the cornerstone of terran late game, while the other races mainly got small/medium nerfs terran is getting a huge nerf, with really no compensation to even it out. This is just a big loss of power level for terran in late game. Expect to see more people play like bunny with lots of 2 base allins ect. because terran is now weaker then it was before, and it is just straight up worse then it was pre patch. Other races got a buff/nerf set of changes that make me think ok they lost x but gained y so lets see how that goes. for terran I just feel like my late game is worse then before. Guess i will focus even harder on not playing late game.
now snipe is even more awkward to use (it was powerful but finicky since it can be canceled) now this ability requires you to be at the exact right range to get good value...
(I'm also not sure how the snipe is now self cancellable change will work, It might just make ghosts harder to use depending on how it is implemented.)
Also the removal of enhanced shockwaves is a really big nerf tvp. I expect terran to go from 40% of the time winning vs toss in late game situations to 35% of time with this patch... great! Yes ruptors also were nerfed but they will still be very powerful, terran straight up lost one of its strongest tools. Toss lost some defensive power but will still wreck late game, and now they have fast upgrades. IDK I dont think this is good for terran.
Hydras:
hydras are not great but they are good enough to get used a lot, I think power creeping them is bad, this just makes ling bane hydra stronger, I'm not seeing anything on terrans side that helps to even that out. I know i am biased but I dont think terran mid/late game is to strong vs zerg. I think that buffing zerg at these stages of the game and nerfing terran is a pretty bad move for game balance.
broodlords: I think overall they are better now, yeah you cant build up as many broodlings as before but the speed gain is a much bigger buff then the nerf they received. BL late games are some of the most boring so I'm really not happy that we are going to see that more then before.
My verdict:
Terran is now worse
Protoss is kind of neutral in power level change, but is weeker then before
Zerg Is now stronger then it was before the patch. Wow a patch where we buffed the race with the most championships and titles!
Look now patch was going to be perfect but this does feel pretty biased against terran, basically our useless crap got made slightly less useless (but still bad), Our raven is now usable and also not broken in tvt ( I do really like this change). But our cornerstone late game unit got hit with the nerf bat, with nothing to spread that power out to other units (big ooof).
Zerg patch
Still it is cool to see sc2 get some attention for once. So its not all bad. Maybe we will get more patches in the future, or maybe this is the last. Time will tell. I do appreciate the fact we actualy got a patch!
I just dont like the timing of this patch, imo it should be applied before Atlanta so that we can see how the dynamic works. Now the only time we see it would be ST1 next year (if there is one) before IEM hit with a new patch AND a new map pool. That might be intentional so that every players have a fresh start but also means there will be some thing weird that might not get caught until we see it.
On December 08 2022 11:29 tigera6 wrote: I just dont like the timing of this patch, imo it should be applied before Atlanta so that we can see how the dynamic works. Now the only time we see it would be ST1 next year (if there is one) before IEM hit with a new patch AND a new map pool. That might be intentional so that every players have a fresh start but also means there will be some thing weird that might not get caught until we see it.
Their patch timing ALWAYS sucks because it's only a couple months before Katowice. So the tournament that is supposed to culiminate the 2022 season will be played with a brand new 2023 meta. I wish they'd hold off on doing these balance patches until after Katowice is over.
They finally gave archons what is essentially the ability to suck in their tummies a bit so they could squeeze through those one square gaps in walls. It only took 12 years but it finally happened.
I'm pretty sure with these numbers a Lurker with adaptive talons can unburrow and get out of snipe range before the snipe goes off.
So look forward to Lurkers wrecking Terrans for a year.
Zergs are going to come out of this well ahead overall-- a core unit and both their lategame techs got buffed in exchange for a small viper and creep nerf. Meanwhile both Protoss and Terran got substantial lategame nerfs. So not only is Zerg stronger, but we're likely to see more Broodlord Infestor which is some of the worst shit in this game.
I think the mid-game push from Protoss ground in PvZ will wreck Zerg more, with quicker Forge upgrade and potentially more Sentry. Zerg will have to play even more safe against that imo. The nerf on Disruptor might encourage Toss to go more for Immortal/Colossi for more consistent damage against Zerg as well, would be cool if we see a slight reduction in build time for Colossus.
The Ghost nerf might be end up doing nothing, like if the Terran is good with Ghost (aka Maru), they will still snipe the shit out of the Zerg unit and the EMP nerf arent doing much when they can just shoot more EMP by making more Ghost.
Raven got nerf in late game, you can only throw down 2 Turret instead of 4 at full energy, or 1 Turret + 1 Matrix instead of 2 Matrix + 1 Turret. The reduction in cost and build time help to balance it in early game (making 4 instead of 3 Ravens in TvT), but the early Raven run-by and dropping Turret will be no longer economic imo.
On December 08 2022 11:40 HelpMeGetBetter wrote: When do these changes go live?
My best guess is after HSC is done, along with the map pool change.
The Ghost nerf might be end up doing nothing, like if the Terran is good with Ghost (aka Maru), they will still snipe the shit out of the Zerg unit and the EMP nerf arent doing much when they can just shoot more EMP by making more Ghost
There's no response on the Terran side to the Zerg pulling back their units. It's all on the Zerg to make the counter-play.
I think the nerf to ghost snipe will kill TvZ turtle style and really any option for T to play lategame in an even state. The situation where Zerg is pulling away but the snipes have already started is a huge portion of Terrans efficiency which is required to win those games. I don't see how Serral/Dark ever drop lategame ZvT with this gimped snipe.
On December 08 2022 14:46 JJH777 wrote: I think the nerf to ghost snipe will kill TvZ turtle style and really any option for T to play lategame in an even state. The situation where Zerg is pulling away but the snipes have already started is a huge portion of Terrans efficiency which is required to win those games. I don't see how Serral/Dark ever drop lategame ZvT with this gimped snipe.
Ghosts are silly and Terran lategame shouldn't hinge completely on snipe to the point that a change like this makes the matchup impossible. If it ruins the matchup, then lategame should be re-balanced a different way, not via snipe.
Also, people saying these doom-and-gloom things also need to address the corresponding nerf to Vipers.
On December 08 2022 14:46 JJH777 wrote: I think the nerf to ghost snipe will kill TvZ turtle style and really any option for T to play lategame in an even state. The situation where Zerg is pulling away but the snipes have already started is a huge portion of Terrans efficiency which is required to win those games. I don't see how Serral/Dark ever drop lategame ZvT with this gimped snipe.
Ghosts are silly and Terran lategame shouldn't hinge completely on snipe to the point that a change like this makes the matchup impossible. If it ruins the matchup, then lategame should be re-balanced a different way, not via snipe.
Also, people saying these doom-and-gloom things also need to address the corresponding nerf to Vipers.
The ghost was probably overtuned but there are no compensating buffs to address it. Imagine T lategame right now without the Ghosts extreme efficiency and every top T would be getting rolled over. I don't think the viper abduct nerf is that big in TvZ lategame. It will be for Mech style but not the currently popular lategame style.
That abduct change will be much bigger for PvZ lategame and I'm curious to see how that plays out though even there I think that interceptor nerf is almost as big as the abduct nerf so will probably balance out.
On December 08 2022 14:46 JJH777 wrote: I think the nerf to ghost snipe will kill TvZ turtle style and really any option for T to play lategame in an even state. The situation where Zerg is pulling away but the snipes have already started is a huge portion of Terrans efficiency which is required to win those games. I don't see how Serral/Dark ever drop lategame ZvT with this gimped snipe.
Ghosts are silly and Terran lategame shouldn't hinge completely on snipe to the point that a change like this makes the matchup impossible. If it ruins the matchup, then lategame should be re-balanced a different way, not via snipe.
Also, people saying these doom-and-gloom things also need to address the corresponding nerf to Vipers.
That Viper nerf is way less consequential than the snipe and EMP nerfs. Zergs also got a significant buff to hydras, when hydra-bane is arguably the most common mid-game composition.
And who are you even kidding about "lategame should be re-balanced a different way"--what will actually happen is that Zerg will be busted for another six months to a year, the top zergs will hoover up all the prize money, and laugh all the way to bank like they have for the last three years.
I like almost every single change, well done. Maybe slightly worried it might lead to another era of Zerg dominance (buffs way stronger imo than debuffs).
Creep spam should be better addressed and I am a tad worried about the ghost change (seems like late game TvZ is going to become even more Z-favoured). And no, I'm not a terran player
On December 08 2022 15:26 Athenau wrote: That Viper nerf is way less consequential than the snipe and EMP nerfs. Zergs also got a significant buff to hydras, when hydra-bane is arguably the most common mid-game composition.
I would consider almost anyone on here more qualified than me to judge the Viper nerf versus the Ghost nerfs. I only watch GSL, lol, although that also means I'm not here to have a TvZ "patch trauma" competition with you. Bringing up hydras as strong in the midgame is irrelevant to anything I said.
On December 08 2022 15:26 Athenau wrote: And who are you even kidding about "lategame should be re-balanced a different way"--what will actually happen is that Zerg will be busted for another six months to a year, the top zergs will hoover up all the prize money, and laugh all the way to bank like they have for the last three years.
I'm saying that's what should happen. You're probably right that if these changes turn out badly the game might be left waiting too long for more fixes. I'll take them having a shot at fixing things over every top-level, extended TvZ being "can the bullshit that is snipe overpower the bullshit that is Zerg taking the whole map". The patch has taken some positive steps in that direction and we'll see how they turn out.
On December 08 2022 15:09 JJH777 wrote:The ghost was probably overtuned but there are no compensating buffs to address it. Imagine T lategame right now without the Ghosts extreme efficiency and every top T would be getting rolled over. I don't think the viper abduct nerf is that big in TvZ lategame. It will be for Mech style but not the currently popular lategame style.
Right, as per above I would take your word about the Viper nerf not compensating for the Ghost nerf. Isn't the idea behind the creep tumour vision range nerf that it makes them slower to spread at the top level? That seems to also be pushing the game towards a more active TvZ where it is more possible for the T to take some proper map control. This is the post-patch fantasy in my head, at least.
On December 08 2022 15:09 JJH777 wrote:That abduct change will be much bigger for PvZ lategame and I'm curious to see how that plays out though even there I think that interceptor nerf is almost as big as the abduct nerf so will probably balance out.
Could definitely believe it. Less of those two units deciding lategames is a win in my book, though
Seems weird to me that they would make Stasis Ward priority 20, while Widow Mines are still priority 19. For people who don't know, if you get dropped by Widow Mines. Your stalkers, cannons, void rays will prefer to attack the Medivac over the Widow Mine. And if Stasis should have the same priority as any other combat unit, then I think Widow Mines should have that as well.
Was there really a need to make the observer bigger, the ultralisk smaller and the carriers even nerfed? I'm also looking for the buff to the size of 55% of the brain of those who have been patching since this game came out by distorting both the units and now also the size of the units, but I just can't find it.
This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
Truly bad changes for terran players. Sounds like someone goes to youtube and just like that. And by wall of text you can tell that it was created somewhere in march of 2022. I mean... this is garbage.
Well after thinking a bit, changes don't seem to bad. 13.5 range to cancel snipe seems quite large, so it won't be easy to cancel it and Broodlings got less life span, EMP change seems like a buff and a nerf at the same time since the upgrade was quite expensive.
Only thing I really dislike is the sensor tower change which seems really uncalled for and I'm not sure what's the point of the Raven changes. This won't make them less dominant in TvT as they are cheaper now and still disable tanks for long enough to win a fight
Does anyone know what the Carrier changes mean? If Interceptors got less priority will all units now auto-target Carriers? Seems like a buff vs Marines or Hydras who want to target Interceptors. and what's the third change?
As a general note -- this patch is massive enough that I feel like predicting how balance will change is probably impossible. Given how much pvz changed from queen + voidray nerfs, I just have no idea what games will look like given these changes.
I need people who play PTR tell me which Zerg units can get out of snipe range before saying its good or bad. I guess Ultra will make it, Hydra? Roach? Ravager? what about the Lurker burrowed and un-burrowed? Queen probably cant make it.
The main change about Raven is that the Turret will be much less impactful, you can only drop 2 instead of 4 now. It make it much less useful to mass Raven, because you can only Disable so many units before becoming sitting ducks, so the lower cost and produce time does nothing to lategame Raven build, it helps only for early game for detection and some defensive capability.
killing all terran late game options basically means we could just reduce the player field by 7 players ...
to my knowledge currently there is no mod available for ptr + gameheart
it would be too small of a prep time for pros
in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Creep is easily the biggest reason why Zerg is so damn strong, Queens are second and hey they spread creep. Nerfing it is an across the board nerf to the race and shouldn't be discounted.
Nothing in these notes is going to affect Terran's ability to push Zerg in the midgame where they are already at their strongest in the match up, and the new Raven changes potentially can make them even stronger.
Yea, Zerg got a lot of late game buffs in the match up, but I wouldn't be convinced that it's the end of Terran as we know it just yet. After all, Maru was the only Terran that was consistently beating the top Zergs in late game anyway. Other than him, every Terran that was winning was winning primarily in the midgame.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
maybe observer speed buff, and raven reduced cost, are both trying to combat creep spread?
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
maybe observer speed buff, and raven reduced cost, are both trying to combat creep spread?
Why would that be needed when creep spread itself can be directly nerfed (and has been before)? Doesn't make sense.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
maybe observer speed buff, and raven reduced cost, are both trying to combat creep spread?
Why would that be needed when creep spread itself can be directly nerfed (and has been before)? Doesn't make sense.
idk but maybe they're thinking that fighting back and forth over the creep spread, adding counterplay, is more exciting than just making the creep spread out more slowly
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
maybe observer speed buff, and raven reduced cost, are both trying to combat creep spread?
Why would that be needed when creep spread itself can be directly nerfed (and has been before)? Doesn't make sense.
idk but maybe they're thinking that fighting back and forth over the creep spread, adding counterplay, is more exciting than just making the creep spread out more slowly
Yeah, well I see several problems with this as this creates effects outside of ZvX matchups, it follows the 'power creep' philosophy as making stuff move faster should not really be how to tackle things unless desperately needed (like with Brood Lords, for instance, this buff makes a lot more sense) and the way I see it Protoss never really had much issue with getting their observers sniped constantly and thus indefinitely blocking the Robo production queue.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
maybe observer speed buff, and raven reduced cost, are both trying to combat creep spread?
Why would that be needed when creep spread itself can be directly nerfed (and has been before)? Doesn't make sense.
idk but maybe they're thinking that fighting back and forth over the creep spread, adding counterplay, is more exciting than just making the creep spread out more slowly
Yeah, well I see several problems with this as this creates effects outside of ZvX matchups, it follows the 'power creep' philosophy as making stuff move faster should not really be how to tackle things unless desperately needed (like with Brood Lords, for instance, this buff makes a lot more sense) and the way I see it Protoss never really had much issue with getting their observers sniped constantly and thus indefinitely blocking the Robo production queue.
I agree, this patch might have too many buffs in it
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
The observer speed thing is a revert of a previous pointless change they made to Protoss. Artosis has a video ranting about how it was the dumbest change he's ever seen.
The larger model size is their way of attacking that same "issue" of low level Terrans not being able to kill observers by making them easier to see with the shimmer I suppose.
It's completely ridiculous and I don't know why they think it's an issue that needs addressing but the important thing is that the Observer speed "buff" in this patch is simply a revert back to what it was for years and years previously.
As for the whole "Terran is only viable in Korea" that's not the point I'm making with my rants about Zerg. Terran is doing better now in the foreign pro scene than in any previous point in SC2's history except for VERY early WoL. They're frequently competitive now but not "Best in the World" or "World Champion" competitive. That level of competitive for foreigners has been reserved for Zerg players only, and has been for years.
Whenever Zerg looks like it might start to struggle even a little bit, they IMMEDIATELY get buffed because Blizz can't allow it for Foreign pros to not have their best race be competitive with the Korean elite players. Meanwhile when Zerg is dominant, like they were for years and arguable still are, Blizzard is PAINFULLY slow in nerfing them even when the level of dominance they display like in 2019 is unlike anything the other races have ever demonstrated outside of again early WoL.
It's a consistent pattern. Blizz has been doing it for years. The question is why? But I'm convinced the answer is because of Zerg's untouchable place as the only race that has ever had success for foreigners at the top top level. Blizzard doesn't want to change that.
On December 08 2022 18:13 Charoisaur wrote: Does anyone know what the Carrier changes mean? If Interceptors got less priority will all units now auto-target Carriers? Seems like a buff vs Marines or Hydras who want to target Interceptors. and what's the third change?
I think this change was made to make Corruptors and Vikings easier to control against Carriers, but it's honestly just a crutch for bad players to lean on because any half-decent player already knows to target-fire against Carriers...
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
The observer speed thing is a revert of a previous pointless change they made to Protoss. Artosis has a video ranting about how it was the dumbest change he's ever seen.
The larger model size is their way of attacking that same "issue" of low level Terrans not being able to kill observers by making them easier to see with the shimmer I suppose.
It's completely ridiculous and I don't know why they think it's an issue that needs addressing but the important thing is that the Observer speed "buff" in this patch is simply a revert back to what it was for years and years previously.
As for the whole "Terran is only viable in Korea" that's not the point I'm making with my rants about Zerg. Terran is doing better now in the foreign pro scene than in any previous point in SC2's history except for VERY early WoL. They're frequently competitive now but not "Best in the World" or "World Champion" competitive. That level of competitive for foreigners has been reserved for Zerg players only, and has been for years.
Whenever Zerg looks like it might start to struggle even a little bit, they IMMEDIATELY get buffed because Blizz can't allow it for Foreign pros to not have their best race be competitive with the Korean elite players. Meanwhile when Zerg is dominant, like they were for years and arguable still are, Blizzard is PAINFULLY slow in nerfing them even when the level of dominance they display like in 2019 is unlike anything the other races have ever demonstrated outside of again early WoL.
It's a consistent pattern. Blizz has been doing it for years. The question is why? But I'm convinced the answer is because of Zerg's untouchable place as the only race that has ever had success for foreigners at the top top level. Blizzard doesn't want to change that.
But we have rising foreign stars that play other races, such as Clem for terran and MaxPax for protoss. MaxPax doesn't want to show himself so you can't market him, but Clem can be the poster boy! The only thing preventing them is probably the fact that if you make terran as strong as the other two races and/or stronger, Maru will simply win everything and he is a KR player.
On December 08 2022 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Well after thinking a bit, changes don't seem to bad. 13.5 range to cancel snipe seems quite large, so it won't be easy to cancel it and Broodlings got less life span, EMP change seems like a buff and a nerf at the same time since the upgrade was quite expensive.
Only thing I really dislike is the sensor tower change which seems really uncalled for and I'm not sure what's the point of the Raven changes. This won't make them less dominant in TvT as they are cheaper now and still disable tanks for long enough to win a fight
13.5 range is tiny. Snipe range is 10, so if you start a snipe at max range, the target unit only has to move 3.5 units away. To put it in perspective, even a queen (on creep) can walk out of snipe range if the Zerg reacts quickly.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
The observer speed thing is a revert of a previous pointless change they made to Protoss. Artosis has a video ranting about how it was the dumbest change he's ever seen.
The larger model size is their way of attacking that same "issue" of low level Terrans not being able to kill observers by making them easier to see with the shimmer I suppose.
It's completely ridiculous and I don't know why they think it's an issue that needs addressing but the important thing is that the Observer speed "buff" in this patch is simply a revert back to what it was for years and years previously.
As for the whole "Terran is only viable in Korea" that's not the point I'm making with my rants about Zerg. Terran is doing better now in the foreign pro scene than in any previous point in SC2's history except for VERY early WoL. They're frequently competitive now but not "Best in the World" or "World Champion" competitive. That level of competitive for foreigners has been reserved for Zerg players only, and has been for years.
Whenever Zerg looks like it might start to struggle even a little bit, they IMMEDIATELY get buffed because Blizz can't allow it for Foreign pros to not have their best race be competitive with the Korean elite players. Meanwhile when Zerg is dominant, like they were for years and arguable still are, Blizzard is PAINFULLY slow in nerfing them even when the level of dominance they display like in 2019 is unlike anything the other races have ever demonstrated outside of again early WoL.
It's a consistent pattern. Blizz has been doing it for years. The question is why? But I'm convinced the answer is because of Zerg's untouchable place as the only race that has ever had success for foreigners at the top top level. Blizzard doesn't want to change that.
But we have rising foreign stars that play other races, such as Clem for terran and MaxPax for protoss. MaxPax doesn't want to show himself so you can't market him, but Clem can be the poster boy! The only thing preventing them is probably the fact that if you make terran as strong as the other two races and/or stronger, Maru will simply win everything and he is a KR player.
And "worse" than that. If you make Terran that strong, the lower tier of Terran players, the ones who are better than everyone else in the foreign scene EXCEPT the tip top Zergs will start to crush the foreign scene even harder including their top Zergs, making the foreign scene irrelevant in World Championship conversations.
That's the fear Blizzard has, and that's the reason Zerg keeps getting a fucking handicap. The well of Korean Terran depth is too deep for them to ever give Clem the same kind of advantage the Zergs get. There's no strong showing of Protoss in the foreign scene that gives them an opportunity for that kind of treatment either.
No it's always just Zerg. It was the most popular foreign pro race in WoL and it's remained that way. Zerg is the only race where there is more top level foreign talent than there is Korean and with the mirror match up being a coinflip like it usually is, it gives them a chance to beat the Koreans even when the deck is stacked.
The theory really does make a lot of sense if you look back at SC2's history through that lense. Blizzard remembers too well how top Korean Terrans that couldn't win a GSL would go abroad and absolutely dominate the foreign scene. They don't want that happening again.
On December 08 2022 18:06 tigera6 wrote: This is what you get for Maru winning G5L, Clem winning E5L and Bunny beating Serral, now we only need to see the return of Pride and Glittering Ash, that would make me laugh so hard.
On December 08 2022 17:53 hjpalpha wrote: in general i really dislike these changes, they look like they were written by 2 zergs and a toss and fuck over terran pretty hard
Considering the guys who are part of the committee are Zerg and Protoss, this should not be that shocking. The last patch was about taking the Skytoss - Queen Walk in PvZ, and now they are dealing with PvT and ZvT.
It's on brand for SC2 so bad. I keep trying to tell you guys.
Zerg isn't allowed to not be dominant because without them the Europeans will never win anything.
Wait what, are you trying to imply that outside of Korea Terran never really has been relevant competitively?
I can't deny that I'm still a tiny little bit butthurt about TLO's betrayal of the steel lifting family and to even do it with this lame 'creativity' excuse of his and then still not delivering results!!!!! Shame on you, Dario, you were the chosen one, supposed to bring balance to EU, not join them filthy non-Terrans!!!!
But regarding the changes, some like creep nerf and shield battery nerf look good on first glance, snipe cancel change might be good, but why increase Observer speed lol, to me seems like another variation of 'yeah let's give P a freepass to be lazy with army/unit control' to me, see HT auto attack or parking.
The observer speed thing is a revert of a previous pointless change they made to Protoss. Artosis has a video ranting about how it was the dumbest change he's ever seen.
The larger model size is their way of attacking that same "issue" of low level Terrans not being able to kill observers by making them easier to see with the shimmer I suppose.
It's completely ridiculous and I don't know why they think it's an issue that needs addressing but the important thing is that the Observer speed "buff" in this patch is simply a revert back to what it was for years and years previously.
As for the whole "Terran is only viable in Korea" that's not the point I'm making with my rants about Zerg. Terran is doing better now in the foreign pro scene than in any previous point in SC2's history except for VERY early WoL. They're frequently competitive now but not "Best in the World" or "World Champion" competitive. That level of competitive for foreigners has been reserved for Zerg players only, and has been for years.
Whenever Zerg looks like it might start to struggle even a little bit, they IMMEDIATELY get buffed because Blizz can't allow it for Foreign pros to not have their best race be competitive with the Korean elite players. Meanwhile when Zerg is dominant, like they were for years and arguable still are, Blizzard is PAINFULLY slow in nerfing them even when the level of dominance they display like in 2019 is unlike anything the other races have ever demonstrated outside of again early WoL.
It's a consistent pattern. Blizz has been doing it for years. The question is why? But I'm convinced the answer is because of Zerg's untouchable place as the only race that has ever had success for foreigners at the top top level. Blizzard doesn't want to change that.
You're actually wrong, the Observer was for years and years the way it currently is. Blizzard tried buffing the Speed but shortly afterwards reverted it again with the justification you mentioned
The Observer and the Protoss upgrades are set between the last two patch changes for each respectively. Obs Speed: from 3.01->2.63 and now from 2.63->2.82. Forge upg's: increased by lvl 1: 15; lvl 2: 18; lvl 3: 22. And now decreased by lvl 1: 7; lvl 2: 9; lvl 3: 11.
So they're not full reverts, but half. It should be mentioned that Cyber Core upgrades are remained unchanged..
Also the Sentry build time buff is only on the Gate Way, not the Warp Gate. So it's hardly as strong as people want it to be.
On December 08 2022 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Well after thinking a bit, changes don't seem to bad. 13.5 range to cancel snipe seems quite large, so it won't be easy to cancel it and Broodlings got less life span, EMP change seems like a buff and a nerf at the same time since the upgrade was quite expensive.
Only thing I really dislike is the sensor tower change which seems really uncalled for and I'm not sure what's the point of the Raven changes. This won't make them less dominant in TvT as they are cheaper now and still disable tanks for long enough to win a fight
13.5 range is tiny. Snipe range is 10, so if you start a snipe at max range, the target unit only has to move 3.5 units away. To put it in perspective, even a queen (on creep) can walk out of snipe range if the Zerg reacts quickly.
If Queen, even on creep, can walk away from Snipe, then its completely F up, might just as well reduce Snipe damage vs Mid/Large unit or something.
On December 08 2022 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Well after thinking a bit, changes don't seem to bad. 13.5 range to cancel snipe seems quite large, so it won't be easy to cancel it and Broodlings got less life span, EMP change seems like a buff and a nerf at the same time since the upgrade was quite expensive.
Only thing I really dislike is the sensor tower change which seems really uncalled for and I'm not sure what's the point of the Raven changes. This won't make them less dominant in TvT as they are cheaper now and still disable tanks for long enough to win a fight
13.5 range is tiny. Snipe range is 10, so if you start a snipe at max range, the target unit only has to move 3.5 units away. To put it in perspective, even a queen (on creep) can walk out of snipe range if the Zerg reacts quickly.
I think this is mainly about Viper - Ghost interaction. With Vipers not able to immediately move away after casting abduct this was their main goal IMO. VS Zerg you can still force unburrow of lurkers or force Zerg to disengage unfavorably. Broodlord with new speed has to be tested, dunno. Other units like Hydra, Ultra etc were never really the "main" target of Snipe anyway VS Toss it's better to use EMP in most cases.
Obviously I could be completely wrong about everything. We'll see
On December 08 2022 18:10 Charoisaur wrote: Well after thinking a bit, changes don't seem to bad. 13.5 range to cancel snipe seems quite large, so it won't be easy to cancel it and Broodlings got less life span, EMP change seems like a buff and a nerf at the same time since the upgrade was quite expensive.
Only thing I really dislike is the sensor tower change which seems really uncalled for and I'm not sure what's the point of the Raven changes. This won't make them less dominant in TvT as they are cheaper now and still disable tanks for long enough to win a fight
13.5 range is tiny. Snipe range is 10, so if you start a snipe at max range, the target unit only has to move 3.5 units away. To put it in perspective, even a queen (on creep) can walk out of snipe range if the Zerg reacts quickly.
I think this is mainly about Viper - Ghost interaction. With Vipers not able to immediately move away after casting abduct this was their main goal IMO. VS Zerg you can still force unburrow of lurkers or force Zerg to disengage unfavorably. Broodlord with new speed has to be tested, dunno. Other units like Hydra, Ultra etc were never really the "main" target of Snipe anyway VS Toss it's better to use EMP in most cases.
Obviously I could be completely wrong about everything. We'll see
In current TvZ, Terrans force lurkers to unburrow with siege tanks or liberators, and then punish them for running with Ghosts. With these changes that strategy disappears. Lurkers already move and burrow/unborrow super-fast with talons, and now there's even less consequence for committing, even if the T player has right units at hand.
Balance is impossible to predict with such a list of changes.
But I really really like the overall gist of most of the ideas - fine tuning will of course be needed.
Broods were always too slow for the new map sizes. Creep spread was likewise just too powerful at the top level. Carriers were always BS for every mere mortal in ZvP. Glad to see some more of Protoss's power put into ground styles with the upgrade changes.
Overall very exciting. Aliev Gaem.
EDIT: Also, THEY FIXED THE BANE MORPH BUG. Amazing stuff!
Wow... so Zerg gets good changes/insignificant nerfs... while once again, Terran and Protoss get game changing nerfs and insignificant buffs that mostly aren't helpful
Okay first things first, whether I personally agree with all of these proposed changes is irrelevant, I am VERY grateful that this game although a legacy game is getting another balance patch.
On December 09 2022 00:14 JJH777 wrote: Zergs winning 60-70% of premiers for 5 years running and then get this patch... Blizzard is such a joke it's crazy.
It's a community of pro players that made the suggestions
On December 09 2022 00:14 JJH777 wrote: Zergs winning 60-70% of premiers for 5 years running and then get this patch... Blizzard is such a joke it's crazy.
It's a community of pro players that made the suggestions
I would bet these pro players are Europeans though :o
On December 09 2022 00:14 JJH777 wrote: Zergs winning 60-70% of premiers for 5 years running and then get this patch... Blizzard is such a joke it's crazy.
It's a community of pro players that made the suggestions
I would bet these pro players are Europeans though :o
Harstem was "the face" of the community, according to himself. Then we have Lambo, PiG said they also collect his input.
Pretty worried about these changes, if they all go through.
It seems like a lot of small ideas of "wouldn't it be kinda nice if it was like X instead of Y". But it doesn't seem like there's a cohesive vision behind the patch, and it doesn't seem like the balance is really taken into account.
For example if Overcharge is that much weaker, then what do they gain to compensate? How will they defend rushes in PvP, etc. It's not even a rework, it's just a straight up nerf with nothing to compensate for the weakened defense.
I don't think HTs getting slightly faster movespeed is anywhere enough to make up for the weaker disruptors.
I don't really agree with removing upgrades that give units more energy or more AOE and giving it for free. Nerfing Auto Turrets from 50 to 75 energy seems so random, is it just because people don't want to lose to troll mass Raven strategies? And what is the reason for changing Ravens to be faster and cost less gas anyway? Now Terran has even less ways to sink gas.
I think the Cyclone change might be cool to make it more well rounded, but it also means it'll be worse at fighting Carriers, BCs, etc. It'll be better against light units for example, but... what light units would it be fighting that this change would help with? Hydralisks? Mutalisks? Marines? Is this just supposed to be a nerf?
It would have been nice to see a buff to mech, but oh well.
I'm surprised BCs aren't addressed, if the patch's goal is to weaken strategies that are frustrating to play against (BCs jumping around a lot, or jumping on a protoss fleet and yamato'ing everything).
I'm just worried it seems like Protoss is overall getting nerfed and I'm not sure what's really there to compensate. Maybe they want players to use Obs + HTs more instead of Disruptors? Will Colosuss be more viable cus you can feedback Vipers while they're trying to abduct or something? Or cus you can pick it up with a warp prism before the abduct connects?
It is very clear that is the patch is for zerg and only. Protoss will be cucked by Zerg. 4gate blink stalkers are even stronger now. TvZ for terran doesn't exist. You can't make such a balance patch shopify gang, you can't.
Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
So happy Stormgate is coming. These changes are really upsetting. Why are we nerfing the weakest race? Carriers, disrupters, observer, shield battery all nerfed for slightly faster high templar... This is why pros shouldn't make balance patches, they have bias. I trust a company who can look at statistics and will realize Protoss is the weakest race so maybe we shouldn't nerf them. If certain aspects are OP then fine u can nerf them but buff other aspects. What they did is overall, a pretty significant nerf.
Why even go carriers anymore. Interceptors are weaker by a lot. They have bigger spread and less shields. Scarlett said the spread was to make so they don't die as easily but if you're fighting like a maxed hydra ball, they take up enough space to still hit them all. But interceptors will have more travel time so do less damage, and have less shields. It's so so bad. Carriers were the only things saving you from mass hydra lurker. Now nothing will. Lurkers zone out the templar hydras hold position on/slight behind them to kill interceptors with ease. GG.
On December 09 2022 03:26 syndbg wrote: Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
I don't care about the nerfs for my play. I care about them because Maru and every other terran is never going to beat Serral/Reynor/Dark in an even lategame again if these changes go through as written. Which will suck to any viewer who doesn't just want Serral to win everything. TvZ is going to revert back to 2 or 3 base all in or die trying every single game. You cannot nerf ghosts without buffing basically all of Terran T3 if you want them to have a chance late game.
On December 09 2022 03:26 syndbg wrote: Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
I don't care about the nerfs for my play. I care about them because Maru and every other terran is never going to beat Serral/Reynor/Dark in an even lategame again if these changes go through as written. Which will suck to any viewer who doesn't just want Serral to win everything. TvZ is going to revert back to 2 or 3 base all in or die trying every single game. You cannot nerf ghosts without buffing basically all of Terran T3 if you want them to have a chance late game.
On the other hand, having Terran's entire late game be based around how powerful the Ghost is is bad design and we all know that.
So if this patch in fact does do what you guys are rightfully afraid that it will, then it's going to force Blizzard's hand and force them to buff Terran late game in some other way that doesn't involve putting everything on one particular unit.
I'm really annoyed with the fact that Zerg is getting preferential treatment, AGAIN, I've made that abundantly clear. But I can at least see some promise in how the Devs are approaching this right now.
they are nerfing Creep, and making Ravens cheaper to mass. Those are both good things for Terran. I believe the thinking is that if Terran has an improved midgame that it will make it much more difficult for Zerg to get comfortably to the late game and that has a big impact in how late game TvZ plays out.
They're teetering around the edges adjusting some of the lesser used tech that Terrans never get like Banshee speed and Raven Corvid Reactor. They're trying to make it easier for Terran to reach their late game power level and harder for Zerg to. They've also nerfed the Viper a little bit so they're aware that IT is an oppressive late game spell caster too but they're being careful with it to start with because of how important it is in PvZ as well.
They're targetting the right things, just not in equal measure right now because they're waiting to see how the Creep and Ultralisk changes play out first.
I just hope that if the meta switches to TvZ being heavily Zerg favored immediately that they don't take too long in adjusting perhaps increasing the range at which Zerg units have to be before Snipe is cancelled or doing some other buffs like my suggested Viking speed buff as well.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
Very interesting to note that harstem confirmed in his video that he and scarlett are part of the team that made the changes (most likely lambo too), and heromarine confirmed he is not. Interesting roster that's perferctly reflected in the balance changes.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
The Hydralisk isn't being buffed for Terran it's being buffed because Blizz is trying to make Skytoss less oppressive. The Hydralisk is one of Zerg's only actual anti air units so it's not a surprise they are adjusting them for this purpose if they are also nerfing Vipers.
The impact it's going to have on TvZ is just a side result. It still matters but that needs to be understood. Blizz wasn't thinking about what the Hydralisk buff was going to do to TvZ, they were focusing on PvZ only with that one.
Protoss is also highly incentivized to avoid late game against zerg now right? Not just through the disruptor/carrier nerfs but also through the forge buffs?
Seems like name of the game is gonna be "curtail the swarm before you get overrun and die."
On the other hand, I think late game pvt might be alright -- even with EMP nerf i think that psi storm is still not as devastating as 1.5 radius disruptors.
On December 09 2022 06:33 angry_maia wrote: Protoss is also highly incentivized to avoid late game against zerg now right? Not just through the disruptor/carrier nerfs but also through the forge buffs?
Seems like name of the game is gonna be "curtail the swarm before you get overrun and die."
On the other hand, I think late game pvt might be alright -- even with EMP nerf i think that psi storm is still not as devastating as 1.5 radius disruptors.
On December 09 2022 06:17 THERIDDLER wrote: Very interesting to note that harstem confirmed in his video that he and scarlett are part of the team that made the changes (most likely lambo too), and heromarine confirmed he is not. Interesting roster that's perferctly reflected in the balance changes.
Also because Harstem is imo a little biased against protoss. Not that he hates the race of course, but when he plays he focuses on his mistakes a lot, and I think it leads him to dismiss balance concerns more than he should (of course he could do better, but the people who he plays could do better as well, and they are often less punished for their mistakes). I remember that he went in the balance thread to ridicule the notion that protoss was imbalanced right in the middle of the period where the game was quite literally unwatchable for a protoss fan.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
Heromarine isn't much of a ghost player but still surprising he wouldn't be mad about that. I think people are downplaying that change. It reads as a small one but if you really think about it in the context of a 30 minute lategame TvZ the amount of value that is gained from snipes while Zerg is retreating is insane and will be almost completely gone now.
These seem like perfectly reasonable changes across the board. Of course, it's impossible to know how this will all add up, but I'd be surprised if anything is super broken.
The disruptor nerf combined with ghost EMP mid-game buff has me a little worried, as the disruptor has become THE essential splash damage option at pro levels vT and a mid-game buff to EMP makes it unlikely that slightly faster HTs will make up the difference. Especially with a weakened shield battery overcharge, it seems like pushes with ghosts will be extremely strong.
I appreciate, though, that Blizzard is essentially giving Hero's gatewayman style a nice straightforward buff with the upgrade changes. Overall, anything that makes Protoss less totally reliant on a few splash units and tankier overall will be good for the enjoyability of the game.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
HeroMarine is too blunt and honest while making a lot of valid points so some pros don’t seem to like him, but it allows us to get some real insight although he might be wrong about some details.
Ghost needs a nerf because it is too versatile but there is a lot of tweaking necessary to make things work imo. All in all, having a giant ass patch like this is a huge step forward: it probably means Blizzard / the community don’t just wanna let Stormgate be the new RTS king.
I am extremely happy with the direction StarCraft 2 is going, still alive and fighting, bit by bit ( ).
On December 09 2022 06:55 Captain Peabody wrote: These seem like perfectly reasonable changes across the board. Of course, it's impossible to know how this will all add up, but I'd be surprised if anything is super broken.
The disruptor nerf combined with ghost EMP mid-game buff has me a little worried, as the disruptor has become THE essential splash damage option at pro levels vT and a mid-game buff to EMP makes it unlikely that slightly faster HTs will make up the difference. Especially with a weakened shield battery overcharge, it seems like pushes with ghosts will be extremely strong.
I appreciate, though, that Blizzard is essentially giving Hero's gatewayman style a nice straightforward buff with the upgrade changes. Overall, anything that makes Protoss less totally reliant on a few splash units and tankier overall will be good for the enjoyability of the game.
Ghosts didn't get buffed in the midgame. Terrans start researching Enhanced Shockwaves as soon as the Ghost Academy is built. Enhanced Shockwaves gave Ghosts a 2.0 EMP radius. The patch is nerfing that to 1.75.
It's a nerf to Ghosts. You don't have to spend that extra 100 gas anymore, but that's all. Ask any Terran they'd happily spend 100 gas for an extra 0.25 radius on the spell.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
HeroMarine is too blunt and honest while making a lot of valid points so some pros don’t seem to like him, but it allows us to get some real insight although he might be wrong about some details.
Ghost needs a nerf because it is too versatile but there is a lot of tweaking necessary to make things work imo. All in all, having a giant ass patch like this is a huge step forward: it probably means Blizzard / the community don’t just wanna let Stormgate be the new RTS king.
I am extremely happy with the direction StarCraft 2 is going, still alive and fighting, bit by bit ( ).
The fact that even he thought it was ridiculous to nerf Protoss is telling.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
HeroMarine is too blunt and honest while making a lot of valid points so some pros don’t seem to like him, but it allows us to get some real insight although he might be wrong about some details.
Ghost needs a nerf because it is too versatile but there is a lot of tweaking necessary to make things work imo. All in all, having a giant ass patch like this is a huge step forward: it probably means Blizzard / the community don’t just wanna let Stormgate be the new RTS king.
I am extremely happy with the direction StarCraft 2 is going, still alive and fighting, bit by bit ( ).
eh, i dont think it means they dont want to let stormgate be the king, I think most people are ready to switch over, I haven't heard much sentiment otherwise. This is just a quality of life patch for the year we have left. If you are running a competitive circuit things should still be as balanced as they can be.
On December 09 2022 03:26 syndbg wrote: Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
I don't care about the nerfs for my play. I care about them because Maru and every other terran is never going to beat Serral/Reynor/Dark in an even lategame again if these changes go through as written. Which will suck to any viewer who doesn't just want Serral to win everything. TvZ is going to revert back to 2 or 3 base all in or die trying every single game. You cannot nerf ghosts without buffing basically all of Terran T3 if you want them to have a chance late game.
On the other hand, having Terran's entire late game be based around how powerful the Ghost is is bad design and we all know that.
So if this patch in fact does do what you guys are rightfully afraid that it will, then it's going to force Blizzard's hand and force them to buff Terran late game in some other way that doesn't involve putting everything on one particular unit.
I'm really annoyed with the fact that Zerg is getting preferential treatment, AGAIN, I've made that abundantly clear. But I can at least see some promise in how the Devs are approaching this right now.
they are nerfing Creep, and making Ravens cheaper to mass. Those are both good things for Terran. I believe the thinking is that if Terran has an improved midgame that it will make it much more difficult for Zerg to get comfortably to the late game and that has a big impact in how late game TvZ plays out.
They're teetering around the edges adjusting some of the lesser used tech that Terrans never get like Banshee speed and Raven Corvid Reactor. They're trying to make it easier for Terran to reach their late game power level and harder for Zerg to. They've also nerfed the Viper a little bit so they're aware that IT is an oppressive late game spell caster too but they're being careful with it to start with because of how important it is in PvZ as well.
They're targetting the right things, just not in equal measure right now because they're waiting to see how the Creep and Ultralisk changes play out first.
I just hope that if the meta switches to TvZ being heavily Zerg favored immediately that they don't take too long in adjusting perhaps increasing the range at which Zerg units have to be before Snipe is cancelled or doing some other buffs like my suggested Viking speed buff as well.
This presumes that the process is driven by Blizzard rather than the community "balance council", and that the latter is acting in good faith. The creep nerf is a perfect example, something that seems significant until you realize that for it to matter at all players have to be regularly hitting tumors on cooldown.
After the last four years of Zerg dominance I'm tired of extending the benefit of the doubt--this is a patch that buffs Zerg, the Zerg members of the balance council know it, and they're going to push it through anyway regardless of the damage it does to the competitive integrity of the game. And if everything goes to shit, look forward to at least six months of "it's ok guys just let the meta settle!" from the usual suspects.
On December 09 2022 07:55 Athenau wrote: After the last four years of Zerg dominance I'm tired of extending the benefit of the doubt--this is a patch that buffs Zerg, the Zerg members of the balance council know that's the case, and they're going to push it through anyway regardless of the damage it does to the competitive integrity of the game. And if everything goes to shit, look forward to at least six months of "it's ok guys just let the meta settle!" from the usual suspects.
On the other hand, if you look at eg. Aligulac, both PvZ and TvZ have been over 50% the entire year, making Z easily the weakest race among normal people, and the ladder's Protoss-skewed population confims the issue in good part.
It's the sort of issue in FPSes where sniper rifles are garbage in the hands of bad players, not much of an issue for competent people who aren't cracked, but when you give one to a pro, in many games the sniper just runs the match because it gives such insane reward for good mechanics. Zerg seems UP for normal people but give it to Serral, Korean pros or Reynor and weep. So changes are warranted in both directions, the question is, are the changes going in that direction?
Secondly, there's gameflow/design issues more independent of balance, like Z tech taking years to get online so they don't really have many interesting earlygame things to do and spend years on hatch tech while T and especially P have the whole gamut of options open - tech pushes, drop harassment, mass production based pushes, heavy eco approaches, outright cheese with proxies and cannons. The Zerg can only dream of that sort of variety, partly because everything interesting is Lair-gated and Lair takes years and doesn't really enable interesting things itself, it just lets you make other things that let you make interesting things.
In that light, something like the Ravager nerf is just silly.
I'd agree with the Ghost nerf if they buffed another late game option for Terrans.
Completely relying on a single unit is a bad design, of course - but there is an obvious reason why late TvZ is so ghost-heavy. What else T can use instead with similar effectiveness?
I'd love to see some love for mech to make it at least somewhat viable.
On December 09 2022 08:58 Darkness2k11 wrote: Since we are doing QoL changes, might as well make getting charge increase sentry speed too,
it's always zealots suiciding charging outside of guardian shield, think about it!
i'm bummed they didn't go with speedy manlots instead of charge. brood war zealot micro is always fun to watch (against zerg) and charge is the least microable thing in the game.
Being able to run away from snipe seems pretty dumb off the bat. The Emp change I dont mind, its pretty meh and against Toss I do think the huge emp might have been a bit too much.
The creep nerfs are pretty insignificant as well so I dont really expect anything to change there.
Not going to go overboard until we see it play out but it is a bit tiresome that Zerg seems to always get the benefit of the doubt in terms of patches. Its gotten so bad people forget Zergs were the original whiners (every zerg unit sucks or so I'm told) until Terrans claimed the throne. Feels like for the entire LotV life span Zerg has been in an advantageous spot
Zergs were the original whiners (every zerg unit sucks or so I'm told) until Terrans claimed the throne. Feels like for the entire LotV life span Zerg has been in an advantageous spot
lol this is spot on. you could always tell when you were matched up against a zerg crybaby because they all seemed to use the edgy purple kerrigan portrait (Level 29 XP rating)
I still like this patch because each of the changes are good in principle, even if Z remains overpowered. it's a pretty substantial patch already and I guess buffing terran T3 on top of it all was a bridge too far
On December 09 2022 09:44 Moonerz wrote: Being able to run away from snipe seems pretty dumb off the bat. The Emp change I dont mind, its pretty meh and against Toss I do think the huge emp might have been a bit too much.
The creep nerfs are pretty insignificant as well so I dont really expect anything to change there.
Not going to go overboard until we see it play out but it is a bit tiresome that Zerg seems to always get the benefit of the doubt in terms of patches. Its gotten so bad people forget Zergs were the original whiners (every zerg unit sucks or so I'm told) until Terrans claimed the throne. Feels like for the entire LotV life span Zerg has been in an advantageous spot
Zerg has won a higher percentage of tournaments per year every year since 2019 than Terran won in GomTvT 2011. Zergs whining back then was out of control. I regret sympathizing with them and taking part on occassion now as Zerg really did not deserve to win anything. They've had enough success these past few years that even if they did even worse back then they would have still won the most money life time. It's fucked to think people spend 12 years of their life playing this game at a pro level to be constantly blocked from winning significant money by Blizzards blind Zerg bias.
On December 09 2022 03:26 syndbg wrote: Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
Didn't notice the thors/tanks not getting stuck, these QOL changes are nice for mech players indeed. I wish they increased Gateway unit collision radius with buildings though, so that zerg players don't slip zerglings through a wall if a zealot/adept is 1 pixel off. I'm surprised they improved all these other things but not the protoss door issue.
Also forgot that it means cyclones will do better vs queens and ravagers, yes that's pretty nice. It'll be worse at sniping CC's but it'll be better vs Medivacs, Banshees, Phoenixes, Mutalisks, Vipers, Archons too etc. As a small thing, Disruptors will be less effective vs Cyclones when playing Mech, so maybe we can bring some of that Maru vs Classic mech back.
Better ghost out of box will also be nice for mech in TvP. Ghost tech was already made more accessible over the years (cheaper and faster to get effective ghosts early on). Before it would be worth getting ~3 ghosts in the early-mid game to EMP, but a bit expensive to get the EMP upgrade right away. So there's a slight buff at this early time for mech players.
I suppose Vipers needing even a short delay before Abducting means that even if they get the Abduct off, you have more of a chance to snipe them with Ghosts/Vikings/Stalkers/Skytoss/HTs/anything. Maybe if Ravens are cheaper, and with the Abduct delay, it might even be viable to choose Ravens as a light counter to Vipers instead of Ghosts? If the Viper abducts you and you're not trying to engage, they'll probably still get it off, but if you anticipate the Vipers engaging and have your Ravens ready, you could disable them as they're flying up to your army.
On December 09 2022 03:26 syndbg wrote: Not sure why all the terrans came to whine that their race got nerfed too much.
In TvZ - they literally made ravager timings weaker and creep spread slower. Most people don't even enter lategame properly, so what is the ghost change gonna do to you? You have a better ghost out of the box, but turbo turtling with ghosts + infinite snipe has been fixed. For mech enjoyers, cyclone is better all around, but weaker vs roach, which can be compensated by tanks. "Better cyclone vs all around everything" means better vs queens and ravagers, which is impactful.
In TvP - you literally have protoss fixed to not be able to defend with 1 omega battery and colossus. ghost is more useful out-of-the-box.
Forgot about the QoL changes: * Mine drops requiring less micro in TvZ, to not hit eggs. * Cyclones not locking on eggs anymore in TvZ. * Thors/tanks not getting stuck out of the factory production, etc.
I don't care about the nerfs for my play. I care about them because Maru and every other terran is never going to beat Serral/Reynor/Dark in an even lategame again if these changes go through as written. Which will suck to any viewer who doesn't just want Serral to win everything. TvZ is going to revert back to 2 or 3 base all in or die trying every single game. You cannot nerf ghosts without buffing basically all of Terran T3 if you want them to have a chance late game.
On the other hand, having Terran's entire late game be based around how powerful the Ghost is is bad design and we all know that.
So if this patch in fact does do what you guys are rightfully afraid that it will, then it's going to force Blizzard's hand and force them to buff Terran late game in some other way that doesn't involve putting everything on one particular unit.
I'm really annoyed with the fact that Zerg is getting preferential treatment, AGAIN, I've made that abundantly clear. But I can at least see some promise in how the Devs are approaching this right now.
they are nerfing Creep, and making Ravens cheaper to mass. Those are both good things for Terran. I believe the thinking is that if Terran has an improved midgame that it will make it much more difficult for Zerg to get comfortably to the late game and that has a big impact in how late game TvZ plays out.
They're teetering around the edges adjusting some of the lesser used tech that Terrans never get like Banshee speed and Raven Corvid Reactor. They're trying to make it easier for Terran to reach their late game power level and harder for Zerg to. They've also nerfed the Viper a little bit so they're aware that IT is an oppressive late game spell caster too but they're being careful with it to start with because of how important it is in PvZ as well.
They're targetting the right things, just not in equal measure right now because they're waiting to see how the Creep and Ultralisk changes play out first.
I just hope that if the meta switches to TvZ being heavily Zerg favored immediately that they don't take too long in adjusting perhaps increasing the range at which Zerg units have to be before Snipe is cancelled or doing some other buffs like my suggested Viking speed buff as well.
You have some good points, but I feel like they need to make the changes with a full picture of what they want, not buff/nerf some things and then followup and figure out what to do to make it balanced/rounded. At least, I don't think Protoss is getting enough to compensate for their weaker Overcharge and Disruptors.
One thing I don't like is that a straight up late game fight in PvZ or PvT will be weaker. HTs are faster but it doesn't make them any stronger in a fight. Disruptors are weaker too. Slightly faster forge upgrades will only make gateway units stronger for an additional ~10 seconds than before, it doesn't make them actually any stronger in the lategame. Carriers are weaker. By the way, why no Mothership buff? Maybe BLs being more mobile and less strong in a straight up fight will be enough to nerf super lategame zerg armies though. EMP is smaller but it'll still be easy to EMP your whole army.
