|
On October 02 2023 12:32 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2023 07:24 sidasf wrote:I don’t know what the fuck happened here, perhaps some transparency would be in order, on the flipside you just know any publicly visible figure would cop shitloads of nonsense from unhappy players. I know this is true. It's also true that the game is in an unacceptable state (as you have mentioned), so at some point there needs to be accountability. I wish they'd just give some sort of venue of communication and be a lot more responsive, then perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to name the players. But the conflict of interest has been increasingly worrying to me. I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to pin the blame on some quarters or especially in casting aspersions on people’s motivations.
Just because (sensibly) companies trying to develop the next generation of competitive RTS have a bunch of pros essentially doing consulting work doesn’t mean they’ve any vested interest in damaging the game of SC2
Scarlett’s still qualifying for Code S, Harstem’s a solid European pro who does a ton of video content, almost exclusively SC2, Heromarine and Lambo are up with the top of Europe’s pros in that sub Serral/Reynor/Clem tier.
They’re not going to shit where they’re currently eating and sabotage a game they all loved enough to go pro in, in a genre they’re passionate about enough to push all these upcoming titles. Here is where I disagree. To begin with, the new RTS are coming out very shortly. Zerospace has been featured in a lot of videos, is completely playable and the devs are already getting large streamrs to display it (giant grant etc). Stormgate is already inviting people to play in the beta and has given keys to multiple large streamers/top level players to advertise it. There is a personal financial incentive involved for the players-let's be honest SC2 isn't huge anymore and I doubt people like pig or scarlett are swimming in cash from it. If people suddenly migrate en masse to their new RTS, they're going to make a lot more money. That's really the bottom line, it is by definition a conflict of interest. This isn't a dig at pig or scarlett-it's just reality. Everyone has bills, everyone needs to earn a living. I don't know who else is on the council but I'd be very surprised if Lambo was considering A. the over the top nerfs to zerg B. He seemed rather unhappy with the patch in his patch review video.
They’re not going to shit where they’re currently eating and sabotage a game they all loved enough to go pro in, in a genre they’re passionate about enough to push all these upcoming titles.
This is just wishful thinking, and this thought process is the way a child views the world-and I don't mean this as an insult to you, because there are a lot of adults that think this way. Love and passion only go so far. Everyone needs to earn a living, and if it means making more money from everyone migrating from SC2 to their actual child and investment-just about every single human on the planet will take that opportunity. There doesn't even have to be a purposeful, sinister motive here. There just is less to lose-look at our current patch. What if this is the last patch we get? People slowly trickle away due to this awful meta. And hey the council took a risk and "spiced things up" but they were okay with that risk, because it means people will just be looking for a new rts to play (like theirs). 100% I could see, even if entirely unintentional that people’s racial or other biases can creep in but I think it’s rather out of order to question the integrity of some folks who’ve given so much to a scene, some for a decade plus at this point. That's the sad part because I like to think highly of our pro player community. It's strange because the last two patches were fine tuned, small, and overall very good. Now we get this mayhem and nonsense that coincides with stormgate and zerospace ads everywhere. I do hope it's not a coincidence and I hope I'm wrong. It happens way more than one might think with consultants, contractors, businesses, even in gaming. One small example out of many is Pendragon many years ago screwed the dota community and made untold tons of cash with League of Legends. I won't go on a long rant but the information is out there-long story short, manager the owner of Dota forums ended up being a a consultant on riot and screwed over the dota community to get his riches. This is why for example if a lawyer consulted with your wife you plan to divorce, that lawyer cannot (sure as shit better not) consult with you because even if there isn't yet there is by definition the conflict of interest. It's not usually this cartoonishly evil though. Lots of conflicts are interest subtle and insidious. A quote from some dude on reddit: I trust them not to sabotage the game deliberately. They aren't bad people.
