On October 06 2023 01:50 JimmyJRaynor wrote: who is their employer?
Winter is hucking filarious.
I still think that comparing the cyclone to the stalker, which are same cost units shows how absurd the cyclone is in every aspect and every TvP I've watched so far was a mass Cyclone stomp where P was contained all game long or lost the moment they moved out on the map. It's like Blizz spent tons of hours trying to find a way that gave P ways to move out just for the balance council to say naah, screw that, Protoss better go back to WoL turtling.
Yep i already opened a thread about stalkers problem in end game but i have absolutely no time to make vids. They tweaked an unit in something worst while some existing and basic unit absolutely need attention. I m pissed off because despite of cyclones tweaks, i like the last patch overall.
Then, your last comment about ghost strength is a bit overstated, first because ghost dps isn t insane against armored which are the most numerous units in the game and because ghost have two big spells but mainly one is against P and the other one against Z.
Here my last idea for stalkers :
Stalkers New upgrade : damage done by bonus against armored decreased by 50% Unlocked after Blink research
NB units with bonus against armored:
If you have time, make a vid on the unit tester to see how marauders are good against stalkers. Comparing these two basic units must be absolutely insane. stalkers dps end game = 17.65. marauders dps end game = 36.6
I still think that comparing the cyclone to the stalker, which are same cost units shows how absurd the cyclone is in every aspect and every TvP I've watched so far was a mass Cyclone stomp where P was contained all game long or lost the moment they moved out on the map. It's like Blizz spent tons of hours trying to find a way that gave P ways to move out just for the balance council to say naah, screw that, Protoss better go back to WoL turtling.
Yep i already opened a thread about stalkers problem in end game but i have absolutely no time to make vids. They tweaked an unit in something worst while some existing and basic unit absolutely need attention. I m pissed off because despite of cyclones tweaks, i like the last patch overall.
Then, your last comment about ghost strength is a bit overstated, first because ghost dps isn t insane against armored which are the most numerous units in the game and because ghost have two big spells but mainly one is against P and the other one against Z.
Here my last idea for stalkers :
Stalkers New upgrade : damage done by bonus against armored decreased by 50% Unlocked after Blink research
NB units with bonus against armored:
If you have time, make a vid on the unit tester to see how marauders are good against stalkers. Comparing these two basic units must be absolutely insane. stalkers dps end game = 17.65. marauders dps end game = 36.6
Marauders have been an issue in PvT for a long time. With the disruptor nerf it really comes down immortals to try to deal with them, but once you move out with immortals you have to commit so hard, if you dont straight up wipe the terran army it's pretty much over.
Last year Hero had some success vs Maru with disruptor/immortal comps, but you have to be really on point with your transitions, because ranged libs completely destroy that comp.
Hopefully the buffed tempest will prove effective vs ranged libs in endgame.
i just made the test and it wasn t as bad as i tought....
Mainly because of stim reduce 20 hp when activated. Marauders are of course good against stalkers, but i created 15 marauders against 20 stalkers, and stalkers won easily. I feel maybe you need one or two stalkers more to win a group of marauders. we can conlude that what makes bio ball so strong are medivacs
So in theory, only gas effective cost is a problem (transition to immortal+zealot) then a simple proposal would be to decrease the gas cost from 50 to 40.
Same for banelings, if you removed the +5 hp bonus then you can decrease his gas cost from 25 to 20.
PS : and there s no problem in not having a multiple of 25
I still think that comparing the cyclone to the stalker, which are same cost units shows how absurd the cyclone is in every aspect and every TvP I've watched so far was a mass Cyclone stomp where P was contained all game long or lost the moment they moved out on the map. It's like Blizz spent tons of hours trying to find a way that gave P ways to move out just for the balance council to say naah, screw that, Protoss better go back to WoL turtling.
Yep i already opened a thread about stalkers problem in end game but i have absolutely no time to make vids. They tweaked an unit in something worst while some existing and basic unit absolutely need attention. I m pissed off because despite of cyclones tweaks, i like the last patch overall.
Then, your last comment about ghost strength is a bit overstated, first because ghost dps isn t insane against armored which are the most numerous units in the game and because ghost have two big spells but mainly one is against P and the other one against Z.