I also don't get how PvT is supposed to defend all these already very strong Terran pushes we see in GSL. Sure, it might feel frustrating to see a Protoss with a few gateway units and 1 colossus defending a marine tank push with Overcharge. However, we're simply nerfing it - so are Protoss just going to die to those pushes now? Also will Protoss be able to still go with more economic openings, or will players trying to expand just die to the old 1 base rushes again?
This also nerfs Disruptor drop openers in PvZ, which I feel was a cool strategy and style to watch...
These speed buffs for Hydra and Broodlords are huge. (Plus the micro buff for Hydras) I suspect many are underestimating how strong these units will be. Speed is a huge huge huge aspect of SC2.
If these patches go through, I'm expecting all Zerg winners next year or Terran revert to super aggressive 2-base pushes more and more, esp if we also keep getting Zerg favoured maps.
On December 09 2022 08:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: I'd agree with the Ghost nerf if they buffed another late game option for Terrans.
Completely relying on a single unit is a bad design, of course - but there is an obvious reason why late TvZ is so ghost-heavy. What else T can use instead with similar effectiveness?
I'd love to see some love for mech to make it at least somewhat viable.
what would you buff though? Thors and BCs are already strong, tanks and widow mines are midgame, maybe liberators could siege/unsiege a little faster to dodge biles? maybe yamato could shoot faster?
On December 09 2022 08:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: I'd agree with the Ghost nerf if they buffed another late game option for Terrans.
Completely relying on a single unit is a bad design, of course - but there is an obvious reason why late TvZ is so ghost-heavy. What else T can use instead with similar effectiveness?
I'd love to see some love for mech to make it at least somewhat viable.
what would you buff though? Thors and BCs are already strong, tanks and widow mines are midgame, maybe liberators could siege/unsiege a little faster to dodge biles? maybe yamato could shoot faster?
Thors are only good against 1 type of unit and BCs are far from good, they are just a glorified harassment unit. I agree that those units shouldn't be buffed though as they are boring as fuck. I'd rather nerf the lategame units from the other races, Carrier and BL changes are already good, let's see if it's enough
On December 09 2022 08:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: I'd agree with the Ghost nerf if they buffed another late game option for Terrans.
Completely relying on a single unit is a bad design, of course - but there is an obvious reason why late TvZ is so ghost-heavy. What else T can use instead with similar effectiveness?
I'd love to see some love for mech to make it at least somewhat viable.
what would you buff though? Thors and BCs are already strong, tanks and widow mines are midgame, maybe liberators could siege/unsiege a little faster to dodge biles? maybe yamato could shoot faster?
Thors are only good against 1 type of unit and BCs are far from good, they are just a glorified harassment unit. I agree that those units shouldn't be buffed though as they are boring as fuck. I'd rather nerf the lategame units from the other races, Carrier and BL changes are already good, let's see if it's enough
Agreed (although not about thors, they seem pretty good against a fair bit of Zerg).
I'm overall keen to see this play out, but I wouldn't have been sad if they nerfed the BL a bit in some other way too - definitely don't want BL infestor viper as the go-to way to play ZvT >.<
BCs are so strong that we see them in what percentage of late games? 1%? Maybe 0.1%? And ground mech is not that viable either. If we're talking about pro-level, of course.
With current version of super-fast lurkers you need ghosts, it's the only answer Terran has now really. And with the new patch lurkers will be able to run away from snipe more often than before. And Thors lose to lurkers badly. So what terrans are supposed to use now to compensate this nerf in late game?
I guess it will be era of "kill zerg in first 8 minutes or lose" TvZ meta.
On December 09 2022 22:36 ZeroByte13 wrote: BCs are so strong that we see them in what percentage of late games? 1%? Maybe 0.1%? And ground mech is not that viable either. If we're talking about pro-level, of course.
With current version of super-fast lurkers you need ghosts, it's the only answer Terran has now really. And with the new patch lurkers will be able to run away more often than before. And Thors lose to lurkers badly.
Lurkers if they are already burrowed will never be able to unburrow and move away in time to avoid being sniped. If they actually can then this nerf is completely over the top and it renders Snipe unusable, but that's obviously not going to be the case.
Sniping Lurkers that are already moving away from you is a different story. They're not a threat if they are moving away from you since they can only attack when they are stationary.
It's not as simple, is it? A lot of value ghosts give comes from them sniping units that try to run away, right?
I see this happen many times in every TvZ with ghosts. You've seen it many-many times too, haven't you? That's a big part of their value - to be able to punish zerg for risky engagements, sniping retreating units, like a "tax" on a bad engagement.
Now Zerg will be able to attack more often and know that more of their units will survive if attack fails. If attack is successful, Zerg wins. If it's not, Zerg doesn't lose as many units as it would be before, so there're more units to execute another attack with in a minute.
Ghosts are so good in right hands exactly because they're so cost-effective and can punish Zerg. So I would guess that ghosts will be quite a bit less useful now.
And it still wasn't nearly enough even in Maru's hands who is by far the best ghost player. Terrans have won 1 premier/major tournament in 2022, it was Maru's G5L. Zergs have won 6 premier/major tournaments in 2022 so far.
Which leaves us with a question - if ghosts are so overpowered, how come it's 1-6, and most Maru (best ghost player) losses/eliminations were vs Zerg btw?
bottom line is, this is a dead game with really shallow playerbase and little to no new players inflow. most good protoss are already retirded or in the army. same with terran. you shouldn't act suprised that one race can dominate the other if the game is like that.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
Heromarine's balance complaints are more of a performance art. Viewers expect and enjoy it. I wouldn't take them seriously.
While that might be the case and of course he is Terran-biased, like all pros are towards their race, that does not automatically nullify any feedback he's giving.
On December 09 2022 22:36 ZeroByte13 wrote: BCs are so strong that we see them in what percentage of late games? 1%? Maybe 0.1%? And ground mech is not that viable either. If we're talking about pro-level, of course.
With current version of super-fast lurkers you need ghosts, it's the only answer Terran has now really. And with the new patch lurkers will be able to run away from snipe more often than before. And Thors lose to lurkers badly. So what terrans are supposed to use now to compensate this nerf in late game?
I guess it will be era of "kill zerg in first 8 minutes or lose" TvZ meta.
One thought, that I'm almost surprised isn't here given that they've implemented some version of almost every sane change I've seen seriously suggested, is to make lurkers a bit slower.
Nerf their move and upgraded burrow speed so that at least they can't get into good engagement spots so easily.
On December 09 2022 23:07 NotSoHappy wrote: to all that zerg this, terran that whine
bottom line is, this is a dead game with really shallow playerbase and little to no new players inflow. most good protoss are already retirded or in the army. same with terran. you shouldn't act suprised that one race can dominate the other if the game is like that.
Zerg was just as dominant while all of pre military Stats/Classic/TY/Inno/Trap/sOs/byun were active though.
yeah he's mainly unhappy with the Hydra and Ultra buffs because according to him those are units Zergs love to complain about them being weak but still build them all the time which means that they are in no need of a buff and it's just Zerg propaganda. He doesn't mind the other changes though.
Heromarine's balance complaints are more of a performance art. Viewers expect and enjoy it. I wouldn't take them seriously.
While that might be the case and of course he is Terran-biased, like all pros are towards their race, that does not automatically nullify any feedback he's giving.
Heromarine is very knowledgeable about Starcraft and has valuable insights on overall balance. Of course incorporating his feedback is important.
My point is that Heromarine's patch analysis (VOD linked above) is for entertainment. When he starts off with "Serral and Reynor paid bribes to top Protoss players to approve Protoss nerfs", viewers understand that he's not serious about it.
The way he showed the creep nerf is useless was very much objective analysis not tainted by bias. He pulled up vods of Serral on stream and showed that he almost never uses creep tumors within 2 seconds of their CD ending. That very objectively shows that creep nerf does nothing. All of his analysis isn't nullified just because he opened the stream with a joke lol.
I'm going to make another post because while the idea of some of these changes in a vacuum sound nice, altogether it doesn't make for a good patch in principal, especially if we're trying to keep the game balanced. And even if you look at the patch from a design perspective and a "let's not worry about balance yet" perspective, it seems to give more love to Zerg than Protoss and Terran.
For example, if we're giving love to units like Hydras and Ultras, then why are we decreasing the power of Protoss armies without compensating them with strength in weak units?
Gateway Army / Sentry Why don't we give love to Gateway armies by buffing Sentry damage from 6 to ~10? Heck even 8? It wouldn't break any unit interaction, and it'd do more to help protoss gateway strength than the forge upgrade. (Think about it - 4 more sentries in your army means 16 more damage as long as they live, compared to your army made up of ~30 units having +1 attack for only ~10 more total seconds of a game than before).
Mothership Would buffing Mothership slightly hurt? You could give it a little more DPS, or make it a little cheaper, or give it a better Time Warp, since Time Warp really isn't even that good as is. You could decrease the energy to 75 or something. This could help make up for the weaker zoning of Disruptors now.
Overcharge Protoss needs Overcharge to defend rushes in PvP and pushes in other MUs, what was given to compensate for this? Why not just tweak Overcharge so that it's still as useful early game and for pushes, but less strong mid and lategame? For example, what about tweaking the Recharge rate from 200% to 175%, but allowing it to last 2 seconds longer? That way it'd still heal around as much early game for rushes, but it won't be so strong that mid and late game pushes need to just back off completely and wait for it to run out. And meanwhile, it could still be helpful for defending farther away bases against smaller armies (this is important for the "spread out" direction that LotV did great in pushing to capture some of the dynamic gameplay of BW). I guess you can have a little quicker sentries and have a little more FF energy, but that's kind of it. Do people like FF more than Overcharge?
Since Battery rushes were nerfed already and accounted for, if we're nerfing Overcharge why not increase the base Battery recharge rate slightly maybe, or increase the amount it heals per energy slightly?
Or since Overcharge will be less of a "you need to back off and wait for it to finish before attacking" ability, then maybe you can just remove the cooldown? That way you can bank up energy however you see fit and have more sustained defenses, and at the same time, the opponent can still attack into it and out DPS the heal if they want.
Disruptors Disruptors are a core part of LotV's direction and helping with the dynamic spread out feel that BW has. Disruptor, similar to Liberator and Lurker, is a unit that can be used to: -Harass with and drop with, which means there's more action and more action around the map, you can even open with a disruptor drop -Defend with, especially for far off bases - defense is a big thing that was lacking pre-LotV, and defense is a way to help get more bases spread out across the map and hold them for less supply, and discourage deathball/turtle gameplay -To zone with, to make engagements more active and back and forth, make gameplay more positional, and slows down fights and gameplay in general -Being able to fit many roles in 1 does make it a "good" unit, but it's also important to have versatile units so that you don't get locked into not being able to do much with the units that you have built. Versatile units allow players to harass, fight, and defend all in one, which results in more active games with more dynamic gameplay
Sure maybe getting a perfect disruptor shot is a little punishing, but as we see in pro play, even if a player blows up 15-20 supply of Zerg with each hit, multiple hits in a row (Creator vs Solar at GSL Super), it still really isn't even game ending. In what games are we seeing where hitting a perfect disruptor shot is game ending or heavily shifts the state of the game? It's very rare, I can't recall any off the of my head. And how many games do we see where a Disruptor hit is dodged, and then it ends up not having any impact? Why are we straight up nerfing the AOE rather than simply tweaking them?
Also, if the nerf is moreso just to discourage players from massing Disruptors in deathballs, then why not increase Disruptor collision size to around an Immortal or slightly bigger, to make them clunkier and less effective in larger numbers/armies? Right now, despite the big model size, they take very little space. This allows Protoss to clump a lot of Disruptors and shoot Novas easily at near max range. If they're clunkier and you choose to have a lot of Disruptors in 1 army, then at least you need to micro them to the front more if you want them to use their full range.
Broodlord When it comes to the BL, we weakened the broodlings so they're less strong in a deathball, but buffed them to be faster so they can be more mobile and well rounded. And we also buffed Hydras and Ultras. When it comes to the Carrier and Disruptor though, they were straight up nerfed, with nothing to compensate? Slightly faster HTs, Obs, Forge upgrades do not compensate at all either. Ok, how does that compensate for the lack of raw army strength? Sure maybe you can get into position to storm a fraction of a second earlier, or maybe you can occasionally get a Feedback off a Viper that you couldn't get off before an Abduct. But that's kind of it?
Forge upgrades Faster forge upgrades does not make a protoss army "stronger" really. At the most it's only stronger for 10 more seconds than normal, and the rest of it it's the same strength as before the buff. Why can't we buff Sentry damage a little if we want to buff gateway styles? It will also make holding a 3rd Nexus vs ling runby's easier for example, without relying so much on Oracles to chase the lings away.
Let me ask Protoss players - do you prefer the slightly weaker creep at the cost of the much weaker Overcharge? If the only thing this patch changed was nerfing creep, I think everyone would be OK with that and in agreement. But instead we nerfed things like Overcharge, Sensor towers, and so on and so on... shouldn't the goal be to nerf Zerg at the highest level? Not nerf creep but also nerf Protoss and Terran?
To note I don't even play Protoss, I play Mech. I am quite confused and disappointed by this patch.
Raven While I get the general direction of the changes - weakening Matrix and AA missile, and making Ravens cheaper and faster to build to compensate, I don't like how much it's negatively effecting Terran in terms of them having even less of a gas sink, and how only being able to drop 2 Turrets at max energy instead of 4 is too big. If we were seeing oppressive lategame mass Raven strategies, I'd understand. If we were seeing overly turtle gameplay where players just want to sit and let Ravens reach max energy, I'd understand. But I at least haven't seen any - so is there really an issue or is this a side effect? We could just make Turret cost 60 energy, that way you can still put down 3 at max energy, or use 1 Matrix/AA Missile and 2 Turret at max energy.
Matrix Usage Buffed? TvT: You can build 4 Ravens instead of 3 Ravens for the same gas and time, so you'll have more Matrix vs tanks in TvT. 8 seconds is enough to attack into and take out a position. I'm worried this means we'll be building even more Ravens... Matrix will still be very effective vs taking out smaller positions, just weaker if attacking into a big position. Ideally, we keep smaller positions strong (it's good to encourage armies to be spread out and be able to hold a space somewhat cost efficiently), and make bigger armies/positions weaker.
TvP: Since Ravens build faster and start with 75 energy, it means you'll have about 85 energy at the time that a pre-patch Raven would only have 50 when first built. This means that... you will also be able to save energy for 2 Matrix sooner and go for an earlier push. As long as there are no overpowered pushes I guess it's fine to be able to be more active, but a weaker Overcharge is worrying. Your 1st Raven will reach 150 energy about 45 seconds sooner than before.
Raven Proposal You could do something like this to maintain the cost/power/supply ratio of things, while nerfing Matrix/AA Missile and also giving a cheaper/quicker Detection option, while still limiting its effectiveness lategame when massed.
Cost - 75 minerals, 150 gas, 2 supply
Matrix - 8 seconds from 11, but 100 energy -You need to save more energy if you want to use 2 Matrix in a push in TvP. This works out since Ravens build faster and will have more energy saved up too. It delays the push timing which will help if Overcharged is weakened this much. -This compensates the fact you can build more Ravens and use more Matrix in TvT vs sieged positions, since 8 seconds is more than enough to attack into such a position
AA missile - 15% damage increase, instead of effecting armor. Also reduce AOE from 2.88 to 2. -This encourages you to shoot 2-4 missiles instead of just 1 if you want to tag the whole army, if you want to invest more -This also makes it more of an option to build more than 1-2 Ravens for AA missile, instead of it being the only unit designed in the game to where it's discouraged to build more than 1 (Blizzard literally said they wanted it to be a unit you get just 1 or 2 of, honestly this was an overreaction to the old PDD Raven, it shouldn't be criminal in an RTS to want to build energy units and try to maximize their cost efficiency, it allows for more styles as long as it's not degenerative) -This would very targetedly weaken its impact on marines and make it less game ending in TvT, or PvT when defending early-mid pushes. -This would increase its relative effectiveness on units like Marauders in TvT which we rarely see -This would be much less useless for mech (Before it was useful if you wanted to do some weird AA missile + Liberator combo for anti air, or if you wanted to mass BCs vs Corruptors, or Thors vs Mutas). -Locking the ability to a % damage increase still ensures that you don't want to have too high of a Raven ratio in your army, because having more army will naturally increase your damage output more.
Auto Turret - 50 energy, Damage decreased from 18 to 12, so when accounting for armor it's close to half DPS -This way you can still drop 1 AT turret for harass early game to make them pull away their workers if you want, and also making it less punishing if you didn't see it for 1-2 seconds (it's not really fun gameplay and feels bad). -But also, you can wait a little longer for 100 energy, and put down 2 Turrets for harass if you want to try to kill workers before they pull away. More options is good! Also this means you can still use 2 Matrix/AA Missile and 1 Turret at max energy -This means you can still put down 4 Turrets at max energy. Sure, you'd be using 200 energy for 4 weaker Turrets, instead of 150 energy for 2 strong Turrets as proposed in the PTR. BUT, it's not just about DPS. Being able to put more Turrets down to change the field of battle is interesting and unique, as a sort of wall, which helps not only Mech but Bio too.
On December 10 2022 01:57 Thaniri wrote: Huge patch with a ton of changes.
Queue the balance whiners now
I mean it is pretty healthy that a lot of people are discussing the changes. Having that many changes in a single patch is epic and is imo a very good sign for the years to come, but there needs to be some discussion and tweaking .
All we need now is a documentary about Starcraft 2 similar to the Melee documentary, and we can get 5 more years of healthy Starcraft 2 esports, especially with Microsoft around the corner.
I think I generally like the direction that they are trying to take things, although could probably use a few tweaks.
I'm hoping that now that the raven is both cheaper and a quicker build that we will start to see more usage of a single early game raven against zerg for creep spread denial. It has always seemed to me like something that could pay off big by allowing way more mules in the early-midgame to accelerate the terran economy and allow them to get to a more threatening position quicker, likely leading to a delay zerg getting to lategame.
I think they'd need to go even further to make a raven a regular unit just for creep spread denial. Either make it less fragile with more hp/armor, make it even cheaper, or nerf it even more but allow it to be built without a tech lab. I don't think 50 gas and 13 build seconds when combined with a bunch of ability nerfs is going to cause it to be built regularly. If more early-mid game raven use for creep denial is their goal they should approach the changes differently.
On December 10 2022 02:12 Chewbacca. wrote: I think I generally like the direction that they are trying to take things, although could probably use a few tweaks.
I'm hoping that now that the raven is both cheaper and a quicker build that we will start to see more usage of a single early game raven against zerg for creep spread denial. It has always seemed to me like something that could pay off big by allowing way more mules in the early-midgame to accelerate the terran economy and allow them to get to a more threatening position quicker, likely leading to a delay zerg getting to lategame.
I hope this is not the reason for the Raven rework. No one uses it like that for creep cleanup, the scans are optimal. One of the reasons as Heromarine said: the Queens will snipe the Raven easily from a long distance.
On December 10 2022 02:12 Chewbacca. wrote: I think I generally like the direction that they are trying to take things, although could probably use a few tweaks.
I'm hoping that now that the raven is both cheaper and a quicker build that we will start to see more usage of a single early game raven against zerg for creep spread denial. It has always seemed to me like something that could pay off big by allowing way more mules in the early-midgame to accelerate the terran economy and allow them to get to a more threatening position quicker, likely leading to a delay zerg getting to lategame.
I hope this is not the reason for the Raven rework. No one uses it like that for creep cleanup, the scans are optimal. One of the reasons as Heromarine said: the Queens will snipe the Raven easily from a long distance.
I mean that doesn't have to be the reason for the change, but it certainly makes the possibility more likely. Also, the raven sight/detection range is like 50% higher than the queens air attack range, so it should not be a given that the raven is a loss.
From a TvZ, perspective at least it's a straight buff. Cheaper and potentially faster creep spread denial and faster harassment potential. The harassment perspective may have been nerfed in the increased energy cost to 75, but only really in the case of secretly massing ravens. The initial turrets which are the ones to likely actually do damage can be out faster.
Only the first turret will be out faster. The second turret which is often the one that actually does damage will be out slower even with the build time reduction and energy increase.
The Lurker has a few more undocumented changes with its attack on PTR. Can people check if the attack behaves odd/different under some circumstances? e.g. when Lurker dies, unburrows, switches target, etc
Details: LurkerMP gained Channeled and EffectFailure flags and lost periodic checks for CasterIsAttacking.
On December 10 2022 05:09 ZeroByte13 wrote: I think this change is (probably) mentioned here: "Attacks will no longer be blocked by certain low-ground terrain features."
There is a validator change that would address to that (target point needs to be GE ground level 1 => not ground level 0 which is down the deep cliff).
Since I noticed that more was changed, I am posting this. I would like the rare patches not introduce undesired side effects, undocumented balance changes or even new bugs.
Scarlett is wrong about Ultra's attack area not being changed. The radius is offset by the Ultra's unit radius (damage effect flag). Since the unit radius shrunk, the total area (big half circle) will be smaller (= less radius) resulting in a smaller area.
But still, units in front of the Ultra (180° arc) within range 2 will be hit by the 33% area damage (excluding the targeted unit which receives 100%)
Other notes (side effects / undocumented changes / potential bugs):
the Broodling duration change affects Broodlings from structures as well. Should those really be changed as well?
there are a lot of undocumented changes to unburrow/burrow random delays
there is a potential change that makes unburrowing units appear visible without delay (stats duration changed. I am not sure if the duration really affects anything)
Banshee's attack's rockets spawn ~100ms earlier (0.15 seconds earlier on normal game speed). The first rocket spawns without delay
stasis change could break things now. I hope people check beam weapons properly stopping (Sentry). What happens when Adepts have a Shade and the Adept walks into a stasis trap? Does the Shade die? Does the Adept teleport and keep stasis? Does it teleport and have no more stasis?
Why the spawn range increase from 2 to 3 Factory-specific and not raised to 3 for all producing structures (Barracks, Starport, CC, Hatchery, Nexus, Gateway, Robotics Facility, Stargate)?
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster
Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Interference Matrix adds a cooldown to Immortal Barrier after Interference Matrix expires. The duration was raised from 5.7 to 7.9 seconds (from 8 to 11 seconds on normal speed). Also, why is this added on expiring and not when IM hits? The bug fix is older, but it feels buggy to me. What happens when the cooldown expires while IM is active (or is it paused during IM)?
Observer, Disruptor and Ultralisk model scaling potentially breaks with other model skins than default. Every unit skin has different model settings, so you need to change all of them or change the scale of the actors. Without testing, I would say that this breaks non-default skins. Can someone confirm this?
Hydralisk -> Lurker Morph's random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This could have been required for the morph's smart command cancel. Roach -> Ravager had no random delay as well (like Warp Prism and Liberator). Should this be done for other units as well (Viking, Thor, Widow Mine, Siege Tank, Hellion)?
Does the Interceptor flying area increase significantly alter the DPS? The area was raised by 1 to inner 3 and outer 5. The weapon range is still 2.
Interceptor attack firing and impact sounds are slightly louder than before
Units affected by Anti-Armor-Missile are now tinted with another color. It is more yellow than orange. From to
Structures receiving shields from the Shield Battery do not display an attached model in the fog of war anymore. This was a dimmed snapshot image of the model before, correct? Now you should only see the structure itself
The Ghost unit types did not correctly receive the snipe command card button. I am not sure how the Nova Ghost skin is created, but there is a good chance that she won't have a snipe cancel button. There is a unit type for the female Ghost skin, but that does not even have the snipe ability and I guess people would have figured that bug out by now, if that one was actually used. Do female Ghost skins have snipe and a cancel button? Does the rare Nova spawn have snipe cancel button?
Hatchery and Hive's subgroup priority swapped (Hatchery to 28, Hive to 32). When multiple structures are selected, this could be reordered now. This also affects observer UI priorities like production, structures, units lost UI panels. The hive is now selected first, correct?
The Shield Battery stop command fix does not fix a human potentially replicating the commands necessary with macros. The implementation is slightly more complex than intended and it would be nice if Blizz at least cleaned it up (stack counts used to be bad for performance a decade ago, please do not add them to behavior that do not require them)
Queen Transfusion on-creep text was broken due to a pointless behavior swap (they do exactly the same, just the Queen's one has text for this error case).
Swarm Hosts can now spawn Locusts with a target point without loosing existing orders. The ability is now flagged as transient
I am trying to document/comment all data changes and make notes about things that could potentially break. I am far from done, but the amount of undocumented changes is concerning.
Also, there are a few small bugs that could be fixed as well:
Thor's default mode has no collision with Locusts. The 2nd mode has, like all other units as well
Disruptor and Archon's minimap radius is too small. This should always match the actual unit radius. So, it is currently a tiny bit too small
Burrowed Ravagers have the Corossive Bile ability. This could be used by hackers and should be removed from the unit. Remember warping in Immortals in WoL or computer players spawning Infested Terrans after the ability was supposed to be removed from the Infestor?
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Four years* 2019-2022 and 2019 was actually the most dominant Zerg or any race has ever been in single year by trophies and prize money.
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Four years* 2019-2022 and 2019 was actually the most dominant Zerg or any race has ever been in single year by trophies and prize money.
Yeah, it's been bad for a long time. I really hope the changes that make Zerg even stronger lategame don't go through, though with Rogue and (soon) Dark going to the military I'm worried..
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Four years* 2019-2022 and 2019 was actually the most dominant Zerg or any race has ever been in single year by trophies and prize money.
Except for 2019, the prize distribution is pretty even among races. Source: Statistics/2021
A big reason why Zerg appears dominant this year in Premier Tournaments is because the DreamHack NA regionals were reclassified as non-Premier. If they are kept Premier then Z has won 6/15 premiers instead of 6/13. 6/15 is indistinguishable from a 3 sided die roll.
Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
Regarding the earnings stats for 2020-2022: Keep in mind they include tier 3&4 events. If you would only look at tier 1&2 events zerg leads by a good chunk.
NA during ept NEVER fulfilled the criteria for being tier 1 (premier). They were always tier 2 by criteria. We only granted them tier 1 during covid restrictions as at that time the criteria were harder to fulfill.
The Zerg ultra dominance goes back way longer. In 2017-2019 they had almost half of the yearly total earnings. In 2020-2022 they had the most earnings still but at a lower margin. If looking at tier 1&2 events they won the most and had the most finals in each year since 2017.
tldr: Zerg is the strongest race by far already and they get significantly buffed with this patch while the race having the worst results in the last years gets their late game practically removed vs Zerg.
I sure hope that the patch never goes live in the current form. You basically could just remove any non Zerg from any tier 1 event and would achieve the same ...
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
would be interesting to get to know who is on that balance panel. at least the race representation with corresponding mmr range would be relevant
my guess is that it is heavily dominated by zerg players
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
would be interesting to get to know who is on that balance panel. at least the race representation with corresponding mmr range would be relevant
my guess is that it is heavily dominated by zerg players
It wouldn't matter if it was or not, someone at Blizz has to green light these balance patches, and their pattern of Zerg favoritism goes all the way back to the David Kim era. 2012, 2019 the two most imbalanced years in SC2's history that favored Zerg and they were far enough apart for there to be convincing evidence that it's not just these pro "council" responsible for Zerg favoritism in SC2's balancing.
Although Scarlett having a lot of familiarity with the balance changes makes a lot of sense considering she was one of the first if not the first Zerg I saw abusing the 2019 Nydus Worms at Katowice. That was in February of that year, and they were allowed to remain in that broken state all the way through to Blizzcon that year. The infamous ZvZ Blizzcon that Dark won, where every pro was abusing the shit out of the Nydus Worms.
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
To me the PTR patch is well thought out and balanced. Right now the main complaints for each race are: Ghosts, Disruptors, and Queens. The patch nerfed the first two, and because of the difficulty in directly tuning Queens, nerfed Creep and Ravagers instead.
The creep "nerf" is utterly irrelevant. Not even Serral gets affected by the cooldown decrease more than a handful of occasions per game. It changes jack shit.
On the other hand the snipe nerf means that even burrowed lurkers can now escape the snipes ...
Lurkers are incredibly strong and very often complained about still they even get buffed ("QoL" + hidden change)
The PTR patch notes doesn't explain why each change was made. However after watching various patch analysis vods by pros, I can make a reasonable guess at the philosophy and design process behind it. To me, every change falls under one of 4 categories:
1a. Nerfs to the most complained about units: Ghost, Disruptor, Carrier, Battery Overcharge, Viper. Indirect nerf to Queens.
There is no real nerf to Queens (the creep nerf doesn't have any effect)
1b. Buffs to underused units: Ultralisk, Raven, Banshee, Sentry.
The raven change is a nerf not a buff. They will still be useless for clearing creep and their harassment options get nerfed as well as their late game potential. The Banshee change is utterly irrelevant. The upgrade will still not be used at all since it still is not a viable option. Ultras are not really underused in TvZ.
2. Nerfs that discourage late-game turtling: Ghost snipe, Sensor tower reduction, Interceptor shield reduction, Viper post-abduct stun, Brood lord damage.
I would be okay with nerfing ghosts IF terran would get some compensation for it. With only nerfing ghost to the ground you remove terran late game (especially vs Z).
i am mostly okay with those, even though i do not really see the necessity for these. they buff units that are already used enough.
4. Changes that target lower level players without affect pro balance: Interceptor target priority, Archon size reduction.
those are totally reasonable imo
Viewed this way, the patch seems pretty reasonable. 1. If the community created a tier list for units, then nerfed the S/A units and buffed the C/D units, it would bear some resemblance to the PTR patch. I think that is a good motivation for this patch and future balance patches.
if that were the case terran would have lots of units buffed and lurkers would get nerfed heavily too
2. Late game turtling is unfun to play and unfun to watch. It makes a lot of sense to discourage late game turtling.
agreed, but removing all late game options of terran (and to some extend toss) while buffing zerg late game options is balnce breaking in fav of zerg (which is by far already the strongest race and that for over half a decade)
3. I think most would agree that raising the skill cap of strategies is good. 4. Decoupling diamond balance from gm balance makes a lot of sense.
if it is doable yes
I really like the overall concept of this patch. There's uncertainty in how the balance will turn out (for example it's possible that hydras will become too powerful if micro'd well), but I'm confident that those issues can be worked out when discovered.
TL;DR Balance was decided by community panel. Scarlett only implemented the changes. Overall direction of the patch is outstanding, within reasonable uncertainties.
Overall direction of the patch is outstanding imbalnce. I like the idea behind most of the changes if viewing them isolated, but the overall combination of the changes is just stupidly imbalanced. (imo)
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
would be interesting to get to know who is on that balance panel. at least the race representation with corresponding mmr range would be relevant
my guess is that it is heavily dominated by zerg players
All pro players were invited to the balance panel. So unless anyone declined the invite, the balance panel is exactly the current top pros.
several pros were not asked. several pros already mentioned that is not really democratic/fair and hence left it funnily none of the zergs left to my knowledge...
I would like to point out that just because someone plays a particular race, doesn't mean they can't make fair balance decisions. I understand that if you think the PTR patch is super zerg favored, then zergs can't be trusted to decide balance. I assure you it's not that cynical. People like Scarlett, TY, Lambo, Harstem can individually ensure balance without letting their biases get in the way.
that they theoretically could doesn't mean they would. people tend to try to get advantages for themselves where ever possible. thats just (human) nature
I hope that you can zoom out a bit and look at it from a higher level. it's not super zerg favored as some here are making it out to be.
i think it is super zerg favoured and as said before each change on its own might be logical if accompanied by a reasonable overall composition but that reasonable overall view is exactly what is missing with that patch
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
would be interesting to get to know who is on that balance panel. at least the race representation with corresponding mmr range would be relevant
my guess is that it is heavily dominated by zerg players
It wouldn't matter if it was or not, someone at Blizz has to green light these balance patches, and their pattern of Zerg favoritism goes all the way back to the David Kim era. 2012, 2019 the two most imbalanced years in SC2's history that favored Zerg and they were far enough apart for there to be convincing evidence that it's just these pro "council" responsible for Zerg favoritism in SC2's balancing.
Although Scarlett having a lot of familiarity with the balance changes makes a lot of sense considering she was one of the first if not the first Zerg I saw abusing the 2019 Nydus Worms at Katowice. That was in February of that year, and they were allowed to remain in that broken state all the way through to Blizzcon that year. The infamous ZvZ Blizzcon that Dark won, where every pro was abusing the shit out of the Nydus Worms.
I'll try and explain what I think Blizzard's involvement is on the balance patch.
This is my educated guess based on things I've picked up over the years (like the ladder fiasco last Christmas) and my experience working in tech. My guess may very well be wrong, although I do have some confidence in it.
1. Blizzard has allocated 0 headcount directly to StarCraft 2. Rather, StarCraft 2 is maintained by the Classic Games team that also maintains WC3, Heroes of the Storm, Diablo 2. 2. Nobody in that team is knowledgeable enough about StarCraft 2 to evaluate balance changes. It's likely that noone in the team plays StarCraft 2 or know what the units do. 3. Patches can still be built because there's enough people out there that know how the SC2 engine works (Scarlett, Arcade mapmakers, etc), and because it is similar to the HotS engine (which is a fork of the SC2 engine). 4. Patches can still be deployed because there's little that's StarCraft specific there. The devops team that maintains the WoW servers can deploy SC2 patches just as easily as WoW patches.
The process for designing, building, and shipping a balance patch is then: 1. The balance panel (of pro players) comes to a consensus on what the balance changes should be. 2. Scarlett builds a balance mod for internal testing and works out the technical issues. She is assisted by SC2 arcade mapmakers and the remaining HotS developers at Blizzard. 3. The head of ESL SC2 approves the patch. 4. The product manager at Blizzard Classic Games rubber stamps the patch on ESL's advice. 5. The dev ops team ships the patch to PTR and then live.
that esl approved this bs is pretty bad sign imo
also i sure hope that point 5 is wrong and there are review procedures based on feedback and win rates from actual testing and the pros they ignored for the (im)balance panel
Why its so hard to give transparency to the "community" balance patch process? Remember previously in older formal patch, they always have a small description of what they want to achieve with the change they are making? This patch has NONE of that, and some of them just look like random thought by some person without a careful view on the full picture and interaction between the units.
I dont want to name-calling pro players who contribute into this work, because they work hard on it while its literally not their job to do so. But we as community should be more informed of the work and a chance to give out thought about it. While I appreciate the players, their view on certain things ARE bias and its impossible to change that. I think in a recent video of tier list with Harstem/Lambo/Scarlett, they put Lurker as a C-tier unit (same as Lib/Thor/Colossi/Immortal/ Corruptor/ Hydra pre-patch) tell me enough about their bias. Just because Lurker got countered by Ghost/Libs and Carriers doesnt mean they are just "average" unit.
And I dont trust Blizzard (or what left of it) nor ESL in these matter neither, who are really on those teams really care about game balance or capable of making the right call? Blizzard is pretty much just waiting for the hand-over to happen, while ESL only care about filling the seats at the events, I am sure ESL has ZERO problem promoting Serral or Reynor as the GOAT for the next 3 years even if they have to change the balance/map pool countless time. That because Serral and Reynor CAN beat top KR players and win global title. There was a time they want to promote Clem after his insane TvZ streak, but Clem is just not able to beat top KR players at global events, so the attention is now back to Reynor/Serral. If I have to sell my house and bet on an IEM winner this year, its 50/50 on either Reynor or Serral, because thats the way ESL want to head into apparently.
On December 10 2022 14:13 warnull wrote: >Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
To clarify the balance changes were decided by the balance panel as a whole. Scarlett created the implementation for the patch. Scarlett did not single-handily decide which balance changes made it in or not.
would be interesting to get to know who is on that balance panel. at least the race representation with corresponding mmr range would be relevant
my guess is that it is heavily dominated by zerg players
It wouldn't matter if it was or not, someone at Blizz has to green light these balance patches, and their pattern of Zerg favoritism goes all the way back to the David Kim era. 2012, 2019 the two most imbalanced years in SC2's history that favored Zerg and they were far enough apart for there to be convincing evidence that it's just these pro "council" responsible for Zerg favoritism in SC2's balancing.
Although Scarlett having a lot of familiarity with the balance changes makes a lot of sense considering she was one of the first if not the first Zerg I saw abusing the 2019 Nydus Worms at Katowice. That was in February of that year, and they were allowed to remain in that broken state all the way through to Blizzcon that year. The infamous ZvZ Blizzcon that Dark won, where every pro was abusing the shit out of the Nydus Worms.
I'll try and explain what I think Blizzard's involvement is on the balance patch.
This is my educated guess based on things I've picked up over the years (like the ladder fiasco last Christmas) and my experience working in tech. My guess may very well be wrong, although I do have some confidence in it.
1. Blizzard has allocated 0 headcount directly to StarCraft 2. Rather, StarCraft 2 is maintained by the Classic Games team that also maintains WC3, Heroes of the Storm, Diablo 2. 2. Nobody in that team is knowledgeable enough about StarCraft 2 to evaluate balance changes. It's likely that noone in the team plays StarCraft 2 or know what the units do. 3. Patches can still be built because there's enough people out there that know how the SC2 engine works (Scarlett, Arcade mapmakers, etc), and because it is similar to the HotS engine (which is a fork of the SC2 engine). 4. Patches can still be deployed because there's little that's StarCraft specific there. The devops team that maintains the WoW servers can deploy SC2 patches just as easily as WoW patches.
The process for designing, building, and shipping a balance patch is then: 1. The balance panel (of pro players) comes to a consensus on what the balance changes should be. 2. Scarlett builds a balance mod for internal testing and works out the technical issues. She is assisted by SC2 arcade mapmakers and the remaining HotS developers at Blizzard. 3. The head of ESL SC2 approves the patch. 4. The product manager at Blizzard Classic Games rubber stamps the patch on ESL's advice. 5. The dev ops team ships the patch to PTR and then live.
that esl approved this bs is pretty bad sign imo
It doesn't surprise me at all. ESL allowed fucking Pride of Aldaris into the world championship map pool at Katowice last year. They fixed it so that in a Bo7 you would HAVE to play at least one game on it.
They either do not know what they are doing or are the chief driver of the push to keep Zerg on top. And it makes perfect sense that they would be because they are afraid if they lose the foreigner vs Korean narrative they'll lose their European audience.They have a vested interest in keeping the European players competitive, and as I've been saying the way they've been doing that is by giving Zerg a handicap.
Remember how the first EPT World Champioship (IEM 2021) was online so the prize pool was cut by half? ESL said they they will re-distribute that prize money into future events, but they end up giving lots of it to regional tournament where KR players cant join. That should speak for itself how they prioritize non-KR vs KR SC2 scene. In a sense, I really want to see how ESL would react if GSL stop after this year, and ESL somehow still continue into next year, that means they have to actually provide money for KR events.
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Four years* 2019-2022 and 2019 was actually the most dominant Zerg or any race has ever been in single year by trophies and prize money.
Except for 2019, the prize distribution is pretty even among races. Source: Statistics/2021
A big reason why Zerg appears dominant this year in Premier Tournaments is because the DreamHack NA regionals were reclassified as non-Premier. If they are kept Premier then Z has won 6/15 premiers instead of 6/13. 6/15 is indistinguishable from a 3 sided die roll.
Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
Regarding the earnings stats for 2020-2022: Keep in mind they include tier 3&4 events. If you would only look at tier 1&2 events zerg leads by a good chunk.
NA during ept NEVER fulfilled the criteria for being tier 1 (premier). They were always tier 2 by criteria. We only granted them tier 1 during covid restrictions as at that time the criteria were harder to fulfill.
The Zerg ultra dominance goes back way longer. In 2017-2019 they had almost half of the yearly total earnings. In 2020-2022 they had the most earnings still but at a lower margin. If looking at tier 1&2 events they won the most and had the most finals in each year since 2017.
tldr: Zerg is the strongest race by far already and they get significantly buffed with this patch while the race having the worst results in the last years gets their late game practically removed vs Zerg.
I sure hope that the patch never goes live in the current form. You basically could just remove any non Zerg from any tier 1 event and would achieve the same ...
Can’t really say it better myself but it is true. The earnings stats are the most telling, and while it is a bit of a trivia stat for us, earnings are very important for the players. With the lack of good funding in the scene except for some teams, having such an unfair game is detrimental to the scene in the long run since no new player with potential will even attempt to pick terran or protoss if zerg remains utterly overpowered (it’s only been even or slightly overpowered in 2022, but if we go back to 2019 level the game will die faster than we can throw money at it)
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Wtf? This means that Lurkers can now escape snipe after unburrowing. This shit is egregious.
Would you mind explaining why? Was it computed or tested in PTR? And why is it a bad change?
Lurkers move at speed 4.543 when upgraded. Snipe is 10 range. A lurker needs to unborrow and move 3.5 units away in the 1.43 seconds that snipe takes to go off. That leaves .93 seconds to cover that distance, which they can easily do.
Why is it bad? I'm not sure if this is a serious question. Maybe you should ask yourself why handing out yet another unnecessary buff to the race that's won 6/13 premier tournaments and taken 13/26 finalist spots in 2022, and has dominated the professional scene for the last three years is a good idea.
Four years* 2019-2022 and 2019 was actually the most dominant Zerg or any race has ever been in single year by trophies and prize money.
Except for 2019, the prize distribution is pretty even among races. Source: Statistics/2021
A big reason why Zerg appears dominant this year in Premier Tournaments is because the DreamHack NA regionals were reclassified as non-Premier. If they are kept Premier then Z has won 6/15 premiers instead of 6/13. 6/15 is indistinguishable from a 3 sided die roll.
Scarlett creating the patch makes a lot of sense. Only a zerg player could have created this patch. It is so damn Zerg fav.
Regarding the earnings stats for 2020-2022: Keep in mind they include tier 3&4 events. If you would only look at tier 1&2 events zerg leads by a good chunk.
NA during ept NEVER fulfilled the criteria for being tier 1 (premier). They were always tier 2 by criteria. We only granted them tier 1 during covid restrictions as at that time the criteria were harder to fulfill.
The Zerg ultra dominance goes back way longer. In 2017-2019 they had almost half of the yearly total earnings. In 2020-2022 they had the most earnings still but at a lower margin. If looking at tier 1&2 events they won the most and had the most finals in each year since 2017.
tldr: Zerg is the strongest race by far already and they get significantly buffed with this patch while the race having the worst results in the last years gets their late game practically removed vs Zerg.
I sure hope that the patch never goes live in the current form. You basically could just remove any non Zerg from any tier 1 event and would achieve the same ...
Can’t really say it better myself but it is true. The earnings stats are the most telling, and while it is a bit of a trivia stat for us, earnings are very important for the players. With the lack of good funding in the scene except for some teams, having such an unfair game is detrimental to the scene in the long run since no new player with potential will even attempt to pick terran or protoss if zerg remains utterly overpowered (it’s only been even or slightly overpowered in 2022, but if we go back to 2019 level the game will die faster than we can throw money at it)
Edit: about the balance council members, afaik there are Harstem, Lambo, Scarlett, Neeb, Astrea, SpeCial, maybe others?
[*] The creep "nerf" is utterly irrelevant. Not even Serral gets affected by the cooldown decrease more than a handful of occasions per game. It changes jack shit.
Are you pro ? How can you be sure about the core dynamic in matchs up against Zerg ? Have you take into account raven changes ?
Honestly, Serral and Reynor are top players because of their tumors skill, they are able to micro actions longer in the game without been tired. I haven t read every thread considering vision and tumors but actually, these changes are pretty wise, not too big and not too light
[*] The creep "nerf" is utterly irrelevant. Not even Serral gets affected by the cooldown decrease more than a handful of occasions per game. It changes jack shit.
Are you pro ? How can you be sure about the core dynamic in matchs up against Zerg ? Have you take into account raven changes ?
Honestly, Serral and Reynor are top players because of their tumors skill, they are able to micro actions longer in the game without been tired. I haven t read every thread considering vision and tumors but actually, these changes are pretty wise, not too big and not too light
The creep nerf being useless was commented and confirmed by at least two pro terrans - uthermal and heromarine. HM even showed some replays as examples
On December 10 2022 20:40 Vision_ wrote: Are you pro ? How can you be sure about the core dynamic in matchs up against Zerg ? Honestly, Serral and Reynor are top players because of their tumors skill, they are able to micro actions longer in the game without been tired.
hjpalpha is absolutely correct. Heromarine checked a few replays from Serral and Solar, top-top Zerg players. They usually spread creep every 16-20 seconds, _very_ rarely they use creep tumor right when ability is ready.
So even for them this change will have almost zero effect on their creep spread. Nobody, even Serral and Reynor, can spread creep every 11 seconds. At best they do it every 15-20s - even in the early game. So you could nerf it even more, to 15s from 11s - and this still would have very little effect even for top pro zerg.
After listenting to/reading a lot of feedback over the last couple of days regarding the proposed patch I currently have to agree that Zerg seemingly got a really good bargain compared to the other races while not really in need of buffs other than QoL changes.
I'd really love to have some more transparency regarding the process involving the 'balance council', as this is now pretty much community-driven, having this type of information available to the community makes even more sense IMO. Also excellent point made by tigera6 that they probably should have given a little context comment for every change to convey an idea what their thought process and the intended direction for it was.
How much freedom regarding proposal changes does the community have? I mean they said the Raven got a rework, but it's technically NOT a rework, as none of the spells were changed at a fundamental level, they only made them worse to justify a cost/production time reduction. But are real unit reworks possible in theory? Or just stat adjustments to not break stuff?
Would be cool if this was a more regular thing so there's room for adjustments and testing stuff before calling the shots and I'd also like something like a survey to incorporate community sentiments to a certain degree, like what's the top 3 issues for you currently with SC2 balance per race and list some options for people to pick, then you have a general idea what plagues people outside of the progamer bubble and MAYBE can take a look at what's going on there. In general I'd like the game to be as untouched balance-wise as possible (like BW) but only when it's in a really good state, which sadly seems to be really hard for SC2 to achieve.
All in all getting a patch is a good thing and maybe we're all proven wrong after we see some actual data how the changes play out, but guess we have to wait and see.
PS.: Why did they even put up a PTR client for this when we have the completely unused testing tab in-game? Wouldn't this have been much better to get more people to test?
On December 10 2022 20:40 Vision_ wrote: Are you pro ? How can you be sure about the core dynamic in matchs up against Zerg ? Honestly, Serral and Reynor are top players because of their tumors skill, they are able to micro actions longer in the game without been tired.
hjpalpha is absolutely correct. Heromarine checked a few replays from Serral and Solar, top-top Zerg players. They usually spread creep every 16-20 seconds, _very_ rarely they use creep tumor right when ability is ready.
So even for them this change will have almost zero effect on their creep spread. Nobody, even Serral and Reynor, can spread creep every 11 seconds. They do it every 15-20s - even in the early game.
Seriously ? I m absolute fan of HM and Clem but they are defending their own church. It s possible that these changes doesn t make enought sense. If future confirms, the best solution would be to reduce by a very very few the speed creep like in the past, because creep ability of pro players allow them to cover the most tiny maps in 6 minutes or less.... I m pretty sure some pros players will change their mind after HSC and a correcting patch will be done.
On December 10 2022 00:22 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Disruptors ... Sure maybe getting a perfect disruptor shot is a little punishing, but as we see in pro play, even if a player blows up 15-20 supply of Zerg with each hit, multiple hits in a row (Creator vs Solar at GSL Super), it still really isn't even game ending. In what games are we seeing where hitting a perfect disruptor shot is game ending or heavily shifts the state of the game? It's very rare, I can't recall any off the of my head. And how many games do we see where a Disruptor hit is dodged, and then it ends up not having any impact? Why are we straight up nerfing the AOE rather than simply tweaking them?
It s not rare but enought often to kill most of the tier 2 or 3 pros players, at least in Terran. The problem of your analysis is to only take account pro players even if you were right. SC2 is too much punishing for a game, there are simple solution to keep nova usefull without touch too much his impact.
Adjusting his area of effect will affect his overall strength while you need to affect the critical amount of damage with for example adding a stun effect (and prevent some units like roachs or marauders to be one shot).This kind of change is interesting because it would ask to the protoss player of finishing off units (so he has to decide if he kills some dying units or if he let them alive)
I like the direction of this patch anyway because the team looks wise and carefull
On December 10 2022 20:56 Creager wrote: PS.: Why did they even put up a PTR client for this when we have the completely unused testing tab in-game? Wouldn't this have been much better to get more people to test?
In my opinion, it would have been better. Maybe they altered/updated things in the engine as well which could only be tested on PTR. Maybe this way was documented and the testing tab was not? Heroes used a PTR as well, so it is not far fetched that the person at Blizz knew that process already. Also, moving changes from a mod into the game can introduce new bugs as well. This is the more secure approach
On December 10 2022 20:56 Creager wrote: PS.: Why did they even put up a PTR client for this when we have the completely unused testing tab in-game? Wouldn't this have been much better to get more people to test?
In my opinion, it would have been better. Maybe they altered/updated things in the engine as well which could only be tested on PTR. Maybe this way was documented and the testing tab was not? Heroes used a PTR as well, so it is not far fetched that the person at Blizz knew that process already. Also, moving changes from a mod into the game can introduce new bugs as well. This is the more secure approach
Yeah I also figured that it would just be 'safer/more feasible' to deploy a PTR client for technical reasons, but just sad that this feature was only used once or twice and now is just sitting there taking up screen real estate :D
I'm also seriously hoping that this patch will only go live after Katowice, although I'm hearing way too much noise that it's going live after HSC. If that's the case, it's going to be another Zerg winner. The Hydra and Ultralisk buffs make them significantly more powerful than most people give it credit for. It's the same with the nerf to Ghosts.
Katowice is supposed to be the culmination of a year-long campaign. For them to introduce such a huge patch that effectively changes the game is played in a huge way is not optimal, nor is it fair for the players. I think it should only go live after Katowice.
On December 10 2022 21:07 Vision_ wrote: Seriously ? I m absolute fan of HM and Clem but they are defending their own church.
You cannot argue with facts. Heromarine checked several replays of best zerg on the planet - and they do NOT spread creep right on cooldown. Usually they do it 5-10 seconds after ability is ready to use. Once in a while they do it on cooldown, but it's not even 1 out of 10 cases. So increasing the cooldown by 2 seconds will change absolutely nothing in 95% cases even for Serral. His creep spread will be 2-3% slower than usual at most - which is way too little of a change to affect anything. Creep spread should get slower by 10-20% to make any significant difference.
It's data from Serral/Solar replays - it's not an opinion or defending their own church, it's a fact. You can find Serral/Reynor/Dark/Solar replays and check it yourself if you want.
On December 10 2022 21:07 Vision_ wrote: Seriously ? I m absolute fan of HM and Clem but they are defending their own church.
You cannot argue with facts. Heromarine checked several replays of best zerg on the planet - and they do NOT spread creep right on cooldown. Usually they do it 5-10 seconds after ability is ready to use. Once in a while they do it on cooldown, but it's not even 1 out of 10 cases. So increasing the cooldown by 2 seconds will change absolutely nothing in 95% cases even for Serral. His creep spread will be 2-3% slower than usual at most - which is way too little of a change to affect anything. Creep spread should get slower by 10-20% to make any significant difference.
It's data from Serral/Solar replays - it's not an opinion, it's a fact. You can find Serral/Reynor replays and check it yourself if you want.
To be completely fair, tho, it should also be said that HM took TWO allegedly random replays to prove his point, which arguably is a very small sample size. While I believe that even checking hundreds of replays would not make much of a difference in the general observation made, technically he could just have cherry-picked extremely bad examples here.
