|
On September 04 2023 05:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Instead of giving +5 vs Light to Hellions and +12 vs Light to Hellbats, it could be +2 damage (+3 vs Light) to Hellions and +4 damage (+8 vs Light) to Hellbats.
Blizzard toughts about units has always been focused in pushing their design with a maximum of difference between units, creating very specialized units. It s wise from my point of view to reduce after those three expansions, these inherent implemented differences like for Hellions,
Main problem is that cyclones will do better than hellions that s why i m sick. 50 gas isn t enought to really disturb a new mech build from an hellions/tank build. I m even not sure that a tweak of cyclone cost to something like 75 / 75 will affect end game. It could eventually save two openings mech : hellions / tanks focus or Cyclone / tanks focus...(and preserve mid game but probably not end game)
I mean balance council clearly say "Cyclones = more all around unit", it s basically what we don t want... So hellions function will be overlapped in end game....
There s same kind problem with stalkers, there are fast, they teleport, but they are armored... So if you want to keep them specialized like zerglings for example, it could be wise to switch their armor to light.
|
As i understand one of the goals of the comunnity balance patch is to buff infestor in a midgame and nerf it in a late game. I have an idea for an indirect buff to infestor which is in line with this goal and could make a midgme more interesting as it would promote more dynamic gameplay for Zergs.
The idea is to remove tunneling claws upgrade and make roaches move while burrowed after researching burrow upgrade and after infestation pit is finished (it would be simmilar to armory and widow mine for terrans). I remember that roach ravanger infestor used to be a popular army composition, but now if you opean roaches a hive rush and viper / lurker transition is much more common, while adding melee upgrades and ling / bane switch afterwards.
Alternatively you could make a burrow roaches move even withouth a need to build infestation pit (it could be to strong in the early parts of the mid game ??? - idk to be honest). Also in that case adding infestors later to roach ravanger would be a more vaiable option than it is now as the burrow would already be done so it makes transition to infestors both them cheaper and easier (as you always at some point want to get burrow with them).
|
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
|
On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well.
Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway.
|
On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway.
I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo.
|
On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo.
I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book.
|
On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book.
Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play.
|
Northern Ireland25933 Posts
On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play.
On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play.
I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus.
And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro?
It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’?
Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason.
It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up.
Super different from how BW mech works obviously
Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy.
In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less.
With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units
It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles
|
On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles
It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place.
The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top.
The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall.
|
On September 13 2023 10:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place. The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top. The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall.
I don't know why both of you persist in stating that the focus of this update is somehow on mech. There's one redesign of a unit that's used in mech, and that's not played much in any other context. If you think that's a bridge too far, that's fine, but at least don't mischaracterize this as being a "make mech viable patch."
|
On September 13 2023 11:56 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 10:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place. The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top. The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall. I don't know why both of you persist in stating that the focus of this update is somehow on mech. There's one redesign of a unit that's used in mech, and that's not played much in any other context. If you think that's a bridge too far, that's fine, but at least don't mischaracterize this as being a "make mech viable patch."
Yea, it's one change, but by far the most controversial and extensive, is anyone even really talking about anything else in the thread? I don't think it's a bridge too far, but where the Cyclone is getting changed to this degree and the balance reddit explicitly states they are trying to fit the unit into TvP and Protoss is getting, what exactly? Cheaper upgrades and a mild redesign for a meme unit?
That's all I'm saying, the priority seems to be to make the Cyclone good against Protoss and mech better in general, which is fine, I just wish that making Protoss stronger was getting that level of focus, and the Cyclone was getting the level of focus that Protoss is getting.
|
Dominican Republic626 Posts
is there a report on this patch on Winning %? how is it doing so far?
|
On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play.
Mech in TvZ... exists
It is in a weird place where it is very good late in the game (indeed, the bio lategame meta is an essentially pure mech transition) buuut unlike bio, it has a very limited set of openings' outcomes
You either do enough damage early to slow the zerg down heavily, or you die to the first roach(/corruptor) push in the midgame
So a few pro try to pull it out on a couple maps, and it gets shut down more often than not in that exact scenario. If that particular vulnerability is not exploited, it is mostly fine after that
Wether or not it is considered viable when it can be played successfully except for that specific push that is nearly guaranteed to kill it is up to each to decide.