I don't trust them not to become more reckless with it by, I dunno, prematurely releasing a patch that everyone agrees has some really dodgy changes. Suddenly Starcraft 2 is broken....well just come play our own game with simplified macro. However, don’t get me wrong IMO this patch is absolutely a step in the wrong direction and I’m mystified how it’s going live as is I completely agree here. I agree with a lot of what you said, I went a little off on my own about the conflict of interest. Sorry for going on such a long tirade. There is an obvious conflict of interest, which is even with the best intent if your livelihood is tied into being a pro player, or content provider for SC2, inherent biases will come into play. I just don’t think it’s fair to impugn the integrity of storied community figures, some who even posted regularly on these hallowed forums are going to tank SC2 through input on this council because they’re interested/invested in seeing some new RTS games succeed, nor entirely logical. Only a few even have direct links in working on those titles, I’d be surprised if either Stormgate or Zero Space launch within 12 months, it’s a hell of a bloody risk to in any way sabotage what is your current meal packet with that in mind. Plus as I said most of the publicly known members of the council were critical of things that made it into this patch, especially the cyclone stuff. It just seems that whoever is in charge at the Blizzard end took a bunch of ideas floated, ran a PTR with a bunch of them and then pushed it to the main game without really listening to any feedback off the first stage
The realistic chances of the majority of RTS hobos like us switching to one of the upcoming titles permanently are super low, most of us are closing in on 40 or are already past it, yeah we're gonna try things out, but eventually none of these games will be able to live up to the insane UX expectations even SC2, as flawed as it might be design-wise, has set.
How many of y'all are still playing AoE4 regularily?
|
When did/will the patch go live on official servers?
|
On October 02 2023 20:20 Garnet wrote:
When did/will the patch go live on official servers?
Doesn't US count as an official server anymore? 
|
On October 02 2023 20:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2023 20:20 Garnet wrote:
When did/will the patch go live on official servers? Doesn't US count as an official server anymore?
Never has
|
So after ten days one might wonder when us Europlebs get to play with the new toys ?!?
|
It hasnt been ten days yet. Patience young padawan.
|
I usually am excited when there is a new patch. This makes me come back from broodwar for a few months up to a year. This patch doesn't do it for me, because of the cyclone. I also don't see how it'll breathe life into protoss too. Feels like a shake up patch more than anything, not trying to address anything
|
On October 02 2023 11:10 Beelzebub1 wrote:
Whether or not we like the Cyclone changes, isn't it still a net positive to get changes like the others? I feel like if the Cyclone changes weren't included I would actually be really happy with this patch, I mean, the Baneling nerf is more then just a minor change it's really going to reduce Zerg's strength against bio for Terran and their overall efficiency vs. Protoss, slower Lurkers, better Immortals, cheaper upgrades, doesn't seem all too bad.
I don't think you really need to reduce Zerg's strength against bio, I don't think that should be a patch goal to begin with. ZvT isn't that far off of balanced and it's mainly two Z outliers doing extremely well. There are a ton of Terrans in the top 15, but not a ton of Zergs and banes just seem overnerfed to me, especially when they're really integral in ZvT.
Immortals are only barely better and mainly against EMP. And TvP often has a ton of EMPs because ghosts are just an OP unit per supply, so this won't matter much. With the reversal of Colossus range and nerfs to disruptors I'm not even sure P is better off against T.
Like overall it seems to me like they screwed up ZvT in favor of T, barely touched TvP, slightly buffed PvZ and then there's the cyclone rework which is a huge questionmark.
|
Banes absolutely needed a nerf given the huge hit the ghost took--maybe not both nerfs, but at least one of them needed to happen. That fact that they got that completely unnecessary HP buff in the first place was a travesty.
|
On October 03 2023 03:57 Athenau wrote:
Banes absolutely needed a nerf given the huge hit the ghost took--maybe not both nerfs, but at least one of them needed to happen. That fact that they got that completely unnecessary HP buff in the first place was a travesty.
Yeah, making banes less stupid is like the one good thing this patch is doing.
|
On October 03 2023 03:57 Athenau wrote:
Banes absolutely needed a nerf given the huge hit the ghost took--maybe not both nerfs, but at least one of them needed to happen. That fact that they got that completely unnecessary HP buff in the first place was a travesty.
Yeah I dislike both, the Ghost and the Bane changes, didn't feel like either unit was too strong, but they are two of the most fun units in the game
|
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe.
|
On October 03 2023 06:47 Archeon wrote:
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe.
Even with the old ghosts though Terran wasn't dominant in TvZ. Terrans had that ghost for like what? 6 years now? In that time they've only had a few brief periods where TvZ was clearly T favored. Most of the time it's been Z favored at the top level. 40 snipe damage is a sizable nerf and making that change without a compensating nerf to Zerg would be crazy.
