EPTAlso, I dislike that map updates happen at the same time, makes it harder to understand the impact.
New SC2 Balance Test Mod (along with new map pool) - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
teapot_
39 Posts
Also, I dislike that map updates happen at the same time, makes it harder to understand the impact. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On August 24 2023 19:45 WombaT wrote: I mean do Zergs really need that? They’ve already got the only caster in the game that you can grab mana quickly if they’re caught with their pants down, now that’s more forgiving to do and less damaging to buildings? Like Toss and Terran lose games so frequently to not having a wall at a bad moment, if Zergs kill their own buildings that’s a way bigger mistake and should be punished accordingly Yeah, in retroperspective I really dislike the change. Same as the Tempest change, just like ZG said, their slowness and clunkyness is the trade-off for being able to siege units from 15 range. I don't think they need to be super microable in addition | ||
|
Ciaus_Dronu
South Africa1848 Posts
On August 24 2023 19:45 WombaT wrote: I mean do Zergs really need that? They’ve already got the only caster in the game that you can grab mana quickly if they’re caught with their pants down, now that’s more forgiving to do and less damaging to buildings? Like Toss and Terran lose games so frequently to not having a wall at a bad moment, if Zergs kill their own buildings that’s a way bigger mistake and should be punished accordingly They don't. And agreed, it is weird to me to try mitigate the drawback of the fast energy. It just doesn't make sense. I feel this patch will overall murder zerg if it goes through as is, and I'd still rather they not make this viper change. It is also whack to improve vipers like this (which are already a rush-to priority unit), and then kill infestors with nerfs (which they claim they want to see more of). | ||
|
Fubika24
37 Posts
Bane nerf is amazing, and I can see why the hydra buff was implemented, although it's a tricky thing to balance for pvz. Investor change I think is okay, I could see fast infestor as a counter to blink stalker builds as opposed to just ling bane outta wazoo. Mommaship is a bit wierd, I feel like 10 sec cloaking field is just too weak, all races will have plenty detection by the time momma hits the field even with the reduced cost. I like timewarp change overall, could be nasty combo with disruptors. Tempest change I'm not so sure about, I get the idea, but i think it's going to enable some really nasty rushes, thankfully queens have infinity anti air range so it should fine in pvz. | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany348 Posts
| ||
|
Athenau
589 Posts
On August 24 2023 23:55 Hildegard wrote: I might be mistaken, but just from watching pro games, I thought that ranged Liberators were the thing Protoss struggled the most against in TvP. EMP was a close second, but I recall very few games that a Protoss won against ranged Liberators. If I'm mistaken, would someone be kind and explain why? Ranged liberators are a lategame transition that happen infrequently, and only if the Terran is already in a good spot. They aren't the problem in TvP. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16086 Posts
On August 24 2023 23:55 Hildegard wrote: I might be mistaken, but just from watching pro games, I thought that ranged Liberators were the thing Protoss struggled the most against in TvP. EMP was a close second, but I recall very few games that a Protoss won against ranged Liberators. If I'm mistaken, would someone be kind and explain why? Interested in where you watched those pro games. I rarely see games that last long enough for ranged libs coming into play | ||
|
Hildegard
Germany348 Posts
On August 25 2023 00:10 Athenau wrote: Ranged liberators are a lategame transition that happen infrequently, and only if the Terran is already in a good spot. They aren't the problem in TvP. Thank you. If you don't mind I have a follow-up question. Isn't that precisely the kind of thing that the balance change should affect? Meaning something that doesn't boost Protoss power for non-professional players, but helps them winning tournaments. An example would be a stalker upgrade located in the Dark Shrine, that helps dealing with Liberators (and Brood Lords)? | ||
|
Athenau
589 Posts
On August 25 2023 01:24 Hildegard wrote: Thank you. If you don't mind I have a follow-up question. Isn't that precisely the kind of thing that the balance change should affect? Meaning something that doesn't boost Protoss power for non-professional players, but helps them winning tournaments. An example would be a stalker upgrade located in the Dark Shrine, that helps dealing with Liberators (and Brood Lords)? No, because liberators aren't the reason why Protosses are losing TvP's. The main problems are punishing early tank pushes which the battery overcharge nerf and cheaper Ravens made harder to defend, and to a lesser extent, Terran midgame aggression (with ghosts) that hits before the Protoss has a critical mass of disruptors. | ||