Here my last idea for stalkers :
Stalkers New upgrade : damage done by bonus against armored decreased by 50% Unlocked after Blink research
NB units with bonus against armored:
If you have time, make a vid on the unit tester to see how marauders are good against stalkers. Comparing these two basic units must be absolutely insane. stalkers dps end game = 17.65. marauders dps end game = 36.6
I admit it's slightly hyperbolic, but the ghost is a decent fighting unit per supply especially vs light (and emp trashes stalkers and archons) AND gets it's spells on top. Like it's roughly as strong as adepts are except unlike the adept it outranges all light units. The HT in comparison is an 80 hp unit that looses 40 to emp and has 3.4 dps and all other casters don't attack at all.
And supply efficiency is a already a problem in the matchup because gateway scales so much worse in numbers than stimmed bio with tanks and Toss can't really win the air battle. So in that regard I definitely agree that Stalkers could use a second upgrade but tbh I just think that the ghost should be a 3 supply unit because it's both caster and fighter and the problem is mainly TvP (the ghost is also very dominant in TvZ).
It's also so weird to hear Pig say "I kinda missed that the patch is going live and like Harstem was opposed to going live with baneling and cyclone changes because it changes the formula too much to evaluate the impact on P and we didn't get to test it enough". Who was in favor of shipping them?
I still think that comparing the cyclone to the stalker, which are same cost units shows how absurd the cyclone is in every aspect and every TvP I've watched so far was a mass Cyclone stomp where P was contained all game long or lost the moment they moved out on the map. It's like Blizz spent tons of hours trying to find a way that gave P ways to move out just for the balance council to say naah, screw that, Protoss better go back to WoL turtling.
Yep i already opened a thread about stalkers problem in end game but i have absolutely no time to make vids. They tweaked an unit in something worst while some existing and basic unit absolutely need attention. I m pissed off because despite of cyclones tweaks, i like the last patch overall.
Then, your last comment about ghost strength is a bit overstated, first because ghost dps isn t insane against armored which are the most numerous units in the game and because ghost have two big spells but mainly one is against P and the other one against Z.
Here my last idea for stalkers :
Stalkers New upgrade : damage done by bonus against armored decreased by 50% Unlocked after Blink research
NB units with bonus against armored:
If you have time, make a vid on the unit tester to see how marauders are good against stalkers. Comparing these two basic units must be absolutely insane. stalkers dps end game = 17.65. marauders dps end game = 36.6
I admit it's slightly hyperbolic, but the ghost is a decent fighting unit per supply especially vs light (and emp trashes stalkers and archons) AND gets it's spells on top. Like it's roughly as strong as adepts are except unlike the adept it outranges all light units. The HT in comparison is an 80 hp unit that looses 40 to emp and has 3.4 dps and all other casters don't attack at all.
And supply efficiency is a already a problem in the matchup because gateway scales so much worse in numbers than stimmed bio with tanks and Toss can't really win the air battle. So in that regard I definitely agree that Stalkers could use a second upgrade but tbh I just think that the ghost should be a 3 supply unit because it's both caster and fighter and the problem is mainly TvP (the ghost is also very dominant in TvZ).
It's also so weird to hear Pig say "I kinda missed that the patch is going live and like Harstem was opposed to going live with baneling and cyclone changes because it changes the formula too much to evaluate the impact on P and we didn't get to test it enough". Who was in favor of shipping them?
Yes i agree i have this comparaison between EMP and storm in mind since a long time (+EMP instant spell) then increasing supply cost of ghost could be an answer to the disruptor change and Banes change ( when Zerg try to overwhelm Terran chasing ghosts with banelings)
But if you haven t to change gas cost of ghost and disruptor i think it would be helpfull to get stalkers cheaper
I just don't get it and I get even less why every single Terran unit needs to be viable at all stages in all matchups when so many units of Protoss and some of Zerg units just aren't viable in any matchup. Shouldn't the focus of the patch be making Toss better like the balance council writes in the first line of the patch?
Yes. This is the main thing. Regardless of whether or not the new cyclone will turn out to be properly balanced in the long term, it is incomprehensible that the balance council should even feel the need to give a complete unit rework and additional versatility to terran, out of all fractions. Terran lacks neither in strategic breadth, nor in viable openings, nor in overall strength, nor in allround units. Like, terran is the fraction that has marines.