It is also why mech in TvZ tends to come & go : a new map/opening is found that allows enough damage/map control to prevent that one push so it gets used here & there, then Zergs adapt to that and can consistently pull off the push and kill the mech so it stops until the next time
|
Northern Ireland25933 Posts
On September 13 2023 12:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 11:56 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 10:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place. The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top. The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall. I don't know why both of you persist in stating that the focus of this update is somehow on mech. There's one redesign of a unit that's used in mech, and that's not played much in any other context. If you think that's a bridge too far, that's fine, but at least don't mischaracterize this as being a "make mech viable patch." Yea, it's one change, but by far the most controversial and extensive, is anyone even really talking about anything else in the thread? I don't think it's a bridge too far, but where the Cyclone is getting changed to this degree and the balance reddit explicitly states they are trying to fit the unit into TvP and Protoss is getting, what exactly? Cheaper upgrades and a mild redesign for a meme unit? That's all I'm saying, the priority seems to be to make the Cyclone good against Protoss and mech better in general, which is fine, I just wish that making Protoss stronger was getting that level of focus, and the Cyclone was getting the level of focus that Protoss is getting.
The issue is that if you change so many things at once it’s difficult to really gauge the effects of individual changes, to me anyway.
We’re trying to ascertain it other changes bring Protoss at the top level to parity, while simultaneously trying to incentivise a whole other playstyle in TvP
I mean say we have a hypothetical fighting game, one fighter is unanimously considered OP, one UP and the rest of the roster is generally solid with some movement in either direction.
If one was to rebalance this hypothetical game, clearly the first focus would be tuning the OP fighter down, and the OP one down a bit.
If the dev team said ‘actually all the mid ground fighters are a bit too similar we want to change the stylistic meta’ and changed everything in the whole game it’ll take a ton of time for everyone to relearn a new meta and have it settle, and OP fighter will still possibly be OP and UP fighter will be UP.
It’s a little extreme of a hypothetical but just for illustration’s sake.
I’ve zero issue with wanting to broaden the stylistic palette but it should always be the secondary focus from outright imbalance, and even singular changes can have huge impacts, or take a while for the hive mind to fully discover, so introducing lots at once just compounds this.
As an (extremely) mediocre programmer even I know it’s a lot easier to do small piecemeal tweaks and refactoring defined areas of old code to see if it has the desired effect and doesn’t have unexpected externalities than trying to do a whole load of wide re-writes, test it it only to discover bugs that you then have to find where they’ve been introduced.
Have your future ideas, I’m ok with mech being incentivised but push it down the line, have a few phased patch ideas.
Patch A for me would have been the toning down of banelings, EMP, maybe a few of the others and see if they have the desired effects in TvZ, PvT and PvZ. Then, if they do look into some of the other stuff with Patch B and if that’s also working, Patch C and so forth
Honestly I think the bane change and EMP change alone would have had noticeable effects almost by themselves
|
I think the big problem with MS is that it requires an unusable tech tree if you don't go carriers. And if you go carriers you usually want to keep the MS with the carriers so recall becomes less useful.
Like people make a big deal out of obs getting shot down because it takes away robo time. Because a robo costs the equivalent of an immortal, so it's expensive to get multiple. Now imagine having to build a fleet beacon just to get a single spellcaster, the MS suddenly is a 500 mins 400 gas unit and there's no way that's worth getting when you have warp prisms for aggressive warp ins and nexus for defensive recall. And that's if you already opened starport.
On another note the EMP changes in TvP imo don't matter that much, because terran gets enough ghosts to emp the protoss army five times over mid-lategame and if you build a ton of HTs to feedback you have a terrible (and expensive) army, feedbacked ghosts backed by medivacs will still beat HTs. If the ghost was like every other spellcaster in the game a unit that's really inefficient to stack it'd be another story, but between snipe spam and good base stats for low supply cost it's mainly a question of affordability and APM and lategame terran is usually building a lot of ghosts as a result.
Imo ghosts should be a 3 supply unit at the minimum, it shouldn't be an effective fighter per supply when it has two great spells and easy ways to get spells off thanks to cloak.
|
Cyclone revert :
I will promote a removal of thor javelin weapon (mix with 250 mm cannon in fact), enhance thor armor from 1 to 2 to help him to deal against mutalisks (plus adjust statistics in consequence). Then tweak 250mm punishers cannon with a small splash damage (2 shots instead of 4 javelin shots), then restore the old cyclones with little bit more tankyness but a weakness against light units (in my plan stalkers are light armor units)
In other words i would try to put cyclones aside thors, cyclones would be efficient against 'light and fast air units' while thors would only be ok-ish at chasing mutalisks or phoenix. Cyclones ground attack would be ok against armored units but a little weaker against light units (to not overlap with hellions/hellbats)
|
On September 14 2023 02:20 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2023 12:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 11:56 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 10:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 03:39 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Would like to hear the balance councils thoughts on the testing done and the matches seen so far.