|
tigera6
3513 Posts
On August 25 2023 01:24 Hildegard wrote: Thank you. If you don't mind I have a follow-up question. Isn't that precisely the kind of thing that the balance change should affect? Meaning something that doesn't boost Protoss power for non-professional players, but helps them winning tournaments. An example would be a stalker upgrade located in the Dark Shrine, that helps dealing with Liberators (and Brood Lords)? You cant really give Stalker an upgrade to deal with Libs and not expecting it to be OP for the Stalker elsewhere. There is a tech transition to deal with Libs, which is the Stargate and Tempest. If Protoss players just blindly making 10+ Disruptor and 4 Colossi without ever scouting the Terran tech change, then they deserve to get obliterated by mass Libs with range. The same with BLord transition from Zerg, either you kill them before they make the full switch, or tech switch yourself to match theirs. | ||
|
Vision_
877 Posts
Cyclones are armored so Stalkers need 6 shots to kill them but only 5 shots with +1 weapons upgrade maybe 11 + 2 increase to 11 + 3 (i.e +7.7% damage against armored) | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10381 Posts
The proposed Consume change is perhaps the most ridiculous proposed balance change in the history of SC2. It's a thinly veiled buff. It doesn't even make it so that players don't need to pay as much attention. The mistake of killing your own building with Consume isn't because of how much HP it drains. It's a mistake in judging whether a building has enough HP left to continue to Consume from it, and not clicking the building first to check if it has enough HP. If you see a building that is low HP, and decide to Consume from it because you're too greedy to Consume a different building like an extractor, or too greedy to make additional Evo Chambers to Consume from, or too lazy to Transfuse the building before Consuming it further, and you misjudge how much HP it had left and accidentally kill the building - you absolutely should be punished for it. Especially because losing a Hive often isn't even game changing, yet not having your wall in time as P or T is often game ending. What will happen now is that players will know that Consume only drains 150 HP, and when they see a Hatchery with less HP than before, they will STILL misjudge whether the Hatchery has 151+ HP left or not. Or if a Hatchery has a lot of HP, players will make say 8-9 Vipers consume from it instead of 7, and accidentally kill it. Buffing Consume by reducing the HP cost to try to require less attention is absurd and makes no sense. Just stop killing your own Hatchery, is it that hard? If you are clicking 8 Vipers and Consuming from 1 Hatchery, you are being greedy and stupid. Why would you even risk Consuming from your Hive anyway, weakening it to potential drops? Just spend 200-300 minerals making a couple extra Evos to Consume from. Consume is supposed to have a cost by trading "minerals" for energy, because the Viper has such powerful spells, such as Abduct which is usually effectively a free kill. Trading a small amount of minerals for killing opponent's more expensive units is a fair cost. Also, we should really stop letting zerglings runby/glitch past Zealots/Adepts in walls. And focus on that, something that is often truly game ending, before helping Viper users. All we need to do is increase Zergling building collision by a tiny amount, say 5%, and that should stop them from wiggling past correctly placed Zealots/Adepts, as well as make the Protoss not have to be as pixel perfect with their Zealot/Adept positioning. | ||
|
teapot_
39 Posts
Granted the battle tests are not full realistic, but it looks bad. Aside from early game shenanigans, it seems fairly useless as it is. Useless in Tvt, doesnt make mech viable against toss, might be used in ZvZ but not much more than the current cyclone. It's also a worse defense against air with the reduced range. It makes terran more vulnerable versus oracles. Hope it gets tweaked a bit, otherwise I fear we will just not see cyclones anymore, or just for cheese. | ||
|
Athenau
589 Posts
On August 25 2023 06:22 teapot_ wrote: Latest Heromarine's video about the new cyclone is interesting. Granted the battle tests are not full realistic, but it looks bad. Aside from early game shenanigans, it seems fairly useless as it is. Useless in Tvt, doesnt make mech viable against toss, might be used in ZvZ but not much more than the current cyclone. It's also a worse defense against air with the reduced range. It makes terran more vulnerable versus oracles. Hope it gets tweaked a bit, otherwise I fear we will just not see cyclones anymore, or just for cheese. Eh, some of the tests were pretty lopsided--like testing 40 supply of Cyclones vs 50 supply of hydras without micro. The Cyclones would be absolutely busted if they traded efficiently in that scenario. Obviously a big part of their power budget is allocated to the lock-on, so if you're just testing them in a stand-up fight that's not an accurate representation of how they'll perform in a real game. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10381 Posts