It is bewildering that they did not attempt instead to rework one of the low-tier protoss units, giving protoss a door, for example, and general stability in the early game, especially in PvT. They literally said they would make protoss more solid and then gave terran yet another staple unit for the early game.
While Terran got some small ghosts nerfs and got a new toy to play around with. And Zerg got the big nerf stick that Terran should have gotten.
Yes again. I do not understand why they fiddled this much with TvZ in the first place. The matchup was the most balanced of all matchups. Now there are complications and questions in places which were perfectly fine.
I still think that comparing the cyclone to the stalker, which are same cost units shows how absurd the cyclone is in every aspect and every TvP I've watched so far was a mass Cyclone stomp where P was contained all game long or lost the moment they moved out on the map. It's like Blizz spent tons of hours trying to find a way that gave P ways to move out just for the balance council to say naah, screw that, Protoss better go back to WoL turtling.
Yep i already opened a thread about stalkers problem in end game but i have absolutely no time to make vids. They tweaked an unit in something worst while some existing and basic unit absolutely need attention. I m pissed off because despite of cyclones tweaks, i like the last patch overall.
Then, your last comment about ghost strength is a bit overstated, first because ghost dps isn t insane against armored which are the most numerous units in the game and because ghost have two big spells but mainly one is against P and the other one against Z.
Here my last idea for stalkers :
Stalkers New upgrade : damage done by bonus against armored decreased by 50% Unlocked after Blink research
NB units with bonus against armored:
If you have time, make a vid on the unit tester to see how marauders are good against stalkers. Comparing these two basic units must be absolutely insane. stalkers dps end game = 17.65. marauders dps end game = 36.6
I admit it's slightly hyperbolic, but the ghost is a decent fighting unit per supply especially vs light (and emp trashes stalkers and archons) AND gets it's spells on top. Like it's roughly as strong as adepts are except unlike the adept it outranges all light units. The HT in comparison is an 80 hp unit that looses 40 to emp and has 3.4 dps and all other casters don't attack at all.
And supply efficiency is a already a problem in the matchup because gateway scales so much worse in numbers than stimmed bio with tanks and Toss can't really win the air battle. So in that regard I definitely agree that Stalkers could use a second upgrade but tbh I just think that the ghost should be a 3 supply unit because it's both caster and fighter and the problem is mainly TvP (the ghost is also very dominant in TvZ).
It's also so weird to hear Pig say "I kinda missed that the patch is going live and like Harstem was opposed to going live with baneling and cyclone changes because it changes the formula too much to evaluate the impact on P and we didn't get to test it enough". Who was in favor of shipping them?
This really is the question, feedback was overall mixed from what I heard from those known to be on the Balance Council, and outright negative in general for the cyclone changes.
What’s the point of having them if it goes live seemingly without it being refined to the point the people you’re supposedly consulting feel it’s good to go live?
On October 09 2023 05:26 [Phantom] wrote: I'm having issues vs cyclones. What is the counter as protoss? And what is the counter as Zerg? any adivce?
From what I've heard immos as protoss. Blink stalkers can trade somewhat next to a battery or just getting a volley or two off and blinking away, but away needs to be close to a battery else they'll get chased down and slaughtered.
Not sure about Zerg, but I assume ling surrounds (tough against hellions) or roach/queen. The real problem from what I've seen is that they slaughter mineral lines and bases because their dps is nuts, fast as hell and unlike hellions don't suck in engagements.
On October 09 2023 05:26 [Phantom] wrote: I'm having issues vs cyclones. What is the counter as protoss? And what is the counter as Zerg? any adivce?
When I play vs protoss and use the new cyclones, they stay next to shield battery until they have blink. Once you have blink you should be able to trade efficiently and even chase the cyclones, but before blink, chasing them is risky.
On October 09 2023 05:26 [Phantom] wrote: I'm having issues vs cyclones. What is the counter as protoss? And what is the counter as Zerg? any adivce?
From what I've heard immos as protoss. Blink stalkers can trade somewhat next to a battery or just getting a volley or two off and blinking away, but away needs to be close to a battery else they'll get chased down and slaughtered.
Not sure about Zerg, but I assume ling surrounds (tough against hellions) or roach/queen. The real problem from what I've seen is that they slaughter mineral lines and bases because their dps is nuts, fast as hell and unlike hellions don't suck in engagements.