I'll be honest, I think they should scrap the Cyclone changes. It's too divisive of a change, and in all of the test map matches that I saw I was left wondering why they are suddenly trying to turn the Cyclone into a Factory marine except the micro isn't even 1/100th as interesting to watch.
Mech just isn't good vs. Protoss, just like Roach/Hydra isn't good vs. Terran, I'm not sure where this obsession with giving Terran multiple play styles in all match ups stems from, especially since mech is perfectly viable in 2/3 of their matches already. Majority of other changes seem at least okay, the Viper and Medivac buffs are nonsensical as those are featured units in all match ups and certainly don't need buffs of any kind.
I also wonder where the fear of giving Protoss actual buffs vs. changes is coming from, Protoss struggle at the top, they need a buff, preferably to the Sentry because a stronger Sentry would mean stronger early game Gateway units which will force less greedy play from Zerg and be more resilient against the myriad of Terran early/mid game timing attacks.
TvP change
Guardian Shield damage reduction increased from 2 to 3
ZvP change
Force Field now requires 2 biles to destroy
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well. Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway. I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place. The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top. The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall. I don't know why both of you persist in stating that the focus of this update is somehow on mech. There's one redesign of a unit that's used in mech, and that's not played much in any other context. If you think that's a bridge too far, that's fine, but at least don't mischaracterize this as being a "make mech viable patch." Yea, it's one change, but by far the most controversial and extensive, is anyone even really talking about anything else in the thread? I don't think it's a bridge too far, but where the Cyclone is getting changed to this degree and the balance reddit explicitly states they are trying to fit the unit into TvP and Protoss is getting, what exactly? Cheaper upgrades and a mild redesign for a meme unit? That's all I'm saying, the priority seems to be to make the Cyclone good against Protoss and mech better in general, which is fine, I just wish that making Protoss stronger was getting that level of focus, and the Cyclone was getting the level of focus that Protoss is getting. The issue is that if you change so many things at once it’s difficult to really gauge the effects of individual changes, to me anyway. (...) As an (extremely) mediocre programmer even I know it’s a lot easier to do small piecemeal tweaks and refactoring defined areas of old code to see if it has the desired effect and doesn’t have unexpected externalities than trying to do a whole load of wide re-writes, test it it only to discover bugs that you then have to find where they’ve been introduced. Have your future ideas, I’m ok with mech being incentivised but push it down the line, have a few phased patch ideas. Patch A for me would have been the toning down of banelings, EMP, maybe a few of the others and see if they have the desired effects in TvZ, PvT and PvZ. Then, if they do look into some of the other stuff with Patch B and if that’s also working, Patch C and so forth Honestly I think the bane change and EMP change alone would have had noticeable effects almost by themselves
Well said and I agree wholeheartedly.
Small, incremental changes is the way to go, especially for such complicated system with many nuanced interactions.
Unfortunately, it looks like we do not have the luxury to have the game in this "continuous integration, continuous delivery" model or at least that's what I guess the council is thinking.
IMHO we should use the already existing PTR server to continuously implement the incremental changes and do it constantly though the entire span of the year with 1-2 scheduled releases in most convenient time frames (i.e. after the season ends).
|
On September 14 2023 21:29 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2023 02:20 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 12:49 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 11:56 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 10:54 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 10:30 WombaT wrote:On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:
[quote]
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well.
Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway.
I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. On September 13 2023 09:24 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 07:48 Athenau wrote:On September 13 2023 07:35 Beelzebub1 wrote:On September 13 2023 05:28 Athenau wrote:
[quote]
Part of the reason that the Cyclone changes are divisive is that they pushed in the broken second iteration with 120 hp and 15 damage vs armored. The initial version was fine (a little overtuned) and the current version seems fine as well.
Also, it's a stretch to call "mech perfectly viable in two matchups". It's almost never seen in TvT, and it's still quite bad in TvZ. Making it work in TvZ is enough, mech TvP is hopeless and unnecessary anyway.