1) It's simply part of the unit identity for each unit to feel very powerful in certain situations. 2) It makes the units more different than all-around units like Marines. 3) It makes the style more unique in that it focuses more on having the right unit composition and positioning, instead of micro'ing very actively like with Bio comps. 4) While having the wrong unit composition, or being caught in the wrong situations, can be more punishing, it can also be more rewarding when you have the right composition or fight in the right situations. Rather than weakening Mech units' strengths as a tradeoff for softer weaknesses, simply reduce the weaknesses significantly so that the worst case scenarios are less punishing while keeping its strengths in check. This allows players to still have to decide between which unit to make, and rewards assembling the correct unit composition, as well as increasing unit diversity, while making small mistakes in unit composition or army positioning less punishing. We do not want a Warhound that can move and shoot. And we don't want a Mech-marine that makes up 75% of your army with only 25% being position units such as Tanks. What Mech needs are units that are very useful and strong in certain situations, while not being so weak that being caught a little off guard can be game ending. It should be potentially very strong when in favorable scenarios, but it should be have clearly defined weaknesses be more potentially more punishing than a more rounded comp like Bio. Currently, Mech's best scenarios in TvP are still not very strong (other than if you reach the endgame with mass BC or mass OCs with huge army supply). Meanwhile, its worst scenarios are very weak and punishing. The new cyclone takes away some of the strengths that Mech had with the current cyclone, and I'm not sure if the unit being more rounded as is really provides that much benefit. Having specialized units allows for specific compositions that can be carefully strategized to counter/punish your opponent's decisions. For example, if you're opening with 2 base BCs in TvZ, getting as few as 4 Cyclones can be a soft punish against them building ~8-12 Corruptors. In a build like that where BCs already can deal with most units pretty well in that stage of the game, except for Corruptors, Cyclones are a great compliment and cover Corruptors. The new Cyclone wouldn't be able to punish the Corruptors the same because they would be able to retreat without dying, allowing the Zerg to then build units to counter the Cyclones later, before the Cyclones are able to get their value. I do think the new cyclone has potential. However, it should be a little more specialized than it is right now. To not overlap with the Hellion as much, I would suggest it be shifted slightly closer back into the anti-armor or anti-expensive unit role, as it had been in the past. For example, I would consider changing the damage from 11 (+2 vs Armored) to 10 (+4 vs Armored). All that said, if the new Cyclone can fulfill the role that the old Cyclone design had (the one with a super strong anti-armor auto attack, and weaker Lock-On that only attacks air), which allowed you to Reactor out 4-6 Cyclones early game vs P and gain some map control, and allowed a small positioning/scouting game vs 4-6 Stalkers, that could be a huge help to Mech getting a 3rd base more safely, and lead to more active early-games. I really miss the old Cyclone for that. | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17744 Posts
Like hopefully they remove the pointless viper buff, or maybe even flip it to a nerf so it burns more health and then it might actually require some thought when to use it and on which building | ||
|
Drahkn
199 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27272 Posts
On August 25 2023 07:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The new cyclone is a good effort in providing Mech with more stability by giving it a more "all-around" unit, however this approach is a bit misguided. Its strengths are too weak, making it much less useful than the current cyclone in many situations. While overspecialized units can make a race (Protoss) or unit composition (mech) weak or less stable, there are many good reasons to keep in mind as to why Mech units should stay relatively specialized. 1) It's simply part of the unit identity for each unit to feel very powerful in certain situations. 2) It makes the units more different than all-around units like Marines. 3) It makes the style more unique in that it focuses more on having the right unit composition and positioning, instead of micro'ing very actively like with Bio comps. 