In addition to that it's important to note that this is not necessarily just 'bad' mechanics from the players, but, as others here also pointed out, that the creep from the tumor is just not fully spread by the time the tumor comes off CD so in order to maximize distance it does not really make sense to spread it right away and, of course also can be delayed due to external factors as the opposing player just sitting on the edge of your creep hindering your efforts to optimally spread.
On December 10 2022 20:40 Vision_ wrote: Are you pro ? How can you be sure about the core dynamic in matchs up against Zerg ? Honestly, Serral and Reynor are top players because of their tumors skill, they are able to micro actions longer in the game without been tired.
hjpalpha is absolutely correct. Heromarine checked a few replays from Serral and Solar, top-top Zerg players. They usually spread creep every 16-20 seconds, _very_ rarely they use creep tumor right when ability is ready.
So even for them this change will have almost zero effect on their creep spread. Nobody, even Serral and Reynor, can spread creep every 11 seconds. They do it every 15-20s - even in the early game.
Seriously ? I m absolute fan of HM and Clem but they are defending their own church. It s possible that these changes doesn t make enought sense. If future confirms, the best solution would be to reduce by a very very few the speed creep like in the past, because creep ability of pro players allow them to cover the most tiny maps in 6 minutes or less.... I m pretty sure some pros players will change their mind after HSC and a correcting patch will be done.
Disruptors ... Sure maybe getting a perfect disruptor shot is a little punishing, but as we see in pro play, even if a player blows up 15-20 supply of Zerg with each hit, multiple hits in a row (Creator vs Solar at GSL Super), it still really isn't even game ending. In what games are we seeing where hitting a perfect disruptor shot is game ending or heavily shifts the state of the game? It's very rare, I can't recall any off the of my head. And how many games do we see where a Disruptor hit is dodged, and then it ends up not having any impact? Why are we straight up nerfing the AOE rather than simply tweaking them?
It s not rare but enought often to kill most of the tier 2 or 3 pros players, at least in Terran. The problem of your analysis is to only take account pro players even if you were right. SC2 is too much punishing for a game, there are simple solution to keep nova usefull without touch too much his impact.
Adjusting his area of effect will affect his overall strength while you need to affect the critical amount of damage with for example adding a stun effect (and prevent some units like roachs or marauders to be one shot).This kind of change is interesting because it would ask to the protoss player of finishing off units (so he has to decide if he kills some dying units or if he let them alive)
I like the direction of this patch anyway because the team looks wise and carefull
If we're going to nerf Disruptor AOE, then why not compensate with a small buff in another area, for example decrease the cooldown of Nova from 21.4 seconds to 20 seconds? That way it's less volatile, but also not straight up weaker, it just becomes more of a consistent splash unit. I just fear that the 1.35 AOE will really effect things. Think of how many times a Nova just barely clips 1-2 units running away and manages to get small kills. Think of the times where the opponent splits units, now some of those Nova will hit 0 units instead of 1-2.
Maybe I'm just biased but I don't see how Protoss got compensated in strength for this. HTs being faster doesn't help much, they'll still get EMP'd. And Hydras can now also move faster out of Storm. Quicker Gateway sentries and 7 seconds earlier +1 Forge upgrade doesn't make your units stronger.
Like others have said, Zerg got a lot of good bargains. The creep tumor nerf will barely change anything. Perhaps they hope that a cheaper faster Raven and faster Observers will help players control creep, I hope so too. But I hate the weaker Auto Turrets and the ever weaker lategame potential of Raven, making it less unique of a unit. (Spellcasters are supposed to be powerful units if you control them well and keep them alive to regen energy!) I hate that Terran will have basically no gas sink the way Zerg has Infestors and Protoss have HTs. Having no strong gas sink limits playstyles where players want to get many bases to bank up lots of gas and go for a powerful army.
If it's a goal to strengthen Gateway comps, then why hasn't anyone thought of buffing Sentry damage? It will ruin nothing, but be more useful than the patch allowing your units to have +1 damage for 7 more seconds. What about increasing Guardian Shield range back to 6 to help protect zealots better, and needing to rely on Disruptors less?
Though I still really dislike how they're fucking with and breaking the design of certain units and interactions, the vision and goal of these changes seem to be pretty narrow minded. Which is of course, understandable compared to an in-house balance team with professional experience working in the field, rather than fans of the game. But still, it would be very nice to have small explanations of the goal for each change, that way we as a community can actually discuss the patches better and help find solutions for future patches.
If this patch goes through, I honestly think it'll be the worst patch in SC2 ever that I can remember. It's a lot of ideas that sound kinda nice individually, but together as a whole this patch barely makes sense. SC2 patches in the past used to have very clear and cohesive ideas and goals, and very carefully considered each unit interaction. When changing 1 unit, they'd address the side effects by changing other units too.
Nerfing Overcharge would make sense IF Protoss was overpowered and pushes weren't viable vs Protoss, or if attacking wasn't viable. However, we see how frequent pushes still happen in pro games and how often Protoss die to these pushes even with Overcharge. So if we're going to straight up nerf Overcharge, it needs to be compensated in some other way to make up for the lack of defense. If people dislike not being able to outdamage Overcharge, then why not increase its duration by heck, 2 seconds to make up a little for the much decreased recharge rate? That way you can focus fire and outdamage the Overcharge, while Overcharge isn't straight up strictly weaker in all ways.
Hydra/ling/bane to late game lurker tech will just roll over Terran now.
Faster hydras + faster broodlords + smaller ultralisks and nerfed ghosts. Ghosts was the only unit that allowed Terran to compete vs late game zerg, now they are nerfed and zerg gets significant upgrades to their units. Lurkers got a buff due to the ghost nerf too.
On December 10 2022 23:56 allmotor1 wrote: So how is Terran going to win vs zerg late game?
Hydra/ling/bane to late game lurker tech will just roll over Terran now.
Faster hydras + faster broodlords + smaller ultralisks and nerfed ghosts. Ghosts was the only unit that allowed Terran to compete vs late game zerg, now they are nerfed and zerg gets significant upgrades to their units. Lurkers got a buff due to the ghost nerf too.
How? We wait for Maru to show us how, if he cant then it means we are F.
On December 10 2022 23:56 allmotor1 wrote: So how is Terran going to win vs zerg late game?
Hydra/ling/bane to late game lurker tech will just roll over Terran now.
Faster hydras + faster broodlords + smaller ultralisks and nerfed ghosts. Ghosts was the only unit that allowed Terran to compete vs late game zerg, now they are nerfed and zerg gets significant upgrades to their units. Lurkers got a buff due to the ghost nerf too.
How? We wait for Maru to show us how, if he cant then it means we are F.
To be fair, even with these nerfs, Maru has still managed to beat Zergs in the late game in more unfavorable metas than this one looks like it will be. It'll simply go back to Terran winning in the late game only if they are just plain better than their opponent.
As I've been saying in this thread, Terran's strongest power, their midgame isn't being touched it's actually getting some small buffs with the Ravager getting nerfed as well as the Raven changes. Who knows, maybe the new Cyclone might be better now too since its damage scales better vs Zerg units overall now.
So what's most likely to happen is the meta for 99% of Terrans will go back to "Kill Zerg in the midgame or die trying" which is where it has been dozens of times in SC2's history. It's nothing new.
On December 11 2022 01:00 TossHeroes wrote: Basically another patch where toss gets the shit end of the stick
Protoss AND Terran. Terrans will get a much worse ghost vs both Z & P with stronger Z's ultras and hydras, + worse sensor towers that helped to control Zerg movement somewhat.
On December 10 2022 23:48 Creager wrote: To be completely fair, tho, it should also be said that HM took TWO allegedly random replays to prove his point, which arguably is a very small sample size.... technically he could just have cherry-picked extremely bad examples here.
The main creep issue is not that tumor's CD was too low. The main creep booster is that 5-6 queens will make 5-6 tumors and a few seconds later creep covers everything around. That's why many terrans think that it barely even helps to clear creep vs top zerg - there are too many queens, so everything you cleared will be "creeped" back in a moment.
That's why even top zerg don't need to use tumors ability exactly on cooldown, and entire map is covered in creep anyway. You put 5 tumors in one place - they all will be 1-2 seconds apart anyway usually - and use tumors ability 20s later when all of them are off CD, instead of doing it one by one.
I feel literally disgusted. I'm not kidding I'm literally disgusted.
Buffed Hydras?
REALLY? After the fast hydras broke the game previousl¿y?
NERFED ORACLE?
Stasis Ward Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20.
What are you doing?
}And the worst:
CARRIERS MADE USELESS Nerfed interceptors health, made carriers more likely to be targetted,and nerfing interceptors damage!!!!! (Bigger radius means interceptors will atack less as they need to get close to the unit to atack).Might as well remove them from the game.
. LURKERS, the most OP unit in ZvPand strong in TvZ was buffed?
And Hydras.
We've had faster hydra before. Prepare to see unstoppable Hydra timmings that hit very fast vs Protoss and terran. Also now Hydras will move faster out of storm receiving elss damage, will dodge Disruptor shots better, split better vs tanks. It's a massive buff.
Just give Zerg players all the trophys now, what a farce.
I haven't been this mad at a patch ever. It's ridiculous.
On December 10 2022 23:56 allmotor1 wrote: So how is Terran going to win vs zerg late game?
Hydra/ling/bane to late game lurker tech will just roll over Terran now.
Faster hydras + faster broodlords + smaller ultralisks and nerfed ghosts. Ghosts was the only unit that allowed Terran to compete vs late game zerg, now they are nerfed and zerg gets significant upgrades to their units. Lurkers got a buff due to the ghost nerf too.
How? We wait for Maru to show us how, if he cant then it means we are F.
To be fair, even with these nerfs, Maru has still managed to beat Zergs in the late game in more unfavorable metas than this one looks like it will be. It'll simply go back to Terran winning in the late game only if they are just plain better than their opponent.
As I've been saying in this thread, Terran's strongest power, their midgame isn't being touched it's actually getting some small buffs with the Ravager getting nerfed as well as the Raven changes. Who knows, maybe the new Cyclone might be better now too since its damage scales better vs Zerg units overall now.
So what's most likely to happen is the meta for 99% of Terrans will go back to "Kill Zerg in the midgame or die trying" which is where it has been dozens of times in SC2's history. It's nothing new.
In TvZ, Terrans are weaker in the midgame than they are lategame right now. And this patch buffs the most common Zerg mid-game composition (hydra-ling-bane). Plus, "kill them before they get there" as the standard strategy has always been dumb, and always will be dumb.
Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
On December 11 2022 01:33 Athenau wrote: Plus, "kill them before they get there" as the standard strategy has always been dumb, and always will be dumb.
Yeah, it's dumb. When Z knows that T _has_ to kill them before late game, because T doesn't have much of a chance in late game, it's a big advantage. You don't have to guess or perfectly scout what is your opponent is planning, so you can prepare for the inevitable early/mid game push.
Thinking it over, I think the main change I'm worried about is the Ghost Snipe nerf. If it's really as impactful as people are claiming, then it seems rather game-breaking. There should imo be ways to punish Zergs just continually attacking into fortified positions and withdrawing, and ways for Terran to be more efficient, and just in general Terrans having a strong late-game composition is extremely important for the current balance and imo for balance generally. I don't see a reason to nerf Snipe at all, but making it easily cancelled even by Lurkers unburrowing seems especially crazy. If it's cancellable at all, it should only be by fast units immediately choosing to withdraw.
I like the Hydra buffs in themselves quite a bit, though it's true that they might be dangerous in ZvP combined with the shield battery and disruptor nerfs. Maybe it would be wiser to pick either buffed hydras OR the shield battery nerf.
And yes, if as people are saying the creep nerf actually makes no difference even at the highest levels, then that should just be increased.
I don't think the patch is quite as Zerg-favored as people are claiming, but hopefully the "balance team" is paying attention to the PTR and feedback and can make some tweaks and not just implement this all whole. I think that's an important test of the system. And absolutely this patch should not go through right before Katowice.
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
It's funny, because they still have bugs and glitches in animation. And they ignored it. Like one with thor or covid reactor. And now, I mean, you are right, good luck and have fun, because this is the most DUMBEST and long awaited update. And I will keep silent about map-related problems.
I feel literally disgusted. I'm not kidding I'm literally disgusted.
Buffed Hydras?
REALLY? After the fast hydras broke the game previousl¿y?
NERFED ORACLE?
Stasis Ward Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20.
What are you doing?
}And the worst:
CARRIERS MADE USELESS Nerfed interceptors health, made carriers more likely to be targetted,and nerfing interceptors damage!!!!! (Bigger radius means interceptors will atack less as they need to get close to the unit to atack).Might as well remove them from the game.
. LURKERS, the most OP unit in ZvPand strong in TvZ was buffed?
And Hydras.
We've had faster hydra before. Prepare to see unstoppable Hydra timmings that hit very fast vs Protoss and terran. Also now Hydras will move faster out of storm receiving elss damage, will dodge Disruptor shots better, split better vs tanks. It's a massive buff.
Just give Zerg players all the trophys now, what a farce.
I haven't been this mad at a patch ever. It's ridiculous.
I honestly refuse to believe that you play SC2 at all. There's no way you have this take while playing SC2, lol.
To be fair to you and give you some points why: * protoss ground armies have been buffed. a.k.a direct buff to herO who plays oracle into super oppressive ground style. * the stupidly slow HT is more microable now and in the hands of capable protoss players, this is severely reducing the amount of HTs you can lose to dumb out positioning. * "nerfed oracle". That's a nerf to random stasis on the map that was extremely punishing and game-ending if you do a timing. It's not a nerf to the oracle's biggest functions - scouting and mineral line harass. * nerfing protoss' defense with 1 robo unit and 1 battery is reasonable. I've played protoss pre-battery era at high masters, it was always possible to defend. With the omega (green) battery defense nowadays is close to no scouting required from protoss side. * the observer is buffed in terms of speed. HELLO, stop being a victim. The model size is only fair, since it's fast and you can gain so much scouting value from this. This directly compliments the weaker omega shield battery. * Carrier is not useless, carrier is now not a unit that you start massing from minute 6 to the end of the game and win while playing solitaire on your 2nd screen. If you've watched KingCobra beating Clem and Serral (I think he did beat Serral?), this is a balance issue. * Disruptor is an anti-fun unit. It was always good on paper, terrible in execution. Focus on stronger gateway armies with faster +1, +2, +3 plays a huge role in protoss' ability to trade armies more efficiently. The seconds difference is huge for timings in both PvZ and PvT. For PvP I can't say, since I don't play it for a long while. * Last but not least, the sentry buff is huge for holding timings and punishing the other races with some shenanigans. Even the faster hallucination phoenix scout is a huge buff. Slower ravager morph time also enables sentries to be more efficient for timings.
All and all, protoss can be further improved to be slightly closer to terran/zerg's non-stop skirmish efficiency. Their initial design of slow, strong, barely microable units was stupid to begin with and never earned any respect. The (community) balance team should even further try to push the race in that direction, while addressing ways to make existing underutilized units such as sentry, more supportitive.
Sentry's 3 seconds faster build time - is this that important? I'd understand if it was -25 gas... but only -3 seconds of build time, and only super-early game (before warpgates)? Do I miss all these games where 3 seconds faster sentry would change the game?
The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you handily blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong the Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
FYI if u guys are looking for a new RTS game to watch/play, i would recommend AOE4. Lots more diverse strategies and players cannot only play 1 race in a tournament.
Starcraft 2 now is so repetitive, literally just watching Serral / Dark spam 20 queens to defend everything and then overwhelm T/P with far superior economy in mid game to late game.
How is this game balanced if all Serral needs to do to win a game is not to make too many mistakes? How is this a fun game if the only way for T/P to win against Z is for Z to make mistakes and take damage that can generally be avoided? Really sucks to be a top T/P player knowing that a vZ game is not in your control - doesnt matter how gd u play, u just wont win if Serral doesnt take too much damage or make too many mistakes. Sad to see the state that SC2 is in now.
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
i know you only want to help and that you invested some time into this that the (im)balance council already should have
but maybe it would be good if they first revert all changes and do reasonable changes that do not utterly break the balance
While I am glad there is a team working on balance still for SC2, I am quite surprised by the patch since the game seems okay balance wise right now. If anything, I would've expected some minor zerg nerfs instead of buffs, as zerg has been dominating the biggest tournaments for years. I feel like it's possible toss might be okay despite disruptor and carrier nerfs, which are big. But perhaps the +1/2/3 timings can overcome that?
The ghost nerf seems pretty egregious, considering that Terran is hardly dominating and especially since zerg got multiple buffs. I don't think lurkers stealthily getting faster burrow and unburrow is necessary either.
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
i know you only want to help and that you invested some time into this that the (im)balance council already should have
but maybe it would be good if they first revert all changes and do reasonable changes that do not utterly break the balance
I doubt the balance council knows about all changes in this patch.
The balance council and I have different objectives. I do not care about balance that much as I do not play the game. Balance is for other people to decide. I only care about preventing bugs as I want to enjoy watching SC2 and not see it break apart like WC3. So, I want to assist with my years of SC2 editor experience.
Whoever edits the game at Blizz should fix the bugs or remove undesired changes. The fact that we have so many undocumented changes in this update is more concerning than any imbalance right now. Most undocumented changes benefit Zerg as well.
If I wouldn't check these, most bugs would probably surface some time after the update was released when Blizz probably has no more resources for a hotfix. The developer will most likely switch to WC3 which is a bit of a mess for weeks due to some one liner bug with a cache from what I have heard, or do something for Heroes as that was left on its own for an eternity. This is the state this game will likely remain at when the patch hits. If we do not invest the time now, the community will suffer because things are not fixed. So, laying back and saying that the balance is bad won't fix it. There are always voices like yours since everyone has their own opinion. Thus, single opinions will not prevent the patch from being released unless you have the gravitas of being a pro player. So, I believe that laying back and doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do unless you want to damage the game
Also, I've spend 20 hours since yesterday evening on this because I like this. The passion for this game, the engine and discovering the issues and bugs drove me to do this. Who are you to tell me to not do what I seem to be born to do?
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
Really nice of you to collect all this stuff in a repo <3 Usually I'm trying not to work on weekends, but since you've put in so much effort I've additionally verified the female Ghost issue, I've created an issue for it on GitHub to provide gif's, as well.
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
i know you only want to help and that you invested some time into this that the (im)balance council already should have
but maybe it would be good if they first revert all changes and do reasonable changes that do not utterly break the balance
I doubt the balance council knows about all changes in this patch.
The balance council and I have different objectives. I do not care about balance that much as I do not play the game. Balance is for other people to decide. I only care about preventing bugs as I want to enjoy watching SC2 and not see it break apart like WC3. So, I want to assist with my years of SC2 editor experience.
Whoever edits the game at Blizz should fix the bugs or remove undesired changes. The fact that we have so many undocumented changes in this update is more concerning than any imbalance right now. Most undocumented changes benefit Zerg as well.
If I wouldn't check these, most bugs would probably surface some time after the update was released when Blizz probably has no more resources for a hotfix. The developer will most likely switch to WC3 which is a bit of a mess for weeks due to some one liner bug with a cache from what I have heard, or do something for Heroes as that was left on its own for an eternity. This is the state this game will likely remain at when the patch hits. If we do not invest the time now, the community will suffer because things are not fixed. So, laying back and saying that the balance is bad won't fix it. There are always voices like yours since everyone has their own opinion. Thus, single opinions will not prevent the patch from being released unless you have the gravitas of being a pro player. So, I believe that laying back and doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do unless you want to damage the game
Also, I've spend 20 hours since yesterday evening on this because I like this. The passion for this game, the engine and discovering the issues and bugs drove me to do this. Who are you to tell me to not do what I seem to be born to do?
Really good job!
I am not sure how to connect the dots between your experience, the community balance team and adopting a sustainable development workflow.
Have you tried contacting any of the pros and getting in touch with the group? I am doing a small effort to get your github repo across.
Few things that IMO can be improved at the moment: * having a README.md with steps/guidelines how you developed this. * e.g how the editor XMLs were dumped * e.g how your changes can be applied/imported..?
P.S I have no experience with the sc2 editor, just xp in SWE engineering and developing/managing products.
On December 11 2022 08:19 syndbg wrote: Have you tried contacting any of the pros and getting in touch with the group? I am doing a small effort to get your github repo across.
I started looking into this when the PTR dropped. I am only interested in fixing bugs of their desired changes or consult in what to change to have certain aspects changed. Someone else can engineer good values or an initial dirty change for testing. I prefer to spend my time improving my extension mod and creating new features for observer UIs. My time is limited due to work. Since Heroes has basically 0 development, I have time for SC2 again :D I only have indirect contacts with people that create tournaments since I am modifying observer UIs and extension mod
On December 11 2022 08:19 syndbg wrote: Few things that IMO can be improved at the moment: * having a README.md with steps/guidelines how you developed this. * e.g how the editor XMLs were dumped * e.g how your changes can be applied/imported..?
P.S I have no experience with the sc2 editor, just xp in SWE engineering and developing/managing products.
My repo was not intended for development. But I will add some info how I exported the data (wrote my own tool for that purpose for Heroes of the Storm UI development :D ).
I did not create any of the changes on that repo. I merely dumbed the current patch and added a PR with the dumb of the PTR. The PR just reveals the changes in a nice UI allowing me to add notes to the changes.
First, you need to understand how the game applies changes. There are multiple layers of xml files that define and change data. You start with a core, add Liberty, Swarm, Void and VoidMultiplayer. Finally your mod/map changes are added to that. So, your changes in the mod often reference indexes, add an attribute to remove an entry, etc.
Developing changes for the game's archive is a 2 step process: 1. you add changes to an extension mod or a map to test them quickly without much effort 2. changes that you are confident to be put into the official game archive need to be adapted due to the layers I mentioned. Only Blizzard has that use case of merging changes into a single layer. I assume that you cannot blindly copy paste changes over at the end of the file and hope the editor converts it. Things like Actor events will most certainly break. But maybe that actually works since Blizzard is very likely doing this for every patch. But their changes sometimes look hand-crafted, so I am not certain. I doubt they rebuild the game archives to engineer early balance changes. Doing quick iterations in a mod file is way faster and leaner. You just have to live with the overhead of converting the changes later on and verifying that the end result is the same.
On December 11 2022 08:19 syndbg wrote: I am not sure how to connect the dots between your experience, the community balance team and adopting a sustainable development workflow.
...
P.S I have no experience with the sc2 editor, just xp in SWE engineering and developing/managing products.
I am a software engineer and work in the consulting business. As a hobby I modified SCBW, SC2 and Heroes of the Storm for 15-20 years now. In 2012 I became a big part of the GameHeart project (I maintained the obs interface; my name is on the WCS GameHeart extension mod) which changed how SC2 is viewed to this day. In the mean time I implemented Diablo 1 in the SC2 Arcade and since 2015 I develop observer UIs for Heroes of the Storm (which uses pretty much the same engine). Doing that, Blizzard hired me to implement the default observer UI of that game as well. Blizzard made me a "community commander" in 2014 and invited me to Versailles, most likely due to GameHeart and my activity in several forums concerning the editor at that time. I kind of retired in 2017 to finish my masters degree and now I only do UI things and now the extension mod. TLDR: I was really good at the editor, I am the guy that coded your in-game e-sport goodies and casters, observers, and tournament organizers might know who I am. Usually, I do not know people in SC2, but people know me
May I ask what your role is in this, if you have the connections?
I feel literally disgusted. I'm not kidding I'm literally disgusted.
Buffed Hydras?
REALLY? After the fast hydras broke the game previousl¿y?
NERFED ORACLE?
Stasis Ward Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20.
What are you doing?
}And the worst:
CARRIERS MADE USELESS Nerfed interceptors health, made carriers more likely to be targetted,and nerfing interceptors damage!!!!! (Bigger radius means interceptors will atack less as they need to get close to the unit to atack).Might as well remove them from the game.
. LURKERS, the most OP unit in ZvPand strong in TvZ was buffed?
And Hydras.
We've had faster hydra before. Prepare to see unstoppable Hydra timmings that hit very fast vs Protoss and terran. Also now Hydras will move faster out of storm receiving elss damage, will dodge Disruptor shots better, split better vs tanks. It's a massive buff.
Just give Zerg players all the trophys now, what a farce.
I haven't been this mad at a patch ever. It's ridiculous.
I honestly refuse to believe that you play SC2 at all. There's no way you have this take while playing SC2, lol.
To be fair to you and give you some points why: * protoss ground armies have been buffed. a.k.a direct buff to herO who plays oracle into super oppressive ground style. * the stupidly slow HT is more microable now and in the hands of capable protoss players, this is severely reducing the amount of HTs you can lose to dumb out positioning. * "nerfed oracle". That's a nerf to random stasis on the map that was extremely punishing and game-ending if you do a timing. It's not a nerf to the oracle's biggest functions - scouting and mineral line harass. * nerfing protoss' defense with 1 robo unit and 1 battery is reasonable. I've played protoss pre-battery era at high masters, it was always possible to defend. With the omega (green) battery defense nowadays is close to no scouting required from protoss side. * the observer is buffed in terms of speed. HELLO, stop being a victim. The model size is only fair, since it's fast and you can gain so much scouting value from this. This directly compliments the weaker omega shield battery. * Carrier is not useless, carrier is now not a unit that you start massing from minute 6 to the end of the game and win while playing solitaire on your 2nd screen. If you've watched KingCobra beating Clem and Serral (I think he did beat Serral?), this is a balance issue. * Disruptor is an anti-fun unit. It was always good on paper, terrible in execution. Focus on stronger gateway armies with faster +1, +2, +3 plays a huge role in protoss' ability to trade armies more efficiently. The seconds difference is huge for timings in both PvZ and PvT. For PvP I can't say, since I don't play it for a long while. * Last but not least, the sentry buff is huge for holding timings and punishing the other races with some shenanigans. Even the faster hallucination phoenix scout is a huge buff. Slower ravager morph time also enables sentries to be more efficient for timings.
All and all, protoss can be further improved to be slightly closer to terran/zerg's non-stop skirmish efficiency. Their initial design of slow, strong, barely microable units was stupid to begin with and never earned any respect. The (community) balance team should even further try to push the race in that direction, while addressing ways to make existing underutilized units such as sentry, more supportitive.
Phantom is well known to be a terran fan boy and hates Zerg on this forum
Just ignore him and don’t take his whining posts too seriously
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
i know you only want to help and that you invested some time into this that the (im)balance council already should have
but maybe it would be good if they first revert all changes and do reasonable changes that do not utterly break the balance
I doubt the balance council knows about all changes in this patch.
The balance council and I have different objectives. I do not care about balance that much as I do not play the game. Balance is for other people to decide. I only care about preventing bugs as I want to enjoy watching SC2 and not see it break apart like WC3. So, I want to assist with my years of SC2 editor experience.
Whoever edits the game at Blizz should fix the bugs or remove undesired changes. The fact that we have so many undocumented changes in this update is more concerning than any imbalance right now. Most undocumented changes benefit Zerg as well.
If I wouldn't check these, most bugs would probably surface some time after the update was released when Blizz probably has no more resources for a hotfix. The developer will most likely switch to WC3 which is a bit of a mess for weeks due to some one liner bug with a cache from what I have heard, or do something for Heroes as that was left on its own for an eternity. This is the state this game will likely remain at when the patch hits. If we do not invest the time now, the community will suffer because things are not fixed. So, laying back and saying that the balance is bad won't fix it. There are always voices like yours since everyone has their own opinion. Thus, single opinions will not prevent the patch from being released unless you have the gravitas of being a pro player. So, I believe that laying back and doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do unless you want to damage the game
Also, I've spend 20 hours since yesterday evening on this because I like this. The passion for this game, the engine and discovering the issues and bugs drove me to do this. Who are you to tell me to not do what I seem to be born to do?
i am not telling you not to do it, i even appreciate it
but if this patch goes live, even with any bugs fixed it will still result in a dead game as balance gets fucked entirely which is why i think it would be best to scrap it and start with reasonable changes or at least add more changes to not break the balance entirely
(as for who i am: i build and update lots of modules and templates for liquipedia in my free time, mostly on commons (shared repo between all lp wiki) or on sc2) so i understand that coding and eliminating bugs can be fun^^)
On December 11 2022 02:03 Ahli wrote: Does anyone have female Ghost skin on the PTR and can check if they have a snipe ability and a cancel button for it?
I suspect that it is broken when looking at the data. It is also broken for Nova then. The existing cancel button does not reference the snipe ability. It references a non-existing ability command called BypassArmorCancel
Very interesting, did some testing with the collector's edition skin for the Ultralisk and looks like you're right, the size reduction doesn't seem to be applied for it:
On December 11 2022 06:28 ZeroByte13 wrote: Wow, this is.... not good.
Fixing this is not difficult (easiest could be moving the changes to the parent instance and check if all skins inherit this correctly). This just shows that the person doing these changes is not an editor god with years of SC2 editor experience and potentially only has little time to do this. We should assist as well as we can
i know you only want to help and that you invested some time into this that the (im)balance council already should have
but maybe it would be good if they first revert all changes and do reasonable changes that do not utterly break the balance
I doubt the balance council knows about all changes in this patch.
The balance council and I have different objectives. I do not care about balance that much as I do not play the game. Balance is for other people to decide. I only care about preventing bugs as I want to enjoy watching SC2 and not see it break apart like WC3. So, I want to assist with my years of SC2 editor experience.
Whoever edits the game at Blizz should fix the bugs or remove undesired changes. The fact that we have so many undocumented changes in this update is more concerning than any imbalance right now. Most undocumented changes benefit Zerg as well.
If I wouldn't check these, most bugs would probably surface some time after the update was released when Blizz probably has no more resources for a hotfix. The developer will most likely switch to WC3 which is a bit of a mess for weeks due to some one liner bug with a cache from what I have heard, or do something for Heroes as that was left on its own for an eternity. This is the state this game will likely remain at when the patch hits. If we do not invest the time now, the community will suffer because things are not fixed. So, laying back and saying that the balance is bad won't fix it. There are always voices like yours since everyone has their own opinion. Thus, single opinions will not prevent the patch from being released unless you have the gravitas of being a pro player. So, I believe that laying back and doing nothing is exactly the wrong thing to do unless you want to damage the game
Also, I've spend 20 hours since yesterday evening on this because I like this. The passion for this game, the engine and discovering the issues and bugs drove me to do this. Who are you to tell me to not do what I seem to be born to do?
i am not telling you not to do it, i even appreciate it
but if this patch goes live, even with any bugs fixed it will still result in a dead game as balance gets fucked entirely which is why i think it would be best to scrap it and start with reasonable changes or at least add more changes to not break the balance entirely
(as for who i am: i build and update lots of modules and templates for liquipedia in my free time, mostly on commons (shared repo between all lp wiki) or on sc2) so i understand that coding and eliminating bugs can be fun^^)
Ahli did nothing short of a tremendous and amazing service to the whole SC2 community by pointing out and collecting all these inconsistencies/hidden changes/bugs and this is to be seen completely separate from your opinion of the balance changes being bad.
This is stuff that absolutely needs to be looked at by whomever the SC2 dev team is composed of currently, so whoever can forward his findings to Blizzard should do so.
On December 11 2022 21:56 Vision_ wrote: HSC won t be played with this patch ?! This is too bad, i would enjoy so much a test with all players, just hope some test matchs will be shown...
With EPT Points and IEM spots on the line, its not very appropriate to play the tournament on a new patch thats still on public testing.
On December 11 2022 21:56 Vision_ wrote: HSC won t be played with this patch ?! This is too bad, i would enjoy so much a test with all players, just hope some test matchs will be shown...
With EPT Points and IEM spots on the line, its not very appropriate to play the tournament on a new patch thats still on public testing.
There's a chance this patch goes live by the time Katowice rolls around. If that's the case, it is still preferable to play hsc on this patch to get first hand knowledge on how it will affect balance
now that people have calmed down i think we can all agree terran if anyone got the better end of the balance patch right? zerg nerfs are proving to be more significant than heromarine thought as games are played on PTR.
On December 12 2022 01:23 CicadaSC wrote: now that people have calmed down i think we can all agree terran if anyone got the better end of the balance patch right? zerg nerfs are proving to be more significant than heromarine thought as games are played on PTR.
What changes exactly are going better for T than thought? The only change I really didn't know what to expect with was the cyclone but I feel like that would only be good for some all-ins I doubt it's enough to make battlemech a viable lategame comp. Zergs will struggle with the new allins for a while and then adjust and be more dominant than ever because this patch definitely favors them in lategame TvZ.
On December 12 2022 01:23 CicadaSC wrote: now that people have calmed down i think we can all agree terran if anyone got the better end of the balance patch right? zerg nerfs are proving to be more significant than heromarine thought as games are played on PTR.
Someone posted a list of which Zerg units can escape snipe, both on and off creep. The TL;DR version is that almost everything can escape, most quite easily.
Which will have little effect at non-pro level but probably will change top-pro level TvZ quite significantly. Ghosts might end up being much less cost-effective (which made them viable in the first place). Welp.
On December 08 2022 17:32 ejozl wrote: Seems weird to me that they would make Stasis Ward priority 20, while Widow Mines are still priority 19. For people who don't know, if you get dropped by Widow Mines. Your stalkers, cannons, void rays will prefer to attack the Medivac over the Widow Mine. And if Stasis should have the same priority as any other combat unit, then I think Widow Mines should have that as well.
Who had the idea of priority in Sc2? Broodwar didn't have it why unit should have priority?
On December 12 2022 01:47 Athenau wrote: Someone posted a list of which Zerg units can escape snipe, both on and off creep. The TL;DR version is that almost everything can escape, most quite easily.
On December 12 2022 04:20 Vision_ wrote: 3.5 limit looks wise.
You think it's wise that all zerg unit beside BL and queen off creep can run away from snipe now, with good reaction? Including (from what I can see from these numbers) burrowed lurkers? Which mean ghosts might become much less cost-effecient, and terran has.... what exactly to win in late game?
What I am afraid of the Snipe change, is that Zerg will now try to bait out the Snipe and then moving back. Its one thing that you want to take away the ability of Sniping unit ALREADY running away from Ghost, its another thing to give the Zerg unit more mobility and option during engagement.
On December 11 2022 21:56 Vision_ wrote: HSC won t be played with this patch ?! This is too bad, i would enjoy so much a test with all players, just hope some test matchs will be shown...
With EPT Points and IEM spots on the line, its not very appropriate to play the tournament on a new patch thats still on public testing.
There's a chance this patch goes live by the time Katowice rolls around. If that's the case, it is still preferable to play hsc on this patch to get first hand knowledge on how it will affect balance
The only issue with that, is that this patch is still not yet finalized, and further adjustment might be done in the next couple weeks before it officially rolls out. So its a waste of time, and players are force to play on both version of the game because some other tournament are still doing the current patch. Personally I think it should only be applied AFTER Katowice, not before, into the next EPT season (assuming ESL already sign another deal with Blizzard).
On December 12 2022 04:20 Vision_ wrote: 3.5 limit looks wise.
You think it's wise that all zerg unit beside BL and queen off creep can run away from snipe now, with good reaction? Including (from what I can see from these numbers) burrowed lurkers? Which mean ghosts might become much less cost-effecient, and terran has.... what exactly to win in late game?
A lot of units have 8 or 9 points sight of view. They haven t really a chance of escaping.
lurker unborrow + escape : 0.5 + 0.77 = 1.27 time to cast snipe : 1.43
So you have 0.15 s to react. yes i always think it s fine
I feel literally disgusted. I'm not kidding I'm literally disgusted.
Buffed Hydras?
REALLY? After the fast hydras broke the game previousl¿y?
NERFED ORACLE?
Stasis Ward Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20.
What are you doing?
}And the worst:
CARRIERS MADE USELESS Nerfed interceptors health, made carriers more likely to be targetted,and nerfing interceptors damage!!!!! (Bigger radius means interceptors will atack less as they need to get close to the unit to atack).Might as well remove them from the game.
. LURKERS, the most OP unit in ZvPand strong in TvZ was buffed?
And Hydras.
We've had faster hydra before. Prepare to see unstoppable Hydra timmings that hit very fast vs Protoss and terran. Also now Hydras will move faster out of storm receiving elss damage, will dodge Disruptor shots better, split better vs tanks. It's a massive buff.
Just give Zerg players all the trophys now, what a farce.
I haven't been this mad at a patch ever. It's ridiculous.
I honestly refuse to believe that you play SC2 at all. There's no way you have this take while playing SC2, lol.
To be fair to you and give you some points why: * protoss ground armies have been buffed. a.k.a direct buff to herO who plays oracle into super oppressive ground style. * the stupidly slow HT is more microable now and in the hands of capable protoss players, this is severely reducing the amount of HTs you can lose to dumb out positioning. * "nerfed oracle". That's a nerf to random stasis on the map that was extremely punishing and game-ending if you do a timing. It's not a nerf to the oracle's biggest functions - scouting and mineral line harass. * nerfing protoss' defense with 1 robo unit and 1 battery is reasonable. I've played protoss pre-battery era at high masters, it was always possible to defend. With the omega (green) battery defense nowadays is close to no scouting required from protoss side. * the observer is buffed in terms of speed. HELLO, stop being a victim. The model size is only fair, since it's fast and you can gain so much scouting value from this. This directly compliments the weaker omega shield battery. * Carrier is not useless, carrier is now not a unit that you start massing from minute 6 to the end of the game and win while playing solitaire on your 2nd screen. If you've watched KingCobra beating Clem and Serral (I think he did beat Serral?), this is a balance issue. * Disruptor is an anti-fun unit. It was always good on paper, terrible in execution. Focus on stronger gateway armies with faster +1, +2, +3 plays a huge role in protoss' ability to trade armies more efficiently. The seconds difference is huge for timings in both PvZ and PvT. For PvP I can't say, since I don't play it for a long while. * Last but not least, the sentry buff is huge for holding timings and punishing the other races with some shenanigans. Even the faster hallucination phoenix scout is a huge buff. Slower ravager morph time also enables sentries to be more efficient for timings.
All and all, protoss can be further improved to be slightly closer to terran/zerg's non-stop skirmish efficiency. Their initial design of slow, strong, barely microable units was stupid to begin with and never earned any respect. The (community) balance team should even further try to push the race in that direction, while addressing ways to make existing underutilized units such as sentry, more supportitive.
Oh I play the game quite a bit.
The observer changes are fine.
The disruptor. I don't like the unit, it's binary. But it exist, and the colossus was nerfed to give it a place. Many times you won't hit anything with disruptors, some others you'll hit 1-2 retreating units, and some times you'll hit 10 units.
This change doesn't change the 3rd scenario much. But it will increase the first scenario by a lot. Now, in previous shots when you would only kill 1-2 units, you will kill 0 with the lesser radius. Killing a couple of units every 20 seconds is not great already, and now it will be 0. Not only that but by reducing the diameter of the nova, you're also nerfing its range. This is CRITICAL vs lurkers and siege tanks and liberators which demolish disruptors if they get close. With this disruptors will need to get closer to atack, making them die more easily. Another secret lurker buff.
The battery changes I don't like. True, batteries are too strong, specially green ones. However there is a reason that it exist, Protoss is very weak vs early all ins (that's why mothership core used to exist). I accept the nerf to the battery, but what are you doing to compensate? Letting sentries make faster? That's nice vs certain all ins, specially baneling busts and roach ravagers all ins but doesn't help agaisnt any other type of agression. While we're at it, is it really necessary that the sentry damage is so little?
The forge upgrade buff is nice...and yet not that significant. Previously forge updagrades were faster than this, then nerfed to the current research time and now they're something in the middle. They're correcting an over nerf. And while yes, this will mean protoss will get upgrades slightly faster, protoss units scare the worst of all 3 races, specially the stalker.
This will be useful for some blink and charge timmings, but it won't be for much else. The core strenght of the Protoss army is still terrible, and now the support and heavy hitting units like carriers and disruptors are nerfed.
The carrier didn't need a nerf, much less 3. I can understand it's tricky to deal with them once you have a critical mass, so maybe a nerf to make it easier to deal with (but not in strenght). But instead of making them cost more supply, or longer build time, or more resources so you couldn't mass them as easily, what they did is reduce interceptor DPS (the range of the interceptor is 2, and they will fly around in bigger circles now, while keeping the same movement speed, which means they will make less atacks per second), reduced interceptor health, and made units focus the carriers.
We've seen zergs deal with carriers with vipers, infestors and corruptors, as well as spore forest. Were 3 nerfs really necessary?
Lurkers and basically all zerg units ebing able to run away from snipe? Ultras get smaller now, but no damage nerf to compensate? Sensor tower nerf?
The Oracle mine nerf is big. Frequently in my games I put stasis mine on my army while an engaement is happening, retreat a little and get enemy uinits caught there if they didn't snipe the stasis mine. It's called strategy and micro. Now, enemies without any micro will snipe the stasis mine, making the strategy useless, buffing them agaisnt oracles. And all that in exchange of 7 second faster upgrades.
On December 12 2022 04:36 Vision_ wrote: A lot of units have 8 or 9 points sight of view. They haven t really a chance of escaping.
What do you mean? Zerg always has lots of overseers around when ghosts are out. Vision range is almost never a factor here, I'd think. Anyway, we will see how it will turn out.
On December 12 2022 04:36 Vision_ wrote: A lot of units have 8 or 9 points sight of view. They haven t really a chance of escaping.
What do you mean? Zerg always has lots of overseers around when ghosts are out. Vision range is almost never a factor here, I'd think. Anyway, we will see how it will turn out.
Yeah maybe you re right, but this fix is necessary from my point of view. I find a little bit frustating to watch a shoot able to kill an unit from very far (without limit at all) Let s look what will happen... Reduce by half the damage for units who escaped can be considered as well.
On December 08 2022 17:32 ejozl wrote: Seems weird to me that they would make Stasis Ward priority 20, while Widow Mines are still priority 19. For people who don't know, if you get dropped by Widow Mines. Your stalkers, cannons, void rays will prefer to attack the Medivac over the Widow Mine. And if Stasis should have the same priority as any other combat unit, then I think Widow Mines should have that as well.
Who had the idea of priority in Sc2? Broodwar didn't have it why unit should have priority?
I'm sure there is some priority system, if not the exact same. It's pretty simple actually: All units are priority 20, including static defense that is a threat to ground units. Priority 19 goes to Widow Mine when it's unburrowed(this is an inconsistency), and static defense that only attack air units. And static defense that can become a threat later(spore/spine uprooted). Priority 11 goes to the rest of the buildings, larvae and all eggs.
Changing around these priorities can be an issue because it puts bias into the system. Who are we to judge that a unit should treat the Carrier more threatening than the Interceptor, simply because killing the Carrier removes the Interceptor. If anything you could argue that the Carrier is harmless in of itself and it should have lower priority compared to the Interceptor. Now mechanics wise I don't mind it, but it goes against the rules. That is unless you wanna have Broodlords&SH's be a bigger threat than Broodlings/Locusts.
The Stasis change is a weird one as well, though functionally, I understand the reason to change it.
The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Not that I don't agree with your frustration because I do.
But the Raven also got buffed. Very slightly but a 50 gas cost decrease is pretty significant.
On December 12 2022 16:26 Vindicare605 wrote: But the Raven also got buffed. Very slightly but a 50 gas cost decrease is pretty significant.
AA missile is nerfed, matrix is nerfed, turrets are nerfed. You have faster/cheaper raven with a bit more initial energy, yeah, but they're still 2 supply and are now much worse in the late-game. And outside of TvT nobody makes more than 1 or 2 ravens (if any) anyway, but now these ravens are strictly worse. I would say - at best it's a slight nerf, at worst it's a significant nerf.
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Don't forget the Broodlord buff. Multiple pros like uthermal said that the lifespan reduction barely matters because broodlings usually get cleaned up anyways within a few seconds (unless you've already lost) and the speed buff is huge as it reduces the main weakness of Broodlords.
It really seems unarguable to me that the "balance" council mostly consisted of Zergs or that the Zergs have the most influence within that group.
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Don't forget the Broodlord buff. Multiple pros like uthermal said that the lifespan reduction barely matters because broodlings usually get cleaned up anyways within a few seconds (unless you've already lost) and the speed buff is huge as it reduces the main weakness of Broodlords.
It really seems unarguable to me that the "balance" council mostly consisted of Zergs or that the Zergs have the most influence within that group.
They just think Serral and Reynor need more helps, God forbid the top Zerg player losing to other non-Zerg players. Also, the balance must be done around ladder players, or so they said.
And what about ladder bugs - I`ve played with many masters with 2900 ranked points recently. And was starting from bronze league, although was always platin 1 . In fact, you can`t predict the level of the player you`re playing with basing on league anymore.
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Don't forget the Broodlord buff. Multiple pros like uthermal said that the lifespan reduction barely matters because broodlings usually get cleaned up anyways within a few seconds (unless you've already lost) and the speed buff is huge as it reduces the main weakness of Broodlords.
It really seems unarguable to me that the "balance" council mostly consisted of Zergs or that the Zergs have the most influence within that group.
They just think Serral and Reynor need more helps, God forbid the top Zerg player losing to other non-Zerg players. Also, the balance must be done around ladder players, or so they said.
If you lose to 2 base all-ins that were displayed numerous times in the GSL, you do not deserve to advance to be honest. Zerg was overpowered for so long that people began to think the likes of Reynor and Serral are inherently better than the likes of Bunny, albeit he has no reason to envy them talent wise.
Basically couple guys who left at SC2 team came around and said so Zerg is winning more than others? Just nerf it and issue as a new patch. This is the sum of this balance patch lol.
I think Neeb, Stats and PartinG all had periods where they were the best players in the game. But LotV did something to Protoss. The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS. Literally when Protoss would auto win vs Terran in every late game(doesn't mean it's OP) and for PvZ we had 4 supply Tempest + Graviton Catapults, while the Zerg side didn't have Parasitic Bomb, had slow Corruptors, slower rooting Spores and 7 range abduct that couldn't be cast while Burrowed.
On December 13 2022 00:55 outscar wrote: Basically couple guys who left at SC2 team came around and said so Zerg is winning more than others? Just nerf it and issue as a new patch. This is the sum of this balance patch lol.
Except its Zerg winning and they still nerf the other two races
On December 13 2022 02:01 ejozl wrote: I think Neeb, Stats and PartinG all had periods where they were the best players in the game. But LotV did something to Protoss. The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS. Literally when Protoss would auto win vs Terran in every late game(doesn't mean it's OP) and for PvZ we had 4 supply Tempest + Graviton Catapults, while the Zerg side didn't have Parasitic Bomb, had slow Corruptors, slower rooting Spores and 7 range abduct that couldn't be cast while Burrowed.
"The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS." wow, I thought at least Zest would've had it at some point after Rain
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Not that I don't agree with your frustration because I do.
But the Raven also got buffed. Very slightly but a 50 gas cost decrease is pretty significant.
1. Auto turrets now have to be a huge investment (a full mana raven can now only cast 2 instead of 4). 2. AA missile didn't have much use anyway and is nerfed by 33%. 3. Matrix now doesn't last as long. 4. Units like colossus that get matrix'd no longer derp into the terran army when a-moved (this is a 100% a nerf and shouldn't have been hidden in the QoL section, even in Maru vs herO this interaction was huge).
But it's 50 gas cheaper? Definitely a huge nerf overall. It's a bit easier to get raven for it's role as detection now, but it's use as a spellcaster is gutted.
On December 13 2022 02:01 ejozl wrote: I think Neeb, Stats and PartinG all had periods where they were the best players in the game. But LotV did something to Protoss. The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS. Literally when Protoss would auto win vs Terran in every late game(doesn't mean it's OP) and for PvZ we had 4 supply Tempest + Graviton Catapults, while the Zerg side didn't have Parasitic Bomb, had slow Corruptors, slower rooting Spores and 7 range abduct that couldn't be cast while Burrowed.
"The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS." wow, I thought at least Zest would've had it at some point after Rain
Aligulac balance thing is not as useful as prize money won and other metrics though, having a volatile mirror doesn’t help your case and even when protoss was strong they didn’t necessarily dominate the aligulac thingy.
To be clear the aligulac lead is only for the best player. It's not long ago there was 60% winrate for Protoss. But the point is that even with 60% winrate the best Protoss performer still had way lower rating.
When Rain was the leading player, Protoss wasn't heavily skewed balance wise either. So he was simply the best. But it begs the question, maybe Protoss need to be able to win late game, for it's players to be serious competitors similar to the other races' competitors. And so nerfing Carrier, because 'it's easier to play late game for the Protoss than for its opponent", shows that, actually Protoss can't have a best player, except if this is a viability. Maybe the ability to get into the late game and playing a long reactive game well, is not easy and is in fact what garners Zergs a lot of success and now Terrans as well.
Because we have been playing out this experiment for a long time and no it's not feasible for Protoss to gamble it's way to consistent wins, even using epic mind games. I mean I had faith when PartinG played and we had shield battery rushes, and Immortal juggling that looks broken. He introduced a ton of builds that we still use today. But it turns out that while they have longevity, winning the meta only wins you a tournament. As seen with Zest with his Adepts, as seen with herO and his Gateway style. Protoss are literally reinventing the wheel, and often all the player earns is a single tournament win. Then it's back to the drawing board, it's honestly sad.. But it's not even a balance issue, it's just that as a Protoss spectator, you can only hope foolishly and then get heartbroken.
On December 13 2022 02:01 ejozl wrote: I think Neeb, Stats and PartinG all had periods where they were the best players in the game. But LotV did something to Protoss. The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS. Literally when Protoss would auto win vs Terran in every late game(doesn't mean it's OP) and for PvZ we had 4 supply Tempest + Graviton Catapults, while the Zerg side didn't have Parasitic Bomb, had slow Corruptors, slower rooting Spores and 7 range abduct that couldn't be cast while Burrowed.
"The last time Protoss was in the lead on aligulac was Rain back in HotS." wow, I thought at least Zest would've had it at some point after Rain
aligulac ratings should be taken a bit lightly though. By the eye-test Stats clearly was the best player in the world in the first half of 2017. It was almost 6 years ago now, so not really better I guess, but still...
edit: also Trap had a really strong claim to the title of best player in the world during his insane tournament win streak
I hadn't really considered this but the archon change could be quite impactful in PvZ. You could negate every lategame runby (including baneling) just with an archon in the wall.
On December 12 2022 15:06 Fango wrote: The creep change is the most fake nerf I've ever seen. Not a single player in the world, even Serral or Dark, actually hits tumors within 2 seconds that he cooldown is up anyway. People have rightly said that creep is busted, putting out a fake nerf just feels like an insult more than anything.
Buffing zerg in the run up to Katowice again is madness. Should just add World of Sleepers and Pride of Altaris to be back in the world championship map pool and be done with it.
Hydra buff when they get used all the time (every top terran can be seen losing games to lingbanehydra)? Ultra buffs while they get used by all the top zergs (ultra run bys are huge)? Can anyone explain why these are needed? You don't buff units that are already successful.
Terran got nerfs across the board (cyclone and speed banshee changes are useless, everything else is nerfs), and protoss got it even worse (faster upgrades doesn't make up for no lategame). Most of these changes are very good from a design perspective, but the buff/nerf balance is completely wrong. It's hard to look at this and believe the team was not trying to ensure zerg win their 9th world championship in a row.
Don't forget the Broodlord buff. Multiple pros like uthermal said that the lifespan reduction barely matters because broodlings usually get cleaned up anyways within a few seconds (unless you've already lost) and the speed buff is huge as it reduces the main weakness of Broodlords.
It really seems unarguable to me that the "balance" council mostly consisted of Zergs or that the Zergs have the most influence within that group.
They just think Serral and Reynor need more helps, God forbid the top Zerg player losing to other non-Zerg players. Also, the balance must be done around ladder players, or so they said.