This balance team council can t be serious, the new unit replace hellions and thors partially. Finally i m crying all my tears after 13 years, .. SC2 came throught with 12 workers but now i bet on a crash soon unless they remove this cyclone.
From what I've seen of tournaments so far, it seems clear, that zerglings + banelings vs MMM shifted fairly hard in favour of MMM, with zergs needing (1) more banelings, and (2) to tech out of banelings faster, which is a pretty crazy expectation on the amount of vespene required. Maybe it'll balance out to where zergs will focus on mutas or hydras, but it just seems like this patch shifted the balance too far and broke TvZ. Especially, because cyclones also do their part, being effective overlord hunters AND efficient against zerglings in small numbers. A pack of 2-4 cyclones and 2 hellions is (1) far better at clearing creep than 6 hellions, (2) can deal well with queens and (3) clears out overlords better than a handful of marines. It requires a similar number of zerglings as 6 hellions to surround and destroy, basically swapping early game map control and vision from zerg to terran, and I haven't actually seen any effective way for zergs to contest it. meaning that in addition to zerg-bane being less effective against the early mid-game push, it is also harder for zerg to scout when and how hard it'll hit, in order to prepare for it.
In TvP, cyclones just look broken, and TvP was already Terran favoured. It just looks like an all-around terrible patch.
On October 09 2023 20:45 Acrofales wrote: From what I've seen of tournaments so far, it seems clear, that zerglings + banelings vs MMM shifted fairly hard in favour of MMM, with zergs needing (1) more banelings, and (2) to tech out of banelings faster, which is a pretty crazy expectation on the amount of vespene required. Maybe it'll balance out to where zergs will focus on mutas or hydras, but it just seems like this patch shifted the balance too far and broke TvZ. Especially, because cyclones also do their part, being effective overlord hunters AND efficient against zerglings in small numbers. A pack of 2-4 cyclones and 2 hellions is (1) far better at clearing creep than 6 hellions, (2) can deal well with queens and (3) clears out overlords better than a handful of marines. It requires a similar number of zerglings as 6 hellions to surround and destroy, basically swapping early game map control and vision from zerg to terran, and I haven't actually seen any effective way for zergs to contest it. meaning that in addition to zerg-bane being less effective against the early mid-game push, it is also harder for zerg to scout when and how hard it'll hit, in order to prepare for it.
In TvP, cyclones just look broken, and TvP was already Terran favoured. It just looks like an all-around terrible patch.
Question really is how long we have to endure until enough testing data is aquired to push them to (partially) revert this mess, but if anybody at Blizzard with the power to actually act on this had a conscience the patch would not have gone live as is in the first place. This whole thing is so amateurish, which, for whatever it's worth is a disgrace for the current still greatest RTS on the market.
in order to avoid disappointment manage your expectations according to the meagre level of resources allocated to the game.
The Brood War Community decision to not tweak the game because they'd probably screw it up was a wise stroke of ruthless self awareness.
I'd prefer they left SC2 in the state it was in the last time Blizzard tweaked the game for the final time. If "The Community" wants greater variety it can be accomplished via new maps and even new map mechanics.
in order to avoid disappointment manage your expectations according to the meagre level of resources allocated to the game.
The Brood War Community decision to not tweak the game because they'd probably screw it up was a wise stroke of ruthless self awareness.
I'd prefer they left SC2 in the state it was in the last time Blizzard tweaked the game for the final time. If "The Community" wants greater variety it can be accomplished via new maps and even new map mechanics.
You don’t need almost any budget to decide to not implement a proposed cyclone change that the feedback is almost universally negative for, even from the people you’re supposedly getting to spitball and vet changes
You can’t just leave it a la BW because the ability to balance with maps and get a meaningful proportion of the playerbase to compete on those maps just isn’t there with Bnet 2.0
in order to avoid disappointment manage your expectations according to the meagre level of resources allocated to the game.
The Brood War Community decision to not tweak the game because they'd probably screw it up was a wise stroke of ruthless self awareness.
I'd prefer they left SC2 in the state it was in the last time Blizzard tweaked the game for the final time. If "The Community" wants greater variety it can be accomplished via new maps and even new map mechanics.
