With the new Patch 5.0.12 released today, we've tried to the accomplish the following goals,
Make Protoss more stable on a professional level in the early game vs Raven pushes and more able to fight Terran mid-late game armies without solely relying on Disruptors.
Increase the variety in the mid game and late game army compositions by reducing the strength of massed Ghosts, Banelings, and Disruptors.
Make over specialized units (Cyclones, Mothership, and Infestors) viable throughout more stages of the game.
Bring more visual clarity to important units on the minimap, as well as relevant abilities like Widow Mine targeting, and Disruptor's cooldown indicator.
Promote more interaction in late game scenarios, by making units such as Tempest, Mothership, and Brood Lord more maneuverable.
So all the negative feedback got ignored and they released it like that? Including the cyclone? It will take a quick follow-up balance patch, the next tournaments are going to be a disaster.
On September 21 2023 03:31 Tsubbi wrote: So all the negative feedback got ignored and they released it like that? Including the cyclone? It will take a quick follow-up balance patch, the next tournaments are going to be a disaster.
The impression I got from virtually every pro commenting on the PTR changes was that the cyclone rework would never go through as it is. I even recall Harstem, who actually is on the balance council, making a remark to the effect that the change was more on the experimental side and probably will not go live. But now it did?
New 2v2 maps is exciting. old ones have not changed since forever, even though they are very good and I got used to them so much Maybe new maps will revive 2v2 a bit, in like 2021-early 2022 it used to be just 1-2 minutes to find a 2v2 game on D1-M3 game, nowadays its 3-5 minutes on EU server
On September 21 2023 04:38 Antithesis wrote: The impression I got from virtually every pro commenting on the PTR changes was that the cyclone rework would never go through as it is. I even recall Harstem, who actually is on the balance council, making a remark to the effect that the change was more on the experimental side and probably will not go live. But now it did?
Yeah, Lambo heavily disliked them too. Really strange, I thought the members of the balance council had to agree on the changes
On September 21 2023 04:38 Antithesis wrote: The impression I got from virtually every pro commenting on the PTR changes was that the cyclone rework would never go through as it is. I even recall Harstem, who actually is on the balance council, making a remark to the effect that the change was more on the experimental side and probably will not go live. But now it did?
Yeah, Lambo heavily disliked them too. Really strange, I thought the members of the balance council had to agree on the changes
Seems to be pretty opaque even for the people directly involved.
On September 21 2023 04:38 Antithesis wrote: The impression I got from virtually every pro commenting on the PTR changes was that the cyclone rework would never go through as it is. I even recall Harstem, who actually is on the balance council, making a remark to the effect that the change was more on the experimental side and probably will not go live. But now it did?
Yeah, Lambo heavily disliked them too. Really strange, I thought the members of the balance council had to agree on the changes
Seems to be pretty opaque even for the people directly involved.
On September 21 2023 04:48 Devangel wrote: New 2v2 maps is exciting. old ones have not changed since forever, even though they are very good and I got used to them so much Maybe new maps will revive 2v2 a bit, in like 2021-early 2022 it used to be just 1-2 minutes to find a 2v2 game on D1-M3 game, nowadays its 3-5 minutes on EU server
You're aware that every map in the pool (other than Sludge City) is either a great ling flood map, a map that has really abusive tank/blink stalker/reaper spots or a super easy turtle map, right?
OMG the warhound-on-skates made it through?? It seemed pretty massable/boring, which I'm disappointed cus the current Cyclone has lots of cool stuff... But as a mech player... I'll take it if it's strong and helps make other mech play work l0l
It does seem to be kind of a middleground between the current sniper-y Cyclone and the frontline torpedo Cyclone that did like 50 dmg a second. The current Cyclone's Lock-On can be countered easily by Blink, the torpedo one was less so since it fought with its auto attack, but still countered since they were slower and couldn't pick off Stalkers that Blinked back. The new patch one is better at fighting up front and could also chase down Stalkers that are trying to blink back.
I don't like the idea of homogenizing units like T3 capital ships to be more microable and losing more of their identity. They have lots of range and should be balanced by being slower, being faster will promote players to ball them up more instead of spreading them out positionally. Having massable, mobile air units promotes deathballing. Air units are already mobile by nature, they can stack and sit over cliffs. If capital ships were slowed down, it would encourage players to outmaneuver with T1 and T2 units. Capital ships would have to be used more sparingly as support units, or have to be spread across bases defensively (which is fine as long as they're not in a deathball).
The Consume buff is still arguably the most absurd balance change in the history of SC2. The reasoning for it does not logically follow the actual change. People will just try to consume with even lower HP buildings, and still underestimate the HP drain and accidentally kill it. Why is it so hard to just click extractors or making additional Evos? If mech sieges 1 second too late, they can lose the game. Intentionally risking losing your Hive due to greed should be heavily punished. Losing Hive often isn't even game ending at all.
Also after 13 years of continually nerfing Queen's offensive power and realizing over and over that it's STILL too strong at attacking... we decide to BUFF queen drops? Who wanted that?
But oh well, i guess some changes always make the game a bit fresher even if I don't like a lot of them.