If you lose to 2 base all-ins that were displayed numerous times in the GSL, you do not deserve to advance to be honest. Zerg was overpowered for so long that people began to think the likes of Reynor and Serral are inherently better than the likes of Bunny, albeit he has no reason to envy them talent wise.
Lol to put bunny in the same league as Serral and reynor
Bunny has been a journeyman his whole career. One dream tournament run won’t change that fact
I guess I can make claims too. Terran has been overpowered for so long that people began to think the likes of Maru is inherently better than the likes of lambo and Scarlett
And before someone says but but Maru has been carrying the race for years
Fact: since 2018 terran has the most GSL winners Maru cure TY Dark rogue herO
overall the changes seem pretty decent, no huge complaints
observer speed: THANK YOU! ive always felt this would be a good change. rewards toss for trying to scout and multitasking the obs well. it's very hard to keep obs or stargate units alive against queens, and i think toss really benefits in a nice way from the option to safely sink attention into obs micro and justify the gas and robo build time, hopefully allowing a little bit more reactive play
banshee speed: booooo. this is like a change the balance team would make in mid-heart of the swarm. "harass unit faster now!" not very inspired and not something i think makes gameplay fun, just more tortured emphasis on tryhard worker harass
one other thing i'm a little worried about is a disaster for lower level pvz where lurkers are no longer counterable. two of the ways to punish a big aggressive commitment to lurkers were disruptors or fast carriers, and those units are both taking a nerf. mass lurker ASAP is super common on ladder around 4-4.5k and with no other changes to relevant units it seems like that style will continue to dominate zvp, especially with brood lords faster and carriers weaker. the only thing i can think of for toss is - maybe the ravager build time makes rav/ling/bane/queen midgame a little softer and possible to exploit with a big 3/4 base push? not sure
En Taro Adun We are excited to push Patch 5.0.11 to PTR which features various amounts of balance, bugfixes, and quality of life improvement done by our community members.
Zerg
Creep Tumor
Cooldown increased from 11 to 13 seconds. Sight range reduced from 11 to 10.
Hatchery, Lair and Hive
Creep spread interval decreased from 0.3 to 0.25. Sight range increased from 10,11,12 to 12.
Viper
Added 0.71 second Cast Finish Time to abduct (can not move or use other abilities during this time). Ultralisk
Reduced size by 12.5%. Increase range slop from 1 to 1.4 (range target can move before miss).
Hydralisk
Muscular Augments move speed bonus increased from 0.79 to 1.05. Damage point reduced from 0.15 to 0.1.
Brood Lord
Move speed increased from 1.97 to 2.3.
Broodling
Duration reduced from 5.71 to 3.57.
Ravager
Build time increased from 12 to 17 seconds. Protoss
Shield Battery
Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%.
Observer
Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82. Model size increased by 17.5%. Archon
Can now fit between single-gap walls. (Collision size with other units unaffected). High Templar
Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82. Disruptor
Purifier Orb radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35.
Carrier
Interceptor shields reduced from 40 to 30. Interceptor attack target priority reduced from 20 to 19. Interceptor flying radius around target increased.
Sentry
Build time reduced from 26.4 to 22.9 seconds.
Forge
Level 1 upgrades research time reduced by 7 seconds. Level 2 upgrades research time reduced by 9 seconds. Level 3 upgrades research time reduced by 11 seconds. Terran Ghost
Enhanced Shockwaves upgrade removed. Base EMP radius increased from 1.5 to 1.75. Steady Targeting is canceled if the target moves more than 13.5 range away from the ghost while casting (Cast range is 10).
Banshee
Hyperflight Rotors upgrade time reduced from 121 to 100 seconds. Hyperflight Rotors cost reduced from 150/150 to 125/125.
Cyclone
Mag-Field Accelerator damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs all. Sensor Tower
Radar range reduced from 30 to 27.
Raven (rework)
Gas cost reduced from 200 to 150. Build time reduced from 43 to 30 seconds. Starting Energy increased from 50 to 75. Interference Matrix duration reduced from 11 to 8 seconds. Anti-Armor Missile armor reduction reduced from 3 to 2. Corvid Reactor upgrade removed. Auto Turret energy cost increased from 50 to 75
Hoping that we can get some small scale tournaments going for this, it's great to get a balance patch but this one feels kind of misguided in certain areas. The creep changes seem meaningless, the Raven rework is extremely ambitious and warrants a patch borderline in and of itself imo. The Protoss changes feel like lip service, the Sentry should receive something that makes it a better combat unit so it can better support early/mid game GW comps, a few seconds is just meaningless.
Also, why Disruptor nerfs? They can be micro'd against and negated entirely, or you can lose a few units, it's one of the few units in the Protoss arsenal that forces interesting micro on both sides on the match up, nerfing this unit just feels frankly dumb, it's not like Protoss as a whole are killing it I mean they aren't ALL herO.
I do appreciate a Viper nerf even if it's small, I'm a Zerg but I think the risk reward is imbalanced, the Viper should have to be vulnerable at least to a certain extent while using spells. I also appreciate the Ultralisk buff, would be nice for it to be usable at the least and not just taking up real estate.
But yea, hoping these changes get revised. These changes seem mostly useless, bordering on just plain bad, and is WAY too sweeping in it's scope. That Raven change is huge and would probably need multiple patches to be balanced again, is the Raven really such an issue or is it a TvT thing I honestly don't know.
The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
On December 13 2022 16:19 TurtleFish wrote: The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
Queens don't counter any midgame timing.
I encourage you to go to the unit tested and create as many queens as you want to try and defend gladepts, DTs, immo/sentry, void/charge, hellbat bc, 2 base bio/tank timings, 2 port BC.
They're just a unit. You need other units to defend all of these timings. You cannot defend anything with just queens, same as you can't defend timings with just 1 unit as any other race.
On December 13 2022 16:19 TurtleFish wrote: The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
Queens don't counter any midgame timing.
I encourage you to go to the unit tested and create as many queens as you want to try and defend gladepts, DTs, immo/sentry, void/charge, hellbat bc, 2 base bio/tank timings, 2 port BC.
They're just a unit. You need other units to defend all of these timings. You cannot defend anything with just queens, same as you can't defend timings with just 1 unit as any other race.
And why Zerg keeps Doing queens and drones only ? Haha u wrong.
On December 13 2022 16:19 TurtleFish wrote: The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
Queens don't counter any midgame timing.
I encourage you to go to the unit tested and create as many queens as you want to try and defend gladepts, DTs, immo/sentry, void/charge, hellbat bc, 2 base bio/tank timings, 2 port BC.
They're just a unit. You need other units to defend all of these timings. You cannot defend anything with just queens, same as you can't defend timings with just 1 unit as any other race.
And why Zerg keeps Doing queens and drones only ? Haha u wrong.
You probably won't die when defending gladepts with pure Queen. You just have to play without workers at all then. EZ
On December 13 2022 16:19 TurtleFish wrote: The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
Queens don't counter any midgame timing.
I encourage you to go to the unit tested and create as many queens as you want to try and defend gladepts, DTs, immo/sentry, void/charge, hellbat bc, 2 base bio/tank timings, 2 port BC.
They're just a unit. You need other units to defend all of these timings. You cannot defend anything with just queens, same as you can't defend timings with just 1 unit as any other race.
The thing is, Queen does not need Larva, and does not cost gas. Meaning Zerg can delay on building tech unit to defend for a long period of time with little gas mining, and push everything on building more Drone and Hatch. So by the time the game reach mid-game, Zerg can just explode on economy and jump ahead and never looking back. Terran and Protoss does not have the same luxury, they need tech unit that cost gas ASAP to defend and harrass. Zerg can just sit back and macro and defend everything with Queen and Lings in EARLY game.
All the stuff you said are committed attack build, meaning they will hurt the Terran/Protoss macro game if those attack does not do enough damage to the Zerg. Hence the scouting of Zerg has to be pretty great to scout the tech from the opponent and have the correct respond, but with ling surround the map and overlord pillar, most top Zerg can figure out the build timing quite easily.
the most beautiful thing about this thread, the conspiracy theories that everything is directed against Terran. personally i think it is the illuminati. About the PTR patch, I think it's good that a lot has changed. But hope that still come adjustments in 2-3 weeks. Would like to see how top players play specifically on scenarios. Example: Late game, both go on fast tec build different late armies and test them against each other.
On December 13 2022 16:19 TurtleFish wrote: The biggest issue for me the past year has been how EFFICIENT queens are at defending EVERYTHING - spam queens and you blind counter every early to mid game attack by Z/P and get well ahead. Well obviously this issue is not addressed here, because the patch is designed by the QUEEN of Zerg Scarlett herself lmao... Next issue is how strong Lurkers are. They obliterate all ground army of Z/P + is super fast + is invisible lol. 90% of tournaments are won by Zerg because of these imbalances. And how do we fix this? Lets BUFF zerg even more lol! C'mon, this creep turmor change is a complete non-factor and a joke. I want to know who is on the balance council? This is not a "community" fix if Scarlett and a couple other folks paid by top Zergs decide how the patch looks. Maybe it's time to move to a new game.
Queens don't counter any midgame timing.
I encourage you to go to the unit tested and create as many queens as you want to try and defend gladepts, DTs, immo/sentry, void/charge, hellbat bc, 2 base bio/tank timings, 2 port BC.
They're just a unit. You need other units to defend all of these timings. You cannot defend anything with just queens, same as you can't defend timings with just 1 unit as any other race.
The thing is, Queen does not need Larva, and does not cost gas. Meaning Zerg can delay on building tech unit to defend for a long period of time with little gas mining, and push everything on building more Drone and Hatch. So by the time the game reach mid-game, Zerg can just explode on economy and jump ahead and never looking back. Terran and Protoss does not have the same luxury, they need tech unit that cost gas ASAP to defend and harrass. Zerg can just sit back and macro and defend everything with Queen and Lings in EARLY game.
I would wish to hear an answer from someone of the PTR balance team
This is simple, so why isn t there a discuss between pros on this subject ?
I mean all fighting protoss units cost gas also (except zealot for protoss and zerglings for Zerg), so unless you melt a queen with a warp prism, which is ridiculous, why this fu***** queen is free gas ?
It s here the difference which would exist between a hardcore and a pro player. Hardcore player knows that Queens are mandatory and could take their gas cost into account while a pro would have to be able to adapt his build order depending the map and the opponent strategy. That s why i m also for this kind of tweak, at least give a try... in return the mineral price of the queen decrease from 150 to 125 and Zerg player starts with 50 gas for 2 free Queens.
On December 13 2022 22:15 jack_less wrote: the most beautiful thing about this thread, the conspiracy theories that everything is directed against Terran. personally i think it is the illuminati. About the PTR patch, I think it's good that a lot has changed. But hope that still come adjustments in 2-3 weeks. Would like to see how top players play specifically on scenarios. Example: Late game, both go on fast tec build different late armies and test them against each other.
Nothing is directed against terran per se, but the game has been favoring zerg since 2017 hydra buff. 2019 was the absolute worst year in terms of balance but even afterwards zergs have had a good time, while terran and protoss got nerfed pretty quickly as soon as something strong appeared for them. If the reason for that is indeed business / politics about foreigners and audiences, idk, but it's been pretty obvious if you look at the various metrics (and most notably prize money won, which matters the most for progamers).
On December 13 2022 13:55 buzz_bender wrote: Can anybody who has played a bunch of games on the PTR comment on these changes?
Played a few terran and zerg games.
TvX - looks ok. The level between opponents is so vast that games are very one-sided. Zerg - got a few good ZvT and ZvP games.
ZvP - it's fantastic to have a microable hydra. On the other hand, I believe the speed buff can be tuned down from 1.05 (proposed) to 1.01-1.02 and still be a great change. Broods are also much better when you can micro and re-position them, while the DPS nerf is noticeable vs archons.
ZvT - played 1-2 good games vs ghost mech. While previously you can chip down the army with broodlings and fungal, now it's really more-onesided that you can't chip down the hellbats as easily. The ghost mech army is more decisive. The snipe range nerf also made the game much more enjoyable. The terran was actually trying to trade on the map instead of spamming PFs and winning the game by afking.
How does Protoss keep getting nerfed/about the same AT BEST while Zerg receives BUFFS?! I am at a loss for words. The creep 'nerf' is a joke as 10 queens which also blindcounter everything else spread the creep not perfect creep tumors being multiplied themselves. This must have been done by Zergs lmao
Other than that I am really happy that there are changes made at all - alive gaem but srsly when was the last time Zerg had to struggle and adapt?? I'm so tired of them being at the forefront always with the meta favouring them. Toss and Terran often have had to figure out a new meta and sneaky ways to win. With Zerg it's always don't fuck up majorly and you should be able to roll over everything. How I would love for a metagame where Zerg struggles for once... anyway. Nice to see them still working on the game!
For this to be a transparent and "community-driven" balance patch, there should be an AMA (ask me anything) session or at least back and forth between the balance council and the community. At the moment, this is a grossly inappropriate, zerg-favored patch, when the meta is already in favor of the zergs and zergs are already winning every tournament with ease. Scarlett, explain yourself and stop hiding.
On December 13 2022 22:15 jack_less wrote: the most beautiful thing about this thread, the conspiracy theories that everything is directed against Terran. personally i think it is the illuminati. About the PTR patch, I think it's good that a lot has changed. But hope that still come adjustments in 2-3 weeks. Would like to see how top players play specifically on scenarios. Example: Late game, both go on fast tec build different late armies and test them against each other.
Nothing is directed against terran per se, but the game has been favoring zerg since 2017 hydra buff. 2019 was the absolute worst year in terms of balance but even afterwards zergs have had a good time, while terran and protoss got nerfed pretty quickly as soon as something strong appeared for them. If the reason for that is indeed business / politics about foreigners and audiences, idk, but it's been pretty obvious if you look at the various metrics (and most notably prize money won, which matters the most for progamers).
Zerg was indeed favoured since the hydra buff in 2017, and lets not forget the insanity of early 2018 where ling drops were hatch tech and made robo openers impossible, while also nydus worms were invincible and a guaranteed win against stargate.
But then right after some zerg foreigners rose to the level of koreans (Serral and Reynor in 2018), the balance team brought back BL/Infestor (together with nydus/SH, zerg had two unbeatable playstyles), which all but guaranteed a blizvzcon the following year and probably gave the best ever odds for foreigners winning another World Cup (the tournament was just a ZvZ between the top 4 zergs).
Complete conspiracy theory but it's hard to not think of possible reasons why the balance team might have zerg champions in mind. Perhaps they don't realise consulting with successful foreign pros will lead to a zerg majority input, and then any further zerg buffs will reinforce that.
The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
>> vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. When you have 60-70% of map covered in creep, how much of effect this change will have? I would guess - 2-3% at most. You'll have 0.5 cm less of vision from creep on it's edge, and only some of the edges are of any importance. This is a nerf, yes, but super inconsequential one. >> Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, Then why zerg keep using them vs airtoss and in many games vs T too? I'm not saying they should not be buffed a bit, I think they should - just saying it's not true that they were borderline useless. You see them more often than thors, right? I know I do. Where are buffs for thors then?
>> brood lings have their CD cut almost in half Which might have lesser effect that you'd expect. Very often a lot of broodlings are either cleared out before they expire, or they cannot even attack because there's so many other broodlings around targets. So this might sound like a pretty big nerf on paper, yeah, but it might not have big effect.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
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.
Do people realize what the 200%->150% on Battery Overcharge mean? While it means that the Battery itself is 3/4 as good as before. It also means your Battery Overcharge is half as good. It buffs your Shield Battery by 50% instead of 100%.
This together with the EMP nerf are the biggest changes in this patch.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
The point is that a actual shadowy Zerg cabal would suggest buffs that aren't blatantly imbalanced, but still move the (balance) needle in the wrong direction, while camouflaging them with inconsequential nerfs.
Look at the Zerg nerfs: * The creep cooldown "nerf" doesn't matter as even elite pros don't spread tumors on cooldown. * Ravager morph nerf--how often is a 5 second increase to morph time going to make a difference? Which timings are rendered defendable by a 5 second margin? * Broodlord nerf--Only matters if broodlings were lasting longer than 3.57 seconds in the first place, but if you aren't cleaning up broodlings quickly you're going to lose anyway. Meanwhile a speed increase is a buff in almost every situation. * The viper nerf sounds significant, but it appears to be almost imperceptible quite small in practice.
Meanwhile Terran takes a big nerf to the one unit that was holding their lategame together (the ghost), and likewise Protoss takes large nerfs to Carriers and Disruptors.
Also, I want to point out that smaller Ultralisks with greater range slop is _not_ "QoL". It's a straight up buff because it means the Ultra will dealing out damage more consistently thanks to better pathing and less effective kiting by ranged units.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
The point is that a actual shadowy Zerg cabal would suggest buffs that aren't blatantly imbalanced, but still move the (balance) needle in the wrong direction, while camouflaging them with inconsequential nerfs.
Look at the Zerg nerfs: * The creep cooldown "nerf" doesn't matter as even elite pros don't spread tumors on cooldown. * Ravager morph nerf--how often is a 5 second increase to morph time going to make a difference? Which timings are rendered defendable by a 5 second margin? * Broodlord nerf--Only matters if broodlings were lasting longer than 3.57 seconds in the first place, but if you aren't cleaning up broodlings quickly you're going to lose anyway. Meanwhile a speed increase is a buff in almost every situation. * The viper nerf sounds significant, but it appears to be almost imperceptible quite small in practice.
Meanwhile Terran takes a big nerf to the one unit that was holding their lategame together (the ghost), and likewise Protoss takes large nerfs to Carriers and Disruptors.
Also, I want to point out that smaller Ultralisks with greater range slop is _not_ "QoL". It's a straight up buff because it means the Ultra will dealing out damage more consistently thanks to better pathing and less effective kiting by ranged units.
I think people are seriously under-estimating the zerg nerfs and over estimating the ghost nerf.
The creep nerf is a bit strange, and I think we'll need to really see it in action. I suspect players will adjust their internal timer accordingly, and the margin of error will be the same. Anyone below GM, probably won't even notice- but surely we're not pretending that's an issue.
Remember when void rays got a 6 second build time nerf, and immediately it changed the meta? (I understand that build time gets cascaded do to sequential building in a stargate, less so for Ravagers, but the point stands.) 5 seconds is OFTEN the difference between holding and all-in and not, even far below GM. Keep in mind this is also direct scouting time increase, since roaches have to be out already. Outside of all-ins, we won't see much change. Again, are we actually concerned that the ravager is too good in long games?
The broodlord nerf could mean almost have the broodlings out at one time, and a significant decrease in damage output when relying on spawning broodlings from other structures/ units (ie, attacking exposed depots to add range to the BL). In a straight up fight, yeah, not much will change. But BLs were already absolutely terrible in those situations. More concerning, the broodling cheese is currently the ONLY way to deal with turtled Thor + Ghost comps- and that's gone now.
I don't know what to say if you can't see the impact of the viper change. In practice, vipers should almost never be able to pull off a double abduct like that now- and will likely just trade themselves out for every abduct in most realistic situations.
The Ultra buff is not that big of a deal. No stat changes are at play here (aside from range slop, curious how much that will come into play), it just means you can't hide behind a mineral patch and invalidate a T3 unit.
The Protoss nerfs, I'm willing to say are a bit suspect. The carrier changes should have happened a LONG time ago, I think we can all agree. Everything around that, I'm glad to see, but some more compensation is probably needed.
The ghost change is seriously getting overblown. They no long get free kills every time zerg retreats. Fights can now be advantage terran, not a complete stop. In any direct fight, nothing will change. The ghost still counters every zerg unit, many of those units now just have the option to not fight/ be picked off for free.
The creep nerf is a bit strange, and I think we'll need to really see it in action. I suspect players will adjust their internal timer accordingly, and the margin of error will be the same. Anyone below GM, probably won't even notice- but surely we're not pretending that's an issue.
This makes no sense, if pros aren't playing around the cooldown now, why would they do so afterwards?
The ghost change is seriously getting overblown. They no long get free kills every time zerg retreats. Fights can now be advantage terran, not a complete stop. In any direct fight, nothing will change. The ghost still counters every zerg unit, many of those units now just have the option to not fight/ be picked off for free.
That free damage is a large part of how Terran gets value in the match up. You act like TvZ lategame is some sort of autowin for Terran, when they routinely get rolled even if they're trading 50% more cost effectively than Zerg.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Ultra buff is not that big of a deal. No stat changes are at play here (aside from range slop, curious how much that will come into play), it just means you can't hide behind a mineral patch and invalidate a T3 unit.
not true, as a demonstration video showed, because the ultra is smaller there are less units that can surround it, so less damage that can be done to it at once and therefore it is stronger against melee units. For instance zealots. if u do an ultra counter attack not only will the ultras fit between ur cannons and shield batteries, zealots warp ins will be less effective dealing against them.
On December 15 2022 04:41 Draddition wrote: The ghost change is seriously getting overblown. They no long get free kills every time zerg retreats. Fights can now be advantage terran, not a complete stop. In any direct fight, nothing will change. The ghost still counters every zerg unit, many of those units now just have the option to not fight/ be picked off for free.
+1 to what Athenau said. These "free kills" is exactly what gives terrans a good chance in the late TvZ. And did terrans dominate late game TvZ? Even Maru was +/- even vs top-4 zerg with ghosts help, he didn't dominate them. And he was head & shoulders above any other terran in how he used ghosts.
Remove these "free kills", and I think you'll probably see Maru winning 20-30% of late game TvZ vs Dark/Serral/Reynor, and everyone else not having a chance. It might degenerate to a situation where every pro-level TvZ is "kill Zerg in first 8 minutes or die". And when top zerg know they just need to defend and survive to late game, and they're invincible - this is what they will do every game.
Sometimes I feel that people got so used to top zerg domination and it-felt-inevitable wins in late game, that when it became 50/50 for a few top terrans, some see it as ghost being imba, not ghost giving a good fighting chance.
Meanwhile, current EMP and snipe are so imba that terrans won whooping 2 global top-level tourneys out of 13 in 2022, while Protoss won 3 and Zerg won 8. We need to nerf that ASAP, yeah, it's totally killing the balance.
On December 15 2022 04:59 CicadaSC wrote: not true, as a demonstration video showed, because the ultra is smaller there are less units that can surround it, so less damage that can be done to it at once and therefore it is stronger against melee units.
But don't ultras now also have a bit smaller aoe area? I might be wrong ofc.
On December 15 2022 04:59 CicadaSC wrote: not true, as a demonstration video showed, because the ultra is smaller there are less units that can surround it, so less damage that can be done to it at once and therefore it is stronger against melee units.
But don't ultras now also have a bit smaller aoe area? I might be wrong ofc.
If they do, it's not mentioned in the patch notes.
On December 15 2022 04:41 Draddition wrote: The ghost change is seriously getting overblown. They no long get free kills every time zerg retreats. Fights can now be advantage terran, not a complete stop. In any direct fight, nothing will change. The ghost still counters every zerg unit, many of those units now just have the option to not fight/ be picked off for free.
+1 to what Athenau said. These "free kills" is exactly what gives terrans a good chance in the late TvZ. And did terrans dominate late game TvZ? Even Maru was +/- even vs top-4 zerg with ghosts help, he didn't dominate them. And he was head & shoulders above any other terran in how he used ghosts.
Remove these "free kills", and I think you'll probably see Maru winning 20-30% of late game TvZ vs Dark/Serral/Reynor, and everyone else not having a chance. It might degenerate to a situation where every pro-level TvZ is "kill Zerg in first 8 minutes or die". And when top zerg know they just need to defend and survive to late game, and they're invincible - this is what they will do every game.
Sometimes I feel that people got so used to top zerg domination and it-felt-inevitable wins in late game, that when it became 50/50 for a few top terrans, some see it as ghost being imba, not ghost giving a good fighting chance.
Meanwhile, current EMP and snipe are so imba that terrans won a whooping 1 global top-level tourney out of 12 in 2022, while Protoss won 3 and Zerg won 8. We need to nerf that ASAP, yeah, it's totally killing the balance.
I agree with everything you're saying but Maru did manage to win 2 events this year (Last Chance and GSL).
On December 15 2022 04:59 CicadaSC wrote: not true, as a demonstration video showed, because the ultra is smaller there are less units that can surround it, so less damage that can be done to it at once and therefore it is stronger against melee units.
But don't ultras now also have a bit smaller aoe area? I might be wrong ofc.
Somebody did youtube video showing a battle testing between the current ultra and the patched version vs Marines and then vs Zealot, all sides fully upgraded. The result show that the new Ultra does better by 10-15% in term of the unit left from the Marines/Zealot side. Not sure how many time this person run the simulation so it might be a bit of “randomness” in there
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
You're missing a big part of context where terran and protoss received almost all nerfs, especially in the lategame. Zerg, despite being the race favoured to win every tournament, received buffs. There's no balance here. And it looks worse on the mystery team behind it when the supposed 'nerfs' to zerg are completely unimpactful, and 'buffs' to terran are in regard to units that have no impact.
Overall the patch nerfs the exact units zerg find frustrating (ghosts, sensor towers, battery overcharge, carriers, disruptors) and buffs the one they feel aren't strong enough but still play every game (hydras and ultras) and regularly win with.
On December 15 2022 03:36 ejozl wrote: Do people realize what the 200%->150% on Battery Overcharge mean? While it means that the Battery itself is 3/4 as good as before. It also means your Battery Overcharge is half as good. It buffs your Shield Battery by 50% instead of 100%.
This together with the EMP nerf are the biggest changes in this patch.
Ironically, it is currently still at 200% on PTR since Blizzard modified unused elements with a similar name.
They have to edit the behavior "BatteryOvercharge" and change the "HealDealtMultiplier" from 2 to 1.5.
On December 15 2022 04:41 Draddition wrote: The ghost change is seriously getting overblown. They no long get free kills every time zerg retreats. Fights can now be advantage terran, not a complete stop. In any direct fight, nothing will change. The ghost still counters every zerg unit, many of those units now just have the option to not fight/ be picked off for free.
+1 to what Athenau said. These "free kills" is exactly what gives terrans a good chance in the late TvZ. And did terrans dominate late game TvZ? Even Maru was +/- even vs top-4 zerg with ghosts help, he didn't dominate them. And he was head & shoulders above any other terran in how he used ghosts.
Remove these "free kills", and I think you'll probably see Maru winning 20-30% of late game TvZ vs Dark/Serral/Reynor, and everyone else not having a chance. It might degenerate to a situation where every pro-level TvZ is "kill Zerg in first 8 minutes or die". And when top zerg know they just need to defend and survive to late game, and they're invincible - this is what they will do every game.
Sometimes I feel that people got so used to top zerg domination and it-felt-inevitable wins in late game, that when it became 50/50 for a few top terrans, some see it as ghost being imba, not ghost giving a good fighting chance.
Meanwhile, current EMP and snipe are so imba that terrans won whooping 2 global top-level tourneys out of 13 in 2022, while Protoss won 3 and Zerg won 8. We need to nerf that ASAP, yeah, it's totally killing the balance.
I think it makes sense to look at this year, because the last patch was March 15. But I'd only go back to that date. Looking at the FULL list, I wouldn't think Terran is weak, but much rather Protoss. Terran with 3 wins and Protoss with 2 is close. But then also consider that only 1 Protoss came in second..
On December 15 2022 03:36 ejozl wrote: Do people realize what the 200%->150% on Battery Overcharge mean? While it means that the Battery itself is 3/4 as good as before. It also means your Battery Overcharge is half as good. It buffs your Shield Battery by 50% instead of 100%.
This together with the EMP nerf are the biggest changes in this patch.
Ironically, it is currently still at 200% on PTR since Blizzard modified unused elements with a similar name.
They have to edit the behavior "BatteryOvercharge" and change the "HealDealtMultiplier" from 2 to 1.5.
This should add to the Zerg cabal conspiracy that they didn't want players to find out how noticable the change is
I'm happy we're finally getting a patch and many of these changes are in the right direction, however I think there is too much change in this single patch. I think this next patch should focus mostly on reverting prior balance changes that were either bad or failed. Proposed changes below.
Zerg
Creep Tumor
Cooldown increased from 11 to 13 seconds. Sight range reduced from 11 to 10.
Hatchery, Lair and Hive Creep spread interval decreased from 0.3 to 0.25. Sight range increased from 10,11,12 to 12.
Viper
Added 0.71 second Cast Finish Time to abduct (can not move or use other abilities during this time).
Ultralisk
Reduced size by 12.5%. Increase range slop from 1 to 1.4 (range target can move before miss).
Overall good change to make Ultra's more effective but increasing their range, albeit indirectly seems a bit much.
Hydralisk
Muscular Augments move speed bonus increased from 0.79 to 1.05. Damage point reduced from 0.15 to 0.1.
I think Hydras are in a good place and don't see a reason for this change
Brood Lord
Move speed increased from 1.97 to 2.3.
Broodling
Duration reduced from 5.71 to 3.57.
Ravager
Build time increased from 12 to 17 seconds.
Protoss
Patch 4.11.0 Revert Observer Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82. Model size increased by 17.5%. Observer movement speed decreased from 3.01 to 2.63. Gravitic Boosters upgrade now increases movement speed by 1.31, down from 1.51.
This change in 2019 was clearly biased and not a legitimate balance change. PTR partially reverts but we don't need a new bunker timing every patch so might as well revert the entire idea as it didn't serve any purpose but a poor QOL change.
Disruptor
Purifier Orb radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35.
I think the core of the problem here isn't that Disruptor are too strong but the Colossus change from patch 4.0.0 caused this unit to be the only reliable splash and is therefore overused
Carrier
Interceptor shields reduced from 40 to 30. Interceptor attack target priority reduced from 20 to 19. Interceptor flying radius around target increased.
Carriers have already been nerfed multiple times. We rarely see a protoss come back from losing due to Carrier but do see Protoss close out games where they are already far ahead.
Archon Can now fit between single-gap walls. (Collision size with other units unaffected).
Sentry Build time reduced from 26.4 to 22.9 seconds.
What balance issue does this solve?
Shield Battery Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%.
Something might need to be done with battery overcharge but i think a 50% nerf is too much. I think the main problem is the design of overcharge is kind of feast or famine where it can instantly die to focus fire and do nothing or allow a colossus to range siege tanks. Open to a change just not this one as it is.
Patch 4.8.3 Revert Forge Level 1 upgrades research time reduced by 7 seconds. Level 2 upgrades research time reduced by 9 seconds. Level 3 upgrades research time reduced by 11 seconds.
Level 1 upgrade times increased by 15 seconds. Level 2 upgrade times increased by 18 seconds. Level 3 upgrade times increased by 22 seconds.
PTR partially reverts this change but this was another change I think was done out of bias against Protoss rather than any legitimate balance issue.
Patch 4.8.2 Revert Adept Gateway build time increased from 27 seconds to 30 seconds. Warp Gate cooldown remains unchanged.
This change should be reverted because it created a balance issue at top level of play where Terran can proxy a reaper and attack probes before Protoss is able to get an adept or stalker out, even with perfect micro and defense at least 1 probe is guaranteed to go down. Reverting this change should allow a cyber before nexus build to better defend against this build.
Patch 4.0.0 Revert Colossus Thermal Lance base range increased from 6 to 7. Thermal Lance damage changed from 12 to 10 (+5 light). Protoss ground weapon upgrades will add +1 to base and +1 to light. Extended Thermal Lance cost reduced from 200/200 to 150/150. Range upgrade increased Thermal Lance range by +2 instead of +3.
In theory this was a good change, as it increased the effectiveness of Marauder/Roach/Ravager vs Colossus while making colossus more effective vs Stim Marine timings. In practice it resulted in getting 3 Colossus max to hold Marine heavy comps early, then switching entirely to Disruptor as the unit falls off once Marines are replaced by Marauder/Ghost/WM compositions. It also virtually disappeared the Colossus from the PvZ matchup
Terran
Ghost
Enhanced Shockwaves upgrade removed. Base EMP radius increased from 1.5 to 1.75. Steady Targeting is canceled if the target moves more than 13.5 range away from the ghost while casting (Cast range is 10).
Good change as this increases Ghost ability to counter HT rush builds while toning down how oppressive EMP is in lategame where two EMP's can blanket a 200 supply army. Snipe change is too big a nerf so I think this change should be cancelled.
Banshee
Hyperflight Rotors upgrade time reduced from 121 to 100 seconds. Hyperflight Rotors cost reduced from 150/150 to 125/125.
Not sure why this is needed
Cyclone
Mag-Field Accelerator damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs all.
I don't like this change because in PvT there is good balance parity between Cyclone vs Oracle and Cyclone vs Stalker. This change makes Cyclones overly counter Oracle, and too weak vs Stalker
Sensor Tower
Radar range reduced from 30 to 27.
Raven (rework)
Gas cost reduced from 200 to 150. Build time reduced from 43 to 30 seconds. Starting Energy increased from 50 to 75. Interference Matrix duration reduced from 11 to 8 seconds. Anti-Armor Missile armor reduction reduced from 3 to 2. Corvid Reactor upgrade removed. Auto Turret energy cost increased from 50 to 75.
Costing 50 less gas and coming out 13 seconds earlier seems way too big of a buff. At the same time Terrans should be rewarded for good use of Interference Matrix
On December 16 2022 20:09 Rain_fan wrote: Mag-Field Accelerator damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs all.
I don't like this change because in PvT there is good balance parity between Cyclone vs Oracle and Cyclone vs Stalker. This change makes Cyclones overly counter Oracle, and too weak vs Stalker
Oracles are armored since Jan 2019 i.e. last 4 years.
On December 16 2022 20:09 Rain_fan wrote: Hyperflight Rotors upgrade time reduced from 121 to 100 seconds. Hyperflight Rotors cost reduced from 150/150 to 125/125.
Not sure why this is needed
How often do you see this upgrade being used in pro-level games? 0.1% of games? Because it's expensive, takes too long and is not very impactful most of the time.
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.
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 ?
I tested the undocumented Lurker attack implementation change and it had two effects: 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
One thing that would be nice here is maybe an AMA reddit post from the balance council, be nice to see their reasoning behind some of these.
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.
On December 14 2022 14:22 Athenau wrote: The Zergluminati are a meme, but if you're putting out balance patches that look indistinguishable from what a shadowy Zerg cabal would create, consider that you might be doing something wrong.
And what exactly about this looks like it was created by a, "shadowy Zerg cabal."? I'm not saying I'm the biggest fan of these changes (as is stated in my post) but no offense, I think alot of people here are having a bit of an overreaction.
The Hydra changes absolutely make them more micro friendly, isn't that what people what? Or do they just want Zerg to be weaker? If this change pushes Hydras over the top they can always reduce their HP a tad.
Ultralisks have long been borderline useless, none of these changes are a stat buff, why shouldn't they receive a viability/QoL change?
Yea Brood Lords are a tiny bit faster, but brood lings have their CD cut almost in half, seems pretty reasonable. It's not like going from 1.97 to 2.3 is massive.
Ravager nerf, substantial Viper nerf (well warranted I might add), and to be fair to the people that are upset, I also think the Tumor Change is half useless, but the vision decrease is absolutely a nerf. I know there are people here that think that creep needs to be borderline removed from the game.
So is the issue that Zerg didn't get nerfed sufficiently? I have a difficult time getting behind this, "The sky is falling" mentality that is apparently popular around here.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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.
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?
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."
A lot of other people already mentioned it, but terran late game is complete focused on ghosts, without ghosts terran gets overwhelmed by zergs, terran relies of insane trades to keep up with zerg, because zerg in late game control the map, and more than likely have + 2 expansions. So what happens when you buff zerg mid game and nerf terran late game? cyclone/banshee/raven buff literally does nothing for normal macro bio play. Maybe battle mech will become viable with this. But now normal bio play is in worse spot than it was, and the only terrans that was consistenly winning in late game was Clem and Maru (and even that was 50/50 +/-).
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.
Top European/American players play Zerg. Let's keep buffing Zerg
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.
the only change i rly hope they dont nerf is the disrupter change. nerf it in some other way, not this. make the cooldown longer, build time longer, cost more, i dont know. this size reduction as shown on showtimes stream looks horrible, he said himself that he is worried. protoss is already the weakest race dude. at the VERY LEAST give them other significant buffs.
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.
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.
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.)
Once again, mech play has been nerfed, even more. What's mech, you ask? Well, it used to be a viable option for Terrans. However, dumbshits decided to nerf that and late-game Terran even more. And yet, all you read is toss complaining. Raven: nerfed. Cyclone: nerfed. Sensor tower: nerfed. Idk why they say "re-work." It's a fucking nerf.
I'm a mech only player and I'm sad I'm reminded that Cyclone, Raven, Sensor Tower changes will be nerfing mech directly once again... Banshee will be buffed sure but it was fine already and won't be a core mech unit. Would be nice if we gave a tiny bit of love to Hellions, Hellbats, or Cyclones to make mech more rounded and solid.
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?)
I agree so much with Yoshi. Here are my thoughts on most of the same points and a few others.
I think the Cyclone is a super frustrating unit, in how heavy a glass cannon unit it is. So I would prefer if the upgrade for it, just increased it's lock-on range by 2 instead of the +vs armoured.
For the Disruptor, I just think it's the wrong nerf straight up. It's such an awesome unit for spectating and have made PvP for me, the best matchup in the game. PvT is really fun these days as well. There are nerfs you can do though, like increasing its unit size. It looks really stupid, how heavily they clump up and it's also one of the reason, we often see a huge number of Disruptors dying to a single Disruptor nova. Another nerf you could do is to remove its damage versus buildings. I think this makes it so, at least you can hide behind walls better and make the unit less well rounded. This will help Terran's Planetaries in TvP a lot. You could also make it so that the Warp Prism cannot pick-up the Disruptor while the nova is out. It's kind of weird that the Disruptor cannot cancel its nova, but with a Prism nearby suddenly you can. It would be like if you could pick up sieged Siege Tanks with Medivacs and it would instant unsiege them.
With 150/150 Shield Batteries, I would accept the Overcharge nerf.
I wonder what peoples thoughts are on, if we redesigned the Nexus energy abilities to the following. Instead of having cooldowns, Recall and Overcharge costs are increased from 50->75. The time it takes to gain 50 energy, is 64 seconds, the time it takes to gain 75 energy is 96 seconds. Overcharge currently have 60 second cooldown and Recall currently have a 130 second cooldown. So you see, the Overcharge cooldown is actually done before the Nexus has it's 50 energy again. So if you only had 1 Nexus, you would never feel the cooldown. The cooldown only comes into effect with multiple Nexus. Now having no cooldown of course means that you can spam 3 Overcharges in a row, but think of how much opportunity cost that is. It would be all about energy management instead of cooldown management, which means if the Terran keeps on being aggressive and forcing the Protoss to use Recalls/Overcharges, it would cut into his ability to Chrono. Another cool side effect would be that Toss could go bananas late game with many Recalls, when being aggressive all over the map. I'm sure this sounds totally imba, but I'm not sure it is, I just think it would be epic and actually encourage aggressive Protoss late game play.
For the Hydralisk, it's evident that the unit is currently balanced, so the buff is ridiculous as is. I think most agree, however that a faster Hydralisk would be more fun and it's also more flavourful. You could frontload it's movespeed, the Hydralisk is pretty trash unupgraded. Remove the range upgrade and double the cost of the movement speed upgrade. Being way faster means, they can retreat more easily and not be so damn committed when doing pressure, it also means they'd do better vs splash when microed. But they wouldn't be godlike at catching drops and upset the balance of the core units, in general.
Now with the Hydralisk in mind, the mobility creep is through the roof on this patch. Hydra, Obs, HT, BL. It's insane. How about we let BL, HT and the Obs be and instead we nerf the Ghost's movement speed. This unit became insanely fast in a patch long ago. A slower Ghost coupled with the change to the EMP and the Ghost is fixed. I don't think the Snipe needs fixing, actually. Now in my own mod I made Snipe cancel on Burrow, but in that one the Lurker is way weaker with only 7 range. I think something nice for EMP would be if it emptied all the energy of the unit. It's lame that even if you hit your EMP you can still get stormed.
There have also been range creep over the years. For instance 11 range Thors, 10 range Feedback, EMP+Fungal being too big. A healthy change would be to reduce Thor range and Feedback range by 1, Feedback damage could go from 50%->66/75%. Abduct nerf could be a real nerf, where it has 1 second cast time. Fungal AoE could be reduced to 2 and you could tweak the Tempest as well. All this would put things in line a little better, this would also give Interference Matrix some spotligt, conversely, you could buff Interference Matrix range by 1, but buying into the range creep.
A few other thoughts: Spore to 6 second burrow sounds good. Stasis could be made invisible upon spawn, it's really a cool spell and it's not fair how it gets made significantly worse this patch. Sensor Tower could be made like half it's size, so I guess a range of 21. But then be given the Salvage, this would encourage tactical play. The Forge research times could get fully reverted, so Toss is not just worse, but they actually have an advantage through their macro mechanic. Costs could be increased on the armour/weapon upgrades from 150->175, 200->250 on lvl 2 and lvl 3.
Its abundantly clear for me that the changes were made because they sound good in a vacuum, without any regards as for their effect on the balance and side effects with internactuons with other units.
"wouldnt it be nice if the hydra was more micreable? Wouldnt it be nice if ultras were smaller and less chunky? Wouldnt it be nice if BL were slightly faster? Wouldnt it be nice if the ghost didnt counter all zerg lategame units, wouldnt it be nice if the disruptor didnt kill 20 supply a hit? Wouldnt it be nice if carrier were easier yo deal with? "
Which yeah, would be nice. But why are You giving terrans to deal with the insta remax insta tech switch in zerg lategame? What are You giving protoss to compensate the carrier and disruptors nerfs? How are You nerfing zerg yo compensate it will be much stronger with the changes now?
This is literally the worst patch ive ever seen. Not even early wol parches were This bad
On December 21 2022 02:36 [Phantom] wrote: Its abundantly clear for me that the changes were made because they sound good in a vacuum, without any regards as for their effect on the balance and side effects with internactuons with other units.
"wouldnt it be nice if the hydra was more micreable? Wouldnt it be nice if ultras were smaller and less chunky? Wouldnt it be nice if BL were slightly faster? Wouldnt it be nice if the ghost didnt counter all zerg lategame units, wouldnt it be nice if the disruptor didnt kill 20 supply a hit? Wouldnt it be nice if carrier were easier yo deal with? "
Which yeah, would be nice. But why are You giving terrans to deal with the insta remax insta tech switch in zerg lategame? What are You giving protoss to compensate the carrier and disruptors nerfs? How are You nerfing zerg yo compensate it will be much stronger with the changes now?
This is literally the worst patch ive ever seen. Not even early wol parches were This bad
Wouldn't it be nice if you tried out the new patch first? Especially, as there was not a single time where the game got a patch even remotely close to the full extent of what was proposed for the PTR.
On December 21 2022 02:36 [Phantom] wrote: Its abundantly clear for me that the changes were made because they sound good in a vacuum, without any regards as for their effect on the balance and side effects with internactuons with other units.
"wouldnt it be nice if the hydra was more micreable? Wouldnt it be nice if ultras were smaller and less chunky? Wouldnt it be nice if BL were slightly faster? Wouldnt it be nice if the ghost didnt counter all zerg lategame units, wouldnt it be nice if the disruptor didnt kill 20 supply a hit? Wouldnt it be nice if carrier were easier yo deal with? "
Which yeah, would be nice. But why are You giving terrans to deal with the insta remax insta tech switch in zerg lategame? What are You giving protoss to compensate the carrier and disruptors nerfs? How are You nerfing zerg yo compensate it will be much stronger with the changes now?
This is literally the worst patch ive ever seen. Not even early wol parches were This bad
Exactly. Looks to be an aggregate of each race's requests, with no real deep overview. Ideally, a balance council/team should always think about "What is the current state of X, what X problem is Y supposed to solve and what are Y side-effects?" and base everything on GM ladder and tournament statistics. Any opinion or suggestion that cannot be proven should be dismissed, as should any suggestion in which the overall negative consequences outweigh the positive. That's like the basics of any update on something that really matters. But maybe that's the whole point; deep down, they don't think it really matters.
On December 21 2022 02:36 [Phantom] wrote: Its abundantly clear for me that the changes were made because they sound good in a vacuum, without any regards as for their effect on the balance and side effects with internactuons with other units.
"wouldnt it be nice if the hydra was more micreable? Wouldnt it be nice if ultras were smaller and less chunky? Wouldnt it be nice if BL were slightly faster? Wouldnt it be nice if the ghost didnt counter all zerg lategame units, wouldnt it be nice if the disruptor didnt kill 20 supply a hit? Wouldnt it be nice if carrier were easier yo deal with? "
Which yeah, would be nice. But why are You giving terrans to deal with the insta remax insta tech switch in zerg lategame? What are You giving protoss to compensate the carrier and disruptors nerfs? How are You nerfing zerg yo compensate it will be much stronger with the changes now?
This is literally the worst patch ive ever seen. Not even early wol parches were This bad
Wouldn't it be nice if you tried out the new patch first? Especially, as there was not a single time where the game got a patch even remotely close to the full extent of what was proposed for the PTR.
Less is more. I'm 100% convinced that this amount of unjustified changes is more due to a lack of a proper decision framework rather than a strong desire to keep the game fresh and balanced.
On a positive note, I think the Cyclone change will end up being a buff vs Zerg. Queens, ravagers, hydras, and mutas are important targets that will die a lot more quickly now. Mutas are especially significant since surprise mutas often end up dumpstering battlemech openers.
On December 21 2022 10:13 Athenau wrote: On a positive note, I think the Cyclone change will end up being a buff vs Zerg. Queens, ravagers, hydras, and mutas are important targets that will die a lot more quickly now. Mutas are especially significant since surprise mutas often end up dumpstering battlemech openers.
So maybe we'll see a bit more mech?
I doubt it, last night Maru tried a Battle Mech build against Solar in Olimoleague Final, and everything was looking fine until the Cyclone was out of position and Solar hidden Muta build destroyed Maru base in an instant, while the Roach Ravager Bane simply couldnt be stop with Helion/Cyclone.
I think the only possible Mech composition that work is still BC + Tank/Thor + Helion, Cyclone are fun to use like Banshee but they are just too fragile and easy to get caught out of position by the more mobile Zerg army.
On December 21 2022 10:13 Athenau wrote: On a positive note, I think the Cyclone change will end up being a buff vs Zerg. Queens, ravagers, hydras, and mutas are important targets that will die a lot more quickly now. Mutas are especially significant since surprise mutas often end up dumpstering battlemech openers.
So maybe we'll see a bit more mech?
I doubt it, last night Maru tried a Battle Mech build against Solar in Olimoleague Final, and everything was looking fine until the Cyclone was out of position and Solar hidden Muta build destroyed Maru base in an instant, while the Roach Ravager Bane simply couldnt be stop with Helion/Cyclone.
I think the only possible Mech composition that work is still BC + Tank/Thor + Helion, Cyclone are fun to use like Banshee but they are just too fragile and easy to get caught out of position by the more mobile Zerg army.
The problem is that while Cyclones are great in really small numbers (as in, maybe 3 tops) they start falling hard because its just humanly impossible to micro them correctly. They'll lock on a zergling, the front cyclone in the back will lock on to the units that farther away, etc.
You just can't take fights with Cyclones in a way you can with every other unit.
On December 21 2022 10:13 Athenau wrote: On a positive note, I think the Cyclone change will end up being a buff vs Zerg. Queens, ravagers, hydras, and mutas are important targets that will die a lot more quickly now. Mutas are especially significant since surprise mutas often end up dumpstering battlemech openers.
So maybe we'll see a bit more mech?
I doubt it, last night Maru tried a Battle Mech build against Solar in Olimoleague Final, and everything was looking fine until the Cyclone was out of position and Solar hidden Muta build destroyed Maru base in an instant, while the Roach Ravager Bane simply couldnt be stop with Helion/Cyclone.
I think the only possible Mech composition that work is still BC + Tank/Thor + Helion, Cyclone are fun to use like Banshee but they are just too fragile and easy to get caught out of position by the more mobile Zerg army.
On December 21 2022 10:13 Athenau wrote: On a positive note, I think the Cyclone change will end up being a buff vs Zerg. Queens, ravagers, hydras, and mutas are important targets that will die a lot more quickly now. Mutas are especially significant since surprise mutas often end up dumpstering battlemech openers.
So maybe we'll see a bit more mech?
I doubt it, last night Maru tried a Battle Mech build against Solar in Olimoleague Final, and everything was looking fine until the Cyclone was out of position and Solar hidden Muta build destroyed Maru base in an instant, while the Roach Ravager Bane simply couldnt be stop with Helion/Cyclone.
I think the only possible Mech composition that work is still BC + Tank/Thor + Helion, Cyclone are fun to use like Banshee but they are just too fragile and easy to get caught out of position by the more mobile Zerg army.
The Olimoleague final wasn't on the PTR though.
I know, but the "buff" on the Cyclone wasnt going to change what happened. Making Cyclone deal extra damage to every unit instead of armored aint going to make them become easier to use in Mech build in TvZ. Their limitation is way beyond the extra damage issue, and if the best Mech user in TvZ cant make them work, I doubt anyone can.
Any news on if there will be a balance patch tournament or show matches or whatever? I think while alot of people have good theory crafting we will actually need a pretty good variety of match ups over a decent amount of time to see the full extent of these changes.
On December 21 2022 13:05 Beelzebub1 wrote: Any news on if there will be a balance patch tournament or show matches or whatever? I think while alot of people have good theory crafting we will actually need a pretty good variety of match ups over a decent amount of time to see the full extent of these changes.
Wardi is hosting a tournament with the new patch, its starting tomorrow.
Who exactly are in the balance council? No transparency at all, and they call it a "community patch" lmao. Yet again, seems like a bunch of zergs like Scarlett running the show in this patch trying to remove the other 2 races.
On December 21 2022 02:36 [Phantom] wrote: Its abundantly clear for me that the changes were made because they sound good in a vacuum, without any regards as for their effect on the balance and side effects with internactuons with other units.
"wouldnt it be nice if the hydra was more micreable? Wouldnt it be nice if ultras were smaller and less chunky? Wouldnt it be nice if BL were slightly faster? Wouldnt it be nice if the ghost didnt counter all zerg lategame units, wouldnt it be nice if the disruptor didnt kill 20 supply a hit? Wouldnt it be nice if carrier were easier yo deal with? "
Which yeah, would be nice. But why are You giving terrans to deal with the insta remax insta tech switch in zerg lategame? What are You giving protoss to compensate the carrier and disruptors nerfs? How are You nerfing zerg yo compensate it will be much stronger with the changes now?
This is literally the worst patch ive ever seen. Not even early wol parches were This bad
Wouldn't it be nice if you tried out the new patch first? Especially, as there was not a single time where the game got a patch even remotely close to the full extent of what was proposed for the PTR.
People with decent knowledge of the meta don't need to play the PTR to see the consequences of this patch.
On December 21 2022 16:45 Argonauta wrote: Katowice will not be play with this patch on rigth?
We know nothing about that for certain, but from the look of it they want to apply it for IEM, along with a new map pool, after all the testing/adjustment are done. But if they got pushed back hard by players on this issue, they probably will change that plan.
I can't imagine that anyone except exclusively the pro Zergs that are at Katowice would want this patch rolled out before the tournament. That is unless my conspiracy theory of ESL propping up Zerg is correct.
So sure, let's force Katowice to be played on the new patch. Let's add in some Zerg favored maps just for the tournament while we're at it. Let's make it even more obvious.