Maybe the baneling nerf goes too far (I don't think so) but it's not that much bigger than the ghost nerf. It could be argued that that's the incorrect type of nerf since the baneling effects mid game while the ghost nerf mostly impacts lategame but to say the ghost should receive a 25% damage nerf without a very significant Zerg nerf happening at the same time (2 less bane damage would not have been anywhere near enough) would just be pure Zergs bias.
|
i'm happy with the patch so far. it will take a few months to make an over all complete assessment. So far.. so good.
So far ... the mysterious, elusive, and inegmatic "Balance Council" has done a great job. 
|
On October 03 2023 10:15 JJH777 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2023 06:47 Archeon wrote:
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe. Even with the old ghosts though Terran wasn't dominant in TvZ. Terrans had that ghost for like what? 6 years now? In that time they've only had a few brief periods where TvZ was clearly T favored. Most of the time it's been Z favored at the top level. 40 snipe damage is a sizable nerf and making that change without a compensating nerf to Zerg would be crazy. Maybe the baneling nerf goes too far (I don't think so) but it's not that much bigger than the ghost nerf. It could be argued that that's the incorrect type of nerf since the baneling effects mid game while the ghost nerf mostly impacts lategame but to say the ghost should receive a 25% damage nerf without a very significant Zerg nerf happening at the same time (2 less bane damage would not have been anywhere near enough) would just be pure Zergs bias.
i'd say zerg lategame was nerfed significantly in this patch.
in 5.0.11 it took 2 fungals to kill unstimmed marines,
in 5.0.12 it takes 3 fungals to do the same.
fungal cast range 10->9.
in the meantime, emp cast range does not change, effective range decreases by 0.25 because of the emp radius nerf (1.75->1.5, which is ~27% area reduction, quite substantial)
it should be easier to emp or snipe 1-2 infestors because of the +0.75 range diff gain for the ghost.
broodlings got weaker, so thors shit on broodlords even harder
|
Looks like KR got the patch
|
I believe same for EU was stated while watching the ESL cups this evening. We enter the new era...
|
On October 03 2023 12:17 bela.mervado wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2023 10:15 JJH777 wrote:On October 03 2023 06:47 Archeon wrote:
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe. Even with the old ghosts though Terran wasn't dominant in TvZ. Terrans had that ghost for like what? 6 years now? In that time they've only had a few brief periods where TvZ was clearly T favored. Most of the time it's been Z favored at the top level. 40 snipe damage is a sizable nerf and making that change without a compensating nerf to Zerg would be crazy. Maybe the baneling nerf goes too far (I don't think so) but it's not that much bigger than the ghost nerf. It could be argued that that's the incorrect type of nerf since the baneling effects mid game while the ghost nerf mostly impacts lategame but to say the ghost should receive a 25% damage nerf without a very significant Zerg nerf happening at the same time (2 less bane damage would not have been anywhere near enough) would just be pure Zergs bias. i'd say zerg lategame was nerfed significantly in this patch. in 5.0.11 it took 2 fungals to kill unstimmed marines, in 5.0.12 it takes 3 fungals to do the same. fungal cast range 10->9. in the meantime, emp cast range does not change, effective range decreases by 0.25 because of the emp radius nerf (1.75->1.5, which is ~27% area reduction, quite substantial) it should be easier to emp or snipe 1-2 infestors because of the +0.75 range diff gain for the ghost. broodlings got weaker, so thors shit on broodlords even harder
Broodlords are faster which will help with maneuvering around Thors quite a bit. Ultras are also going to be way stronger due primarily to the ghost nerf plus their very small buff and Zerg ground armor upgrades being cheaper. Honestly not even sure how the top Terrans will deal with Ultras if a Zerg makes it to them with a good economy now. Ultras are already underrated, with snipe doing 130 damage they will be nigh un-killable when used defensively. On offense they will admittedly have the same issues they've always had but they will give Zerg really good map control as long as they don't commit into a well setup defensive Terran position.