I'll digress and retract being viable in TvT but it's definitely viable in ZvT. Just because Serral is great vs. Mech doesn't mean mech is bad vs. Zerg imo. I disagree, and it has nothing to do with Serral. Mech is too easy to shut down early (Solar is a master at this), and you only see mech as a desperation play in a Bo5/Bo7 rather than as a stable strategy. It's probably played less than 10% of the time, and if the Zerg sees it coming it's lights out--that's not viable in my book. Fair enough, I'm gonna just go out on a limb and say that I could have sworn I saw some semi recent series with Gumiho where he was busting out mech with reasonable results and it might have put it in my head that mech is doable. Personally I think the existence of the Viper kind of makes mech inherently less good and no amount of mech unit redesign is ever going to change that at the top level of play. I mean when Protoss is struggling for you know, ANY style that works at the highest level it seems an odd focus. And as you say, stylistically how is massing cyclones not just bio with slightly less micro? It’s been a peculiar obsession for Terran players for like, forever. And an obsession I’m not even sure how to quantify. Is it a style, a different approach from bio or is it ‘units from the factory’? Swarmhost metas with static D and gradually squeezing out the map are the closest stylistically we’ve really come to real BW mech, but because it’s a Zerg thing it doesn’t count for some reason. It’s positional, it’s slow. Good fucking luck killing it if it properly gets set up. Super different from how BW mech works obviously Look I’m coming across as overly negative, I actually like mech but people need to define what it even is, and how to balance it in game of extreme economy. In BW it works because it’s hard to deploy, everything is tricky to control and frequently you’re seeing 4/5 base Protoss maxing out and trading out versus 2/3 Terran at 150 or less. With SC2 controls and eco it’s just a deathball that requires you not to get caught unsieged. Historic anti-mech counterplay does not scale to maxed out, F2-able armies. Mine dragging isn’t a thing for obvious reasons, good luck Zealot bombing when a response to that is just F2ing your AA units It’s why SC2 has so many explicitly anti-mech unit abilities. Given the UI and QoL differences a maxed mech 3/3 ball would be literally unkillable otherwise unless you made tanks garbage. Well, except from the air but people (rightly IMO) hate air-based styles It's a very odd focus, that's why I don't know why it's even the forefront of this patch in the first place. The focus should be to make Protoss stronger, make Zerg weaker, THEN look at changing some things around for mech. It's not that it doesn't deserve any attention, it's just definitely getting undue attention for the other issues that seem to plague the game on the top. The baneling nerf is still so good though, no more one shotting workers is just gonna be better for the game overall. I don't know why both of you persist in stating that the focus of this update is somehow on mech. There's one redesign of a unit that's used in mech, and that's not played much in any other context. If you think that's a bridge too far, that's fine, but at least don't mischaracterize this as being a "make mech viable patch." Yea, it's one change, but by far the most controversial and extensive, is anyone even really talking about anything else in the thread? I don't think it's a bridge too far, but where the Cyclone is getting changed to this degree and the balance reddit explicitly states they are trying to fit the unit into TvP and Protoss is getting, what exactly? Cheaper upgrades and a mild redesign for a meme unit? That's all I'm saying, the priority seems to be to make the Cyclone good against Protoss and mech better in general, which is fine, I just wish that making Protoss stronger was getting that level of focus, and the Cyclone was getting the level of focus that Protoss is getting. The issue is that if you change so many things at once it’s difficult to really gauge the effects of individual changes, to me anyway. (...) As an (extremely) mediocre programmer even I know it’s a lot easier to do small piecemeal tweaks and refactoring defined areas of old code to see if it has the desired effect and doesn’t have unexpected externalities than trying to do a whole load of wide re-writes, test it it only to discover bugs that you then have to find where they’ve been introduced. Have your future ideas, I’m ok with mech being incentivised but push it down the line, have a few phased patch ideas. Patch A for me would have been the toning down of banelings, EMP, maybe a few of the others and see if they have the desired effects in TvZ, PvT and PvZ. Then, if they do look into some of the other stuff with Patch B and if that’s also working, Patch C and so forth Honestly I think the bane change and EMP change alone would have had noticeable effects almost by themselves Well said and I agree wholeheartedly. Small, incremental changes is the way to go, especially for such complicated system with many nuanced interactions. Unfortunately, it looks like we do not have the luxury to have the game in this "continuous integration, continuous delivery" model or at least that's what I guess the council is thinking. IMHO we should use the already existing PTR server to continuously implement the incremental changes and do it constantly though the entire span of the year with 1-2 scheduled releases in most convenient time frames (i.e. after the season ends).
In an ideal world, a regular stream of incremental balance changes released to PTR then live would be the way to go. But it doesn't even look like Blizzard has ability to maintain the PTR. So given that there may only be one or two opportunities to release an update a year, it's better to go big instead of going home, and actually try to fix longstanding problems with the game, rather than let them fester into perpetuity.
|
Do we know which of the changes will be implemented and when the patch goes live?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