So let me try and be objective and give the patch the benefit of the doubt. I do think Zerg is the weakest race, in what is a very balanced game. This is due to being down 2% in ZvP. It should be said though that this is on the balance side, in tournaments they destroy Protoss and it's not close. On ladder Zerg is doing pretty bad, Toss is not winning btw, Terran is. Terran is the most represented race in GM across all servers.
ZvP: We see a buff to aggressive Protoss play:
Cooldown increased from 11 to 13 seconds. Sight range reduced from 11 to 10.
Ravager Build time increased from 12 to 17 seconds.
We also see a nerf to defensive Protoss play:
Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%. Disruptor Purifier Orb radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35.
And of course we see Zerg buffed through the roof in late game.
So we're trying to make Protoss more allin or die trying, cool..
ZvT: A very slight buff to Terran aggressive play, untill hydras are out.
And the utter decimation of Terran late game, due to Zerg buffs and Terran nerfs.
Patch isn't saying allin, but it's definitely saying, don't go late. So Terran can allin or die trying, cool..
PvT: Protoss defensive play nerfed:
Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%.
Disruptor
Purifier Orb radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35. (This could be huge vs Tanks)
A Raven that is worse later, but hits way earlier.
A Ghost that starts with 1.75 radius, for no cost.
Late game Terran is gutted with the EMP upgrade removal. Disruptor change could be nice, but unless you win by snowballing from earlier, Terran will probably not win late game. Terran can now allin way harder, the 2 base push will destroy even more Protoss and the new timings allowed for with the Raven change and slighty harder hitting Ghosts will kill Protoss the rest of the time. And if the Terran doesn't kill the Protoss, they will roll over and die. Allin or die trying, cool..
I'd wager that what Starcraft viewers would want to see is the opposite effect of this. Toss/Terran being able to hold their own in the late game vs Zerg. And fewer games where Protoss die to early Terran pushes, this together with a more broad capable Terran late game arsenal.
Something else I want to say: To win a tournament you need a high level of consistency. You need to win a big number of series' and of course you need to eventually win the big bo7.
We keep nerfing Carrier and other Protoss defensive tools that allows for more staple play. So what are we saying, just don't win tournaments? Ever since the Corruptor speed buff, Zerg has been dominating Protoss in the late game. But we're nerfing these things because of the dreadful ladder experience, or? Well how about the many Terrans that have already quit, because they played out an even game with Zerg, but then when Ultras popped, they run into a literal wall, where their apm just wouldn't suffice and the Zerg would pull ahead. This is made worse in this patch btw.
How about Terran 2 base pushes that dominate Protoss. Widow Mine drops that destroy lower league Protoss. I mean there are an unlimited amount of things that you could state and most could be just as justified a change as the: "I'm dying to skytoss a move." Funny thing is Zerg have SO many tools to deal with this. It's not that skytoss isn't a problem, but it isn't at all the big problem. And it especially isn't on the fault on the Carrier. Imagine if the Void Ray ability was more similar to the Cyclone in this patch. So a lot of the +vs armoured was converted to a smaller vs all value. Then Corruptors could overcome Void Rays more easily and get on top of the Carriers that they are supposed to kill. The Carrier itself is decent at best and it needs to be a go to, or Protoss die as soon as Lurkers are out. The same can be said for Terran btw, they need to be able to contest Zerg and Protoss late game, or they won't win many bo7's. What we actually want is Zerg to be able to lose late game, but upping the %win for Zerg minimally as well.
In retrospect it's the broodlord change that infuriates me the most. The broodlord is the worst unit in the game, hands down. It removes control from the opposing player by body-blocking their stuff, can't operate on its own, and is more oppressive the more it's massed, which is a recipe for cancerous deathballs.
Yet somehow the luminaries behind this patch thought this horrible dumpster fire of a unit deserved to see more play, while not fixing any of its underlying problems. Meanwhile the carrier (which, to be fair, suffers from some of the same problems, but to a lesser degree) just takes an unconditional nerf, without any compensation elsewhere.
On December 22 2022 08:09 Athenau wrote: In retrospect it's the broodlord change that infuriates me the most. The broodlord is the worst unit in the game, hands down. It removes control from the opposing player by body-blocking their stuff, can't operate on its own, and is more oppressive the more it's massed, which is a recipe for cancerous deathballs.
Yet somehow the luminaries behind this patch thought this horrible dumpster fire of a unit deserved to see more play, while not fixing any of its underlying problems. Meanwhile the carrier (which, to be fair, suffers from some of the same problems, but to a lesser degree) just takes an unconditional nerf, without any compensation elsewhere.
Also not a fan of this change, I've never looked at Brood Lords and said, "This unit needs to be buffed clearly, it's so under utilized and weak" because it's neither of those things.
Not only is it neither of those things, but I'd go as far to say as the Capital ships in SC2 have been nothing but balance head aches from the get go. Brood lord deathballs, Carrier deathballs, early harass BC, I've never felt like any of the Capital ships in this game contributed to the meta in a positive way.
On December 20 2022 11:36 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I'm a mech only player and I'm sad I'm reminded that Cyclone, Raven, Sensor Tower changes will be nerfing mech directly once again... Banshee will be buffed sure but it was fine already and won't be a core mech unit. Would be nice if we gave a tiny bit of love to Hellions, Hellbats, or Cyclones to make mech more rounded and solid.
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?)
speed-mech represents a huge missed opportunity of balance design in sc2. hellions, cyclones and widow mines have such an awesome synergy. those 3 units together are very satisfying to control as part of a speed-mech composition .I never had so much fun playing terran in early LotV, when the meta was still evolving (zergs were slow to realize just how good mass ravagers are :D). none of this matters because speed-mech is too weak to play competitively
on the other hand, starport units are very strong, but they have an incredibly ugly synergy because their unit roles are so confused, and this makes them feel unsatisfying to play with and play against. look at vikings
so godlike in TvT that the whole matchup revolves around them to an annoying and tiresome extent vP, you just make enough of them to trade, which is fine waste of supply in vZ, except for the 1 you might build to kill early overlords
I wish I could articulate it better, but it feels so awkward that a supposed air supremacy unit can be so indomitable in one matchup and so thoroughly useless in the other.
that same awkwardness I feel with liberators, because of their comically bad anti-air attack and complete lack of counter-play when an opponent side-steps your liberation zones.
I was inspired while watching Top Gun to redesign vikings after the F-14 Tomcat, to resolve its identity crisis. I want it to have an exciting (but limited) AA attack, while preserving and maximizing its versatility as a disposable harass unit, like we all imagined it would be when it was first revealed in the pre-release of SC2. I borrowed ideas from BW's spider mine ability, which is limited but powerful, and the vulture's secondary role as cannon-fodder / harass-fodder:
VIKING - dramatically increase aerial movement speed to Very Fast, or at least give it a movement speed upgrade in the techlab - remove Lanzer Torpedoes AA attack. replace with gatling cannon AA attack. this reduces the viking's standard AA attack from 9 to 6 - new AA weapon: SEEKER MISSILES! 2 x long-range, high single-damage (no splash) sidewinder missiles that cannot be replenished, just like an F-14 tomcat. missile comes out and stays immobile in front of the viking for a short time while charging up, then rapidly moves and explodes at the target. targeted unit lights up red when targeted. I'm not sure whether the missile should be dodgeable and fizzle out if the target unit moves out of range, or if the missile itself should be snipable in mid-air (with lowest possible target priority, so that the opponent is rewarded for precise control), but it's fun to imagine that missile becomes more reliable when used at close range instead of max range (introducing an exciting risk / reward mechanic). - tweak viking HP / gatling gun dmg until the balance is sweet
I love this idea because seeker missiles were fun, fun, fun. utterly broken as a raven attack because ravens could replenish them to infinity in the lategame, but the idea was good.
edit: I think the reason why it's so godlike in one matchup, useless in another, is because the viking was given the wrong combination of strengths and weaknesses. it's slow AF and must stop to attack, but it can shoot from a long way away + spot for tanks. terran is the only race that doesn't have a fast air control unit, like mutas and phoenix / oracle, so I think the viking is the best candidate to fill that empty role. vikings are anti-fun in TvT. who has more vikings than the opponent is not compelling gameplay and this is not the viking we were promised during SC2's pre-release.
there are lots of good ideas to be stolen from movies like Terminator (the aerial Hunter-Killer vehicles during the flashback sequence) and games like Thunderforce, that have so many interesting and original weapon upgrades. idk, the whole terran sky army just feels so lazy and band-aided at this point. liberators are finicky to control, and I feel weary every time I watch a pro terran attempt to pre-emptively unsiege a liberator and move it out of harm's way (it NEVER works). there has to be some kind of counter-counter play that makes it not such a 1-dimensional siege unit. should it even be a siege unit in the first place? I don't know... maybe the problem is siege mode and not its inherent role as a siege unit. tempests work just fine as a siege unit without having to become static missile turrets, and I quite like the idea of the liberator being a medium-range, mobile siege unit to differentiate itself from the other siege types in SC2.
LIBERATOR - remove Defender Mode, replace with Hunter Mode. in Hunter Mode, the liberator's movement speed is dramatically reduced. Concord Cannon (rail gun) inflicts single target damage to ground units in a conal area in front of the liberator (a cone, not a circle like we currently have with liberation zones). liberators can rotate 360 degrees while in Hunter Mode. reduce the air-to-ground attack damage of the rail gun by half, but now it fires twice as fast. - remove Lexington Rockets (the laughably weak AA attack). replace with a rebalanced version of the old AA attack that inflicted strong splash against clumps of muta / corruptor / interceptors, but was weak vs single targets like colossus and brood lords.
to me, this clearly defines the viking as an exciting semi-suicidal single-target AA fighter, with strong secondary use as a harass unit thanks to its increased speed. it'll be a lot more satisfying to land vikings in the opponent's base now, and will give mechplay the drop option it so badly needs (thors in medivacs? c'mon, that shit is goofy AF). at the same time, you have a clearly defined AA splash from the liberator, which leaves the thor kinda obsolete on the ground. congrats, you are now free to redesign the thor or delete it from the game entirely. cyclones have more than enough potential to compensate for that loss.
remove thors from the game? (or make it a fun Mothership type unit for 4v4 reasons)
Javelin Missiles replaced by a dignified liberator AA attack
250mm Punisher Cannons replaced by buffed and tweaked cyclones.
CYCLONE - gas cost reduced from 100 to 75 - lock-on autocast attack priority fixed to armored > light - Typhoon Missile Pod changed to Typhoon Missile Pods plural (the cyclone fires twice and can attack 2 targets at once). - Typhoon Missle Pod damage reduced from 18 to 10 (or maybe 12... test it) - new upgrade: Charon Boosters. increases the golia-- erm, the cyclone's lock-on activation-range by 1 against both air and ground units. careful not to confuse "activation range" with the actual attack-range of lock-on. - Mag-Field Accelerator: increases the attack speed of the first 4 shots of the cyclone's lock-on. damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs armored only
WIDOW MINE reduce the supply cost of widow mines from 2 to 1, but make it destruct upon firing so that it can't be used over and over (see my hellbat suggestion below, which goes some way towards compensating for this loss of defensive staying power). I'm sure there are ways to tweak widow mines further, like decreasing its build time so that they can reinforce more quickly. the point is that widow mines eventually become fodder in the big mid / lategame fights anyway. preserving mines only matters when you're harassing with them in the early game. might as well just embrace it for what it is: a mine. mines explode. that is their identity in warfare and it's always been goofy AF that we have mines with a survival instinct in SC2. I think speed mech would benefit from faster production, and I won't particularly miss early widow mine drops vP. those widow mine drops shouldn't be the crutch that early game TvP revolves around. it's dumb and needs to go. I'd rather have effective and speedy landed vikings instead.
and maybe slightly buff blue flame like Yoshi suggested.
HELLBAT one last thing, while I was thinking about different siege types and siege modes: hellbats seem like a far better candidate for static mode than the liberator ever did. I think the hellbat should leave its penguin ancestry behind and instead become a gargoyle, with its wings folded, like the ones you see forebodingly guarding the heights of cathedral towers. in hellbat mode, instead of waddling around like a duck and spraying cones of fire, what if the hellbat became THE SHREDDER? completely immovable, but with a circular fiery death-zone like we saw from the shredder in HotS pre-release. obviously you can set aside the dumb mechanic of being inactive when friendly units are in range, and obviously do not include give it burrow / cloak either. swap the hellbat's limited mobility for absolute immobility, reduce its HP (equal to the hellion's squishiness) and make its attack zone a wide circle (but not stupidly strong like the shredder's radiation field). this would harmonize well with siege tanks and become the versatile defensive option for mech whenever terran is hard on the defensive. it's past time we made the most of terran's Transformers gimmick.
also, with this change to the hellbat, the widow mine and the viking, I think it would make a lot of sense to remove the smart salvos upgrade and simply make hellions and vikings transform quickly right from the get-go.
to me, these sorts of ideas would help clearly define the roles of factory / starport and overall refine the synergy of those units. I think it also helps that the assets for seeker missile and the shredder's radiation zone are already in the game, so maybe it's not too farfetched to hope for some design changes so late into SC2's lifespan?
P.S. the most blatant failure of the current balance team is their failure to address the most complained-about annoyance of ghosts and especially the raven taking top priority in the command card, over marines and marauders. it tells me that they either don't care about terran, or that terran doesn't have a voice on the balance council and they simply can't comprehend the most basic elements of gameplay from a terran perspective.
On December 22 2022 08:09 Athenau wrote: In retrospect it's the broodlord change that infuriates me the most. The broodlord is the worst unit in the game, hands down. It removes control from the opposing player by body-blocking their stuff, can't operate on its own, and is more oppressive the more it's massed, which is a recipe for cancerous deathballs.
Yet somehow the luminaries behind this patch thought this horrible dumpster fire of a unit deserved to see more play, while not fixing any of its underlying problems. Meanwhile the carrier (which, to be fair, suffers from some of the same problems, but to a lesser degree) just takes an unconditional nerf, without any compensation elsewhere.
Also not a fan of this change, I've never looked at Brood Lords and said, "This unit needs to be buffed clearly, it's so under utilized and weak" because it's neither of those things.
Not only is it neither of those things, but I'd go as far to say as the Capital ships in SC2 have been nothing but balance head aches from the get go. Brood lord deathballs, Carrier deathballs, early harass BC, I've never felt like any of the Capital ships in this game contributed to the meta in a positive way.
I think it s hard to compare broodlords to carriers or BC because of his specificity of T3 unit which only attack ground units
For example, why not If carriers would have to create units while they aren t flying, using their energy for build interceptors, i would say ok... It could add some gameplay
For BC, i enjoy the spell which is unique in SC2 but as you said you can break the game with a critical mass (again most of the players)
Not sure if this has been mentioned here before, but apparently with the tweaks to random delays, lurkers burrow and unburrow faster. The time shaved off the random delay should be added onto the animations themselves so as not to stealth buff.
As an aside, I wouldn't mind seeing an actual burrow time nerf / slight redesign to make the lurker more of an actual siege unit (rather than a ranged AoE brawler). If we're making many large and ambitious changes, this seems like the place for it.
Cure vs Dark live now in ESL NA. As expected, the creep nerf is a complete joke--Cure kills 21 tumors in the early game and a minute later it's like it never happened.
On December 27 2022 18:40 Vision_ wrote: Last tumors must be visible, then when killed the last previous become visible. Only the last tumor get an armor bonus.
It s idiot to protect the invisibility system for tumors into a game where invisibility is not so used (at least on the first stage/step of the game)
Yea this is a better idea, this creep "nerf" is pretty predictably useless.
On December 27 2022 18:40 Vision_ wrote: Last tumors must be visible, then when killed the last previous become visible. Only the last tumor get an armor bonus.
It s idiot to protect the invisibility system for tumors into a game where invisibility is not so used (at least on the first stage/step of the game)
Yea this is a better idea, this creep "nerf" is pretty predictably useless.
List from more exhaustive:
1) Tumors wire is considered as an unit, then the wire can spam tumors even if ennemy cut the last tumor. Tumor are created from drone and their lifetime would be increased with a buff. Solve problem Probability : Unknown (..SC3..who knows)
2) Last tumors must be visible, then when killed the last previous become visible. Only the last tumor get an armor bonus. Solve problem Probability : Unknown (seems risky but interesting)
3) Enhance units to detect invisibility (Sentry, Raven like in this patch). Solve problem Probability : Average
4) Queen is a defending unit & spellcaster. mana max = 100, inject spell cost = 25 (no change) tumor mana spell = 35. Solve problem Probability : Average
5) Gas Fix : 125 / 25 (Zerg Player starts with 50 gas). Solve problem Probability : Low
6) Reduce creep speed overall (like in the past). Solve problem Probability : Unknown
I think 2), 3) and 4) as good ideas
On December 27 2022 21:22 freelifeffs wrote: when will the patch go live?
Tumours should not be visible, that'd make creep impossible to maintain even for just base defense.
Sentry having detection I'm not totally against, but I doubt it'd even be considered.
Making the first tumors later / more expensive (same thing) is a terrible terrible change that affects early game defense.
-----------------
They should just make the timing nerf a fair bit bigger, or reduce radius. (I like the idea of making the full radius tied to hatchery proximity like fast warpins are for nexi, but that's just a minor refinement of the general `smaller radius idea').
On December 28 2022 02:11 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Tumours should not be visible, that'd make creep impossible to maintain even for just base defense.
Sentry having detection I'm not totally against, but I doubt it'd even be considered.
Making the first tumors later / more expensive (same thing) is a terrible terrible change that affects early game defense.
-----------------
They should just make the timing nerf a fair bit bigger, or reduce radius. (I like the idea of making the full radius tied to hatchery proximity like fast warpins are for nexi, but that's just a minor refinement of the general `smaller radius idea').
I didn t play since a long time so i even not remembered that warp in speed can change from distance. It seems fair enought also. With your solution, i would decrease the overall creep speed to have bigger radius at start, then keep the actual radius for the mid game, finally have a smaller radius at the end.
Byun vs Soo live now, playing lategame. Ghosts look like hot garbage now, though Byun still wins because Soo, in typical Soo fashion, refuses to stop headbutting.
The problem with creep isn't how fast it spreads or any of the stats itself (though it is arguable that creep should never have been this integral to zerg gameplay in the first place, but that's another topic). The imo real aspect to focus on is the energy drain on the queen. The queen was supposed to be a unit where energy usage is a decision, you either spread creep, or you inject, or you use it for healing (the last was always just a gimmick though). That idea works well in a state of the game where you only build a few queens, but as we've seen the ideal way to play it is quite different. If there is a design change regarding creep, it has to target the queen and its energy usage, to make it so there is more decision making going on for the zerg side regarding it. There are many ways to do that, personally i think it could be interesting to remove the autoattack of the queen altogether and make it akin to the oracle where energy is used and you have to activate it. That puts strain on its energy use, gives the other races more opportunity to inflict damage through harass in an indirect manner if they are active and requires more thought from the zerg side regarding the queen. Where the balance lies regarding that new energy drain i don't know, but i think it's an interesting idea regardless.
Zerg illuminati making all the decisions now, think about!
On December 29 2022 06:09 The_Red_Viper wrote: The problem with creep isn't how fast it spreads or any of the stats itself (though it is arguable that creep should never have been this integral to zerg gameplay in the first place, but that's another topic). The imo real aspect to focus on is the energy drain on the queen. The queen was supposed to be a unit where energy usage is a decision, you either spread creep, or you inject, or you use it for healing (the last was always just a gimmick though). That idea works well in a state of the game where you only build a few queens, but as we've seen the ideal way to play it is quite different. If there is a design change regarding creep, it has to target the queen and its energy usage, to make it so there is more decision making going on for the zerg side regarding it. There are many ways to do that, personally i think it could be interesting to remove the autoattack of the queen altogether and make it akin to the oracle where energy is used and you have to activate it. That puts strain on its energy use, gives the other races more opportunity to inflict damage through harass in an indirect manner if they are active and requires more thought from the zerg side regarding the queen. Where the balance lies regarding that new energy drain i don't know, but i think it's an interesting idea regardless.
Zerg illuminati making all the decisions now, think about!
The change I did was: Queen starts with 50 energy. Creep Tumour from 25 -> 50. Then you can give it a few buffs, for instance I would let it Transfuse full value instantly and off Creep. Doing this makes them very capable fighting units, but every Tumour apart from the first one, is simply nerfed, making the mass Queen strat way more costly.
Battery Overcharge recharge rate reduced from 200% to 150%.
Here's to more than ten years of tweaking ugly bandaids papering over problems instead of actually fixing problems with Protoss.
Anyway, given that Blizzard clearly has no philosophical problems with kludgy solutions that belong in a game like Warcraft 3 instead of a game like Starcraft, they really should try just allowing each hatchery to build exactly one queen, and then not being able to build another until its specific queen has died.
That doesn't feel too kludgy a solution to me. Holding up Warcraft 3 as a game constructed of bandaids upon bandaids is funny to me, have you looked at something like League of Legends balance?
On December 29 2022 06:09 The_Red_Viper wrote: The problem with creep isn't how fast it spreads or any of the stats itself (though it is arguable that creep should never have been this integral to zerg gameplay in the first place, but that's another topic). The imo real aspect to focus on is the energy drain on the queen. The queen was supposed to be a unit where energy usage is a decision, you either spread creep, or you inject, or you use it for healing (the last was always just a gimmick though). That idea works well in a state of the game where you only build a few queens, but as we've seen the ideal way to play it is quite different. If there is a design change regarding creep, it has to target the queen and its energy usage, to make it so there is more decision making going on for the zerg side regarding it. There are many ways to do that, personally i think it could be interesting to remove the autoattack of the queen altogether and make it akin to the oracle where energy is used and you have to activate it. That puts strain on its energy use, gives the other races more opportunity to inflict damage through harass in an indirect manner if they are active and requires more thought from the zerg side regarding the queen. Where the balance lies regarding that new energy drain i don't know, but i think it's an interesting idea regardless.
Zerg illuminati making all the decisions now, think about!
The change I did was: Queen starts with 50 energy. Creep Tumour from 25 -> 50. Then you can give it a few buffs, for instance I would let it Transfuse full value instantly and off Creep. Doing this makes them very capable fighting units, but every Tumour apart from the first one, is simply nerfed, making the mass Queen strat way more costly.
It s so obvious @red_viper that i m wondering why this kind of changes haven t been done yet...
On December 29 2022 14:21 Turbovolver wrote: That doesn't feel too kludgy a solution to me. Holding up Warcraft 3 as a game constructed of bandaids upon bandaids is funny to me, have you looked at something like League of Legends balance?
You misunderstood me. Warcraft 3 is not a game constructed of bandaids.
My point was that things like hero units and global cooldown abilities being central to how a race plays are design ideas that belong in games like Warcraft 3, and it's a kludgy bandaid of a fix to use to them to stop design issues in Starcraft 2 from being balance problems.
On December 29 2022 14:21 Turbovolver wrote: That doesn't feel too kludgy a solution to me. Holding up Warcraft 3 as a game constructed of bandaids upon bandaids is funny to me, have you looked at something like League of Legends balance?
You misunderstood me. Warcraft 3 is not a game constructed of bandaids.
My point was that things like hero units and global cooldown abilities being central to how a race plays are design ideas that belong in games like Warcraft 3, and it's a kludgy bandaid of a fix to use to them to stop design issues in Starcraft 2 from being balance problems.
Ahhh I see. Sorry, yeah, that makes a lot more sense!
I like the idea of nerfing Creep Tumor from 25 energy to 50, and allowing Queens to start with 50 energy. It doesn't seem to break anything? If the nerf on creep is too much, then you can buff the tumor back slightly.
The alternative ofc is just nerfing Creep Tumor a little more, which I think would be fine with these Hydra/Ultra/BL/Lurker mobility buffs. Maybe Creep Tumor can have the same cooldown as it does now, but it spawns creep ~20% slower (in terms of radius), that way if you really want to speed it up, you have use Queens to plant multiple Tumors.
I also don't mind the idea of requiring each Hatchery to only build 1 Queen, I mean think about it from a lore perspective, why can you have more than 1 Queen per "colony" or whatever? Also, it would make macro Hatches more of a thing again, if you want to increase production, or get more energy. This way when you're on 3 base, maybe you will want 4-5 Hatches, and 4-5 Queens at that stage isn't bad. Hatchery could be buffed from 300 to 250 minerals too, so that you could get 5 Hatches on 3 base early game to get 5 Queens.
In return, we can buff Transfuse back a bit more. We could also buff the stats of the Queen slightly so Zerg doesn't die to a few Banshees/BCs/Voids etc. 5 Queens is a lot weaker than having the ~10 that is sometimes gotten to fend off BCs/Voids and such, so 5 Queens need to be the strength of around 7 Queens currently.
Nerfing Creep Tumor spread speed would be the simplest/safest change to me though. If it encourages Zerg to put more multiple Tumors, then it will also make them have to decide a little more between whether to save Energy for creep/inject/transfuse. Having 8 queens on 3 bases to me is fine if they have a little less Transfuse energy than currently. It's really the sustain of the Queens thanks to Transfuse that gives them the bulk of their fighting strength, because they're able to have all Queens shooting and alive instead of dying 1 by 1 like most units. Queens are exponentially stronger the more energy you have banked up, so having even 4 less Transfuses when a push hits will already be a noticeable nerf. (If they decide to focus more on Creep spread than banking Transfuse energy for more fighting strength).
On December 29 2022 06:09 The_Red_Viper wrote: The problem with creep isn't how fast it spreads or any of the stats itself (though it is arguable that creep should never have been this integral to zerg gameplay in the first place, but that's another topic). The imo real aspect to focus on is the energy drain on the queen. The queen was supposed to be a unit where energy usage is a decision, you either spread creep, or you inject, or you use it for healing (the last was always just a gimmick though). That idea works well in a state of the game where you only build a few queens, but as we've seen the ideal way to play it is quite different. If there is a design change regarding creep, it has to target the queen and its energy usage, to make it so there is more decision making going on for the zerg side regarding it. There are many ways to do that, personally i think it could be interesting to remove the autoattack of the queen altogether and make it akin to the oracle where energy is used and you have to activate it. That puts strain on its energy use, gives the other races more opportunity to inflict damage through harass in an indirect manner if they are active and requires more thought from the zerg side regarding the queen. Where the balance lies regarding that new energy drain i don't know, but i think it's an interesting idea regardless.
Zerg illuminati making all the decisions now, think about!
The change I did was: Queen starts with 50 energy. Creep Tumour from 25 -> 50. Then you can give it a few buffs, for instance I would let it Transfuse full value instantly and off Creep. Doing this makes them very capable fighting units, but every Tumour apart from the first one, is simply nerfed, making the mass Queen strat way more costly.
That solves the issue of 'having too much creep', and makes each creep tumor kill more valuable while also being a 'conservative' change regarding the design itself. So something like this is obviously way more realistic to happen than my idea. I just don't like it as much because it's imo a 'boring' change and doesn't really address the queen status per se. I prefer to make the energy question to be a more decision based scenario myself. In your case you still have a lot of queens and just place as many tumors as you can, you just have less of them. Solves the issue (if we think there is an issue), but is kinda binary. My idea obviously would require more work, queens would probably have to spawn with more than 25 energy too for example (to be able to inject and fight off something like the reaper early on), but overall i think the dynamic would be good if one finds a sweet spot with the energy drain and energy levels. Though i admit that it is based on me thinking that queens are just too flexible to begin with, allowing zergs to be too safe too 'easily' (not much thought).
Well, the PTR tournament went about as well as expected. No new viable strategies for Protoss or Terran, and Zerg is even more oppressive than before--so mission accomplished?
There are mandatory because of air ennemy units (6)
40%
I prefer use my 50 gas/stalker into robot unit (5)
33%
I m satisfied about stalkers strength (4)
27%
15 total votes
Your vote: How do you feel Stalkers in end game ?
(Vote): I m satisfied about stalkers strength (Vote): I prefer use my 50 gas/stalker into robot unit (Vote): There are mandatory because of air ennemy units
On December 31 2022 02:14 The_Red_Viper wrote: Though i admit that it is based on me thinking that queens are just too flexible to begin with, allowing zergs to be too safe too 'easily' (not much thought).
i would like to know how you envision ZvX early game. should zerg move more or build more specific units?
because example 80% of Zerg attack options in early are stopped by walls, meaning Zerg has only 2 options push/ allin or ecco for stronger push later.
Without the Hydra and Ultra buffs I'd actually like the patch but the idea of buffing those two units in the current state of the game is just mind-boggling to me, especially when there are no relevant buffs for the other races to compensate them.
On December 31 2022 04:03 Charoisaur wrote: Without the Hydra and Ultra buffs I'd actually like the patch but the idea of buffing those two units in the current state of the game is just mind-boggling to me, especially when there are no relevant buffs for the other races to compensate them.
I understand your feelings, i imagine how hard laddering is, and now more than ever because you will have new issues against powerfull units like Lurkers or Ultralisks.
So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
the purpose to ensure toss don't win a championship again :^)
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
the purpose to ensure toss don't win a championship again :^)
Given that the patch buffs the style that herO already plays (gateway units), it's quite laughable to claim it. It only shows how little TL knows about balance at all.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
I was watching quite alot of the PTR matches, I think I have slightly more of an educated opinion on a few of these changes. Some of the changes like the Raven I actually didn't get to see a whole lot (probably because I don't watch TvT) so I'll let someone else educate me a bit more on that one. I've said it once and I'll say it before, radical redesigns of spell caster units are massive changes and should warrant their own individual patch imo.
The Zerg changes seem great, especially for Hydras, buffing BL speed however is unnecessary and imo will only result in more aerial deathballs. Strike the BL buff and I think the changes are good, Hydras are interesting units to have in the meta and Ultralisks have sucked for far too long.
The Protoss changes strike me as bizarre because I don't really see Protoss over performing, so nerfing defensive capabilities, Disruptor radius and Carriers all at once seems too severe. I'm fine with any nerfing of aerial deathball units, but why would the Carrier be singled out vs. the BL?
The upgrade buffs are minor but nice, Observer changes I'm pretty neutral on.
As for the Terran changes?
Ghost changes are terrible, absolutely awful from what I saw in the PTR.
Cyclone changes seem, ok? What was the purpose with this exactly? Was the Cyclone under performing? Is it too strong vs. armored units? I'm good with changes to under used units but I'm lost on this one.
I'm not sure about TvZ (it's the mu i understand the least by far), but for lategame P, I feel like adding one more damage tick to psi storm (so that it does 90 damage total with the same exact dps) might be a nice offset to the carrier/disruptor nerfs.
That way, storm dodging is just as effective, but lazily sitting in a full storm is even more discouraged.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
The Street Fighter developers inserted their own comments in every balance change when they released patches for the game. Maybe the SC2 developers could do the same?
Much of the balance is yet to play out and speculating is usually silly since these need to actually be tested. There are 2 things I would like to see, which is mostly QOL tho would also effect balance:
1. Worker AI stops overriding commands on mineral patches unless theres other mineral patches shared by the same CC/Hatch/Nexus with less workers. IE if you have 8 workers (1 on each node) and put a 9th on a larger mineral node sometimes it will change to another and you have to click it to the node multiple times (usually done with rapid fire or right clicking). With this proposed change, this would no longer be the case and would only ever override if you try to put 2 on a node when theres another mineral patch with 0 workers mining (or 3 with another having 1). The other proposed option would be to only have the workers bounce when theres already 2 workers at a mineral patch. The minigame of balancing your workers at the start is an APM sink we would otherwise not have but I find it a very tedious thing to do, I feel like the AI here could be improved.
2. For lower leagues we are changing the attack priorities of the interceptor and oracle stasis to make them work better for lower league players who A move. Why are we not also changing the priority of the widow mine? This will nerf terran and may require other terran buffs at pro level, but if we are focusing on making the game fun at lower leagues shouldn't we address the other elephant in the room at the same time?
12 years ago the patch note justification for reducing zealot shields by 10 was that "2 gate pressure was too strong at lower leagues," so I doubt you'd get too much out of them posting why they are making a change.
Luckily the game doesn't have too much fundamentally broken with it nowadays but still blows my mind that they would ever use something that isn't top level play as reasoning behind a change. You could look into adjusting several QoL type things, unit interactions, or just unfun/heavy game swinging scenarios that players begrudgingly accept.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
I have made this post in error. I do however agree with a previous poster that Street Fighter developers lead by.example, in that balance decision-making processes ought to be comment-documented, so the feedback can be surgical instead of generalized. Furthermore
On October 18 2018 18:24 Kaley wrote: Ultimate Balancing via a League of Testers who strive for providing superlative and Equal Amount of Dedication To All Facets Δ Involves setting up a workshop with an identical, optimal training environment for highly suitable, dedicated and disciplined individuals to make their first contact with the game, grow their skill and duke it out, focusing on maximum long-term proficiency, spread out equally throughout races, ultimately reaching an intelligent conclusion on balance, suggesting sensible changes, adapting, rinse and repeat for a couple of decades.
On December 30 2022 16:22 Rexeus wrote: Creep tumour should not give vision.
Lurkers should have a seige timer, like a seige tank.
EMP should not remove shields.
my man wants to start a revolution. While simple in concept those 3 changes you propose can make an entire new game. Call it sc3
Only Lurker idea is ok, the two other are too drastic even if it seems reasonnable to avoid a mandatory unit like the ghost and his ability to entirelly remove shield of protoss. If you completely remove vision from tumors you can t cast it because you need location vision to spam the spell, so even if i agree with this one, you should add a trick to work out.
On January 01 2023 18:12 GoSuNamhciR wrote: Much of the balance is yet to play out and speculating is usually silly since these need to actually be tested. There are 2 things I would like to see, which is mostly QOL tho would also effect balance:
1. Worker AI stops overriding commands on mineral patches unless theres other mineral patches shared by the same CC/Hatch/Nexus with less workers. IE if you have 8 workers (1 on each node) and put a 9th on a larger mineral node sometimes it will change to another and you have to click it to the node multiple times (usually done with rapid fire or right clicking). With this proposed change, this would no longer be the case and would only ever override if you try to put 2 on a node when theres another mineral patch with 0 workers mining (or 3 with another having 1). The other proposed option would be to only have the workers bounce when theres already 2 workers at a mineral patch. The minigame of balancing your workers at the start is an APM sink we would otherwise not have but I find it a very tedious thing to do, I feel like the AI here could be improved.
2. For lower leagues we are changing the attack priorities of the interceptor and oracle stasis to make them work better for lower league players who A move. Why are we not also changing the priority of the widow mine? This will nerf terran and may require other terran buffs at pro level, but if we are focusing on making the game fun at lower leagues shouldn't we address the other elephant in the room at the same time?
The meme answer to your second question is that Blizzard does not make changes that significantly help Protoss in any matchup.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves. Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions. Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
Accountability?
This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves. Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions. Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent.
Reading your takes so far, they're not missing much by not talking to the "community".
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
Accountability?
This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
While I understandingly don't expect them to reveal themselves at the risk of such abuse, it is ultimately selfish of them to contribute ideas that they seemingly believe so strongly in, and hide themselves so there is no accountability. It punishes people who won't mindlessly flame them, but care about the game and want to be able to have proper discourse on it. For the sake of these people, people contributing should have the strength in character to do the right thing. The community hasn't universally asked these pros to contribute, they are accepting the option to themselves. Otherwise it's like having a government make decisions without the people even knowing who made those decisions. Of course, partly Blizzard is to blame too, for not making sure there are explanations/comments for each change, and not being more transparent.
Reading your takes so far, they're not missing much by not talking to the "community".
They're not the ones missing out, we're the ones missing out, and I'm not the only one in the community. They already contributed their opinions and ideas to the patch, so they already got everything they wanted.
Blizzard is also the one missing out, because the players are the ones who support and buy their games, and it's in their best interest to keep people happy. They understand the importance of including explanations and comments on patch notes, which is why they've done that for many years, until now.
We have the right to be upset at the lack of explanations, especially when we (and so many) are very disappointed with the proposed patch.
Can you imagine if TL held map contests without making the judges known? Especially if some of the judges are map makers who submitted to the contests themselves?
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
Accountability?
This is a video game. You don't need personal accountability for a patch.
Except this "video game" has millions of dollars in prize money involved. So yeah, accountability and transparency are needed for it.
On December 31 2022 14:13 depressed1 wrote: So what is purpose of the patch? It doesn't look reasonable to make anything from the list. The wall of text that was suggested by players like Harstem, Scarlett aka "the council" and etc doesn't fit modern needs of starcraft. None of these changes. I understand that somewhere in march people were asked. Like, hey, nerds, give us what you want. And the wall of text was created but not edited. Because Blizzard intern has zero meaning and understanding. So what is purpose of the patch?
To buff Zerg, nerf Protoss, and nerf Terran (and nerf Mech).
After watching some PTR games of the new BLs, the new speed looks too crazy. They'd be fine with just the broodling nerf and same speed. They'd still be good and usable in many situations, just a little less good for deathballs specifically. Why the speed buff? Carriers were nerfed, Disruptors were nerfed, Shield Overcharged was nerfed. So we're buffing Zerg midgame and lategame, and nerfing Protoss and Terran lategame?
I know I sound like a broken record at this point, but there is so so much wrong with this patch. Giving zerg the strongest lategame makes their gameplan even more 1 dimensional, since they can just play passive and macro and it's all on the opponent to stop the game from getting into lategame. If lategames are equally balanced, then at least there's a chance for a losing player to stabilize in the lategame, thus encouraging the winning player to try to interact and be more active.
That Viper nerf won't be enough to make up for the Ultra, BL, Hydra, Lurker buffs. Viper being able to start moving as they're pulling is not at all the design issue with that move. It's a combination of having so much energy thanks to Consume, Abduct being very punishing if you're not watching your army carefully at all times, and in general discouraging players from playing positionally with their army (since it means slower units always get picked off when retreating), Abduct not being spectator friendly since it's not interesting or exciting to watch, and Vipers being effective in deathball situations when its very design was to discourage the opponent from deathballing. Viper was introduced in HotS as a way to help Zerg with deathballs, but now in LotV Zerg has arguably the strongest lategame and deathballs themselves, and Abduct just synergizes well with deathballs, so the entire concept of Abduct is super fucked now.
There are so so many ways Abduct could have been adjusted to address at least 1 of these issues, but it was adjusted in the most boring and insignificant way possible. Abduct could have pulled Massive units half distance, and not target Heroic units, so that it wouldn't just hard counter Colossus play (especially now that Hydralisks are even stronger, and Disruptors weaker). Or Consume could have been nerfed to have a longer cooldown and/or give less energy per HP drained. Or Abduct could have been channeling, so that you potentially can snipe or Feedback the unit before it finishes pulling the unit all the way (instead of only having the chance to stop it before Abduct starts). If any of these changes made it too weak, then you can buff the Viper slightly in another aspect.
Buffing BL speed and making Cyclone better at units that Mech players don't have trouble with, and worse at units that Mech players need Cyclone to help counter? Why couldn't we have just straight up buffed the Cyclone instead of making it less useful and arguably worse? We gave Hydras 2 buffs, Ultras 2 buffs. Is the Cyclone a problematic unit? Would giving Mag Field +5 attack, +15 vs armored break anything? Or +10 attack, +5 vs armored? (Instead of +10 attack). I would like Thors to move faster and have faster attack point too, thanks, let's give the Ultra treatment to the Thor so we can see more Thors instead of Ghosts. How about we give the Hydra treatment to Cyclones and make Cyclones as fast as Hellions too, since Cyclone Hellion is rarely used and weak, just like how Hydras need to move the same speed as Roaches?
I'm also confused and upset at how we don't know who contributed to the balance patch. Are they under NDA? If not then why are they hiding? Balancing a game is a very important responsibility, and if you want to contribute to it, then you also need to be held accountable by making your name known. If you can't do it well or are afraid, then don't contribute, because this patch is just making things worse.
I've heard pro streamers say in their PTR reaction videos that it's important for pros to balance the game because you need both a good understanding of the game, and understanding of game design. That's true, but being a pro doesn't mean you understand the game design well. Sure, someone who is not a pro might not understand the game at a top level - but they may understand the design better. Pros should not get preferential treatment just because they're pros, as some pros seem to have implied in their videos.
I've also heard a pro opinion that the Raven autoturret wasn't changed because the Raven comes out earlier and has more starting energy and you'll have about the same amount of turrets for your early harass. True, but their complete failure to acknowledge that the lategame power is extremely nerfed is again proof that just because you're a pro doesn't mean you're not overlooking very obvious side effects.
If community patches are going to be like this from now on, I would really rather not and stay on the current patch forever. Zerg might be slightly stronger at the top top level, but I love the game as is right now. If community patches are going to be a thing, there needs to be transparency so it's actually a community patch, otherwise there's no point. And if the patch is going to be contributed to mainly by NA pros, I'd rather again not, because KR pros are so much better. The opinion of an NA pro will differ greatly from the understanding/opinions of say Rogue, Maru, herO, and Dark.
If I were a pro on the balance team I would not say so publically because I expect those pros would receive a lot of abuse no matter what they did. There will always be very strong and very different views on balance, especially when considering pros vs ladder.
Cool, so no transparency and no accountability then. I'm sure that'll work out when there's also a large incentive for self-dealing.
When "accountability" means "anonymous abuse online" who would agree to do it? I think it would be great if we knew who had input into balance changes but I do not expect anybody to subject themselves to the abuse that would inevitably follow.
Yup. Even here on TL in this thread, which is tame by internet standards, there's been a lot of personal shit flung at the balance team and the supposed `Zerg cabal'.
There are issues with the patch (although I do personally like a lot of the overall direction, but the Zerg favoredness is an issue), but that would always be the case for any such patch. Making it easier to directly flame the pros and community members who contributed would be bad in multiple ways - and is just straight up unfair and unnecessary.
Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote: Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote: Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote: Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
Wow that's actually a pretty big change to Liberators, interested to see how it works out.
Just scrap the BL speed upgrade entirely, it's unnecessary. The Ultra changes are more then sufficient to improve Zerg late game diversity,
I'm also continuing to question the direction of this creep nerf. While creep undeniably needs to be nerfed, I'm not convinced that this CD increase is going to do anything useful. Maybe something along the lines of a Queen can only plant 1 active tumor at a time, that way 8 Queens cant just plop down 4 tumors a piece vs. planting just one.
I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
"I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power."
I agree with this, I'm honestly confused as to the point of this change in the first place. Were Liberators over used? Under used? Were they oppressive in the meta in their current forum? Does the balance team think that Liberators should be cheaper and more plentiful but weaker to fill a role in Terran's arsenals?
Once again, probably the 5th time I've mentioned this in this thread, where is the balance council's thoughts on any of this? A little bit of transparency and open dialogue so we can at least know what they're attempting to accomplish would be nice.
Also that's a pretty decent change for Vikings, they had a pretty big damage point delay so I chalk that up to a good QoL change.
On January 03 2023 00:06 syndbg wrote: Since most terrans already cried their tears out how the patch is "the death of starcraft sc2, infuriating, ridiculous" (you know who you are), the latest 1.6 changes address further the state of TvZ.
And why do you think they are doing these changes? because people let their concerns be heard.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
"I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power."
I agree with this, I'm honestly confused as to the point of this change in the first place. Were Liberators over used? Under used? Were they oppressive in the meta in their current forum? Does the balance team think that Liberators should be cheaper and more plentiful but weaker to fill a role in Terran's arsenals?
Once again, probably the 5th time I've mentioned this in this thread, where is the balance council's thoughts on any of this? A little bit of transparency and open dialogue so we can at least know what they're attempting to accomplish would be nice.
Also that's a pretty decent change for Vikings, they had a pretty big damage point delay so I chalk that up to a good QoL change.
Vikings have good damage point, I think if something makes them feel sloppy its because all air units have this deceleration stat.
For the slicing power point, keep in mind Libs are 2 supply, so its not like Terran late game is just worse in every aspect. But yeah, I wouldn't wanna be Maru/Gumiho this patch. The funny thing is that I actually think Terran being stronger vs. Zerg late game, is way healthier than the other way round, simply because of how the dynamic of the matchup plays out. Instead of Zerg literally sitting back until the Terran dies, it becomes Zerg defends to gain an advantage that they then use to overrun the Terran before they then get the final advantage.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
This is a lategame buff in TvZ because Liberators are more supply efficient. Liberators overkill a lot. Now you can get 50% more liberators, but they still one shot lings and banes, and two shot hydras. In terms of raw dps per supply, it's also a small improvement because upgrades cap out at +5 damage per upgrade, so the relative benefit is higher with a base of 50 damage then it is with a base of 75.
* No upgrade numbers are without chitinous, +3 are with chitinous
Better supply efficiency is a lategame-only buff, so I don't think it's accurate to say that trading cost efficiency for supply efficiency benefits the early game at the cost of lategame.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
This is a lategame buff in TvZ because Liberators are more supply efficient. Liberators overkill a lot. Now you can get 50% more liberators, but they still one shot lings and banes, and two shot hydras. In terms of raw dps per supply, it's also a small improvement because upgrades cap out at +5 damage per upgrade, so the relative benefit is higher with a base of 50 damage then it is with a base of 75.
* No upgrade numbers are without chitinous, +3 are with chitinous
Better supply efficiency is a lategame-only buff, so I don't think it's accurate to say that trading cost efficiency for supply efficiency benefits the early game at the cost of lategame.
The thing is, you dont expect Zerg to walk their entire ground army underneath 10-15 Libs Seige in late game. The math seems fine, but the actual gameplay isnt that way. Like what is really the threat to Libs in late game? Mass Hydra? Queen? Ravager? No. Its Viper/Infestor combo. So by making Libs weaker individually and allow them to get higher in mass, it doesnt change anything in lategame vs Broodlord/Infestor/Viper combo. Thats why I said this change will make Terran to do all-in even more because the benefit of the change is much more impactful in early/mid-game.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
This is a lategame buff in TvZ because Liberators are more supply efficient. Liberators overkill a lot. Now you can get 50% more liberators, but they still one shot lings and banes, and two shot hydras. In terms of raw dps per supply, it's also a small improvement because upgrades cap out at +5 damage per upgrade, so the relative benefit is higher with a base of 50 damage then it is with a base of 75.
* No upgrade numbers are without chitinous, +3 are with chitinous
Better supply efficiency is a lategame-only buff, so I don't think it's accurate to say that trading cost efficiency for supply efficiency benefits the early game at the cost of lategame.
The thing is, you dont expect Zerg to walk their entire ground army underneath 10-15 Libs Seige in late game. The math seems fine, but the actual gameplay isnt that way. Like what is really the threat to Libs in late game? Mass Hydra? Queen? Ravager? No. Its Viper/Infestor combo. So by making Libs weaker individually and allow them to get higher in mass, it doesnt change anything in lategame vs Broodlord/Infestor/Viper combo. Thats why I said this change will make Terran to do all-in even more because the benefit of the change is much more impactful in early/mid-game.
It's a moot point now since they reverted the change and replaced it with a cost reduction to 150/125: https://rentry.co/uz75f (the in-game patch notes point to that site for a cumulative changelog).
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
This is a lategame buff in TvZ because Liberators are more supply efficient. Liberators overkill a lot. Now you can get 50% more liberators, but they still one shot lings and banes, and two shot hydras. In terms of raw dps per supply, it's also a small improvement because upgrades cap out at +5 damage per upgrade, so the relative benefit is higher with a base of 50 damage then it is with a base of 75.
* No upgrade numbers are without chitinous, +3 are with chitinous
Better supply efficiency is a lategame-only buff, so I don't think it's accurate to say that trading cost efficiency for supply efficiency benefits the early game at the cost of lategame.
The thing is, you dont expect Zerg to walk their entire ground army underneath 10-15 Libs Seige in late game. The math seems fine, but the actual gameplay isnt that way. Like what is really the threat to Libs in late game? Mass Hydra? Queen? Ravager? No. Its Viper/Infestor combo. So by making Libs weaker individually and allow them to get higher in mass, it doesnt change anything in lategame vs Broodlord/Infestor/Viper combo. Thats why I said this change will make Terran to do all-in even more because the benefit of the change is much more impactful in early/mid-game.
It's a moot point now since they reverted the change and replaced it with a cost reduction to 150/125: https://rentry.co/uz75f (the in-game patch notes point to that site for a cumulative changelog).
Hmm, less gas is always a net buff so I mean, could be worse?
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
This is a lategame buff in TvZ because Liberators are more supply efficient. Liberators overkill a lot. Now you can get 50% more liberators, but they still one shot lings and banes, and two shot hydras. In terms of raw dps per supply, it's also a small improvement because upgrades cap out at +5 damage per upgrade, so the relative benefit is higher with a base of 50 damage then it is with a base of 75.
* No upgrade numbers are without chitinous, +3 are with chitinous
Better supply efficiency is a lategame-only buff, so I don't think it's accurate to say that trading cost efficiency for supply efficiency benefits the early game at the cost of lategame.
The thing is, you dont expect Zerg to walk their entire ground army underneath 10-15 Libs Seige in late game. The math seems fine, but the actual gameplay isnt that way. Like what is really the threat to Libs in late game? Mass Hydra? Queen? Ravager? No. Its Viper/Infestor combo. So by making Libs weaker individually and allow them to get higher in mass, it doesnt change anything in lategame vs Broodlord/Infestor/Viper combo. Thats why I said this change will make Terran to do all-in even more because the benefit of the change is much more impactful in early/mid-game.
It's a moot point now since they reverted the change and replaced it with a cost reduction to 150/125: https://rentry.co/uz75f (the in-game patch notes point to that site for a cumulative changelog).
Hmm, less gas is always a net buff so I mean, could be worse?
Well, this is like a buff for the sake of having one imo. Its not game changing, but something nice to have. The most impact this would have ,I believe, would be on TvP though, having cheaper Libs would give Terran more power against those Robo build from Protoss.
Slightly more microable vikings and a slightly cheaper lib don't even come close to making up for the ruined ghost. T is still doomed lategame. They need to either do a complete rework of Terrans lategame reliance on ghost or just revert the nerf or a least make it a lot less extreme. If it canceled at 15 range instead of 13.5 that wouldn't be as big of a deal but would still give Zerg some retreating potential.
Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
On January 03 2023 00:37 tigera6 wrote: I dont think this would be a lategame change if thats the intention, Terran would now even try to 2-base all in harder with this. Now they can have 2-3 more Libs along with the Tanks and Bio. Btw, each Lib is nerfed right, yet their cost will stay the same? Lategame wise, you never want to make too many Libs anyway, only a couple to zone out the Infestor. Mass libs and mass Viking are still weak against Viper/Infestor Combo if Ghost couldnt hit their EMP on target. I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power. Its not a buff, just a trade-off to get more unit earlier but ultimately hurt them in longterm.
"I just dont like the trend of balancing Terran unit by making them cheaper/less supply/quicker to build and slicing their power."
I agree with this, I'm honestly confused as to the point of this change in the first place. Were Liberators over used? Under used? Were they oppressive in the meta in their current forum? Does the balance team think that Liberators should be cheaper and more plentiful but weaker to fill a role in Terran's arsenals?
Once again, probably the 5th time I've mentioned this in this thread, where is the balance council's thoughts on any of this? A little bit of transparency and open dialogue so we can at least know what they're attempting to accomplish would be nice.
Also that's a pretty decent change for Vikings, they had a pretty big damage point delay so I chalk that up to a good QoL change.
Vikings have good damage point, I think if something makes them feel sloppy its because all air units have this deceleration stat.