|
On October 03 2023 12:17 bela.mervado wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2023 10:15 JJH777 wrote:On October 03 2023 06:47 Archeon wrote:
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe. Even with the old ghosts though Terran wasn't dominant in TvZ. Terrans had that ghost for like what? 6 years now? In that time they've only had a few brief periods where TvZ was clearly T favored. Most of the time it's been Z favored at the top level. 40 snipe damage is a sizable nerf and making that change without a compensating nerf to Zerg would be crazy. Maybe the baneling nerf goes too far (I don't think so) but it's not that much bigger than the ghost nerf. It could be argued that that's the incorrect type of nerf since the baneling effects mid game while the ghost nerf mostly impacts lategame but to say the ghost should receive a 25% damage nerf without a very significant Zerg nerf happening at the same time (2 less bane damage would not have been anywhere near enough) would just be pure Zergs bias. i'd say zerg lategame was nerfed significantly in this patch. in 5.0.11 it took 2 fungals to kill unstimmed marines, in 5.0.12 it takes 3 fungals to do the same. fungal cast range 10->9. in the meantime, emp cast range does not change, effective range decreases by 0.25 because of the emp radius nerf (1.75->1.5, which is ~27% area reduction, quite substantial) it should be easier to emp or snipe 1-2 infestors because of the +0.75 range diff gain for the ghost. broodlings got weaker, so thors shit on broodlords even harder
Those changes only affect a slight percentage of games though, since the usual response to terran lategame is to swarm and trade over and over with Hydra Ling Bane + Lurker or Ultra and the Zerg nerfs don't affect this interaction except the Lurker nerf which isn't enough to compensate.
Zerg usually only goes BL/Infestor once the other approach has failed and tbh I rarely see it succeed atm anyways.
|
On October 03 2023 14:43 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2023 12:17 bela.mervado wrote:On October 03 2023 10:15 JJH777 wrote:On October 03 2023 06:47 Archeon wrote:
Tbh I always thought that Ghosts are way too strong per supply. They are expensive, but most casters have 1-2 spells and then their impact is done for a while. Ghosts have decent fighting stats per supply, especially vs light, which makes them a unit that's desirable to mass, especially with tanks which cover both of their weaknesses (armored units and masses of trash). They can cloak which makes it a lot harder to stop them from spellcasting and have two good spells, one which is devastating against toss and one which is very good vs zerg. To boot snipe in it's old form was decent vs toss too. Even nuke has it's place because of how hard it is for P and Z to get mobile detection that doesn't get shot down by ghosts. Imo they are just way too good per supply overall.
Perhaps the same can be said for banes, but banes are a lot more hit or miss and can just evaporate under aoe. Even with the old ghosts though Terran wasn't dominant in TvZ. Terrans had that ghost for like what? 6 years now? In that time they've only had a few brief periods where TvZ was clearly T favored. Most of the time it's been Z favored at the top level. 40 snipe damage is a sizable nerf and making that change without a compensating nerf to Zerg would be crazy. Maybe the baneling nerf goes too far (I don't think so) but it's not that much bigger than the ghost nerf. It could be argued that that's the incorrect type of nerf since the baneling effects mid game while the ghost nerf mostly impacts lategame but to say the ghost should receive a 25% damage nerf without a very significant Zerg nerf happening at the same time (2 less bane damage would not have been anywhere near enough) would just be pure Zergs bias. i'd say zerg lategame was nerfed significantly in this patch. in 5.0.11 it took 2 fungals to kill unstimmed marines, in 5.0.12 it takes 3 fungals to do the same. fungal cast range 10->9. in the meantime, emp cast range does not change, effective range decreases by 0.25 because of the emp radius nerf (1.75->1.5, which is ~27% area reduction, quite substantial) it should be easier to emp or snipe 1-2 infestors because of the +0.75 range diff gain for the ghost. broodlings got weaker, so thors shit on broodlords even harder Those changes only affect a slight percentage of games though, since the usual response to terran lategame is to swarm and trade over and over with Hydra Ling Bane + Lurker or Ultra and the Zerg nerfs don't affect this interaction except the Lurker nerf which isn't enough to compensate. Zerg usually only goes BL/Infestor once the other approach has failed and tbh I rarely see it succeed atm anyways.
well we are talking about the highest level
which is Serral, (Reynor?) vs Maru (Cure?), our scene has a very thin top level unfortunatelly;
and lategame, where the terran locks his territory with PFs tanks and excellent ghost rotations.
zerg should not throw endless waves of banes against these positions, especially in 5.0.12 after the huge bane nerfs.
i would not call the swarmy phase (before ghost and before terran can slow down the game) lategame.
+3 banes will do -6 damage, which seems to be a huge change ~-15%?
and that is before mass ghosts hit the field. i see this as a huge nerf to z midgame, not sure that a faster infestor at this stage will compensate.
we will see, i guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