4) While having the wrong unit composition, or being caught in the wrong situations, can be more punishing, it can also be more rewarding when you have the right composition or fight in the right situations. Rather than weakening Mech units' strengths as a tradeoff for softer weaknesses, simply reduce the weaknesses significantly so that the worst case scenarios are less punishing while keeping its strengths in check. This allows players to still have to decide between which unit to make, and rewards assembling the correct unit composition, as well as increasing unit diversity, while making small mistakes in unit composition or army positioning less punishing. We do not want a Warhound that can move and shoot. And we don't want a Mech-marine that makes up 75% of your army with only 25% being position units such as Tanks. What Mech needs are units that are very useful and strong in certain situations, while not being so weak that being caught a little off guard can be game ending. It should be potentially very strong when in favorable scenarios, but it should be have clearly defined weaknesses be more potentially more punishing than a more rounded comp like Bio. Currently, Mech's best scenarios in TvP are still not very strong (other than if you reach the endgame with mass BC or mass OCs with huge army supply). Meanwhile, its worst scenarios are very weak and punishing. The new cyclone takes away some of the strengths that Mech had with the current cyclone, and I'm not sure if the unit being more rounded as is really provides that much benefit. Having specialized units allows for specific compositions that can be carefully strategized to counter/punish your opponent's decisions. For example, if you're opening with 2 base BCs in TvZ, getting as few as 4 Cyclones can be a soft punish against them building ~8-12 Corruptors. In a build like that where BCs already can deal with most units pretty well in that stage of the game, except for Corruptors, Cyclones are a great compliment and cover Corruptors. The new Cyclone wouldn't be able to punish the Corruptors the same because they would be able to retreat without dying, allowing the Zerg to then build units to counter the Cyclones later, before the Cyclones are able to get their value. I do think the new cyclone has potential. However, it should be a little more specialized than it is right now. To not overlap with the Hellion as much, I would suggest it be shifted slightly closer back into the anti-armor or anti-expensive unit role, as it had been in the past. For example, I would consider changing the damage from 11 (+2 vs Armored) to 10 (+4 vs Armored). All that said, if the new Cyclone can fulfill the role that the old Cyclone design had (the one with a super strong anti-armor auto attack, and weaker Lock-On that only attacks air), which allowed you to Reactor out 4-6 Cyclones early game vs P and gain some map control, and allowed a small positioning/scouting game vs 4-6 Stalkers, that could be a huge help to Mech getting a 3rd base more safely, and lead to more active early-games. I really miss the old Cyclone for that. Yeah, lots of potentially interesting developments here, especially that specific one. What I do worry is it’s way too many changes at once so it’s very difficult to ascertain the impact of any individual one | ||
|
Die4Ever
United States17744 Posts
On August 25 2023 10:06 Drahkn wrote: This patch is insane the medivac buff for example what the hell are they thinking , "hey how can we make Terran even more braindead uhh yeah lets just let Terran stim whenever they want because medivacs cant run out of energy yea currently medivacs so rarely run out of energy, the upgrade might as well make them have infinite energy | ||
|
Vision_
877 Posts
Of course they can hit while moving but is it enought ? Do we wait years for having a clone of hydralisks ? On August 25 2023 07:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I do think the new cyclone has potential. However, it should be a little more specialized than it is right now. To not overlap with the Hellion as much, I would suggest it be shifted slightly closer back into the anti-armor or anti-expensive unit role, as it had been in the past. For example, I would consider changing the damage from 11 (+2 vs Armored) to 10 (+4 vs Armored). All that said, if the new Cyclone can fulfill the role that the old Cyclone design had (the one with a super strong anti-armor auto attack, and weaker Lock-On that only attacks air), which allowed you to Reactor out 4-6 Cyclones early game vs P and gain some map control, and allowed a small positioning/scouting game vs 4-6 Stalkers, that could be a huge help to Mech getting a 3rd base more safely, and lead to more active early-games. I really miss the old Cyclone for that. If we are talking about the same thing (Plus there s also TvZ hellbat spot against zergling and broodlings so that s why i suggest to decrease their damage a little bit more) maybe we need to increase their difference between armored and light a little bit more from 11 + 2 to 9 + 5 Then probably their upgraded speed is too high, maybe a small reduction to increase difference with hydralisks | ||
| ||