For the slicing power point, keep in mind Libs are 2 supply, so its not like Terran late game is just worse in every aspect. But yeah, I wouldn't wanna be Maru/Gumiho this patch. The funny thing is that I actually think Terran being stronger vs. Zerg late game, is way healthier than the other way round, simply because of how the dynamic of the matchup plays out. Instead of Zerg literally sitting back until the Terran dies, it becomes Zerg defends to gain an advantage that they then use to overrun the Terran before they then get the final advantage.
It's primarily the damage-point that matters. This damage-point will make it much better at kiting vs especially Corruptors and and Void Rays.
I also think it will help a lot with dodging Fungals late game vs zerg.
(in general most damage point should by default be 0 and the game balanced around that. It simply makes the micro feel a lot more enjoyable)
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote:apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Auto Turret duration reduced from 10.0 to 7.8 seconds Auto Turret health reduced from 150 to 100 Auto Turret armor reduced from 1 to 0 Auto Turret is no longer affected by Neosteel Armor
So it's only about 60% as durable as it was and will do 4 shots fewer.
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
Where are you getting those Premier tournament results? Zergs have won 7/14 Premiers this year: Premier Tournaments
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
What tournaments are you using? Just going off liquipedia premiers for 2022 I see 7Z, 4T, 3P for each race wins. In addition to having the most championships Zerg also has the most 2nd places. I would also argue that tournaments like KoB and Afreeca Championship Cup deserve premier status more than WCS EU and were both won by Zerg. That brings it up to 9Z, 4T, 3P.
I would also note that T/P will perform much worse with nerfed ghosts and Carriers/disruptors so from the perspective of the patch they definitely need some serious help unless those nerfs are reverted.
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote:apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Auto Turret duration reduced from 10.0 to 7.8 seconds Auto Turret health reduced from 150 to 100 Auto Turret armor reduced from 1 to 0 Auto Turret is no longer affected by Neosteel Armor
So it's only about 60% as durable as it was and will do 4 shots fewer.
So I'm really glad to find that they're still trying lots of changes, and that this proposed patch isn't like the same ones when Blizzard still had a full balance team, where they were pretty much set in stone. This looks a lot more experimental which is great! And Katowice is a bit away, so they have time to try lots of things.
And I'm really glad to see them listening and pushing certain nerfs a little more (creep tumor cd), and pulling back slightly on others like BL speed (could be pulled back to 2.1 or so but at least it's less now).
I'm glad they didn't go through with that Lib change, it'd be weird to be a big unit like that and only 2 supply. Having strong burst is also important to the unit's identity as a zoning unit. The initial attack is important for zoning.
But this Auto Turret nerf... oof. It's overkill. All they had to do was reduce the damage from 18 to like, 10 or 12. Which would bring it back to its original identity from WoL/HotS, where it was not this scrappy turret with really high DPS, but rather this turret that could be used as a wall and did low DPS, and lasted long and could be used positionally.
Actually, I'm really confused why they nerfed the durability and duration of it instead of the DPS. With the initial proposed Raven, it would take about the same time to get 150 energy to drop 2 75 energy turrets in the opponent's base as it would take the current Raven to get 100 energy to drop 2 50 energy turrets. So the timing and strength is about the same. But with this new Auto Turret... you will now have enough energy to drop 2 turrets much earlier, and pose a bigger threat to their workers, and can be used in early pushes where the DPS is more important than the durability. Is this what they intended? I never liked how Terran has so many redundant harass options (liberator, WM, autoturrett harass all fall under "you didn't look/react in 2 seconds, now you lost several workers". It's not interesting or fun. Why does all harass have to be about killing workers? A more durable, longer lasting turret that deals less DPS would give the opponent more of an option to try to kill the turrets, or wait it out and just lose out on some mining time. With the new proposed turret, it's even more of a glass canon and paired with the cheaper earlier Ravens it's even more of a "you didn't look for a couple seconds, now you lost 5 workers" thing.
Are they really that afraid of mass turrets in lategame? It's not at all a problem, let mech players and raven users have their fun. 8 seconds is such a short time for a "turret". It can barely be used positionally as static defense on the go, it's more like an infested terran on crack, ever more than before.
Keep the auto turret as is with 50 energy, keep the durability the same, and nerf the damage from 18 to 12 and be done with it. Why are you nerfing both the durability and the duration? Nerfing just the duration, or the damage, or the durability would make sense and keep things proportional to the cheaper and earlier Raven.
They actually completely removed the Corvid Reactor upgrade and effect without increasing the initial energy, making its less useful for early harassments role when coupled with the nerf on Auto Turret. But the Interference Matrix got unchanged is correct, because they was increased from 8sec to 11sec with 50 to 75EN cast.
Also noted is that Obs model size increase got rolled back into 10% only, and Sentry also has a slight increase in speed.
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
What tournaments are you using? Just going off liquipedia premiers for 2022 I see 7Z, 4T, 3P for each race wins. In addition to having the most championships Zerg also has the most 2nd places. I would also argue that tournaments like KoB and Afreeca Championship Cup deserve premier status more than WCS EU and were both won by Zerg. That brings it up to 9Z, 4T, 3P.
I would also note that T/P will perform much worse with nerfed ghosts and Carriers/disruptors so from the perspective of the patch they definitely need some serious help unless those nerfs are reverted.
I mean, if you look at the 2nd place, the split is 6Z-6T-2P so you could say its fairly "balanced". But then if you look a the actual face, you will see that Protoss has herO and might be Astrea (but he hasnt done well outside of HSC), Terran has Maru and Clem (who never won anything outside of DH EU) with Bunny and Cure/Byun as a distant 2nd group, and Zerg got 4 top dog (3 after Rogue went to military) and other Zerg like Solar and Ragnarok can bring a good run or two. So basically its herO or bust for Protoss at this point (assuming MaxPax is not coming to IEM), and Maru or bust for Terran. Remove either one and you will see the race perform considerably worse at the tournament. Meanwhile Zerg can lose Serral (DH Valencia) and still win title with Dark, the only Global tournament (non-regional/GSL) that other race has managed to win is DH Atlanta when both Dark and Reynor didnt play and Serral couldnt carry the race like he used to do. So coming to IEM, unless the bracket does some thing unsual, Maru and herO would have to go through a gauntlet of Zerg to make the Final, hell they might play each other before the Final given how the seeding usually work out that way.
Since TY's win in 2017 zerg won every world championship (Blizzcon and IEM). That's why people are scared of this patch just before IEM. There's a fatigue going on knowing that on the biggest stage there's no hope for non zergs. The past 8 finals were 5 ZvP, 3 ZVZ. In these finals alone Zergs won more than 1.7M - Protosses around 342K, Terrans 0.
8 might not be a huge sample in the grand scheme of things, but with the prestige and price distribution it definitely have strong effect on the viewer perspective.
There was 12 global (i.e. non regon-locked) major/premier tournaments this year, with more or less almost every best players in the world. You can find them on Liquipedia main page, 2022 Global and 2022 Korea. 8 are won by Zerg 3 are won by Protoss 1 is won by Terran.
On January 03 2023 09:57 tigera6 wrote: They actually completely removed the Corvid Reactor upgrade and effect without increasing the initial energy, making its less useful for early harassments role when coupled with the nerf on Auto Turret. But the Interference Matrix got unchanged is correct, because they was increased from 8sec to 11sec with 50 to 75EN cast.
Also noted is that Obs model size increase got rolled back into 10% only, and Sentry also has a slight increase in speed.
Ah I didn't notice this, then this feels like an overall nerf again. Just leave the Raven as it is, there's not really a reason to do those weird changes
On January 03 2023 09:57 tigera6 wrote: They actually completely removed the Corvid Reactor upgrade and effect without increasing the initial energy, making its less useful for early harassments role when coupled with the nerf on Auto Turret. But the Interference Matrix got unchanged is correct, because they was increased from 8sec to 11sec with 50 to 75EN cast.
Also noted is that Obs model size increase got rolled back into 10% only, and Sentry also has a slight increase in speed.
Ah I didn't notice this, then this feels like an overall nerf again. Just leave the Raven as it is, there's not really a reason to do those weird changes
I figure the Raven changes stem from a desire to change its power level so it doesn't dominate TvT so heavily. Unfortunately I don't get the feeling that there's a real vision beyond that yet. None of the proposed changes so far really made me wanna build Ravens outside of TvT, and the lower gas cost even helps it in TvT. The first draft of the patch certainly didn't deserve the word "rework" anywhere near the raven.
On January 03 2023 09:57 tigera6 wrote: They actually completely removed the Corvid Reactor upgrade and effect without increasing the initial energy, making its less useful for early harassments role when coupled with the nerf on Auto Turret. But the Interference Matrix got unchanged is correct, because they was increased from 8sec to 11sec with 50 to 75EN cast.
Also noted is that Obs model size increase got rolled back into 10% only, and Sentry also has a slight increase in speed.
I think 10% obs model size increase is fine, 17.5% seemed a bit unnecessary.
Sentry change is pretty good. I don't like how everything keeps getting buffed to move faster, but Sentries are already used in the context of much faster Gateway units. This should help them catch up to Zealots charging ahead better and let guardian shield cover them for an extra 1-2 seconds or so. It does also mean though that gateway armies are better at attacking, thus decreasing defender's advantage. But overall, I'm happy with this since it helps gateway armies just a little bit. Still think they could just buff the Sentry damage from 6 to 10 or at least 8, but it's OK. (10 damage would also make them sliightly less shitty when caught off guard by Mutalisks, so why not).
Oof about the Corvid Reactor upgrade... so no energy upgrade, and Ravens just start with 50 energy only?? This just confuses me even more. What's wrong with allowing an energy upgrade? The changes just seem to keep going in the wrong direction more and more. If you're worried about the energy upgrade's impact on early or mid game, then just keep it expensive like 200/200, why remove it completely. Raven is a T3 spellcaster, stop pushing it into this early game role. It's higher tech than Ghosts.
It's very interesting that Interference Matrix is kept at 11sec with 75 energy. So basically we can get Ravens out a little earlier, and effectively they have about 10 more energy (since they build ~13 secs faster). So this is telling me, that the Raven rework was not about weakening Matrix for TvP or TvT, but mainly to get Terran an earlier faster detector to help control creep? That's what it seems like to me, and the changes on the spells were just to keep things proportional. (Other than AA Missile, I like the nerf from 3 to 2 damage, and will help compensate for Shield Overcharge nerf, and also make Gateway stronger). Since Ravens are cheaper and build faster, Matrix will effectively be slightly buffed. Not much, since no one builds Ravens just to suicide them / spam Matrix, other than Mech players hehe. It might make Matrix even more strong in TvT, which isn't a good result though... I guess having an earlier cheaper Raven also means you could Matrix 2 queens during a push, or use 1 AA missile and 1 Matrix. But with the new turret you'd probably want to drop 2 turrets instead since they still have the same 18 damage.
Reducing Auto Turret duration won't make the earlier Raven any weaker at harassing worker lines. You always pull workers away anyway, so all it'll do is make it so you can return your workers 2 seconds earlier to mine. I don't think making Auto Turrets last shorter and have less durability and making Raven's lategame power even weaker, or Raven/Hellion weaker, or Mech weaker, is worth that. A Raven coming to your mineral line 12 seconds earlier isn't a big deal I don't think, all you still need to do is just pull your workers away for 10 sec.
I'm just going to try not to think about things too much, and wait for more changes, and hope that the Raven ends up in a good spot for both Mech players and Terran players who just want an earlier Raven for detection.
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
Where are you getting those Premier tournament results? Zergs have won 7/14 Premiers this year: Premier Tournaments
Tbh this is what I looked at Recent Tournament Results lol why is it different if you click on the p remier tab vs. the premier section on recent?
I stand corrected though, no shock though between Serral and Reynor thats alot of Zerg wins.
So I thought about it more, and even though it's highly unlikely anyone will see this (or if people on TL will even agree lol), I thought I'd throw out my Raven rework suggestion. This should accomplish what it seems they're trying (earlier detection, more creep control, less strong for TvP Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus, less strong in TvT vs Tanks), but also do other things (buffs Mech in every MU, makes adding Marauders to your Marine Tank in TvT more of an option, keep lategame potential for Raven without making it too strong early game, maintain same strength of Raven/Hellion)
Raven reduced from 100/200 to 75/150 -Keep it gas heavy, Terran needs a gas sink -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep -Also helps keep early Hellion/Raven comps from getting too weak (it's already weak/rare in current patch)
Corvid Reactor upgrade cost increased from 150/150 to 200/200 -Raven is power gated so you can't spam Matrix/Turret too early, but still allows for some lategame potential
Build time reduced from 42.9 to 30 seconds -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep
Anti-Armor Missile reworked to be a +15% damage boost (or kept at -3 armor) -This means it's less strong for Bio, and helps Mech in all MUs, especially Hellbats/Tanks/Thors -It also would help make TvT not just pure Marine Tank, and make adding in Muaraders more of an option. -It would also nerf Bio and buff Mech in TvT, allowing more diversity in TvT -It would also buff defender's advantage a little in TvT, since it buffs Tanks, and helps offset the strength of Matrix taking out sieged positions too easily. (We want to nerf Matrix in TvT, and make Tanks less weak vs Ravens). -Another option is make them take +2 damage from Biological units, and +4 damage from Mechanical units.
Anti-Armor Missile radius reduced from 2.88 to 2 -This decreases the AOE by HALF (~26 units squared, to ~13 units squared) -This means 1 AA missile won't effect the whole enemy's army, and there is more potential for splitting -This gives an option to build a few Ravens instead of just 1, and helps keep Terran lategame strong (since Ghost got nerfed), and helps Mech (since Mech is more likely to be building Ravens). It keeps some lategame strength for Ravens.
AA Missile duration reduced from 21 seconds to 15 seconds -21 seconds always seemed like an awfully long time to me, 15 seconds is long enough to use it for positional play -Shortening the duration will help compensate for making sure Tank or Liberator pushes aren't too strong, if we're reworking AA Missile to give +15% damage boost instead of -3 armor.
Auto Turret HP reduced from 150 to 125 (if you MUST nerf something about Auto Turret, but I wouldn't nerf anything) -They will have less HP to help compensate for being able to make more Ravens for cheaper, without making them too weak if you mass them lategame. Early game, HP is more important, lategame in mass it's more about DPS. -Less HP will make it more of an option to kill a Turret harassing your workers instead of waiting 10 sec (Honestly though I would keeping Auto Turret exactly the same as currently would be fine. You rarely want to use Auto Turret over AA Missile or Matrix anyway. Auto Turret pushes aren't strong or anything, so Raven being slightly cheaper won't make Auto Turret mess anything up, as it's the Raven's weakest ability. If you're using Raven/Hellion comp, AA missile already got nerfed which significantly impacts Hellion damage, so it's OK if Auto Turrets are slightly easier to get. If we rework AA Missile to be +15% damage, it still will only give Hellions +1.25 damage vs Stalkers, +2.1 vs Marines, so keeping Auto Turrets as is would help compensate for the reworked AA Missile and keep Raven/Hellion about the same strength early game.)
Interference Matrix reduced from 11 sec to 8 sec -It just makes sense if the Raven is cheaper and builds faster -This would further help weaken Ravens vs Tanks in TvT, and further weaken Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus in early-mid TvP
On January 03 2023 05:42 Charoisaur wrote: Eeh I think the Liberator change will mainly have an impact on TvP where Protoss will probably be struggling already with the Disruptor and shield battery nerf. Better than the other suggested change though and apparently they made Auto-Turrets 50 energy again but weaker, which I like.
Somehow there's still no change that seriously helps the other races against Zerg and I don't think that's a coincidence.
Do either of the races need "serious" help against Zerg?
2022 Premier Tournament Results - 4P 4Z 2T
Aligulac Dec 2022 TvZ = 50.82 PvZ = 51.06
Do you have anything to back up this notion or is this just your opinion? I'm open to numbers that support your argument.
Where are you getting those Premier tournament results? Zergs have won 7/14 Premiers this year: Premier Tournaments
Tbh this is what I looked at Recent Tournament Results lol why is it different if you click on the p remier tab vs. the premier section on recent?
I stand corrected though, no shock though between Serral and Reynor thats alot of Zerg wins.
Serral and Reynor won most of Zerg title this year partly because Rogue went to military early, and Dark actually skipped several tournaments. Last year Rogue + Dark actually won more tournament than Serral + Reynor.
If someone is interested by creating a mode without vision for tumors, all he have to do is to tweak the spell. The new spell have to create an unit in the fog of war (it must work because reaper unit for example doesn t need vision to jump on a cliff) with 1 point in radius then it instantly becomes a structure if there s no structure yet.
On January 04 2023 06:10 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: So I thought about it more, and even though it's highly unlikely anyone will see this (or if people on TL will even agree lol), I thought I'd throw out my Raven rework suggestion. This should accomplish what it seems they're trying (earlier detection, more creep control, less strong for TvP Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus, less strong in TvT vs Tanks), but also do other things (buffs Mech in every MU, makes adding Marauders to your Marine Tank in TvT more of an option, keep lategame potential for Raven without making it too strong early game, maintain same strength of Raven/Hellion)
Raven reduced from 100/200 to 75/150 -Keep it gas heavy, Terran needs a gas sink -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep -Also helps keep early Hellion/Raven comps from getting too weak (it's already weak/rare in current patch)
Corvid Reactor upgrade cost increased from 150/150 to 200/200 -Raven is power gated so you can't spam Matrix/Turret too early, but still allows for some lategame potential
Build time reduced from 42.9 to 30 seconds -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep
Anti-Armor Missile reworked to be a +15% damage boost (or kept at -3 armor) -This means it's less strong for Bio, and helps Mech in all MUs, especially Hellbats/Tanks/Thors -It also would help make TvT not just pure Marine Tank, and make adding in Muaraders more of an option. -It would also nerf Bio and buff Mech in TvT, allowing more diversity in TvT -It would also buff defender's advantage a little in TvT, since it buffs Tanks, and helps offset the strength of Matrix taking out sieged positions too easily. (We want to nerf Matrix in TvT, and make Tanks less weak vs Ravens). -Another option is make them take +2 damage from Biological units, and +4 damage from Mechanical units.
Anti-Armor Missile radius reduced from 2.88 to 2 -This decreases the AOE by HALF (~26 units squared, to ~13 units squared) -This means 1 AA missile won't effect the whole enemy's army, and there is more potential for splitting -This gives an option to build a few Ravens instead of just 1, and helps keep Terran lategame strong (since Ghost got nerfed), and helps Mech (since Mech is more likely to be building Ravens). It keeps some lategame strength for Ravens.
AA Missile duration reduced from 21 seconds to 15 seconds -21 seconds always seemed like an awfully long time to me, 15 seconds is long enough to use it for positional play -Shortening the duration will help compensate for making sure Tank or Liberator pushes aren't too strong, if we're reworking AA Missile to give +15% damage boost instead of -3 armor.
Auto Turret HP reduced from 150 to 125 (if you MUST nerf something about Auto Turret, but I wouldn't nerf anything) -They will have less HP to help compensate for being able to make more Ravens for cheaper, without making them too weak if you mass them lategame. Early game, HP is more important, lategame in mass it's more about DPS. -Less HP will make it more of an option to kill a Turret harassing your workers instead of waiting 10 sec (Honestly though I would keeping Auto Turret exactly the same as currently would be fine. You rarely want to use Auto Turret over AA Missile or Matrix anyway. Auto Turret pushes aren't strong or anything, so Raven being slightly cheaper won't make Auto Turret mess anything up, as it's the Raven's weakest ability. If you're using Raven/Hellion comp, AA missile already got nerfed which significantly impacts Hellion damage, so it's OK if Auto Turrets are slightly easier to get. If we rework AA Missile to be +15% damage, it still will only give Hellions +1.25 damage vs Stalkers, +2.1 vs Marines, so keeping Auto Turrets as is would help compensate for the reworked AA Missile and keep Raven/Hellion about the same strength early game.)
Interference Matrix reduced from 11 sec to 8 sec -It just makes sense if the Raven is cheaper and builds faster -This would further help weaken Ravens vs Tanks in TvT, and further weaken Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus in early-mid TvP
I think the idea is that Turrets are quite strong in TvT. The Raven is just a god unit in TvT, because it buffs the strongest unit Terran have the Marine, by an insane amount. It disables the Tank which is the best counter Terran has to the massed Marine unit. And then it also places Auto Turrets which is a beefier, but worse Marine that provides an insane buffer and makes it hard to engage the Tanks. All the while, benefitting +1 range to your Tanks. The Viking, which is another unit that provides +1 range for your Tanks and can actually combat these Raven, also gets quite the buff from the oily missile and the Raven can disable 2 Vikings and even place an Auto Turret, if it turns into a mostly anti air vs. anti air battle.
I think it's a no brainer to remove the Covid Reactor, because it's an upgrade that gets better the more Ravens you spam and I guess this is what they want to remove. I actually agree with you that I think the Raven should be a proper late game unit. If I were to remake the Raven, I would nerf its move speed and give it Seeker Missile instead of the oily missile, I would give it a nerfed PDD and keep Auto Turret and Interference Matrix. The Viper already cheats with having 4 abilties, so the Raven can have it as well. This way Terran has proper late game, I would also take a look at the BC (remove the move&shoot, but make its Yamato and Jump stronger again.) But as far as this new mod version of the Raven goes, I think they did a pretty good job. The Auto Turret is simply a worse straight up unit. They removed the Auto Turret benefitting from Neosteel Armour, so I think it follows that it should also not benefit from the +1 range, this would also quite nerf the murder (cloud of Ravens.) The more turrets you spam, the harder it becomes for them all to shoot at once.
Just remove auto-turrets and bring back the repair drone. That was a useful ability that made Terran lategame a bit more efficient without being abusive when massed.
On January 04 2023 06:10 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: So I thought about it more, and even though it's highly unlikely anyone will see this (or if people on TL will even agree lol), I thought I'd throw out my Raven rework suggestion. This should accomplish what it seems they're trying (earlier detection, more creep control, less strong for TvP Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus, less strong in TvT vs Tanks), but also do other things (buffs Mech in every MU, makes adding Marauders to your Marine Tank in TvT more of an option, keep lategame potential for Raven without making it too strong early game, maintain same strength of Raven/Hellion)
Raven reduced from 100/200 to 75/150 -Keep it gas heavy, Terran needs a gas sink -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep -Also helps keep early Hellion/Raven comps from getting too weak (it's already weak/rare in current patch)
Corvid Reactor upgrade cost increased from 150/150 to 200/200 -Raven is power gated so you can't spam Matrix/Turret too early, but still allows for some lategame potential
Build time reduced from 42.9 to 30 seconds -Helps Terran get earlier detection and control creep
Anti-Armor Missile reworked to be a +15% damage boost (or kept at -3 armor) -This means it's less strong for Bio, and helps Mech in all MUs, especially Hellbats/Tanks/Thors -It also would help make TvT not just pure Marine Tank, and make adding in Muaraders more of an option. -It would also nerf Bio and buff Mech in TvT, allowing more diversity in TvT -It would also buff defender's advantage a little in TvT, since it buffs Tanks, and helps offset the strength of Matrix taking out sieged positions too easily. (We want to nerf Matrix in TvT, and make Tanks less weak vs Ravens). -Another option is make them take +2 damage from Biological units, and +4 damage from Mechanical units.
Anti-Armor Missile radius reduced from 2.88 to 2 -This decreases the AOE by HALF (~26 units squared, to ~13 units squared) -This means 1 AA missile won't effect the whole enemy's army, and there is more potential for splitting -This gives an option to build a few Ravens instead of just 1, and helps keep Terran lategame strong (since Ghost got nerfed), and helps Mech (since Mech is more likely to be building Ravens). It keeps some lategame strength for Ravens.
AA Missile duration reduced from 21 seconds to 15 seconds -21 seconds always seemed like an awfully long time to me, 15 seconds is long enough to use it for positional play -Shortening the duration will help compensate for making sure Tank or Liberator pushes aren't too strong, if we're reworking AA Missile to give +15% damage boost instead of -3 armor.
Auto Turret HP reduced from 150 to 125 (if you MUST nerf something about Auto Turret, but I wouldn't nerf anything) -They will have less HP to help compensate for being able to make more Ravens for cheaper, without making them too weak if you mass them lategame. Early game, HP is more important, lategame in mass it's more about DPS. -Less HP will make it more of an option to kill a Turret harassing your workers instead of waiting 10 sec (Honestly though I would keeping Auto Turret exactly the same as currently would be fine. You rarely want to use Auto Turret over AA Missile or Matrix anyway. Auto Turret pushes aren't strong or anything, so Raven being slightly cheaper won't make Auto Turret mess anything up, as it's the Raven's weakest ability. If you're using Raven/Hellion comp, AA missile already got nerfed which significantly impacts Hellion damage, so it's OK if Auto Turrets are slightly easier to get. If we rework AA Missile to be +15% damage, it still will only give Hellions +1.25 damage vs Stalkers, +2.1 vs Marines, so keeping Auto Turrets as is would help compensate for the reworked AA Missile and keep Raven/Hellion about the same strength early game.)
Interference Matrix reduced from 11 sec to 8 sec -It just makes sense if the Raven is cheaper and builds faster -This would further help weaken Ravens vs Tanks in TvT, and further weaken Bio Tank pushes vs Colossus in early-mid TvP
I think the idea is that Turrets are quite strong in TvT. The Raven is just a god unit in TvT, because it buffs the strongest unit Terran have the Marine, by an insane amount. It disables the Tank which is the best counter Terran has to the massed Marine unit. And then it also places Auto Turrets which is a beefier, but worse Marine that provides an insane buffer and makes it hard to engage the Tanks. All the while, benefitting +1 range to your Tanks. The Viking, which is another unit that provides +1 range for your Tanks and can actually combat these Raven, also gets quite the buff from the oily missile and the Raven can disable 2 Vikings and even place an Auto Turret, if it turns into a mostly anti air vs. anti air battle.
I think it's a no brainer to remove the Covid Reactor, because it's an upgrade that gets better the more Ravens you spam and I guess this is what they want to remove. I actually agree with you that I think the Raven should be a proper late game unit. If I were to remake the Raven, I would nerf its move speed and give it Seeker Missile instead of the oily missile, I would give it a nerfed PDD and keep Auto Turret and Interference Matrix. The Viper already cheats with having 4 abilties, so the Raven can have it as well. This way Terran has proper late game, I would also take a look at the BC (remove the move&shoot, but make its Yamato and Jump stronger again.) But as far as this new mod version of the Raven goes, I think they did a pretty good job. The Auto Turret is simply a worse straight up unit. They removed the Auto Turret benefitting from Neosteel Armour, so I think it follows that it should also not benefit from the +1 range, this would also quite nerf the murder (cloud of Ravens.) The more turrets you spam, the harder it becomes for them all to shoot at once.
I forget that the Viper has 4 spells. I get spectators and players not wanting to have games where making 15-20 Ravens is common, but I think having 5-10 Ravens be common is totally fine, with situational games or weird players making 10-20 sometimes, considering Zerg can get 15 Infestors + 10 Queens, or Protoss can get 10 HTs, etc. I do agree though that the Raven should not be able to spam Auto Turrets and just murder armies on their own. Similar to what you said, I think the post-David Kim Raven is not well thought out. It was better in a few ways, but it just created even more problems.
Ravens don't need to be fast (why is everything faster faster faster?), and it doesn't need to be an early game harass unit. It should be a slow, positional, expensive but powerful lategame spellcaster, that you can get early game if you want sometimes. And if a player succeeded in being very greedy or getting tons of bases, they have the option to invest their high gas into a higher number of Ravens. (Just like Zerg/Protoss do with their powerful gas units if they get many bases).
Turrets should not be infested terrans on crack that do 18 damage per hit, and shoot almost twice a second, but only last 10 seconds. Interference Matrix should not be a spell that just completely shuts down a unit once it is cast, and there is no counterplay. I thought we learned to move away from things that limit interactions? Cough just like the reason why we removed PDD and reworked the Raven in the first place?
I would love if the Raven went back to its former self though, or at least give it PDD back, but a nerfed version. I've said it a million times but I think they simply couldn't figure out a way to nerf it, and thought it had to be scrapped, or replaced with something similar like a Repair Drone. All you need to do to make PDD not broken en masse, is limit the amount of shots 1 PDD can block per second (make it 2-3 shots or something), and rescale the energy/regen on the PDD, so that it's still useful to use 1-2 PDD in early game fights, but also you cannot chase down 40 Corruptors with your Vikings, and corner them while dropping PDDs across the map, while taking 0 damage. If 1 PDD can only block 2-3 hits a second each, you would need to drop 15 PDDs all at once in one place to take 0 damage, and all the Zerg would need to do then is re-engage elsewhere. Suddenly, your 20 Raven flock has already used half of all its energy. (Also, Viper has Abduct and Parabomb vs Ravens now... it is not the HotS days anymore... I think a nerfed PDD is totally fine).
And then make the Auto Turret more of a durability/positional turret that has low DPS, but lasts longer than an infested terran. At the minimum, tone the Auto Turret DPS down to 15, that way it still 3 shots workers if you really want it to keep that role of early-harass, but is a little weaker in fights. They definitely should give up on the vision of "oh we want Raven to give Terran yet another way to kill 5 workers if you don't look for 2 seconds early game". If they do, then they can bring the DPS down and increase the duration, revert the Raven movespeed to be slower again, and then we stop having Ravens be able to kill armies by themselves with mass Turret.
I really dislike how strong Raven became in TvT... TvT was a good MU because there's actually a significant defender's advantage, and allows for more positional play in SC2. Being able to fly in and disable a small outpost of 5 Tanks with Ravens isn't really fun, and discourages players to spread out small groups of units to hold certain areas.
I feel like removing Corvid Reactor and nerfing Turret durability/duration but keeping its high DPS, are all weird changes that dance around the actual issue of a high DPS Turret just not even being a necessary thing? High dps turret does not fill any needed role or hole in the gameplay or balance anywhere. High dps turret was only a thing cus they wanted to give more incentive for players to build a Raven early on, and thought to allow Turret to kill workers better. If we're making the Raven cheaper and quicker to build, we no longer need the high dps turret.
I have an honest to God plea for the balance council.
Don't ruin the relatively ok balance that we have in the search for something that "would be cool to have". The game balance is in a relatively good state. There are a few problematic units and strategies, focus on fixing those issues, and not in changes that would be cool to have but don't serve balance.
What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
Same with the ultras. Yes, it would be amazing if they were more agile. Why do you think in 13 years of SC2 they never changed the size? Because the size is part of the balance of the unit, so you don't mass them and to control their DPS. Even if 1 ultra doesn't it is still tanking a lot of damage. If they are smaller, you are increasing the damage of ultra comps while maintaining the tankyness. How are you compensating? You aren't. You would need to rebalance the whole unit (change supply/cost/buildtime etc).
Sure it would be cool if the ultra would have been smaller. But it isn't. Zerg doesn't need the buff, this change doesn't serve balance. It's something that would be "cool" but there is no telling the effect it will have, considering how Zerg can insta remax-insta tech switch to them.
So please. Please. Don't screw the balance we have now. Much less with so many Zerg buffs in what is already considered by most to be a decent balance state with a slight advantage to Zerg.
Focus on fixing the small issues.
I know you mean well, I know you are exited to be able to make the big changes you think some units need. But you don't know the full impact those big changes will have, we don't know the full extent either. What we do know is this could be the last SC2 patch in a year, if not ever.
The carrier is problematic? Nerf it. The Lurker is too strong vs Protoss, nerf it (which you haven't even proposed which is baffling). The archon doesn't pass through a single square, fix it. The ghost is too strong? Nerf it. The shield battery is unfair? Nerf it
But stop playing around with raven reworks that who knows how they'll work. Stop playing around with liberator changes and then reverting them that just make it seem you have no idea what to do.
We all would love if the disruptor wasn't as binary, but that's how legacy of the void was balanced, you cannot nerf it without giving back something big, which you aren't doing. And if you did that big thing it would break other things. Just leave the thing alone. They'll change it in sc3.
Leave the BL alone, it doesn't need changes, nor the ultra, nor the Liberator, not the hydras. You aren't working in sc3. Fix the actual issues the current balance has and don't push changes just because they would be "nice" and "cool" because that's the only reason I can think of why you'd want to change hydras and Ultras and BL and Ravens. Not balance.
Focus on the balance issues. Forget about something that would be cool. Help blizzard and frost gigant in their future games if you want to do that.
I know you mean well. But it's just not the time anymore to be doing these things.
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: I have an honest to God plea for the balance council.
Don't ruin the relatively ok balance that we have in the search for something that "would be cool to have". The game balance is in a relatively good state. There are a few problematic units and strategies, focus on fixing those issues, and not in changes that would be cool to have but don't serve balance.
What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
Same with the ultras. Yes, it would be amazing if they were more agile. Why do you think in 13 years of SC2 they never changed the size? Because the size is part of the balance of the unit, so you don't mass them and to control their DPS. Even if 1 ultra doesn't it is still tanking a lot of damage. If they are smaller, you are increasing the damage of ultra comps while maintaining the tankyness. How are you compensating? You aren't. You would need to rebalance the whole unit (change supply/cost/buildtime etc).
Sure it would be cool if the ultra would have been smaller. But it isn't. Zerg doesn't need the buff, this change doesn't serve balance. It's something that would be "cool" but there is no telling the effect it will have, considering how Zerg can insta remax-insta tech switch to them.
So please. Please. Don't screw the balance we have now. Much less with so many Zerg buffs in what is already considered by most to be a decent balance state with a slight advantage to Zerg.
Focus on fixing the small issues.
I know you mean well, I know you are exited to be able to make the big changes you think some units need. But you don't know the full impact those big changes will have, we don't know the full extent either. What we do know is this could be the last SC2 patch in a year, if not ever.
The carrier is problematic? Nerf it. The Lurker is too strong vs Protoss, nerf it (which you haven't even proposed which is baffling). The archon doesn't pass through a single square, fix it. The ghost is too strong? Nerf it. The shield battery is unfair? Nerf it
But stop playing around with raven reworks that who knows how they'll work. Stop playing around with liberator changes and then reverting them that just make it seem you have no idea what to do.
We all would love if the disruptor wasn't as binary, but that's how legacy of the void was balanced, you cannot nerf it without giving back something big, which you aren't doing. And if you did that big thing it would break other things. Just leave the thing alone. They'll change it in sc3.
Leave the BL alone, it doesn't need changes, nor the ultra, nor the Liberator, not the hydras. You aren't working in sc3. Fix the actual issues the current balance has and don't push changes just because they would be "nice" and "cool" because that's the only reason I can think of why you'd want to change hydras and Ultras and BL and Ravens. Not balance.
Focus on the balance issues. Forget about something that would be cool. Help blizzard and frost gigant in their future games if you want to do that.
I know you mean well. But it's just not the time anymore to be doing these things.
I fully agree.
If something becomes oppressively broken or ubiquitous then making changes is fine, but SC2 is an old game and sweeping changes aren't needed.
On January 05 2023 20:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Anyone know what the mod with current considered changes is called?
5.0.11 BalanceTest, I believe
Thanks!
Giving cyclone air attack priority, upping creep nerf time, ultralisk slop being a bit smaller and the autoturrets being harass-capable again all seem like pretty good changes. Liberator cost reduction is probably fine too, no thoughts on that yet. More microable viking is great.
Don't like interceptor nerf revert. It's not a case of `get better. Most players will simply never reach a level where playing against carriers is a vaguely even affair. Would rather see more power moved to protoss ground, and more nerfs as needed to lategame Zerg.
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: I have an honest to God plea for the balance council.
Don't ruin the relatively ok balance that we have in the search for something that "would be cool to have". The game balance is in a relatively good state. There are a few problematic units and strategies, focus on fixing those issues, and not in changes that would be cool to have but don't serve balance.
What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
i totally, 100%, abso-posi-lutely agree with this perspective.
On January 05 2023 20:29 Ciaus_Dronu wrote: Anyone know what the mod with current considered changes is called?
5.0.11 BalanceTest, I believe
Most players will simply never reach a level where playing against carriers is a vaguely even affair.
Most players will simply never reach a level where playing against any number of units is fair.
Widow Mines are unfair at lower levels, but you can always get better.
Lurkers are unfair at lower levels, but you can always get better.
Etc.
I think there are two main differences with carriers.
Firstly, the matter of degree. Carriers are incredibly strong with literal a-move. Even very a-movey units like roaches and zealots will do dumb stuff like funnel through tight spaces or ball up on things if they aren't controlled at all (most of these a-move units also have straightforward counters that aren't too much harder to control than they themselves are).
The second is the way in which you can make them the centre of your composition so safely and just sit. Making mines or lurkers effective generally requires actually interacting with your opponent. Carrier balls just get stronger and stronger with time and less things happening and put the opponent on a clock to make the game winnable. The most effective way of fighting them if you are up for trying to (substantially) outplay your opponent involves making ****loads of spores or turrets. Fun.
There's a reason the old team seriously considered just removing these units outright.
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: I have an honest to God plea for the balance council.
Don't ruin the relatively ok balance that we have in the search for something that "would be cool to have". The game balance is in a relatively good state. There are a few problematic units and strategies, focus on fixing those issues, and not in changes that would be cool to have but don't serve balance.
What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
i totally, 100%, abso-posi-lutely agree with this perspective.
LoL stalkers or hydralisks, which one deserve a buff ?....
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
It's not a core unit. The entire unit is a meme. Making hydras is largely considered the wrong move in every situation. The only reason you make the unit is to turn them into lurkers.
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
It's not a core unit. The entire unit is a meme. Making hydras is largely considered the wrong move in every situation. The only reason you make the unit is to turn them into lurkers.
How is that a core unit?
Hydra-ling-bane is the most common mid-game unit composition in TvZ and has been for months. Zergs often don't even bother transitioning to lurkers because continued pressure can win games outright (and denies any potential ghost transition from Terran).
The actual meme is pretending hydras are weak and deserve a buff.
On January 05 2023 12:44 [Phantom] wrote: What I mean:
It would be cool to see more micreable hydras, but that buff in what is basically a core unit could have a lot of consequences specially since the Hydra is already used effectively. It's not necessary at all for the balance of the game at the moment.
It's not a core unit. The entire unit is a meme. Making hydras is largely considered the wrong move in every situation. The only reason you make the unit is to turn them into lurkers.
How is that a core unit?
Hydra-ling-bane is the most common mid-game unit composition in TvZ and has been for months. Zergs often don't even bother transitioning to lurkers because continued pressure can win games outright (and denies any potential ghost transition from Terran).
The actual meme is pretending hydras are weak and deserve a buff.
Same with Ultras, Zerg players always complain that they are to weak but I still see them every other ZvT. I mean sure, there are stronger units than Hydras and Ultras. But if we say Hydras and Ultras need a buff because they are underused, we could make this case for at least 10 other units in the game.
In pro play I see Hydralisks 10+ times more often than I see Thors or BCs. It might be not _the_ core unit like marine or stalker are, but it's certainly very far away from being a niche one.
A lot of people are making arguments for the original PTR notes which no longer apply.. Current balance test mod shows these notes (Note the Ultra/Hydra buffs were toned down, Raven reworked again, lib cost reduction, etc):
Versus
Worker Units No longer need to wait for full deceleration before beginning to attack
ZERG Creep Tumor Cooldown increased from 10.71 to 13.57 seconds Sight range reduced from 11 to 10
Hatchery, Lair, Hive Creep spread interval decreased from 0.3 to 0.25 accelerating the spread Sight range increased from 10,11,12 to 12
Viper After Abduct the Viper can not move or use abilities for 0.71 seconds
Ultralisk Reduced size by 12.5% Increased extra range before an ongoing attack cancels from 1 to 1.25 (This affects how far the attack target can move away before the Ultralisk's ongoing attack is canceled. The range to begin an attack is unchanged)
Hydralisk Muscular Augments move speed bonus off Creep increased from 0.79 to 1.05. The speed on Creep remains unchanged at 5.12 Damage point reduced from 0.15 to 0.1 (This is the time between the attack begun and the attack's effect starts. Reducing it allows more time for movement in between attacks)
Brood Lord Move speed increased from 1.97 to 2.24 Duration of spawned Broodlings reduced from 5.71 to 3.57
Ravager Build time increased from 8.57 to 12.14 seconds and removed the random delay of up to 0.36 seconds
PROTOSS Shield Battery Battery Overcharge shield recharge rate bonus reduced from 100% to 50%. This reduces the total shields recharged from 1440 to 1080
Observer Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82 Gravitic Boosters move speed bonus raised to remain a 50% increase Model size increased by 10%. This only affects its visual size
Archon Reduced collision radius with structures from 0.75 to 0.56 to allow traversal of 1 tile wide gaps between buildings
High Templar Move speed increased from 2.63 to 2.82
Disruptor Purification Nova's radius reduced from 1.5 to 1.35
Carrier Interceptor attack target priority reduced from 20 to 19. Attackers now prioritize other units over Interceptors
Sentry Build time reduced from 26.4 to 22.9 seconds Move speed increased from 3.15 to 3.5
Forge Level 1 upgrades research time reduced by 7.1 seconds to 121.4 Level 2 upgrades research time reduced by 8.9 seconds to 144.6 Level 3 upgrades research time reduced by 10.7 seconds to 167.9
TERRAN
Viking (Fighter Mode) Damage point reduced from 0.12 to 0.04
Liberator Cost reduced from 150/150 to 150/125
Ghost Enhanced Shockwaves upgrade removed EMP radius increased from 1.5 to 1.75 Steady Targeting is canceled if the target moves more than 13.5 range away from the Ghost while casting. The cast range remains at 10 Steady Targeting can now be manually canceled
Banshee Hyperflight Rotors research time reduced from 121.4 to 100 seconds Hyperflight Rotors cost reduced from 150/150 to 125/125
Cyclone Mag-Field Accelerator damage bonus changed from +20 vs armored to +10 vs all Lock on will now prioritize Air Units if they have an anti-ground attack
Sensor Tower Radar range reduced from 30 to 27
Raven Gas cost reduced from 200 to 150 Build time reduced from 42.9 to 30 seconds Corvid Reactor upgrade removed Anti-Armor Missile armor reduction reduced from 3 to 2 Anti-Armor Missile's tint color is now brighter (from 255,100,0 to 255,153,85) Auto Turret duration reduced from 10.0 to 7.8 seconds Auto Turret health reduced from 150 to 100 Auto Turret armor reduced from 1 to 0 Auto Turret is no longer affected by Neosteel Armor
MISC BUG FIXES / QOL CHANGES
All Units Follow acquire range reduced from 5 to 2 (While following an allied unit through a move or right click command, the following unit will switch from moving to attacking nearby enemies when within this range. This is changed as moving is the expected behavior)
Banshee First missile is no longer delayed by 0.11 seconds after attack completes (Previously the Banshee could even start moving away before the first missile was launched. The second missile will also be 0.11 seconds faster, as there remains a 0.11 second gap between the 2 missiles)
Dark Templar Shadow Stride attack delay reduced from 0.75 to 0.71 seconds
Factory Increase maximum spawn radius by 1
Widow Mine Reduced random unburrow/burrow delay from 0.36 seconds to 0.18 seconds. The average time remains the same No longer targets Zerg Cocoons without a manual order No longer targets units affected by Neural Parasite without a manual order. This behavior is now consistent with other units
Cyclone Fixed an issue where Lock On could enter cooldown while the Cyclone is loaded into a Medivac Lock On no longer targets Zerg Cocoons without a manual order
Shield Battery Fixed an issue where repeatedly issuing a Stop command could increase Restore's shield regeneration rate Fixed an issue where animation models created snapshots in fog Fixed tooltip not scaling values to the game speed
Adept Fixed an issue where Adepts could not be ordered to cancel the Shade ability when selected with Adepts who are warping in Can now be ordered to load into a Warp Prism while shading, automatically cancelling the Shade
Queen Fixed an issue where initial Creep Tumors could be canceled. No longer unable to receive certain orders for 0.6 seconds after spawning
Lurker Reduced random unburrow delay from 0.36 seconds to 0.18 seconds. The average time remains the same Attacks will no longer be blocked by certain low ground terrain features Fixed an issue where units loaded into transports could be damaged
Hydralisk Now has the same attack cooldown and attack animation speed with attacks at melee and range (Previously melee attacks had a longer animation and shorter cooldown) Fixed an issue where Morph to Lurker would be canceled with a Smart command issued immediately after the Morph command Removed Morph to Lurker random delay and added average delay to base build time
Stasis Ward Attack target priority increased from 10 to 20. Attackers will no longer prioritize other units over a Stasis Ward. Now they are prioritized equally Stasised Units can now queue gather orders
Raven Fixed an issue where units affected by Interference Matrix could not be issued Stop commands Fixed an issue where units affected by Interference Matrix would walk forward below their Attack range when given Attack Move commands Interference Matrix now pauses Immortal Barrier cooldown for the correct amount of time (5.7 -> 7.9 seconds)
Swarm Host Spawn Locusts no longer interrupts the current order
Hatchery, Lair, Hive Subgroup priority changed from Hatchery > Lair > Hive to Hive > Lair > Hatchery
General Fixed an issue where MULE could be cast targeting Refineries close to Command Centers Fixed an unintended behavior being displayed on Nydus Worms Fixed an issue where Mutalisk’s attack launch sound would play each time the attack bounced Fixed an issue where Morph to Ravager would be canceled with a Smart command issued immediately after the Morph command Fixed an issue where Morph to Lurker would be canceled with a Smart command issued immediately after the Morph command Fixed an issue where Zerglings could not receive queued Morph to Baneling commands Fixed an issue where Zerglings and Swarm Hosts could not be given commands while unburrowing Fixed an issue where Liberators could not be given certain orders immediately after being ordered to unsiege Fixed an issue where Thor in High Impact Payload mode would not collide with Locusts Fixed an issue with the attack animation of the Thor when using the Tyrador skin Fixed a variety of incorrect Upgrade and Unit scores (How much ‘score’ you get should equal the combined resource cost) Fixed an issue where certain flying units/buildings did not cause water ripples when flying over water. Standardized the height at which an air unit will cause water ripples Fixed an issue where simultaneously using Mass Recall (Mothership) and Strategic Recall (Nexus) could move the recalled units to an incorrect location Fixed an issue where Ravager's Corrosive Bile animation would override Burrow animation Fixed Shield Battery Restore not showing its range when interacting with the UI Fixed an issue where changing warp in speed did not change the animation's speed Fixed an issue where Shield Battery's auto-cast targeted Dark Shrine Fixed an issue where Reapers threw KD8 Charges with the wrong hand Fixed an issue where Changelings would permanently switch sides after Neural Parasite. Neural Parasite now disables the morph Fixed an issue where burrowed Swarm Hosts and Ravagers collided with burrowed Movers. Roaches now change their collision after researching Tunneling Claws
TL;DR version is: He thinks it's Zerg favored and he agrees that the tumor cooldown nerf, broodling duration nerfs, and viper abduct nerfs are largely inconsequential. So yeah, prepare for another year of Zergs dunking on everyone if nothing changes.
Before they think about buffing Hydralisks and Ultras cus it would be cool if they can be better, how about:
1) Increase Zealot+Adept collision size with buildings, so that pro Protoss players stop being 1 pixel off and losing to a ling flood. 2) Look at all the other units that are truly underused, not units that are in a good spot and have weaknesses so that you don't mass them too much (Ultras are big, Hydras are a bit slow). 3) Nerfing Lurkers vs Protoss so that Protoss has more ground options, especially since they want to nerf Disruptors and Disruptors are one of the main ways a ground army deals with Lurkers. 4) Giving Sentry an actual damage buff from 6 to 10 or even 8, so we can buff Gateway army strength slightly. 5) Slowing down Zerg macro ever so slightly by reverting Spore root duration to be a couple seconds longer, so Zerg might want to build 3 Spores for their first 3 Hatches instead of skimping and building only 2. This also makes mass Spores lategame a little less good. 6) Heck you could nerf Queen max energy to 150 or something so they aren't as massable and have a little less energy lategame. I mean, if we're trying to nerf Carriers, Ravens, Ghosts, etc., cus we don't want to see those units spammed, then why not address the elephant in the room? Why is there 0 Zerg lategame nerfs? (Other than Viper which won't help much).
There are so so many other things that are more glaring issues than "oh wouldn't it be COOL if this unit that was already used a lot in every MU is even COOLER?". And if we're going with finding things that are cool, how about we target units that are actually underutilized, like buffing the Cyclone and not making it weaker vs the things it was actually useful for?
I 100% agree with Phantom, 13 years into a game, RIGHT when the SC2 balance team ironed out pretty much all the kinks you could hope for, every race has lots of viable or situational unit comps, balance is good, etc... they want a patch that changes the DESIGN of things?? And then what, we patch things again over the next few years again?
It feels like we're getting further and further away from the goal. What the fuck are these Raven changes seriously. Why are they nerfing Auto Turret duration and durability, the problem is that a high DPS turret shouldn't be a thing period because otherwise we have the issue we have now where Ravens can kill armies on their own, and the original SC2 team knew this, the Raven was only reworked like this after David Kim left. It seems like they have completely forgotten why the high dps Turret was a thing in the first place, and it was simply to try to incentivize players to get 1 Raven early for detection and be more active with it, and they liked the idea of Auto Turret killing 4 workers if they don't look for 2 seconds.
And the resulting side effect is that Ravens can kill armies on their own, so fix the DPS. Not by decreasing the duration (which weakens its harass ability early game, since the counterplay is to just pull workers away anyways regardless of DPS), or by decreasing the durability (which makes it less useful for positional play, and less useful for Mech). You fix it by lowering the DPS closer to what it was way back then, and compensate by making it last a few more seconds, so that it can still harass by making the opponent pull workers off the mineral line for a bit, but it also gives the option to kill the Turret at the cost of taking less damage than before.
Zergs specialty is making the case that every single unit they have sucks. Been their go to since release
Really hoping the ptr changes dont go through anytime soon. Would much rather we just remain on the current patch until they figure out the right direction by tinkering on the ptr and not just change for the sake of change
On January 06 2023 07:59 Moonerz wrote: Zergs specialty is making the case that every single unit they have sucks
Yeah, remember that Harstem's video where him, Lambo and Scarlett did the ranking of all units?
Lambo and Sasha said that basically very zerg unit is not so good, 3/5 or so. Including lurkers which is "C tier". And corruptors were called "really bad" if I remember correctly.
According to them, Zerg has only 6 units that are S/A/B tier. Everything else is C or worse. Terran has 8 of S/A/B, Protoss has 12 (!).
One can wonder how Zerg have won so much in last 5 years with such crappy units. But maybe what they meant was not the power level but more how good it feels to play.
Ragnarok recently won the WardiTV Christmas Invitational on the new balance patch and these are his thoughts from practicing privately and playing in this tournament.
Overall:
Terran does not have the power that it once had.
Zerg is much more sturdy/secure in midgame timings
Protoss, he doesn't know very much as he has less experience
Thinks that if T/P research a lot, the situation could change
Is ultimately satisfied with this patch, even though Terrans and Protosses might not be
Zerg:
Creep change, thought it would have a big impact, but cannot notice it at all while playing. Good nerf, bc maybe terran or protoss players could potentially notice the change. (Says that he beat Byun, Clem, and Time and couldn't feel the impact of this nerf in those games).
Vision change can be felt, thinks it is a good nerf
Viper nerf, people think that it can be felt, but honestly, Ragnarok doesn't notice this nerf very much. It prevents the instant 2 tank abduction though, so thinks it is a good nerf.
Ultralisk, thinks that it is much safer and better to use and almost campaign like. Thinks that it is a very useful buff when playing roach ling bane, but if you use hydra ling bane, it is better to go lurkers anyways. However, he worries that if the ultra buff goes through, Zerg will be completely OP because lurkers are strong anyways. (If the lurker is nerfed/reworked, then this is a great change).