You don’t need almost any budget to decide to not implement a proposed cyclone change that the feedback is almost universally negative for, even from the people you’re supposedly getting to spitball and vet changes
You can’t just leave it a la BW because the ability to balance with maps and get a meaningful proportion of the playerbase to compete on those maps just isn’t there with Bnet 2.0
with no budget there is no way to maintain the Blizzard/ATVI funded player base. you can play with the term "meaningful" though and have it mean whatever you want it to mean.
On October 10 2023 02:34 WombaT wrote: You don’t need almost any budget to decide to not implement a proposed cyclone change that the feedback is almost universally negative for, even from the people you’re supposedly getting to spitball and vet changes
Any changes can result in bugs surfacing. that is why you don't fuck with a massive system in working condition when you have no budget. it just so happened that a loud group that hates a change also happened to surface a bug.
look for more bugs in the future and adjust your expectations accordingly.
If it weren't for the bugs the patch deserves a good beta-test. Unfortunately, the pros did not want to play a lot of games on it. So we're getting a LIVE in-production test.
actually the patch does look pretty good except maybe 3 things:
- cyclones being an "overall build no matter what" unit early game seems bad not only balancewise but just bc neither P nor Z has much counterplay early game. might turn out ok though if it turns out to be too expensive to do it "every game" - if cyclone every game turns out strong its just bad bc its so much "antifun" to play against
- mothership is just a meh unit no matter how bad / good it is...the direction is already ok to make it less hp and less supply, now they have to make P have multiple motherships and rebalance it accordingly (4 supply, less hp, mb higher cooldowns etc.)
- microbial shroud (yes the spell still exists lol) could use a buff or remake it to sth else
The thing that irritates most about the patch implementation is simply how haphazard and relatively untested so many of the changes are, overall. To shift, significantly, the interaction between MMM and zergling/baneling when balance with it has been settled for so long, is pretty bonkers. That the cyclone changes made it through uncontested is actually insane.
If people want to see the game shift and balance unsettled because they're tired of Zerg winning or X player dominating, I don't even have a problem with it. It's the ones that pretend like this is good game design or how a properly supported game behaves that astound me. Granted, SC2 is beyond that phase (sadly), but I still enjoyed playing the game after a decade.
in order to avoid disappointment manage your expectations according to the meagre level of resources allocated to the game.
The Brood War Community decision to not tweak the game because they'd probably screw it up was a wise stroke of ruthless self awareness.
I'd prefer they left SC2 in the state it was in the last time Blizzard tweaked the game for the final time. If "The Community" wants greater variety it can be accomplished via new maps and even new map mechanics.
You don’t need almost any budget to decide to not implement a proposed cyclone change that the feedback is almost universally negative for, even from the people you’re supposedly getting to spitball and vet changes
You can’t just leave it a la BW because the ability to balance with maps and get a meaningful proportion of the playerbase to compete on those maps just isn’t there with Bnet 2.0
with no budget there is no way to maintain the Blizzard/ATVI funded player base. you can play with the term "meaningful" though and have it mean whatever you want it to mean.
On October 10 2023 02:34 WombaT wrote: You don’t need almost any budget to decide to not implement a proposed cyclone change that the feedback is almost universally negative for, even from the people you’re supposedly getting to spitball and vet changes
Any changes can result in bugs surfacing. that is why you don't fuck with a massive system in working condition when you have no budget. it just so happened that a loud group that hates a change also happened to surface a bug.
look for more bugs in the future and adjust your expectations accordingly.
If it weren't for the bugs the patch deserves a good beta-test. Unfortunately, the pros did not want to play a lot of games on it. So we're getting a LIVE in-production test.
What does any of that have to do with budget though?
Literally the one person in charge of making it go live, or however many it is could have just said ‘Hm this cyclone change has almost universally negative feedback, maybe this particular change we should not roll out’.
To my knowledge there aren’t any big bugs a la the last Colossus bug that were rolled out with this, just this daft cyclone redesign.
There is no budgetary constraint here, they got the budget to implement it on PTRs and see how it went. After that the only constraint is one of judgement, should we push forward with this tweak we’re playing around with.
A yes/no answer is completely immaterial in a budgetary sense after that point.
For Mr ‘I know business me’ I’m unsure why you don’t grasp this distinction.
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yLRBToK.jpg)