Hydralisk, amazing really great change really really incredible buff, but one that he really likes. Thinks that hydralisks are going to be used earlier and a lot
Brood lord, felt the change a LOT. Thinks that the brood lord feels significantly faster, but is not that much faster so it is a good buff.
Broodling, honestly can't notice the difference a lot. Thinks that terrans could potentially push into zergs late game with thors at the amateur level (where spellcasters are not used as much) so could be a good change. At the pro level, he says that this broodling change will not be felt
Ravager, only matters in early game rushes
Protoss:
Shield battery, great patch, can be felt
Observer, change can be felt, wonders if it is too easy to see for terrans
High templar, insane buff, the templar doesn't lag behind, could make it hard to terrans to emp (in conjunction with the ghost nerf)
Disruptor, big nerf, but thinks that it is fair, says that because the ghost got nerfed, the disruptor should not be left as is and should be nerfed
Terran:
Ghost: insane nerf to EMP. If he has 8 infestors and he made a mistake, before the patch, Ragnarok would have all 8 infestors empd, but now, 2-3 still have energy, which makes it impossible for the terran to push in. Thinks that it is a great change because it can allow zergs to make a mistake that is not so punishing
Ghost: nerf to snipe. Says that he would be lying as a Zerg pro gamer to say that this patch is bad and cannot bring himself as a Zerg user to ask to rollback this patch. Does say that a LOT of terrans will complain because zerg mines more and chooses where to engage. This change affords zerg the ability to make more mistakes and still live. This change is good for zerg, and Ragnarok says that it feels bad to make one mistake and lose all units to a scan, but he says that he will not oppose it if this change does not go through.
Banshee: sucks no matter what
Cyclone: cyclone hellion is slightly stronger early game, but he and other pro gamers know how to hold this strategy so cyclone isn't that great (could work if the zerg doesn't know at all)
Sensor tower: huge nerf, can feel this change, but thinks that it is a good change, the old one was too OP. Late game, terran has unlimited scans anyways so it doesn't matter
Raven: no impact in TvZ. Significantly better to make a liberator, medivac or banshee (potentially could change with more research).
On January 06 2023 07:59 Moonerz wrote: Zergs specialty is making the case that every single unit they have sucks. Been their go to since release
Really hoping the ptr changes dont go through anytime soon. Would much rather we just remain on the current patch until they figure out the right direction by tinkering on the ptr and not just change for the sake of change
Hydras being a mainstay in TvZ for the last year and somehow zergs have convinced people they never make the unit and it needs buffing.
Same with ultras. They never actually went out of style and top zergs have been using them in ZvT for ages. Especially for run-bys in the late game.
Maybe the most popular EU pros/casters/streamers being zerg just gives them a bigger voice. Whoever is in charge of the changes just listens to the most successful group?
Ragnarok's opinions all seem valid. I am strongly affirmed in my belief that (with the weird Carrier stuff removed) the patch should be mostly fine with the exception of the Ghost Snipe nerf, which seems obviously balance-breaking and should in no way go through without other large changes to rebalance it out. If you undo that you can also undo the Disruptor nerf (or again buff surrounding things in response), which also seems unnecessary and annoying, though less game-breaking.
People up-thread are getting mad at the patch for changing things at all and negatively affecting the balance. I don't entirely disagree, as I'm fine with a static game and do think the balance is as good as it has ever been. But idk, there is also something to be said for shaking up the meta-game a bit from time to time, and doing it mostly through QoL sort of buffs is an interesting approach going forward. I am not yet for joining the rebellion against the new balance regime.
On January 06 2023 10:56 Captain Peabody wrote: Ragnarok's opinions all seem valid. I am strongly affirmed in my belief that (with the weird Carrier stuff removed) the patch should be mostly fine with the exception of the Ghost Snipe nerf, which seems obviously balance-breaking and should in no way go through without other large changes to rebalance it out. If you undo that you can also undo the Disruptor nerf (or again buff surrounding things in response), which also seems unnecessary and annoying, though less game-breaking.
People up-thread are getting mad at the patch for changing things at all and negatively affecting the balance. I don't entirely disagree, as I'm fine with a static game and do think the balance is as good as it has ever been. But idk, there is also something to be said for shaking up the meta-game a bit from time to time, and doing it mostly through QoL sort of buffs is an interesting approach going forward. I am not yet for joining the rebellion against the new balance regime.
The fact a pro Zerg was willing to say it was a Zerg patch is telling. Are there any Koreans on the council of Balance Geniuses?
Its said that every player are involved in the process, as in they all have rights to voice their opinion and people will think about it. But I honestly doubt KR players are involving much into this whole process, they just want to play the game, not the balancing discussion.
On January 06 2023 12:38 tigera6 wrote: Its said that every player are involved in the process, as in they all have rights to voice their opinion and people will think about it. But I honestly doubt KR players are involving much into this whole process, they just want to play the game, not the balancing discussion.
You also have to factor in the language barrier and how that can change discussions. If one can type/speak English, it's easier to push your point across or re-emphasise or repeat your point. But if your points needed to be translated, and you need a translator to understand the points that others are making, it becomes that much more harder and troublesome. It wouldn't be a surprise to hear that Koreans did not participate much in the balance discussions.
On January 06 2023 12:38 tigera6 wrote: Its said that every player are involved in the process, as in they all have rights to voice their opinion and people will think about it. But I honestly doubt KR players are involving much into this whole process, they just want to play the game, not the balancing discussion.
well, Heromarine at least said he was not involved at all in the process so it's not every player
On January 06 2023 07:59 Moonerz wrote: Zergs specialty is making the case that every single unit they have sucks. Been their go to since release
Really hoping the ptr changes dont go through anytime soon. Would much rather we just remain on the current patch until they figure out the right direction by tinkering on the ptr and not just change for the sake of change
Yes that s why every changes in Zerg race will affect the game too much. Zerg race can t be changed as they are designed as a flow / swarm plus timing of a new wave every 30 seconds... The philosophy of Zerg is units with weakness and strenght at the same time,
Question : how can you increase main advantages of hydralisks "i.e dps/attacking air" without making stalkers completely useless (really low dps and cannon fooder in end game). So well here i go
- Hydralisks : +1 range / reduce dps proportionally (little bit) - Ultralisks : Smaller size / Speed upgrade little bit reduced / Price reduced from 300 / 200 to 250 / 200
- Stalkers : Attack upgrade increase from +1 to +2
For Lurkers, without affecting too much the game, i would try to tweak them proportionally of a higher supply cost (3 to 4). Then, tweak or remove their speed burrowing upgrade. For Queens, their tumor spell cost must be increased (25 to 50) and also their starting mana (50 to 60)
Returns Infested Terrans because they are so fun (in increasing their range spell to spam egg near tanks, that s why zerg need them ! Zerg need more tools I agree, but it s not wise to buff some parts of their gameplay while base players already struggle against this race.
On January 06 2023 22:55 Vision_ wrote: Why pros don t hear me ?!!!
Because you're just one of many thousands of people who post their patch ideas online? If they read TL at all, they might listen to some very popular opinion that's shared by majority of posters. Or do you really expect pro players to listen specifically to you?
On January 06 2023 22:55 Vision_ wrote: Why pros don t hear me ?!!!
Because you're just one of many thousands of people who post their patch ideas online? If they read TL at all, they might listen to some very popular opinion that's shared by majority of posters. Or do you really expect pro players to listen specifically to you?
No but i consider hydralisks as a core unit, i.e queens aren t supposed to replace them. I think if it s not mandatory to tweak hydralisks now. This balance team has to play with a 'cursor emphasis' for each unit , i don t know if i would have done better but for sure i would care about the advantage of creep in reducing Zerg awareness (instead of buff Hydralisks).
The rapid fire with tumors is really stupid imo, it s not what RTS need.
Increase mana spell of tumors seems to be shared by most of the community members, isn t it ?
The game is dead because you haven t enought repetability and you feel all games similar to the previous. Mainly because the game is based on the speed.
If the team want to go further, they have to improve the ground strategy like macro movement of army. Old players all know Total Annihilation, BW and C&C, this team should learn from these old games if they want to resurect the game.
Fights - slower fights (less dps) - battlefield terrain features (bonus on high ground, bonus in bushes, less awareness for Zerg) - balance between the number of heavy and light units armor (define function of each unit : counter attecks, siege units, etc.... - Cliffs aren t enought used (reapers strenght scale over the game, roachs pass under cliffs ?, all units must be usefull during the game )
Economy - less workers, actually harvest mineral system is old (harassement is too impactfull, as a consequence bases expansion shapes are too similar not enought flexible/strategic, plus add a level technology per mineral field structure to improve the income of ressource) - Less minerals fields per base but a cheaper single structure only used for harvesting, build upon the mineral field, add risk concept if you build mines structures further (more like Age of Empire)
Others - add spell like stun or create monster (which doesn t exist in SC2 ??!! Infested Terran ?) - limit distance of teleport features like nydus network or BC - Reduce air threat units (mass units problem, carriers, BC, etc...), air units must be used like spell casters, light units fighters or harassement - common sense tweaks... - add fun
On January 07 2023 20:05 Vision_ wrote: The game is dead
It's still the most popular RTS. And it was true for all 12 years since release. If SC2 is "dead", all other RTS were never even alive. Unless you mean "dead to me".
On January 07 2023 20:05 Vision_ wrote: Total Annihilation, BW and C&C, this team should learn from these old games if they want to resurect the game.
SC2 is more popular than TA and C&C series combined. Who should learn from whom here?
On January 07 2023 20:05 Vision_ wrote: - common sense tweaks... - add fun Just my instruction guide
Again, as it's the most popular RTS in history, probably it's pretty fun to many people, don't you think? At least it's fun to more people than any other RTS managed to be? Otherwise why would they play it 12 years after release?
Also why do you post your "instruction" here? Why don't you just implement these changes and play this drastically better (for you) game? Nobody will do this for you. And if you make your mod public, and it's actually really good - it might become popular.
The SC2 game is addictive that s why they play. But despite his wonderfull network, his ergonomy, his 3D motor, his antastic background/story, SC2 isn t enought macro movement oriented, i m just writing something obvious, just explaining where the cursor is since the beginning, why still alive ? because of micro management, why is dying ? because of lack of ground strategy, games looks like a ping-pong game (back and forth / no macro in armies movement).
I m not explaining something, i try to tell the truth to younger people, performance (APM) isn t a part fun dude
I hope you understand that your "truth" is NOT the universal truth for everyone? And that a vast number of people do not share this opinion?
It would do you a world of good (in life in general, not just videogames) if you learned to tell facts from subjective opinions. What makes a videogame fun is purely subjective. There cannot be any "truths" about that.
Some people like large scale battles with 1000s of units - some people don't like it at all. Some people like when micro is important, some people hate it. Some people like when a faction has 100 units to choose from, some prefer smaller roster of ~15 more unique units. Some people like having upgrades for units, some don't like it. What is fun to one guy is not fun to many others, it should be obvious to anyone - and I have no idea why people forget this simple fact all the time.
On another hand, what makes a game profitable and popular is less subjective. And from what we can see - Blizzard knew it better that anyone else in RTS genre.
And talking about SC2 balance (to not make this completely off-topic) - nobody will do any drastic changes to the gameplay. It's a 12 years old game, with probably 1 guy supporting in from Blizzard side. We can expect new map pools, balance patches 1-2 times a year, maybe rework for one unit sometimes. Anything more than that is completely unfeasible with current situation and resources available. Any suggestions of massive reworks are just pure fantasy with 0% chance of being ever considered. So why even mentioning them?
On January 07 2023 21:45 Vision_ wrote: The SC2 game is addictive that s why they play. But despite his wonderfull network, his ergonomy, his 3D motor, his antastic background/story, SC2 isn t enought macro movement oriented, i m just writing something obvious, just explaining where the cursor is since the beginning, why still alive ? because of micro management, why is dying ? because of lack of ground strategy, games looks like a ping-pong game (back and forth / no macro in armies movement).
I m not explaining something, i try to tell the truth to younger people, performance (APM) isn t a part fun dude
Mate. No.
The microability and detail-orientation that SC2 allows and rewards (combined with fluid controls, clean visuals, and fun, powerful units that really benefit from that micro) is a huge part of its appeal. I watch professional AoE and just think it looks like all the tedious parts of an RTS without the same fun army control.
The best games, for viewer and player (in my opinion, and the opinion of many players and viewers), are the most back and forth `ping-pong' games. Things like biomine vs lingbanemuta midgame where you have this constant brawl - a brawl where army control is relevant every minute of play - are peak SC2.
And it's just not possible to have this and not be APM demanding. The attention battle is a huge part of the fun and skill-expression. Take that away and what you have can't even be called Starcraft.
You also seem to not understand just how big a role the basic macro and strategic choices play nevertheless. Most games are ultimately determined by who has more stuff - the micro usually just tips the edges, push advantages further, that kinda thing.
On January 07 2023 21:45 Vision_ wrote: The SC2 game is addictive that s why they play. But despite his wonderfull network, his ergonomy, his 3D motor, his antastic background/story, SC2 isn t enought macro movement oriented, i m just writing something obvious, just explaining where the cursor is since the beginning, why still alive ? because of micro management, why is dying ? because of lack of ground strategy, games looks like a ping-pong game (back and forth / no macro in armies movement).
The best games, for viewer and player (in my opinion, and the opinion of many players and viewers), are the most back and forth `ping-pong' games. Things like biomine vs lingbanemuta midgame where you have this constant brawl - a brawl where army control is relevant every minute of play - are peak SC2.
.
I agree with you, i like SC2 when there is back and forth, that s my favorite part of the game.
But don t you think the game would be better if you have strategy componnent in 2 Dimensionnal axes ? 1 axe is obviously more boring, (1 axe is forced mainly because of limited border area i.e 2D is only possible if the battlefield would be spheric).
I enjoyed SC2 games when you was able to see the border of creep as a battlefield line not when games are more likely "ping-pong". Then, an hypothetical extension must be oriented with the defence of ramps as neural strategic point (gas ressource are spent in technology, expensive units AND defence).
ps : it s chess game comparaison with go (chess is 2 dimensionnal but pawns are 1 dimensionnal and the opposition looks more like a line fight)
On January 08 2023 23:54 MockHamill wrote: SC2 is a great game but in the end I became too much about mechanics.
Which is why I moved on to AOE4 where strategy is just as important as mechanics. You can outthink an opponent, instead of just outclick him.
I hope the next SC like game (ie Front Giants game) will have a better balance between mechanics and strategy, not just rewarding the faster player.
I really hope this won't be the case, I've just started playing AOE4 due to the winter sale and while it's a super fun game which is especially easy on the transition coming from SC2 the army management is already outright boring to me (and to be fair, in AOE kinda always has been).
Whatever floats your boat of course and the more variety, the better, but if Storm Gate tries to be especially appealing to non-RTS players by lowering the mechanical skill ceiling too much, this would be disappointing, if you wanna outthink your opponent there's also turn-based games for that.
On January 08 2023 23:54 MockHamill wrote: SC2 is a great game but in the end I became too much about mechanics.
Which is why I moved on to AOE4 where strategy is just as important as mechanics. You can outthink an opponent, instead of just outclick him.
I hope the next SC like game (ie Front Giants game) will have a better balance between mechanics and strategy, not just rewarding the faster player.
thats simply because of the game speed, or the pace. If you slow the typical SC2 game down by 30-40% and start with 6 workers instead of 12, then its becoming more about strategy and less on mechanics. You have time to think, change plan and build order base on scouting, and do other things rather than trying to do 3-4 things at the same time. The draw back would obviously be that game would last longer just like how AoE4 is, minus the early cheese game.
I believe it was a conscious decision by the SC2 development team at the time to make the game the way it is pace-wise and I think the success it got was partly because of that. I do not know if Stormgate would actually try to do the same thing, or they will take the design approach more like SC1/WC3.
On January 08 2023 23:54 MockHamill wrote: SC2 is a great game but in the end I became too much about mechanics.
Which is why I moved on to AOE4 where strategy is just as important as mechanics. You can outthink an opponent, instead of just outclick him.
I hope the next SC like game (ie Front Giants game) will have a better balance between mechanics and strategy, not just rewarding the faster player.
I really hope this won't be the case, I've just started playing AOE4 due to the winter sale and while it's a super fun game which is especially easy on the transition coming from SC2 the army management is already outright boring to me (and to be fair, in AOE kinda always has been).
Whatever floats your boat of course and the more variety, the better, but if Storm Gate tries to be especially appealing to non-RTS players by lowering the mechanical skill ceiling too much, this would be disappointing, if you wanna outthink your opponent there's also turn-based games for that.
AOE4 is a fantastic single player game.
As for high level multiplayer? I'd rather watch paint dry.
On January 09 2023 02:32 Beelzebub1 wrote:AOE4 is a fantastic single player game.
Isn't its campaign pretty much disjointed and not very exciting? I watched a guy playing it who can make almost anything entertaining, and it felt... average at best. Or do you mean Skirmish, not campaign?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 21:42 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 00:36 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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously comment on the lack of available data, then cite an even smaller sample size. There were 5 ZvP/T games played on pride at IEM, where zerg won 4 of them.
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.
I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about".
Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game.
Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train.
Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there?
Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem?
If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
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).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
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.
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.
I don't understand how you can simultaneously comment on the lack of available data, then cite an even smaller sample size. There were 5 ZvP/T games played on pride at IEM, where zerg won 4 of them.
You have more substantial evidence to state that neeb is underpowered on pride than to say that pride is broken for zerg based on your own argument
But those lack of data was for a reason, because veto exist outside of Bo7. I didnt say you have not enough data, I implied that you got the WRONG set data. You have to include the condition in which the stats was collected, and how much weight they carry individually.
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.
I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about".
Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game.
Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train.
Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there?
Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem?
If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
If you think your whining is going to change anything, please go on.
There's a certain point where severe crying mixed with whataboutism, mixing imagination with facts, etc is just pathetic.
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!
None of us cares about our own ladder experience, we all suck and our winrate will always be 50/50. What I care about is having to watch tournaments where Terran and Protoss players are just there for show and the tournament winner gers solely decided by who wins the ZvZs.
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.
I know you were talking about maps but I hate when people use the argument "you are all noobs you don't know what you're talking about".
Blizzard balanceteam wasnt pros and they made better patches than this. David kim wasnt a pro, at most we know that ats some point he was gm, but still not on the level of scarlett and others, and he balanced the game.
Korean coaches in proleague didn't play better than flash/maru etc, but they understood the game better and helped them train.
Also if we're gatekeeping why stop there?
Why should scarlett have a say in balance? she hasn't won a world championship or a GSL. Why should hero marine? or uthermal or harmstem?
If we're going to gatekeep might as well go all they way and have a coincil of Maru, herO and Dark and see what balance patch they come up with. Hell it might not even be that bad of an idea.
I mean, he's probably right that the average TLer has low game knowledge, however when the majority of the community, the non-Zerg pros and even some Zerg pros are all in agreement that the patch and the maps are Zerg favored there's probably some truth to it.
On January 10 2023 07:34 CingCoCo wrote: Does cyclone lock on now prioritize interceptors over carriers? Not like mech would be viable in tvp anyways but still ...
Units will target the Carrier over the interceptors. This is a good thing for most automated attacks, the only issue is that you can't target an interceptor. So if you actually want to target Interceptors with say Widow Mines, or Liberators, well you can't. You just gotta position yourself where the Carrier is not in range..
This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote: This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
You can't seriously think that anyone actually believes in a Zerg conspiracy right? You realize that's a meme right? Right?
On January 10 2023 11:39 Turbovolver wrote: Ah yes, how does that famous image macro go... "Jokes on them, I was only pretending to be an irrational balance whiner"?
Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one.
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote: This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
Complaining that the changes seem Zerg-biased, meanwhile, is just a reasonable response to seeing Zerg, by and large, getting tweaks or even buffs (particularly in lategame), even after years of winning a disproportionate number of tournaments, even as the strongest units other races (Ghosts, Disruptors) are getting nerfed significantly. You can argue that recent tweaks have changed this, but given that only came after a lot of complaints I'm not sure what you're point is.
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote: Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
.4 seconds was the time for burrowed lurkers to react at the moment ghost snipe starts. For starters I would argue it should just be impossible for a lurker that's still burrowed the moment snipe starts to escape. But since the balance council has apparently decided anything besides broodlords should have escape potential we'll ignore that.
The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
On January 10 2023 12:05 Athenau wrote: Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one.
My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe.
On January 10 2023 12:08 QOGQOG wrote: It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
We literally had calls in-thread for those making the decisions to be dragged out to answer to the crowd of terran-icon-posters. Or like, who the hell is laughing at Phantom's posts that we might call them jokes?
On January 10 2023 12:35 JJH777 wrote: The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
Right, thank you for a reasoned post on the topic. As I said I only watch GSL, and on previous patch I have seen the recent TvZ trends of games that go late being either the Terran pulls off a boring-as-fuck Ghost turtle, or the Zerg just inevitably wins with 60% of the map covered in creep. The matchup needs/needed work in my opinion, and now at least both creep and Ghosts have been nerfed. Creep apparently not enough. I don't feel equipped to make that judgment myself, but if creep got a harder nerf, I would not be particularly surprised or at all bothered. Snipe needed more counterplay, though. If other tools in the Terran arsenal need to be buffed for TvZ lategame, I'm for it, though I don't have an amazing idea of what that might look like without compromising balance at other phases of the game.
What I am rallying against now is that here on Page 25, there's still been desperately little discussion of this critical issue, beyond emotional yelling of "don't touch ghosts!". Then we moved onto complaining about ultralisks and hydralisks, not because those units are overpowered now (I don't think I've seen a single person even claim that), but just because "it's not fair that underperforming zerg units got buffed while my ghosts got nerfed!". It's child logic. Counting up "wins" versus "losses" devoid of context to try to demand more because "but it's unfair!". Literally my children do this. I surely did this as a child. We all probably did.
I think people would complain less if Ghost nerf would be accompanied by some similarly significant late-game Z nerf. So it changes the late-game TvZ and doesn't just nerf one side that often relied on being able to win late-game with 50%+ chance. Because mid-game is arguably Zerg-favored right now.
But instead Z got better Ultras (where now-nerfed Ghost was the best answer) and brood lords for late game, AND buffed Hydras for mid-game. Creep nerf is not significant enough when Zerg have 10 queens and can restore creep easily.
So there's a good chance that instead of shaking up stale late-game TvZ - which would be good, of course - this patch will introduce even more boring "kill Zerg in first 7-8 minutes or die" era of all-ins in every game.
On January 10 2023 12:05 Athenau wrote: Someone can believe that the balance changes are unfair or motivated by self-interest without also believing there's a conspiracy to that end. Congratulations, of all the possible criticisms you could have levied, you chose the dumbest one.
My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe.
On January 10 2023 12:08 QOGQOG wrote: It's not too surprising that people are talking (mostly jokingly) about a shadowy cabal when we literally don't know exactly who is making the changes and rarely get any explanation for the changes made.
We literally had calls in-thread for those making the decisions to be dragged out to answer to the crowd of terran-icon-posters. Or like, who the hell is laughing at Phantom's posts that we might call them jokes?
On January 10 2023 12:35 JJH777 wrote: The issue with the change has never been Zergs reacting to snipe and pulling units away. That's obviously not going to happen with any frequency when stuff requires a third to a quarter of a second reaction time. The issue is that Terran will no longer be able to force engagements and will no longer get kills on retreating Zerg armies. Both of those play a massive role in Terrans cost efficiency. In order to beat Zergs in lategame pro Terrans have to be at least a base worth of resources more efficient or it's pretty much guaranteed they'll lose. There's no way they will do that if Zerg can choose all the engagements and retreat at anytime with only a few kills on their army as it leaves.
Right, thank you for a reasoned post on the topic. As I said I only watch GSL, and on previous patch I have seen the recent TvZ trends of games that go late being either the Terran pulls off a boring-as-fuck Ghost turtle, or the Zerg just inevitably wins with 60% of the map covered in creep. The matchup needs/needed work in my opinion, and now at least both creep and Ghosts have been nerfed. Creep apparently not enough. I don't feel equipped to make that judgment myself, but if creep got a harder nerf, I would not be particularly surprised or at all bothered. Snipe needed more counterplay, though. If other tools in the Terran arsenal need to be buffed for TvZ lategame, I'm for it, though I don't have an amazing idea of what that might look like without compromising balance at other phases of the game.
What I am rallying against now is that here on Page 25, there's still been desperately little discussion of this critical issue, beyond emotional yelling of "don't touch ghosts!". Then we moved onto complaining about ultralisks and hydralisks, not because those units are overpowered now (I don't think I've seen a single person even claim that), but just because "it's not fair that underperforming zerg units got buffed while my ghosts got nerfed!". It's child logic. Counting up "wins" versus "losses" devoid of context to try to demand more because "but it's unfair!". Literally my children do this. I surely did this as a child. We all probably did.
But now we can be better.
I don't get your point. You agree that nerfing Ghosts without compensation is bad for balance. Well, nerfing Ghosts while buffing Zergs mid-lategame units is even worse. Not sure what that has to do with child logic to say 1+1 =2 (1 buff for Zerg + 1 nerf for terran = increase of 2 in terms of balance in favor of Zerg). The other changes don't really matter for TvZ.
Yes if Terran gets nerfed and Zerg buffed people will demand at least one of the changes to be reverted to ensure a fair game OR if they don't want to do that implement other changes
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.
A lot of people don't know this but .... Lee Harvey Oswald was a Zerg player.
I love this aspect of the Starcraft franchise. It is hilarious and It's always been around. Other players claim the balance team is Protoss favoured and others say Terran favoured.
To fit into this narrative... on these boards for 12 years I've claimed to be a Terran player. My BNet account indicates I've played 10,000 games as Terran and only 1,000 as Zerg ... but its all just a cover. I'm really a Zerg player. I just played 10,000 games as Terran to throw everyone off.
I think we should give Zerglings a health boost up to 120 HP so they can go toe-to-toe with Zealots. If this change is not made it proves the balance team is anti-Zerg. + Show Spoiler +
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
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).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
It's unfortunate that Moon couldn't handle the game speed, but SC2 is different from WC3. The reason why I felt your example was so dismissive of macro was that your hypothetical scenario had someone being down 60 supply and in a nearly unwinnable situation, and you wishing that such a position didn't really matter. When someone "still loses from this position 90% of the time", that isn't necessarily a bad thing; maybe that statistic is deserved. If individual micro is what's really important to you, then it sounds like WC3 or MOBA games are preferable, but even those games have situations that can eventually become so lopsided that one team loses 90% of the time.
My post had a variety of content in it, and you chose to quote the whole thing then only talk to my point that the conspiracy talk is cringe. So, if either of us is choosing the dumbest thing to talk about, it ain't me. And the conspiracy stuff is cringe.
Why should I address the rest of your post? You presented no new arguments, and pretending that these latest miniscule number changes move the needle at all is a waste of time.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
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).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
Woah there, to make a statement that implies SC2 was designed as 'anti-micro' game is just such a bitter exaggeration on your part, even when directly comparing the game to WC3.
I guess we can all agree that SC2 is quite punishing when you mess up in a crucial situation, sometimes one missclick can cost you the game within a second, but this does not at all equate to 'anti-micro', additionally game speed does not equate to DPS.
While I can see where you're coming from I would also arrive at the conclusion that you personally just favor prolonged micro interactions over split-second micro decisions paired with importance of macro. IMHO SC2 is probably the RTS game with the most responsiveness regarding unit control and the only RTS/MOBA game matching this currently is Heroes of the Storm, since it utilizes the same engine, no other game I've played so far has such tight and direct unit control and for me personally this is the absolute gold standard.
EDIT:
Regarding the updated balance patch notes, I sure would have wished to see some additional number tweaking and also maybe even reverting some of the proposed changes, but I guess the door swings both ways when thinking some stuff is really non-impactful to the game, so it probably shouldn't matter to have the change vs. leaving things as is, I just guess that I'd personally prefer balance not to be touched unless a change is desperately needed.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it.
On January 09 2023 22:39 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
On January 09 2023 20:18 SHODAN wrote:
On January 09 2023 17:55 Charoisaur wrote:
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
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).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
Woah there, to make a statement that implies SC2 was designed as 'anti-micro' game is just such a bitter exaggeration on your part, even when directly comparing the game to WC3.
I guess we can all agree that SC2 is quite punishing when you mess up in a crucial situation, sometimes one missclick can cost you the game within a second, but this does not at all equate to 'anti-micro', additionally game speed does not equate to DPS.
While I can see where you're coming from I would also arrive at the conclusion that you personally just favor prolonged micro interactions over split-second micro decisions paired with importance of macro. IMHO SC2 is probably the RTS game with the most responsiveness regarding unit control and the only RTS/MOBA game matching this currently is Heroes of the Storm, since it utilizes the same engine, no other game I've played so far has such tight and direct unit control and for me personally this is the absolute gold standard.
the SC2 engine is great. even after 12 years it is still top class
yes, you're right, I do prefer more prolonged micro interactions. I stand by what I said. SC2's micro is intense, but it lacks depth; kinda like a cheap jump scare as opposed to a genuinely creepy horror sequence. all quick cuts and shaky cam. I don't know anyone who plays SC2 because they enjoy it as a micro battler. they play for the strategy, the macro and the terrible, terrible damage
I think the creative development of SC2 micro reached its peak when Parting perfected blink stalkers and when terrans started reliably focus-firing banelings around the start of LotV. I haven't noticed SC2 micro developing in an exciting way beyond that. I believe that the extreme speed of SC2 is a large reason why professionals are limited in what they can do with their units. another reason is the very tight bunching of units, which I also believe reduces the depth of micro that is possible. SC2 will be highly responsive no matter what. doesn't mean you can't tweak the collision radius of units: the setting which controls how units clump into formation (e.g. the unnaturally smooth way marines pack together like a bunch of grapes and skim across the map like water). body blocking almost doesn't happen in SC2, or very rarely and unreliably, because small / medum-sized units are so damn fast / slippery
instead of finding elegant sustain mechanics, Blizz instead decided to increase the starting worker count so that the early-game would zip by faster. still, there are large periods of time where literally nothing is happening. SC2's build-up towards the mid-game always comes with extended periods of downtime and that just feels weak to me. if you don't have the ability to sustain, the only other option is to harass with speedy units or sit back, which is what happens. the options for retreat and sustain are quite limited. builds revolve around a few sustain units like reapers, medivacs and warp prisms. you need these units to push, harass and scout.
if there was a way to balance SC2 with a greater emphasis on sustain spells, cooldowns or racial boons, maybe this would increase the depth of micro and make players more willing to skirmish and engage. I think it would steer the game slightly away from deathballs, the punishing split-second micro decisions and the do-or-die engagement that are over in the blink of an eye. a single minor error in unit control shouldn't be enough to end the game. in SC2, retreating individual units is very difficult because of the wild variety of unit speeds. after a skirmish, it is so easy to clean up if you have a few faster units. WC3 was almost the complete opposite, where units only had slight differences in movement speed and could run away. you'd need mana, cooldowns, or a special item to actually finish off a retreating unit (boots of speed, slow, death coil, entangling roots, etc). I find it bizarre that SC2 had such a difficult time balancing a similar control spell like fungal growth. even now, it isn't used nearly as much as I would like. obviously you wouldn't want SC2 to have anywhere near that level of sustain, but just a little more I think would be good.
protoss already have a powerful sustain mechanic with plasma shields and recall. some funny ideas off the top of my head:
- change Strategic Recall to single target + instant cast, but dramatically reduce the cooldown and reduce the energy cost to 25 (kinda like staff of preservation)
- replace Calldown: Extra Supplies with Orbital Defense Matrix: castable anywhere on the map and effects units in a 1.25 radius
I'd like to see a very minor overall reduction in game speed (somewhere between Fast and Faster, but closer to Faster). the balance team have been constantly tweaking the AOE radiuses. the problem isn't the AOE, it's the clumping. the elegant solution is to increase the collision radius of smaller units like marines and zerglings so that they don't become so tightly packed. I don't say increase the hitboxes or anything, just the range at which these small units collide together. "movement radius" I believe it's called. apparently there is second property that separately controls collision with buildings called "inner movement radius"
So I misread the Cyclone change, they buffed the auto-cast range, not the actual lock-on range (which is still 7). I'm not really sure what this even does, if I had to guess I'd say that Cyclones will now start scanning for a lock-on target at range 7.5, so they'll start moving to lock-on a little earlier when you a-move, but that's it. Really seems like a nothingburger, but maybe Cyclone enjoyers can comment further.
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.
Whoa this is amazing!!! Happy to see this direction!!!
Hydra speed buff toned down a little, Abduct nerf toned down a little (?!), but disruptor AOE nerf also very slightly toned down, nice! Raven build time buff toned down a little... but Auto Turret nerf not toned down RIP.
And same with Ghost nerf being toned down!
ALSO A CYCLONE BUFF!!! Let's go!!! It might seem small as it's just 0,5 units, but that's a difference between a 1 unit buffer and 1.5 buffer when fighting units with 6 range. That's a 50% increase!! You might get that Lock On without getting hit, for example.
But... like others said, the design issues are still not addressed. The patch still primarily favors zerg, and tips the balance of certain units and lategame power of races in ways that don't seem to address any actual existing issue, or at least not into the right direction. Patch still just changes things for seemingly inconsistent reasons/design philosophy. The Raven rework is still especially terrible.
As a mech player, I'm happy with the +0.5 range, even though I also don't think that's really the right thing to buff. Buffing range at all on a unit like that is pretty dangerous since the unit is already volatile.
Also, it's terrible that you can't choose to target Interceptors now that units automatically target Carriers if they're in range. So much for options/strategy. You don't always want to target Carriers. The interceptor change is a stupid change. If they want to nerf Carriers then nerf them, don't take away micro options. (But if you want to nerf them, you can't also buff Zerg lategame at the same time).
Also, you can tell more than ever that the balance team has no idea what it's doing. It's changing numbers in such unparticular ways, and not for any specific number that makes particular sense. Their number balancing sucks especially when it comes to the Raven, especially the Auto Turret. Blizzard was way more intentional with the exact numbers they buffed/nerfed things to back then.
On January 09 2023 21:15 CicadaSC wrote: is it too late to add units? zerg needs a flying cloaked unit like the othe two races
I can't tell if this is a joke, but if it is, that's a good one xD
On January 12 2023 07:43 Athenau wrote: So I misread the Cyclone change, they buffed the auto-cast range, not the actual lock-on range (which is still 7). I'm not really sure what this even does, if I had to guess I'd say that Cyclones will now start scanning for a lock-on target at range 7.5, so they'll start moving to lock-on a little earlier when you a-move, but that's it. Really seems like a nothingburger, but maybe Cyclone enjoyers can comment further.
Ooh, I remember an issue with lock on is that cyclones would move closer than 7 units before it actually locks on, if they were out of lock on range at first. I mentioned it earlier in the thread as something that should get fixed if we're buffing Hydras and Ultras and fixing "QOL" stuff. I don't remember if it was ever fixed in the past.
Perhaps this change is to try to make it so that the cyclone will lock on around 7 units now as intended thanks to scanning for it a little earlier now!!
Now I hope that they'll buff Zealot/Adept collision with buildings by like 0.05 units radius or something so that pros don't lose to zergling runbys if their unit is a couple pixels off.
On January 12 2023 07:43 Athenau wrote: So I misread the Cyclone change, they buffed the auto-cast range, not the actual lock-on range (which is still 7). I'm not really sure what this even does, if I had to guess I'd say that Cyclones will now start scanning for a lock-on target at range 7.5, so they'll start moving to lock-on a little earlier when you a-move, but that's it. Really seems like a nothingburger, but maybe Cyclone enjoyers can comment further.
Ooh, I remember an issue with lock on is that cyclones would move closer than 7 units before it actually locks on, if they were out of lock on range at first. I mentioned it earlier in the thread as something that should get fixed if we're buffing Hydras and Ultras and fixing "QOL" stuff. I don't remember if it was ever fixed in the past.
Perhaps this change is to try to make it so that the cyclone will lock on around 7 units now as intended thanks to scanning for it a little earlier now!!
when LotV was released, there was a bug with cyclone auto-cast activation range that went undiagnosed for almost 2 freaking years. the bugged cyclone moved to 5 range when auto-cast was active, even though the manual-cast activation range was 7. less than 2 months after it was hotfixed, Blizz went ahead and completely revamped the cyclone in the November 2016 patch. this was the A-move Tornado Blaster version: no lock-on vs. ground, dramatically nerfed lock-on damage vs air, auto-cast removed. remember when cyclones couldn't even kill a liberator in 1 volley? yep....
You can definitely take a look at gateway unit sizes vs. their warp-in sizes. Very often lings make it past the Warp-in and when the unit is done warpin in, it is only then that it succesfully blocks the lings.
I don't know how the 0.5 range affects the Lock-On, but I think another way you could buff the Cyclone minorly, is to buff its standard weapon damage to that of the Lock-On. So buffing its damage from 18->20 and then when the upgrade is done, buffing that 20->30.
Mb we can nerf the Swarm Host, so that each wave costs 5 minerals. It's tough to say that Swarm Hosts are OP, because they don't see play every game, but its power lies in shutting down strategic diversity. It stomps Mech and defensive Protoss styles. You could argue that the herO style of Protoss is actually buffed in this patch, because early defences of Zerg are slightly hampered pre-Hydralisk. But at the same time, Protoss defensive styles are just abbysmal now. So is the herO style really stronger, if the patch "forces" every Protoss to play this style? Quickly the only Zerg goal becomes just to defend the few early attacks, simplifying the game plan and thereby buffing Zerg EVEN vs. the herO style. Making each wave cost 5 minerals, would also have huge psychological impact, because the units won't be "free."
Hoping for another revision on these patch notes soon, but moreso hoping for a creep nerf that actually nerfs Zerg's ability to cover the entire map in 8 minutes, and while the Ghost change isn't as bad as I thought it would be in none of the PTR matches did it look like creep was even slightly affected by this nerf, which to me, is the elephant in the room.
Why not just apply a more heavy handed nerf to creep at this point? Ultralisks and Hydralisks both being better should be more then enough compensation to justify a real, substantial nerf to creep.
It should recede faster, and spread slower. Not CD adjustments which clearly do nothing, the creep itself needs to go away quicker when cleared and spread slower when planted. There is alot of good ideas regarding Queen energy and creep or only planting 1 tumor per Queen or stuff like that but I think the change should be simple, but tangible.
Making Transfuse unusable off of creep was a big nerf but it's done great things for the ZvP match up, I really want to believe that a nerf to creep will help the health of ZvT. Queens will still retain all of their defensive power, but they don't need to be able to exert so much map control.
If they wanted to nerf the actual Queen itself and tame it's defensive power, I would be game for that as well, but that's alot more complex then making creep worse because alot of Zerg's early game hinges on Queens being strong defensive tools.
On January 13 2023 00:59 ejozl wrote: You can definitely take a look at gateway unit sizes vs. their warp-in sizes. Very often lings make it past the Warp-in and when the unit is done warpin in, it is only then that it succesfully blocks the lings.
I don't know how the 0.5 range affects the Lock-On, but I think another way you could buff the Cyclone minorly, is to buff its standard weapon damage to that of the Lock-On. So buffing its damage from 18->20 and then when the upgrade is done, buffing that 20->30.
Mb we can nerf the Swarm Host, so that each wave costs 5 minerals. It's tough to say that Swarm Hosts are OP, because they don't see play every game, but its power lies in shutting down strategic diversity. It stomps Mech and defensive Protoss styles. You could argue that the herO style of Protoss is actually buffed in this patch, because early defences of Zerg are slightly hampered pre-Hydralisk. But at the same time, Protoss defensive styles are just abbysmal now. So is the herO style really stronger, if the patch "forces" every Protoss to play this style? Quickly the only Zerg goal becomes just to defend the few early attacks, simplifying the game plan and thereby buffing Zerg EVEN vs. the herO style. Making each wave cost 5 minerals, would also have huge psychological impact, because the units won't be "free."
The swarmhost shuts down hard immobile turtle styles. This is good. If the units sole role in the meta from here on out is to make sure 3-4 base turtling on mass tanks into ghost-thor is not viable, then it's doing great.
On January 13 2023 00:59 ejozl wrote: You can definitely take a look at gateway unit sizes vs. their warp-in sizes. Very often lings make it past the Warp-in and when the unit is done warpin in, it is only then that it succesfully blocks the lings.
I don't know how the 0.5 range affects the Lock-On, but I think another way you could buff the Cyclone minorly, is to buff its standard weapon damage to that of the Lock-On. So buffing its damage from 18->20 and then when the upgrade is done, buffing that 20->30.
Mb we can nerf the Swarm Host, so that each wave costs 5 minerals. It's tough to say that Swarm Hosts are OP, because they don't see play every game, but its power lies in shutting down strategic diversity. It stomps Mech and defensive Protoss styles. You could argue that the herO style of Protoss is actually buffed in this patch, because early defences of Zerg are slightly hampered pre-Hydralisk. But at the same time, Protoss defensive styles are just abbysmal now. So is the herO style really stronger, if the patch "forces" every Protoss to play this style? Quickly the only Zerg goal becomes just to defend the few early attacks, simplifying the game plan and thereby buffing Zerg EVEN vs. the herO style. Making each wave cost 5 minerals, would also have huge psychological impact, because the units won't be "free."
The swarmhost shuts down hard immobile turtle styles. This is good. If the units sole role in the meta from here on out is to make sure 3-4 base turtling on mass tanks into ghost-thor is not viable, then it's doing great.
Isn't that like saying, it's OK if Terran/Protoss has a unit that hard shuts down Zerg turtle macro styles, where they play passively and react and defend attacks? And build up a strong Queen/Viper/Infestor/BL/Spore army lategame?
It's OK if 1 side plays more defensively, as long as there is enough to encourage the other player to engage with them in a fun way. It's only bad when the turtle player gets to turtle and the aggressor feels it's too scary or punishing to engage, and instead feels safer turtling in response. Then there's little interaction.
For example, Terran has enough reason to engage vs Zerg, and it makes the MU exciting with Zerg trying to defend the Terran, and the Terran trying to control the Zerg from spiraling out of control (until recent meta where players like Maru prefer to turtle vs Zerg and not even try to engage).
One problem with current mech and why there is a lack of incentive to engage, is because Mech itself is not even that strong lategame, and thus Zerg doesn't feel an urgency to engage or wittle them down, unless maybe it's a map where it's very easy to split lategame and the Terran can outlast the Zerg.
Watching Maru styles of turtle Terran is still fun because it WAS strong lategame, and thus Zerg was encouraged to engage and try to starve out the Terran before they're able to mine half the map and win through efficiency.
You shouldn't be able to counter an entire style + unit composition with 1 unit. You should have to use a combination of units to do that, and there shouldn't be a hard counter to a particular style of play in general. I think it's fine and healthy to have a variety of styles, even a turtle style, for players who naturally gravitate towards that playstyle cus it fits their personality, as long as certain styles doesn't happen frequently and aren't too popular.
The only issue becomes when the game discourages either side from engaging and both sides prefer to just turtle up to the lategame, in which case both sides are at fault. Some of the most exciting games to watch are when 1 side is the aggressor and 1 side is the defender, which is why TvZ has been the most popular MU to spectate for all of SC2. (Terran used to be the aggressor but in modern LotV, Terran has become more of the defender).
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
I've seen Maru come back from such a position (60 supply down) vs Serral lol
I watch the game too. it's why I offered a maxed protoss for example and not a maxed zerg. admittedly, it becomes a clumsy example when you start agonizing over the particulars that led up to that 60 supply deficit. maybe Maru is in a good position to basetrade, or what about this or that... yeah I get it.
On January 09 2023 17:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: ...
...
...
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).
I'm primarily annoyed with the game speed. it's why the topic of my post was game speed. it's why I expressed dissatisfaction towards the game speed of SC2 and not something else, like macro. I wrote that game speed should be optimized on SC2's own terms, largely because no other RTS really has the macro emphasis that SC2 has. I don't mind that macro matters in SC2.
I wish micro mattered more though. it sucks that SC2 left very little room for creative micro. everyone thought baneling land-mines would be this big scary thing, but SC2 is too fast to allow these smaller interactions to happen. Serral is too busy morphing 40 banelings at a time and crashing them into planetaries. Moon, the greatest (non-starcraft) RTS player to ever have lived, the 5th race, failed to even make a dent in SC2. the way he juggled units in WC3 was one of the most enthralling things I've ever witnessed in esports. units didn't die as quickly in WC3. being able to save one or two units at any point, including the lategame, created a snowball effect which Moon took full advantage of. how did SC2's design allow a force of nature to become so utterly unremarkable from one RTS to another? it made everything faster, clumped up and squishy, to the point where it's only worthwhile to focus on large clusters of units instead of trying to save individual units. maybe I can't see it because I've played and watched SC2 for too long, but I feel that if I had a way of viewing the game through the lens of a casual, regardless of who's playing, all I would be able to see on the screen is damage. damage and full retreat. it's been a long, long time since Billy the hero marine revealed himself in a pro sc2 match, but that's what you get from an RTS which is anti-micro by design
Great posts SHODAN I totally agree with you. I mainly watch BW but something that isn't mentioned as much by casters is unit retention, which is a big part of certain stages of some matchups. Should be more rewarding to keep units alive. SC2 is way too fast for my liking too. Don't like the collision either. The macro is not interesting yet takes up too much gametime. Should be more spellcast focused. I never saw WC3 pro games but it sounds interesting.
On January 15 2023 17:42 `dunedain wrote: Anyone know what happened to the strategy section?
I've been gone for a couple of years but wanting to get back into the game.
Yea those threads are just relics from a bygone era at this point, sad but true.
On a positive note though, whatever race you play there is an absolute shit ton of great Youtube videos detailing all types of builds, strategy, game theory, everything and anything.
On January 15 2023 17:42 `dunedain wrote: Anyone know what happened to the strategy section?
I've been gone for a couple of years but wanting to get back into the game.
Yea those threads are just relics from a bygone era at this point, sad but true.
On a positive note though, whatever race you play there is an absolute shit ton of great Youtube videos detailing all types of builds, strategy, game theory, everything and anything.
"Print is dead"
- Egon
Yeah, thing is that on Youtube you get money for providing guides and on TL you don't.
The fact that the patch version is changing is something that I like. The "shadow Zerg cabal" is testing things on the test server. It's as if that's the point of the server. Tweak away!
However, I do think that the tweaks should be a bit bigger. The Viper could try some other things, like being dragged towards their abduct target a little bit instead of being paralysed for a short time. The smaller ultra could get some reduced health, the smaller Purification Nova could get a small damage over time before the final explosion to help vs masses of Zerglings and Marines, reducing the number of swipes a Zealot needs to finish them off.
The continuous changes are also helping with delaying the official release of the patch. The patch should not be released before the yearly final at Katowice. If that ever was a possibility it should not be gone.
What if the viper instead of just instantly pulling the enemy unit to it, made it so the unit would move at its movement speed towards the viper position?
Or maybe like a tether. So the unit would be stunned and linked to the viper so you can move the viper back and drag the unit with you.
Something like Dehaka if you guys are familiar with heroes of the storm.
Feedback/emp would not cancel it. You'd need to cast it before abduct is casted. To stop it you'd need to kill the viper or after a few seconds the ability would end and if the unit wasn't killed it would be let free
This would be a great change because abduct would no longer be a free insta kill and would allow for more counterplay but at the same time you could move the enemy unit much further away from the rest of the army or reposition the viper to protect it while it abducts units.
And you can play with the numbers a lot, you can change the duration of the link, you can play with the range or health of the viper.
Imo, much better change than adding an imperceptible delay (Ragnarok words, not mine) to the cast of abduct.
_____ Adding damage over time to disruptor nova would go a long way to help balance it and make it less binary and easier to balance.
Although I guess then it would compete more with storm.
On January 18 2023 02:23 [Phantom] wrote: What if the viper instead of just instantly pulling the enemy unit to it, made it so the unit would move at its movement speed towards the viper position?
My opinion about viper and his spell : it s just a Waouh effect..."
If i was a developper and i must chose between an infestator and a viper, i would keep the infestator.. Obviously there is an overlap between function of these spells. And parasite neural is another example of fun spell under used despite his cool design, the spell is used by pros in end game when players are lazy and less aware.
Then if players need microbial shroud i would like to see a kind of infested terrans back and neural parasite transferred to vipers (supply cost increase from 3 to 4). Infested terran spell could be replaced by kind of locust spell, with a really long range, they could be cast near tanks, to harass workers lines or structures (with locust a little bit more mobile - common sense). Locust hatch out when they hit ground, i think it s cool.
Then i thought about the question of T1 hydralisks. It could be interessant if Zerg wasn t allowed to build all the three type of units until he reach the Lair technology, i.e only allow zergling/hydra, zergling/roach or roach/hydra.
Sounds like awesome changes. For example: Finally Hydralisks become more mobile. Before hydras off creep could not escape terran bio, hardly mech either, protoss ground with blink stalker, protoss ground with charge zealot, ... they could not even escape carriers due to terrain usually.
All changes sound great. Old blizzard was incompetent. Obviously.
I have the suspicious many people haven't seen how these changes actually look in the PRT/mod So here are some photos.
Serious: How is protoss supposed to beat lurkers if the carriers have been nerfed, and so was the disruptor. BTW, reducing the diameter of the disruptor atack, you are also reducing their efective range. Disruptors were already "barely" able to hold out if you were lucky or they didn't have vipers, now they just join the list of ground units that are countered by lurkers (all ground protoss units except immortal/archons and colossus are 1 shotted by 7 lurkers. Immortals and archons die in 2 shots)
Here are some images so you see how small the new nova is.
Old New
Click on the images to enlarge them so you can better see the difference.
old new
Now here is another image this time of ultras. In the same area where you could previously only fit 11 ultras, you can now fit 13. If the change is only to make them easier to use, what is the balance council doing to reduce the increase in damage due to more ultras being able to hit the enemy at the same time?
Unfortunately I don't have a way to record how FAST BL are now. Remember that speed afects air unit more because they are not restricted by terrain, so any small speed increase translates into an exponentially big mobility increase. The biggest difference I've seen with this change is not the ability to retreat or defend, but to CHASE. You cannot escape from BL anymore. Not only BL block your mobility with the broodlings, but now BL are so fast they caan chase you because your ground units are restricted by terrain, and due to the way their atack works, they can "kind of" move while shooting. What are you giving the other races to compensate?
If the purpose of the Hydra, Ultra, and BL buff was to "buff underused units", why isnt the balance council buffing the Tempest? Or the Mothership? Or giving the Reaper/adept lategame upgrades.
Just rely on luck a little more phantom, you'll be fine.
If you put half as much effort into balance whining on TL as you did on ladder, you might actually have something worthwhile to contribute to the discussion.
DO you really think those photos and points don't contribute to the discussion? because I haven't seen a lot of people mentioning that for a meele unit that can be massed like an ultralisk, reducing it's size, and increasing it's range effectively increase the damage of that type of composition.
And yes, luck influences games. I literally said in my post that you shouldn't focus on that, and should focus on improving and getting better, it was just a psot in response of all the people who say luck has no influence in a game or that if you win 1 game you are better than your opponent.
On January 21 2023 04:03 [Phantom] wrote: DO you really think those photos and points don't contribute to the discussion? because I haven't seen a lot of people mentioning that for a meele unit that can be massed like an ultralisk, reducing it's size, and increasing it's range effectively increase the damage of that type of composition.
And yes, luck influences games. I literally said in my post that you shouldn't focus on that, and should focus on improving and getting better, it was just a psot in response of all the people who say luck has no influence in a game or that if you win 1 game you are better than your opponent.
They've been running the patch at the ESL opens for weeks now, and simply none of the evidence supports the fearmongering you're doing in your post.
Okay, you can fit 13 ultralisks into the same space as 11 before. You're ignoring the fact that 13 ultralisks are 3900/2600 and and 78 supply. Massing ultralisks has never been a good idea, you absolutely obliterate any advantage you have from a bank with a shit unit.
Posting a picture of a disrupter ball is also useless. Why don't you post a video of 4 of those going off on a terran army and see if anyone can tell that the ball is smaller.
The 11 ultras vs 13 is jsut an example where it was easy to show the difference. Same applies in any scnenario. In game where before you could could only fit 1 ultra now you'll fit 2, where you can fit 4 now you can fit 5. Another side effect of them being smaller is that they now take less time going around each other (cause again, they have a smaller diameter), so I don't think people grapsh the difference. Same with the BL.
Want to know something else thats outrageous? Scarlett is the one implementing the changes. She is the one putting the changes into the PTR and the balance patch.
Source:
Should be time stamped but if not, it's at 30:25
Remember early in the thread where Ahli discovered a plethora of undocumented changes including Lurker buffs?
On December 10 2022 04:48 Ahli wrote: The Lurker has a few more undocumented changes with its attack on PTR.
Guess who made those changes? Scartlett.
You can see all the undocumented changes here.
People are not saying anything cause they accepted their fate. But not me, because this isn't an issue of only balance, but integrity. A patch with these many irregularities, bugs, and actively hiding information from the players should NEVER go through.
On December 10 2022 10:31 Ahli wrote:
Other notes (side effects / undocumented changes / potential bugs):
the Broodling duration change affects Broodlings from structures as well. Should those really be changed as well?
there are a lot of undocumented changes to unburrow/burrow random delays
there is a potential change that makes unburrowing units appear visible without delay (stats duration changed. I am not sure if the duration really affects anything)
Banshee's attack's rockets spawn ~100ms earlier (0.15 seconds earlier on normal game speed). The first rocket spawns without delay
stasis change could break things now. I hope people check beam weapons properly stopping (Sentry). What happens when Adepts have a Shade and the Adept walks into a stasis trap? Does the Shade die? Does the Adept teleport and keep stasis? Does it teleport and have no more stasis?
Why the spawn range increase from 2 to 3 Factory-specific and not raised to 3 for all producing structures (Barracks, Starport, CC, Hatchery, Nexus, Gateway, Robotics Facility, Stargate)?
Lurker's Unburrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This means Lurkers will be able to unburrow and move away up to half a second faster
Lurker's Burrow random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.25] to [0, 0.125]. They burrow on average 1 game update = 0.625 game seconds = ~44ms faster than before allowing them to attack that time earlier as well or escape fire from flying units
Interference Matrix adds a cooldown to Immortal Barrier after Interference Matrix expires. The duration was raised from 5.7 to 7.9 seconds (from 8 to 11 seconds on normal speed). Also, why is this added on expiring and not when IM hits? The bug fix is older, but it feels buggy to me. What happens when the cooldown expires while IM is active (or is it paused during IM)?
Observer, Disruptor and Ultralisk model scaling potentially breaks with other model skins than default. Every unit skin has different model settings, so you need to change all of them or change the scale of the actors. Without testing, I would say that this breaks non-default skins. Can someone confirm this?
Hydralisk -> Lurker Morph's random starting delay was changed from [0, 0.5] to [0, 0]. This could have been required for the morph's smart command cancel. Roach -> Ravager had no random delay as well (like Warp Prism and Liberator). Should this be done for other units as well (Viking, Thor, Widow Mine, Siege Tank, Hellion)?
Does the Interceptor flying area increase significantly alter the DPS? The area was raised by 1 to inner 3 and outer 5. The weapon range is still 2.
Interceptor attack firing and impact sounds are slightly louder than before
Units affected by Anti-Armor-Missile are now tinted with another color. It is more yellow than orange. From to
Structures receiving shields from the Shield Battery do not display an attached model in the fog of war anymore. This was a dimmed snapshot image of the model before, correct? Now you should only see the structure itself
The Ghost unit types did not correctly receive the snipe command card button. I am not sure how the Nova Ghost skin is created, but there is a good chance that she won't have a snipe cancel button. There is a unit type for the female Ghost skin, but that does not even have the snipe ability and I guess people would have figured that bug out by now, if that one was actually used. Do female Ghost skins have snipe and a cancel button? Does the rare Nova spawn have snipe cancel button?
Hatchery and Hive's subgroup priority swapped (Hatchery to 28, Hive to 32). When multiple structures are selected, this could be reordered now. This also affects observer UI priorities like production, structures, units lost UI panels. The hive is now selected first, correct?
The Shield Battery stop command fix does not fix a human potentially replicating the commands necessary with macros. The implementation is slightly more complex than intended and it would be nice if Blizz at least cleaned it up (stack counts used to be bad for performance a decade ago, please do not add them to behavior that do not require them)
Queen Transfusion on-creep text was broken due to a pointless behavior swap (they do exactly the same, just the Queen's one has text for this error case).
Swarm Hosts can now spawn Locusts with a target point without loosing existing orders. The ability is now flagged as transient
I am trying to document/comment all data changes and make notes about things that could potentially break. I am far from done, but the amount of undocumented changes is concerning.
Also, there are a few small bugs that could be fixed as well:
Thor's default mode has no collision with Locusts. The 2nd mode has, like all other units as well
Disruptor and Archon's minimap radius is too small. This should always match the actual unit radius. So, it is currently a tiny bit too small
Burrowed Ravagers have the Corossive Bile ability. This could be used by hackers and should be removed from the unit. Remember warping in Immortals in WoL or computer players spawning Infested Terrans after the ability was supposed to be removed from the Infestor?
On January 10 2023 08:37 Turbovolver wrote: This thread is ridiculous, and you whiners should really be ashamed of yourselves. A "shadow zerg cabal", seriously? A patch adjustment comes out that nerfs zerg a little and the response is "but that's just how the zerg cabal is trying to fool us". Are you for real?
Remember when someone pointed out how quickly a zerg would have to react to save lurkers by getting them out of ghost snipe range? It was like 0.4 seconds, before the increase from 13.5 to 14 range to break snipe. 10-15 pages later and still nobody has commented on those numbers, which actually define the meaningful effect of the snipe change. The change that apparently matters so much for TvZ (lategame) balance.
Instead everyone's out here getting themselves deranged about hydralisks that move faster. Well, I don't play the game and only watch GSL, so I admit I'm not in best position to know. Have hydralisks on this new patch now just taken over everything at the top level? At any level?
Or if not, perhaps the zerg cabal sent DMs to all Zerg players to not use hydralisks until after the patch is finalised... those dastardly wretches.
You can't seriously think that anyone actually believes in a Zerg conspiracy right? You realize that's a meme right? Right?
Want to know something else thats outrageous? Scarlett is the one implementing the changes. She is the one putting the changes into the PTR and the balance patch.
Be that as it may, I would be hard pressed to believe that even if Scarlett was the one implementing the changes to the ladder, surely she is not in charge all by herself on this issue, I'm sure there are members of other races that have a say so in these issues, ultimately someone has to be the physical body that uploads the changes to the PTR.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't Scarlett also off race as Protoss at a high GM level?
Regardless of your opinion on the content of the patch, I guess we can all agree that it's just a shitshow that Katowice starts in a few weeks and nobody knows when or if the patch releases and with which changes. Someone is really fucking up hard currently.
On January 21 2023 12:11 Charoisaur wrote: Regardless of your opinion on the content of the patch, I guess we can all agree that it's just a shitshow that Katowice starts in a few weeks and nobody knows when or if the patch releases and with which changes. Someone is really fucking up hard currently.
Oh yea this patch has zero business going through before Katowice, it's in no way fully fleshed out and imo needs quite a few changes across the board. The creep change in particular needs to be expanded upon because it doesn't seem to really accomplish anything, in all of the PTR matches it still looked like Zerg could efficiently cover 1/2 the map in creep by the 7 minute mark.
Still also slightly confused on the Hydralisk change, I never really considered the unit out of the meta, but it's receiving random love from the balance team like it's under utilized. Isn't ling/bane/Hydra still used semi frequently at the top level?
The fact that they have forced players to play on this patch during the recent weekly Cusp highly suggest that it would be applied for IEM. They just have made the official announcement yet, which is just weird.
Disruptors were already "barely" able to hold out if you were lucky or they didn't have vipers, now they just join the list of ground units that are countered by lurkers (all ground protoss units except immortal/archons and colossus are 1 shotted by 7 lurkers. Immortals and archons die in 2 shots)
My dude, if you actually understand the game a bit, you'll know that yes, archon and immortals are meant to be the ground counter. If your idea of SC2 is to mass stalkers and run over lurkers, yeah, that's probably not it.
Now here is another image this time of ultras. In the same area where you could previously only fit 11 ultras, you can now fit 13. If the change is only to make them easier to use, what is the balance council doing to reduce the increase in damage due to more ultras being able to hit the enemy at the same time?
Hilarious and impractical. there's no scenario in a pro game or any ladder game (that shouldn't be already super over), where 11-13 ultras surround a town hall and this decides the game, lol.
Unfortunately I don't have a way to record how FAST BL are now. Remember that speed afects air unit more because they are not restricted by terrain, so any small speed increase translates into an exponentially big mobility increase. The biggest difference I've seen with this change is not the ability to retreat or defend, but to CHASE. You cannot escape from BL anymore. Not only BL block your mobility with the broodlings, but now BL are so fast they caan chase you because your ground units are restricted by terrain, and due to the way their atack works, they can "kind of" move while shooting. What are you giving the other races to compensate?
Again, you're missing points of the patch notes either due to severe emotional trauma by these patch notes or something, but yes, the broods are faster and their broodlings have a shorter lifespan. Claiming broods can't be escaped is hilarious and out of touch with reality. Even more so after the latest balance mod speed adjustments. "Move while shooting" haha, bro. With 1.79 attack CD and new speed of 2.24, the potential 0.45speed stutter step is not gonna change anything. They're not marines, they're not hydras.
The game was supposed to be balanced after Blizzard sold. (except some shit units like lurkers), so every significant buff should be balanced with a nerf, like 10% damage less (from 35 to 32).
Then, the choice of tweaking the size of area of nova spell is awkward, it doesn t help casual players and it kills the unit potential. If you wanna improve nova, it asks to redesign the unit a little bit (in adding a stun effect for example and reducing damage to avoid marauders to be one shot, so you help casual and pro players...)
Disruptors were already "barely" able to hold out if you were lucky or they didn't have vipers, now they just join the list of ground units that are countered by lurkers (all ground protoss units except immortal/archons and colossus are 1 shotted by 7 lurkers. Immortals and archons die in 2 shots)
My dude, if you actually understand the game a bit, you'll know that yes, archon and immortals are meant to be the ground counter. If your idea of SC2 is to mass stalkers and run over lurkers, yeah, that's probably not it.
Now here is another image this time of ultras. In the same area where you could previously only fit 11 ultras, you can now fit 13. If the change is only to make them easier to use, what is the balance council doing to reduce the increase in damage due to more ultras being able to hit the enemy at the same time?
Hilarious and impractical. there's no scenario in a pro game or any ladder game (that shouldn't be already super over), where 11-13 ultras surround a town hall and this decides the game, lol.
Unfortunately I don't have a way to record how FAST BL are now. Remember that speed afects air unit more because they are not restricted by terrain, so any small speed increase translates into an exponentially big mobility increase. The biggest difference I've seen with this change is not the ability to retreat or defend, but to CHASE. You cannot escape from BL anymore. Not only BL block your mobility with the broodlings, but now BL are so fast they caan chase you because your ground units are restricted by terrain, and due to the way their atack works, they can "kind of" move while shooting. What are you giving the other races to compensate?
Again, you're missing points of the patch notes either due to severe emotional trauma by these patch notes or something, but yes, the broods are faster and their broodlings have a shorter lifespan. Claiming broods can't be escaped is hilarious and out of touch with reality. Even more so after the latest balance mod speed adjustments. "Move while shooting" haha, bro. With 1.79 attack CD and new speed of 2.24, the potential 0.45speed stutter step is not gonna change anything. They're not marines, they're not hydras.
I'm not making stalkers vs lurkers. I'm saying that no matter what ground army you do it gets deleted in 1 second. Go make an army of many archons with 3 range and immortals (tht suck vs hydras) and tell me how you do vs lurkers. And yeah obviously include zealots and stalkers. You'll still die. You need air, or disruptors to survive until you can transition to air.
2-You can't possibly think the Ultra photo was about me complaining about 13 ultras surrounding a hatchery...It's show an image that was the easiest way to show that reducing size= more effective damage in ALL situations (not just vs hatchery) due to more ultras being able to atack at the same time.
3.-Regarding the BL. Have you played the PTR? Have you played the balance mod? Because I've been playing it a lot. You're not going to stutter step with BL, but you can definitely chase units much better. Before you were able to retreat, now it's much harder. The BL are a much better unit now.
And I wouldn't be aagians't any of this, if the other races got something similar. Why aren't the other races, specially protoss receiving other buffs/reworks like tht. Why isn't the tempest of mothership being changed? O or the Reaper, BC and Adept? Or the colossus/vr/phoenix? Why is Zerg getting all these buffs and usability re-works without any regards to if the unit was balanced or not before (like the hydra).
Then there are some weird changes, like changin the interceptor and carrier priority, which should mostly affect lower leagues right? Aka, Master and Below. But I thought we were balancing about the top 0.1%? why not nerf the lurker then that is so opressive?
Again my issue is not only balance, but the blatant double standard of buffing zerg to make it more "fun and cool to use" without any regards for balance and not giving the other races the same treatment, and the conflic of interest shown in this patch (scarlett making changes to the mod and "whoops, by mistake I shadow buffed lurkers, oops").
Put Maru, Hero and Serral/dark in a room and let those 3 come up with the new patch, not whoever is in charge of this mess.
On January 21 2023 18:54 syndbg wrote: Actual metal leaguer takes so far by Phantom.
Disruptors were already "barely" able to hold out if you were lucky or they didn't have vipers, now they just join the list of ground units that are countered by lurkers (all ground protoss units except immortal/archons and colossus are 1 shotted by 7 lurkers. Immortals and archons die in 2 shots)
My dude, if you actually understand the game a bit, you'll know that yes, archon and immortals are meant to be the ground counter. If your idea of SC2 is to mass stalkers and run over lurkers, yeah, that's probably not it.
Now here is another image this time of ultras. In the same area where you could previously only fit 11 ultras, you can now fit 13. If the change is only to make them easier to use, what is the balance council doing to reduce the increase in damage due to more ultras being able to hit the enemy at the same time?
Hilarious and impractical. there's no scenario in a pro game or any ladder game (that shouldn't be already super over), where 11-13 ultras surround a town hall and this decides the game, lol.
Unfortunately I don't have a way to record how FAST BL are now. Remember that speed afects air unit more because they are not restricted by terrain, so any small speed increase translates into an exponentially big mobility increase. The biggest difference I've seen with this change is not the ability to retreat or defend, but to CHASE. You cannot escape from BL anymore. Not only BL block your mobility with the broodlings, but now BL are so fast they caan chase you because your ground units are restricted by terrain, and due to the way their atack works, they can "kind of" move while shooting. What are you giving the other races to compensate?
Again, you're missing points of the patch notes either due to severe emotional trauma by these patch notes or something, but yes, the broods are faster and their broodlings have a shorter lifespan. Claiming broods can't be escaped is hilarious and out of touch with reality. Even more so after the latest balance mod speed adjustments. "Move while shooting" haha, bro. With 1.79 attack CD and new speed of 2.24, the potential 0.45speed stutter step is not gonna change anything. They're not marines, they're not hydras.
I'm not making stalkers vs lurkers. I'm saying that no matter what ground army you do it gets deleted in 1 second. Go make an army of many archons with 3 range and immortals (tht suck vs hydras) and tell me how you do vs lurkers. And yeah obviously include zealots and stalkers. You'll still die. You need air, or disruptors to survive until you can transition to air.
2-You can't possibly think the Ultra photo was about me complaining about 13 ultras surrounding a hatchery...It's show an image that was the easiest way to show that reducing size= more effective damage in ALL situations (not just vs hatchery) due to more ultras being able to atack at the same time.
3.-Regarding the BL. Have you played the PTR? Have you played the balance mod? Because I've been playing it a lot. You're not going to stutter step with BL, but you can definitely chase units much better. Before you were able to retreat, now it's much harder. The BL are a much better unit now.
And I wouldn't be aagians't any of this, if the other races got something similar. Why aren't the other races, specially protoss receiving other buffs/reworks like tht. Why isn't the tempest of mothership being changed? O or the Reaper, BC and Adept? Or the colossus/vr/phoenix? Why is Zerg getting all these buffs and usability re-works without any regards to if the unit was balanced or not before (like the hydra).
Then there are some weird changes, like changin the interceptor and carrier priority, which should mostly affect lower leagues right? Aka, Master and Below. But I thought we were balancing about the top 0.1%? why not nerf the lurker then that is so opressive?
Again my issue is not only balance, but the blatant double standard of buffing zerg to make it more "fun and cool to use" without any regards for balance and not giving the other races the same treatment, and the conflic of interest shown in this patch (scarlett making changes to the mod and "whoops, by mistake I shadow buffed lurkers, oops").
Put Maru, Hero and Serral/dark in a room and let those 3 come up with the new patch, not whoever is in charge of this mess.
1) They also get deleted if they walk into 25 tanks. It is about positioning and that a t3 with two upgrades against pure ground is strong against pure ground isn't really surprising. WIth lurkers you can never chase into an army, so players have to move into lurkers for them to be good. 2) That is also not true. It is only a buff if more ultras fit into a space where they previously couldn't. If the space is big enough for 1 ultra now, it is not automatically big enough to fit two now. It is a buff to ultras, but that is mostly not about protoss, because in those games it mostly does not change anything as the ultras are only used in super late games and are the last units standing most of the time anyways. For ZvT it is nice to be able to have an alternative to lurkers and brood lord infestor. 3) They are a different unit now and hopefully not as boring as previously, where for example dark was camping and shooting his own broodlings to deal damage to a mech army.
You also neglect the zerg nerfs such as creep and the ravager nerf, which is a unit that is actually used all the time in ZvP and this severely nerfs all ins in ZvT. Protoss got the QoL change for the archon which is huge against mutas as they can easily defend mineral lines from them. This is also huge against Zergling runbys as they can now position between mineral patches. Terran also got reworks with the raven for example.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 1) They also get deleted if they walk into 25 tanks. It is about positioning and that a t3 with two upgrades against pure ground is strong against pure ground isn't really surprising. WIth lurkers you can never chase into an army, so players have to move into lurkers for them to be good.
Lurkers chase retreating armies all the time. They are far more suited to aggressive moves than Siege tanks since: 1. Siege tanks take four seconds to siege up. Upgraded Lurkers take 1.07 seconds to burrow. 2. Lurkers are faster. 3. Lurkers have more health. 4. Lurkers are invisible while sieged. 5. Lurkers do damage over a much larger area. 6. Lurkers are way less vulnerable when getting in close, as they don't have a minimum range and don't do friendly fire.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 2) That is also not true. It is only a buff if more ultras fit into a space where they previously couldn't. If the space is big enough for 1 ultra now, it is not automatically big enough to fit two now. It is a buff to ultras, but that is mostly not about protoss, because in those games it mostly does not change anything as the ultras are only used in super late games and are the last units standing most of the time anyways.
You do understand that no one is arguing that twice an many Ultras fit in the same area, right? The changes mean each Ultra gets in the way of other Ultras (and other units) less. It's like Ling speed: it doesn't technically increase damage output, but since more of the units can attack sooner, in effect it does.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 3) They are a different unit now and hopefully not as boring as previously, where for example dark was camping and shooting his own broodlings to deal damage to a mech army.
They are a different, much stronger unit now. Which is still going to be boring to watch, just boring in a "oh, Brood Lords, Zerg wins" kind of way.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: You also neglect the zerg nerfs such as creep and the ravager nerf, which is a unit that is actually used all the time in ZvP and this severely nerfs all ins in ZvT.
Creep nerf makes literally no difference. The vision things is a minor QoL change, even Zerg pros has acknowledged the changes don't impact creep spread at all. Yes, Ravagers did get a very minor nerf. Great.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Protoss got the QoL change for the archon which is huge against mutas as they can easily defend mineral lines from them.
How?
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: This is also huge against Zergling runbys as they can now position between mineral patches.
Do you think that mineral patches are buildings? Unless I've missed it in the sea of undocumented changes, only Archon building collisions have been changed.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Terran also got reworks with the raven for example.
Yes, Terran got reworks, while Zerg got buffs. You are making the exact point you are trying to argue against.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 1) They also get deleted if they walk into 25 tanks. It is about positioning and that a t3 with two upgrades against pure ground is strong against pure ground isn't really surprising. WIth lurkers you can never chase into an army, so players have to move into lurkers for them to be good.
Lurkers chase retreating armies all the time. They are far more suited to aggressive moves than Siege tanks since: 1. Siege tanks take four seconds to siege up. Upgraded Lurkers take 1.07 seconds to burrow. 2. Lurkers are faster. 3. Lurkers have more health. 4. Lurkers are invisible while sieged. 5. Lurkers do damage over a much larger area. 6. Lurkers are way less vulnerable when getting in close, as they don't have a minimum range and don't do friendly fire.
They also have less range, come out significantly later, need two upgrades, do less damage and suck against all lategame units (disruptor/carrier and ghosts/thors/siege tanks)
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 2) That is also not true. It is only a buff if more ultras fit into a space where they previously couldn't. If the space is big enough for 1 ultra now, it is not automatically big enough to fit two now. It is a buff to ultras, but that is mostly not about protoss, because in those games it mostly does not change anything as the ultras are only used in super late games and are the last units standing most of the time anyways.
You do understand that no one is arguing that twice an many Ultras fit in the same area, right? The changes mean each Ultra gets in the way of other Ultras (and other units) less. It's like Ling speed: it doesn't technically increase damage output, but since more of the units can attack sooner, in effect it does.
Your initial statement states that it is essentially a 20% damage increase, which is just not true. Yes its a significant buff to make this unit hopefully viable for ZvT and make hydra ultras viable in ZvP, instead of corruptor broodlord infestor snoozefest.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 3) They are a different unit now and hopefully not as boring as previously, where for example dark was camping and shooting his own broodlings to deal damage to a mech army.
They are a different, much stronger unit now. Which is still going to be boring to watch, just boring in a "oh, Brood Lords, Zerg wins" kind of way.
We haven't seen a single game where this was the case.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: You also neglect the zerg nerfs such as creep and the ravager nerf, which is a unit that is actually used all the time in ZvP and this severely nerfs all ins in ZvT.
Creep nerf makes literally no difference. The vision things is a minor QoL change, even Zerg pros has acknowledged the changes don't impact creep spread at all. Yes, Ravagers did get a very minor nerf. Great.
And that is why creep got nerfed again. I am not sure how much difference it makes now. Vipers got also nerfed and ravens got buffed for ZvT, due to lower cost.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Protoss got the QoL change for the archon which is huge against mutas as they can easily defend mineral lines from them.
How?
Because Archons can now move from base to base and behind mineral lines and defend from mutas. They are amazing at it. See for example.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: This is also huge against Zergling runbys as they can now position between mineral patches.
Do you think that mineral patches are buildings? Unless I've missed it in the sea of undocumented changes, only Archon building collisions have been changed.
Archons can now move between mineral patches and you do not wanna know how many zerglings it takes to kill an archon that is between mineral patches, similar to adepts at the beginning of the game.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Terran also got reworks with the raven for example.
Yes, Terran got reworks, while Zerg got buffs. You are making the exact point you are trying to argue against.
Zerg got their core units nerfed and their units which have not seen a lot of usage buffed. The classic ling/bling/ravager composition into vipers is now slightly weaker, but the ultra hydra infestor is now significantly stronger. However, only dark played that composition before with mixed results. For ZvT ling/bling muta is slightly worse and ling/bling/hydra is stronger now. However, all ins got a significant nerf, which allows Terrans to be more greedy.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 1) They also get deleted if they walk into 25 tanks. It is about positioning and that a t3 with two upgrades against pure ground is strong against pure ground isn't really surprising. WIth lurkers you can never chase into an army, so players have to move into lurkers for them to be good.
Lurkers chase retreating armies all the time. They are far more suited to aggressive moves than Siege tanks since: 1. Siege tanks take four seconds to siege up. Upgraded Lurkers take 1.07 seconds to burrow. 2. Lurkers are faster. 3. Lurkers have more health. 4. Lurkers are invisible while sieged. 5. Lurkers do damage over a much larger area. 6. Lurkers are way less vulnerable when getting in close, as they don't have a minimum range and don't do friendly fire.
They also have less range, come out significantly later, need two upgrades, do less damage and suck against all lategame units (disruptor/carrier and ghosts/thors/siege tanks)
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 2) That is also not true. It is only a buff if more ultras fit into a space where they previously couldn't. If the space is big enough for 1 ultra now, it is not automatically big enough to fit two now. It is a buff to ultras, but that is mostly not about protoss, because in those games it mostly does not change anything as the ultras are only used in super late games and are the last units standing most of the time anyways.
You do understand that no one is arguing that twice an many Ultras fit in the same area, right? The changes mean each Ultra gets in the way of other Ultras (and other units) less. It's like Ling speed: it doesn't technically increase damage output, but since more of the units can attack sooner, in effect it does.
Your initial statement states that it is essentially a 20% damage increase, which is just not true. Yes its a significant buff to make this unit hopefully viable for ZvT and make hydra ultras viable in ZvP, instead of corruptor broodlord infestor snoozefest.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: 3) They are a different unit now and hopefully not as boring as previously, where for example dark was camping and shooting his own broodlings to deal damage to a mech army.
They are a different, much stronger unit now. Which is still going to be boring to watch, just boring in a "oh, Brood Lords, Zerg wins" kind of way.
We haven't seen a single game where this was the case.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: You also neglect the zerg nerfs such as creep and the ravager nerf, which is a unit that is actually used all the time in ZvP and this severely nerfs all ins in ZvT.
Creep nerf makes literally no difference. The vision things is a minor QoL change, even Zerg pros has acknowledged the changes don't impact creep spread at all. Yes, Ravagers did get a very minor nerf. Great.
And that is why creep got nerfed again. I am not sure how much difference it makes now. Vipers got also nerfed and ravens got buffed for ZvT, due to lower cost.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Protoss got the QoL change for the archon which is huge against mutas as they can easily defend mineral lines from them.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: This is also huge against Zergling runbys as they can now position between mineral patches.
Do you think that mineral patches are buildings? Unless I've missed it in the sea of undocumented changes, only Archon building collisions have been changed.
Archons can now move between mineral patches and you do not wanna know how many zerglings it takes to kill an archon that is between mineral patches, similar to adepts at the beginning of the game.
On January 22 2023 04:56 absinthfee wrote: Terran also got reworks with the raven for example.
Yes, Terran got reworks, while Zerg got buffs. You are making the exact point you are trying to argue against.
Zerg got their core units nerfed and their units which have not seen a lot of usage buffed. The classic ling/bling/ravager composition into vipers is now slightly weaker, but the ultra hydra infestor is now significantly stronger. However, only dark played that composition before with mixed results. For ZvT ling/bling muta is slightly worse and ling/bling/hydra is stronger now. However, all ins got a significant nerf, which allows Terrans to be more greedy.
The ravager "nerf" is barely noticeable. Dark has been ravager all-inning on the patch just as effectively as before. The unit itself is unchanged, and a 4 second increase in morph time barely ever matters. Ling-bane-muta hasn't been changed at all, and ling-bane-hydra is now stronger, despite being the most commonly used composition in ZvT.
So, a pointless creep tumor cooldown increase, a small creep vision decrease, a very minor abduct nerf, and an irrelevant ravager morph time increase are the sum total of the hits Zerg took this patch. Wow. Meanwhile Terran and Protoss take actual nerfs to the actual stats of key units (ghosts, disruptors, batteries) without any real compensation.
Wow I didn't realize the defensive utility buff that Archons got being able to plug themselves into holes a bit better, appreciated that video Absinth.
On January 21 2023 18:54 syndbg wrote: Actual metal leaguer takes so far by Phantom.
Disruptors were already "barely" able to hold out if you were lucky or they didn't have vipers, now they just join the list of ground units that are countered by lurkers (all ground protoss units except immortal/archons and colossus are 1 shotted by 7 lurkers. Immortals and archons die in 2 shots)
My dude, if you actually understand the game a bit, you'll know that yes, archon and immortals are meant to be the ground counter. If your idea of SC2 is to mass stalkers and run over lurkers, yeah, that's probably not it.
Now here is another image this time of ultras. In the same area where you could previously only fit 11 ultras, you can now fit 13. If the change is only to make them easier to use, what is the balance council doing to reduce the increase in damage due to more ultras being able to hit the enemy at the same time?
Hilarious and impractical. there's no scenario in a pro game or any ladder game (that shouldn't be already super over), where 11-13 ultras surround a town hall and this decides the game, lol.
Unfortunately I don't have a way to record how FAST BL are now. Remember that speed afects air unit more because they are not restricted by terrain, so any small speed increase translates into an exponentially big mobility increase. The biggest difference I've seen with this change is not the ability to retreat or defend, but to CHASE. You cannot escape from BL anymore. Not only BL block your mobility with the broodlings, but now BL are so fast they caan chase you because your ground units are restricted by terrain, and due to the way their atack works, they can "kind of" move while shooting. What are you giving the other races to compensate?
Again, you're missing points of the patch notes either due to severe emotional trauma by these patch notes or something, but yes, the broods are faster and their broodlings have a shorter lifespan. Claiming broods can't be escaped is hilarious and out of touch with reality. Even more so after the latest balance mod speed adjustments. "Move while shooting" haha, bro. With 1.79 attack CD and new speed of 2.24, the potential 0.45speed stutter step is not gonna change anything. They're not marines, they're not hydras.
Then there are some weird changes, like changin the interceptor and carrier priority, which should mostly affect lower leagues right? Aka, Master and Below. But I thought we were balancing about the top 0.1%? why not nerf the lurker then that is so opressive?
I think it s difficult to apply something like a nerf or buff now. Lurkers are meant to be designed like an answer to heavy robots protoss army and they do great but their problem is that these units are as good against heavy units as light units. Unless i ve missed something units are mostly design to have bonus against heavy or light armor but as Zergs can spawn multiples units at once time (plus good units against all), so this unit become a mess.
Do you remember the last nerf of banelings by blizzard ? it was so significative but really accurate. I would like that they could say the same thing with Lurkers, we can decrease a bit his damage against light armor without modifying the 30 points damage against heavy.
Aren't Lurkers much better vs clumped light units like marines, comparing to heavy bulky units? They have a bit more damage vs Armored, yes, but they're much more effective vs Marines than they are vs Immortals.
Hey balance council you know what would be a great change for the game?
Look at this image. An adept blocking the space between two gates in hold position. He should block the zerlings right?
WRONG.
Edit: to be perfectly clear. There is a "bug" where even if you block the space between two buildings with 1 adept in hold position, in some cases lings can still get through. Even pros in the GSL have lost to this. End of edit. _________ Insta lose when I did my wall correctly without any way for me to possibly know lings for some unexplicably reason will be able to go through.
And then people say that there's no luck involved in this game, and the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right to block the entrance.
So, if you could fix this in this patch, I'd appreciate it.
Any person with eyes can see that these patches are designed by Zerg players, for Zerg players. Come on. The creep 'nerf' doesn't do anything and the ravager nerf barely changes much either. I guess it slows down All Ins by a tiny margin, fair enough - but why buff the race that's dominating even more? We need to see ACTUAL nerfs to queens and creep, and by nerfing Protoss Air, lurkers get an indirect buff as well cause they just obliterate everything on the ground, anyone arguing differently has never played lategame vs 10+ lurkers, your shit just evaporates.
Every little change to the Zerg race is so carefully thought through and every minor buff is compensated by a tiny nerf but with Protoss it's like hmm yeah let's make the CARRIER worse but the OBSERVER better that sounds great!
I really like the fact that we still get patches for the game I love but any non-Zerg player with a brain in their head should realize that this patch doesn't change enough of the core problems, one of which is that the entire fking map is covered in slimy goo by the 6 minute mark.
it's almost 3:10, you should be training your third unit from your first gateway. you should not get away with 1 adept no battery no full wall against 17+ lings. your probe scout and your first adept (chrono) should notice the lack of drones. there's a neat trick, you can shade your adept backward to your nat, fully wall with a gate, and save your adept. a battery or two can be of great help.
you probably should send the replay to Harstem for a more detailed analysis.
-- people don't seem to realise this shadow illuminati secret zerg society totally gutted the brood lord by cutting the broodling lifespan almost in half. not to mention the cooldown on the wanker spell for the flying scorpion. they literally removed late game zerg, Dark would not win that recent ugly game on this patch. i wish all capital ships would have the same speed as brood lords.
I saw a comment on Reddit today that said this is what happens when people who play with the clan tag "TossOP" get to dictate balance changes. Gave me a chuckle.
On January 23 2023 17:15 bela.mervado wrote: Hey Phantom.
it's almost 3:10, you should be training your third unit from your first gateway. you should not get away with 1 adept no battery no full wall against 17+ lings. your probe scout and your first adept (chrono) should notice the lack of drones. there's a neat trick, you can shade your adept backward to your nat, fully wall with a gate, and save your adept. a battery or two can be of great help.
you probably should send the replay to Harstem for a more detailed analysis.
-- people don't seem to realise this shadow illuminati secret zerg society totally gutted the brood lord by cutting the broodling lifespan almost in half. not to mention the cooldown on the wanker spell for the flying scorpion. they literally removed late game zerg, Dark would not win that recent ugly game on this patch. i wish all capital ships would have the same speed as brood lords.
That Broodling change barely makes any difference, they usually get killed way before the duration ends anyway. The speed buff on the other hand is massive
Buffing zerg when zerg has been winning everything already. Someone find a way to tell Scarlett & Harstem they are ruining the game? Anyway, if this patch goes through, I am done with this game. AOE4 is a much better game now imo, with constant balance updates and a vibrant esports scene.
On January 23 2023 11:03 [Phantom] wrote: Hey balance council you know what would be a great change for the game?
Look at this image. An adept blocking the space between two gates in hold position. He should block the zerlings right?
WRONG.
Insta lose when I did my wall correctly without any way for me to possibly know lings for some unexplicably reason will be able to go through.
And then people say that there's no luck involved in this game, and the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right.
So, if you could fix this in this patch, I'd appreciate it.
This post actually pisses me off.
the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right.
Are you deadass telling me and everyone else here, that as a 3300 MMR protoss, you're doing everything right?
Are you serious?
You don't think a 4300 protoss would perform better in this situation? A 5300 protoss? A 6300 protoss? A 7300 protoss?
There's 4000 MMR difference between you and the best protoss, and you're telling us that you played perfectly and the game needs to be changed to fix it?
On January 23 2023 17:15 bela.mervado wrote: Hey Phantom.
it's almost 3:10, you should be training your third unit from your first gateway. you should not get away with 1 adept no battery no full wall against 17+ lings. your probe scout and your first adept (chrono) should notice the lack of drones. there's a neat trick, you can shade your adept backward to your nat, fully wall with a gate, and save your adept. a battery or two can be of great help.
you probably should send the replay to Harstem for a more detailed analysis.
Thanks for the feedback but you're missing the point I'll explain below.
the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right.
Are you deadass telling me and everyone else here, that as a 3300 MMR protoss, you're doing everything right?
Are you serious?
You don't think a 4300 protoss would perform better in this situation? A 5300 protoss? A 6300 protoss? A 7300 protoss?
There's 4000 MMR difference between you and the best protoss, and you're telling us that you played perfectly and the game needs to be changed to fix it?
You're also missing the point.
I'll be as clear as possible. There is a wall, theres the core and two gateways with space between the gates to fit 1 unit.
If you put a zealot/adept/sentry/stalker they should block enemy lings from passing through the opening until the unit is killed.
There is a bug where in some situations, like the one pictured, even if you did everything right (putting the unit in hold position etc), zerglings will still get through, as pictured.
This happens to pros as well.
This is what happened with the screenshots and it's a know issue that has happened in programes. Those programes are better than me, and they, just like me still lost because of something they had no control over: an adept appearing to block the entrance and for some reason doesn't.
The solution is as easy as the archon change. Increase the size of the collision of the adept/zealot sightly do that it blocks the entrance 100% of the time and not 99% of the time
On January 23 2023 11:03 [Phantom] wrote: Hey balance council you know what would be a great change for the game?
Look at this image. An adept blocking the space between two gates in hold position. He should block the zerlings right?
WRONG.
Insta lose when I did my wall correctly without any way for me to possibly know lings for some unexplicably reason will be able to go through.
And then people say that there's no luck involved in this game, and the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right.
So, if you could fix this in this patch, I'd appreciate it.
the guy has the arrogance to tell me to get better when I literally did everything right.
Are you deadass telling me and everyone else here, that as a 3300 MMR protoss, you're doing everything right?
Are you serious?
You don't think a 4300 protoss would perform better in this situation? A 5300 protoss? A 6300 protoss? A 7300 protoss?
There's 4000 MMR difference between you and the best protoss, and you're telling us that you played perfectly and the game needs to be changed to fix it?
I don't think Phantom is saying that they would've held the attack if the Adept hadn't let the Zerglings through. I think they're saying that the Adept shouldn't let Zerglings through if it's on hold position within a one hex gap. This is a pretty reasonable expectation.
Context suggests that their wording ("literally did everything right") is in regards to the Zerglings pushing passed the Adept. It's not intended to be in regards to the game as a whole.
I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
On January 24 2023 00:45 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
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.
On January 24 2023 00:45 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
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.
Unit collision has a much larger impact on the number of Zealots/Adepts that you can cram into a mineral line. They'll be colliding with one another long before they start colliding with the town hall and/or the mineral line.
On January 24 2023 00:45 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
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.
You can increase it in a way that won't realistically effect those interactions.
Blaming it on a skill issue is dumb. Even when Trap won 6 premiers in like 6 months which is the most consistent literally any Toss has ever been at the pro level he still died to ling floods on occasion. It's silly that a build like can kill even the best Toss players regularly thanks to a tiny positional error.
On January 24 2023 00:45 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
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.
You can increase it in a way that won't realistically effect those interactions.
Blaming it on a skill issue is dumb. Even when Trap won 6 premiers in like 6 months which is the most consistent literally any Toss has ever been at the pro level he still died to ling floods on occasion. It's silly that a build like can kill even the best Toss players regularly thanks to a tiny positional error.
Every race can lose by being out of position. Meta builds hinge on the smallest amount of units possible being in the correct position to get away with it.
You'll lose every ZvT if you make 8 queens and idle them at the third - you'll lose every drone in your main and natural to 8 hellions.
You'll lose PvT games if you make the correct amount of units for widow mine drop defense, and idle them out of position.
Honestly this list can go on forever. Unit positioning vs mutas, ling bane runbys, zealot runbys, warp prism defense, raven harass, banshee harrass.
I'm sorry but you're examples are ridiculous. One thing is to have all your queens on your third and lose to hellions on your main that is 3 screens away, the other is to lose because your unit is 1 pixel to the side.
If a unit is placed in a 1 hex space between two buildings it should either block all units from passing or if it's too small not block them at all. Not what it does currently of blocking them 90% of the time except if you put it 1 pixel to the side,
Especially when:
1.-The game has an isometric view, which means it's basically impossible to see.
2.-Even if you activate the rotate camera options (which you need to hold the key for... and are super far away fromeverything) it's not perfectly clear where you need to put the unit? and it's not as if you can do it super precicely, specially taking into account the unit acceleration and movement speed of the units. And again, you won't actually know if it works until you have lings flooding into your natural.
3.-The protoss entrance is the single most important thing in a PvZ. Zerg is so strong in the early that if their units get inside your natural you insta-lose. It's not fair, logical or reasonable that in the weakest spot there is for protoss, you have a unit that will regularly block the entrance, except some times, and that it's literally a couple of pixels that decide that in a place where you can't even see clearly due to the isometric view.
You cannot possibly, with a straight face compare that to having your units in a completely different base.
Go look at my image again, particularly see the first photo. Look at it, there was no way for me to know the adept was going to let lings through. And this happens to the best pros.
It is clearly not intended behaviour. And we know it because the zerg needs to click move command repeteadlyto push the unit. Clicking atack move or clicking on the adept will not cause the zerglings to surround the adept. It is not intended, and thus should be fixed. Zerg gets enough advantage by having most of the maps givingthem free vision over your natural.
I'm sorry but you're examples are ridiculous. One thing is to have all your queens on your third and lose to hellions on your main that is 3 screens away, the other is to lose because your unit is 1 pixel to the side
If a unit is placed in a 1 hex space between two buildings it should either block units from passing or not block them. Not block them 90% of the time except if you put it 1 pixel to the side, especially when:
1.-The game has an isometric view, which means it's basically impossible to see.
2.-Even if you activate the rotate camera options (which you need to hold the key for... and are super far away fromeverything) it's not perfectly clear where you need to put the unit? and it's not as if you can do it super precicely, specially taking into account the unit acceleration and movement speed of the units. And again, you won't actually know if it works until you have lings flooding into your natural.
3.-The protoss entrance is the single most important thing in a PvZ. Zerg is so strong in the early that if their units get inside your natural you insta-lose. It's not fair, logical or reasonable that in the weakest spot there is for protoss, you have a unit that will regularly block the entrance, except some times, and that it's literally a couple of pixels that decide that in a place where you can't even see clearly due to the isometric view.
You cannot possibly, with a straight face compare that to having your units in a completely different base.
My examples aren't ridiculous because they're the same as your example. The safest way to defend against yolo hellions isn't 8 roaming queens, it's to create a wall and plug it so they can't get in at all, but we don't do that. We take the risk of making mistakes and losing. The same way you do when you choose to plug your wall with an adept.
My point is that the meta encourages fragile play. If you want to min/max your play, it comes with disadvantages. If you're incapable of placing your adept correctly, then you either need to fix the skill issue, or build a stalker instead so you can't make the mistake at all.
You cannot play optimally while making basic mistakes with your units.
And in response to your third point, this comes back to the meta encouraging fragile play. Protoss can and does make 1 unit to defend this kind of ling pressure. 1 single unit can shut it down if played correctly, and it can be played correctly.
Zerg is not "so strong in the early game that if lings get in you lose". Protoss is so strong in the early game that if played correctly, they can defend 2 entire bases with a single adept.
Do you understand this?
Protoss players are min/maxing their play so hard, their entire early game rests on the shoulder of a single unit being placed correctly. It's min/maxed so hard, they're not even using a unit that will fully plug the wall if placed incorrectly.
Protoss players are squeezing every advantage out of the early game - losing sometimes due to bad play - and are asking for the game to let them be even greedier.
And I swear to fuck if someone says "protoss has to play that way to compete".
No, they don't. Why don't go ladder for a week and make a stalker instead of an adept. It will not cause you to lose games. Cross my heart, your win rate will probably go up because you're making up for your mechanical inefficiencies with smarter strategic decisions.
The MMR that this kind of corner cutting actually matters is probably outside the reach of anyone in this thread.
So you really think peak Trap should lose to a pre 2022 Ragnarok ling flood for having an adept 1 hex out of position? Cause it happened to him too. Pros shouldn't instantly lose games with money on the line because their unit is a not even slightly visible 1 hex out of position. That is not even comparable to queens being at the wrong base. One is super obvious and the other is a scenario where literally no one can consistently predict if it will work.
If we showed the top 10 players in the world 20 sample adept walls with half being bad walls and half being good walls and asked them if it was safe against lings how accurate do you think they would be? I guarantee it would be like 50% at best. If the top players in the world can't predict that scenario accurately by looking at a screenshot there's a problem.
As much as some marbles have certainly been lost in these last few pages, I do think blocking walls is an interesting issue and imo part of a larger problem.
Units in SC2 are just... slippery. With a correct wall, you can sometimes still wriggle a zergling or two through the wall. We've also all seen reapers/adepts get surrounded by lings, only to to vibrate a little and suddenly be free. I suspect this is the same problem with walls sometimes failing.
On January 23 2023 04:34 ZeroByte13 wrote: Aren't Lurkers much better vs clumped light units like marines, comparing to heavy bulky units? They have a bit more damage vs Armored, yes, but they're much more effective vs Marines than they are vs Immortals.
SC2 Wiki Lurkers
ZvP Lurkers are very strong in this match-up: Protoss lack direct counters other than massed immortals.
Let me be the first to congratulate Zerg players for their 7th world championship in a row.
If we get another ZvZ finals we better get the patch reversed and a public apology from the balance council.
We should not accept this insult of a patch.
I've come to understand the delusion of zerg players now, some of which compare a unit being 1 pixel to the right wich is impossible to see, making the unit act in an unintended and unpredicted fashion, to units being in a completely different base, but the other races should not accept this madness.
Developer Comment: Recently Protoss have been heavily relying on Disruptors in ground engagements. With the nerf to Disruptors as well as Battery Overcharge, earlier upgrades should give some compensation for fighting strength on the ground.
this is such a dishonest statement is ridiculous. No, having upgrades 5 seconds early in exchaange for lategame nerfs will only force protoss to all-in. It doesn't in any way "compensate for fighting strenght on the ground" when your opponent also finishes they 2-2 or 3-3 upgrades. Things like changing the research speed might give more power momentarily, but after that brief period has passed there's no buff at all, just the disruptors and carrier nerfs. That doesn't compensate at all for the fighting strenght of the ground army. It's just telling Protoss that going early all-in is the only way they'll win.
On January 24 2023 03:59 InfCereal wrote: And I swear to fuck if someone says "protoss has to play that way to compete". No, they don't. Why don't go ladder for a week and make a stalker instead of an adept. It will not cause you to lose games. Cross my heart, your win rate will probably go up because you're making up for your mechanical inefficiencies with smarter strategic decisions.
It's not as simple as just making a Stalker. They are terrible vs lings. If you make them they might block the entrance, but they are terrible agaisnt link floods/baneling bust etc. You're also using more gas than you want, and you lose the ability to scout with the adept and it shade or do light harass with it.
Furthermore you say you'll get angry if someone says protoss has to cut corners like that and say it's a choice. Maybe it is, but look at pro winrates in pvz, depending on which matches in a best case scnenario protoss isn't significantly ahead or anything, so if they don't make the adept they would be slightly behind.
But that's still ignoring the most important point that you refuse to aknowlegde:
There's no way to clearly see at a glance if the adept will block the lings or not. It appears it will, it should do it as it's in the middle of two gates, and then sometiems it doesn't cause it's 1 mm to the side in a manner that's impossible to see.
That's not intendent or consistent behaviour, and thus it should be fixed.
Wow they really ignored all the feedback they got and just introduced the Zerg patch a few weeks before IEM Katowice... I'm at a loss for words right now. If Zerg wins (probably), this will be one of the most controversial tournament wins ever
As they probably haven t enought rights to modify SC2 drastically, they tweaked nova reducing his area of effect comparing to storm spell (which was exactly the same radius (!) ). Comparing isn t reason.
On January 24 2023 05:28 Gescom wrote: What is the zerg specific issue of the patch? Hydras too strong? Disruptor nerf?
Everything combined. The Zerg nerfs are very inconsequential and barely make any difference while Terran and Protoss received actual nerfs to key units (Ghost, Disruptor, Carrier) and no meaningful compensation. Then the unneeded buffs to Ultras, Hydras and Broodlords. And all this in a period where Zerg already wins 50% of the tournaments
In the patch went live today the carrier changes aren't in it. (other than the interceptor priority) Is it possible that people don't yet know how to adequately use the other buffs (sentry, forge, observer, HT move speed, banshee, viking, lib) to make them meaningful?
The archon change seems as meaningful as the ultralisk buff.
Let me be the first to congratulate Zerg players for their 7th world championship in a row.
If we get another ZvZ finals we better get the patch reversed and a public apology from the balance council.
We should not accept this insult of a patch.
I've come to understand the delusion of zerg players now, some of which compare a unit being 1 pixel to the right wich is impossible to see, making the unit act in an unintended and unpredicted fashion, to units being in a completely different base, but the other races should not accept this madness.
Developer Comment: Recently Protoss have been heavily relying on Disruptors in ground engagements. With the nerf to Disruptors as well as Battery Overcharge, earlier upgrades should give some compensation for fighting strength on the ground.
this is such a dishonest statement is ridiculous. No, having upgrades 5 seconds early in exchaange for lategame nerfs will only force protoss to all-in. It doesn't in any way "compensate for fighting strenght on the ground" when your opponent also finishes they 2-2 or 3-3 upgrades. Things like changing the research speed might give more power momentarily, but after that brief period has passed there's no buff at all, just the disruptors and carrier nerfs. That doesn't compensate at all for the fighting strenght of the ground army. It's just telling Protoss that going early all-in is the only way they'll win.
On January 24 2023 03:59 InfCereal wrote: And I swear to fuck if someone says "protoss has to play that way to compete". No, they don't. Why don't go ladder for a week and make a stalker instead of an adept. It will not cause you to lose games. Cross my heart, your win rate will probably go up because you're making up for your mechanical inefficiencies with smarter strategic decisions.
It's not as simple as just making a Stalker. They are terrible vs lings. If you make them they might block the entrance, but they are terrible agaisnt link floods/baneling bust etc. You're also using more gas than you want, and you lose the ability to scout with the adept and it shade or do light harass with it.
Furthermore you say you'll get angry if someone says protoss has to cut corners like that and say it's a choice. Maybe it is, but look at pro winrates in pvz, depending on which matches in a best case scnenario protoss isn't significantly ahead or anything, so if they don't make the adept they would be slightly behind.
But that's still ignoring the most important point that you refuse to aknowlegde:
There's no way to clearly see at a glance if the adept will block the lings or not. It appears it will, it should do it as it's in the middle of two gates, and then sometiems it doesn't cause it's 1 mm to the side in a manner that's impossible to see.
That's not intendent or consistent behaviour, and thus it should be fixed.
Fairly controversial patch being pushed 2 weeks before the biggest tournament of the year, what could go wrong?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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
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.
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
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...
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...
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.
Damn, the patch really went through before Katowice... 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 00:45 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I've been mentioning this too, Zealots and Adepts really need building collission increased a tiny bit so that you don't need to place them as pixel-perfect as you do now, as that requires extra effort and time (and stress).
If the balance team was any bit fair and competent, they would have addressed one of the stupidest (and relevant) ways pros lose games before thinking about if it'd be nice to buff Hydras and Ultras.
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?
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...
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
EPT
).![[image loading]](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5763784/206855164-bb444b44-a731-4d05-a82a-0905256b17c8.png)
to ![[image loading]](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5763784/206855248-fc9d6ef1-95b9-4923-8b51-858ebf1ead88.png)
![[image loading]](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/5763784/206867874-ea728229-6a6d-445a-8785-70407163d0a1.png)
Statistics/2021![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/318buFZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/IiP7NeC.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762313845690439/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762314210582528/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762314621636618/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762315041054720/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762315515019264/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762315976396840/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762316454535178/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/503283955223756803/1055762316848807976/image.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/HbZ4584.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YbkR2S4.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Tz6c9Km.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Slwczfe.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/w60C2K5.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Rpkbuif.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/CrCLTOn.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/M9xse1Z.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/E1WrfDK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/82IRzzD.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/L4O6YYQ.png)