One thing I do like about the BL change is that broodlings do way less now. They move quite slow and aren't able to get many attacks off and trap your units, especially Thors. So Thors should be even stronger in an upfront fight now which is great. And more able to retreat or stutter step forward if they try to retreat. And Zerg gets a little mobility in return, which is fine cus it's Zerg-y.
Also thank god banelings are being nerfed, hated how Zerg can just suicide mass banelings into your 3rd/4th as mech, and no amount of turtling could save you. Banelings being good at BOTH killing armies and killing static defense is pretty crazy by design. Banelings being good vs buildings used to be cool for baneling busts in WoL, but with all the economy changes I don't think we need 6 Banelings to be able to bust down a Terran's depot on 1 base anymore. It makes it so hard for Protoss to protect their buildings too; clumped static def is easily taken out by banelings, and spread out static def is incredibly weak to cracklings...
I think zerglings sneaking by a zealot/adept at the wall, and cracklings/banelings being too good vs static def, are pretty big things that make Protoss weak vs Zerg at the top level. When all other things are relatively equal, losing an occasional game due to being 1 pixel off or the zerglings glitching past is way too punishing for what it is. And it's way too easy to have a slightly imperfect defense once after defending several zergling/baneling runbys successfully, and then losing 15 probes and not being able to recover. You should be able to clump up your static def to better deal with cracklings, but banelings are good at clumped buildings...
Perhaps baneling building AOE can be reworked so that it doesn't splash other buildings nearly as much. Make it more of a single building attack.
It's also a problem that Protoss doesn't scale as well as Zerg and Terran in the endgame. Terran has mass MULE to get a bigger army. Protoss can easily reinforce to a battle with warpgate sure, but usually you aren't reinforcing with zealots/stalkers lategame unless if you want stalkers vs mass BC or BLs. And Archons are slow due to needing to merge. Zerg can mass mobile spores, and get more supply than 200. Making 20 spores and cancelling so you can have 10 more Corruptors is quite significant. It hugely changes the math in a fight.
On September 21 2023 05:52 WombaT wrote: I don’t mind most of it I’m just a little confused why they seem so intent to put through the cyclone changes
Feels to me very much a phase two if the more general balancing/QoL stuff has the desired effect
Nah, making mech work in TvP is way more important than having three viable factions at the pro level.
1. It's PTR, not live. 2. Pretty sure the real issue with Protoss is the pool of pro players that is actually weaker than Zerg an Terran
1. It's the second pass at the patch, so the changes are likely to go live. 2. Any proof of this? In terms of truly top tier players, there aren't that many for any race. Protoss has herO and Classic, two of the best of all time, and a lot of very strong players like MaxPax, Creator, and Astrea. PartinG and Trap are the only recent big Protoss players who aren't currently competing that I can think of. Hell, even Stats and sOs are around.
On September 21 2023 05:52 WombaT wrote: I don’t mind most of it I’m just a little confused why they seem so intent to put through the cyclone changes
Feels to me very much a phase two if the more general balancing/QoL stuff has the desired effect
Nah, making mech work in TvP is way more important than having three viable factions at the pro level.
1. It's PTR, not live. 2. Pretty sure the real issue with Protoss is the pool of pro players that is actually weaker than Zerg an Terran
whether that is true or not, you have to work with what you got. its not healthy for 1 race to win much less than the other two.
Not trying to diss any players, so I will keep this hypothetical: Are you seriously saying that if the best Zerg and Terran have like "90 skill points" and the best Protoss has "75 skill points", Protoss should get buffed enough to balance these missing points out?
As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
I'm waiting to adopt a wait and see approach with the Cyclone, new maps are also going to throw a wrench into alot of game plans for the pros. This change is going to cause every Terran and their mother to experiment with Cyclone openings/compositions so *shrug* all we can do is wait and see I guess. I feel the same way about the Mothership changes, just gotta wait and see.
Most of these changes are actually decent though, the baneling change is a pretty big nerf and is imo long overdue. EMP nerfs, Snipe being tuned to be less of a hard counter against Ultralisks, Immortal barrier change (really good), Lurkers being a wee bit slower, all these things are pretty good. The Hydra changes seem okay, obviously it's going to cause alot of Zergs to experiment with timing attacks.
I still think an opportunity to make Protoss stronger is being missed with the Sentry not getting some more heavy handed changes. The duration increase for Guardian Shield is okay but there could be more, and buffing the Sentry could go a long way into giving Protoss more options.
Guardian Shield
- Now increases movement speed of all units inside by 25 %, this would give early game GW forces more agility to either commit to an attack or to defend better, would also let GW units engage bio easier before Charge/Blink.
- Force Field now requires two Corrosive Biles to destroy. This would make Force Fields much stronger vs. Zerg, and force Zerg to respect Protoss attacks more by having to make a decision between using Ravagers to knock down the FF or to use them for damage.
Neither of these changes would break the game, or make Protoss overpowered, they would just give Protoss more options. I know nothing is going to change, these are just the changes I WISH would get passed through.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
So basically Protoss had one shitty year (2020), a perfectly average year ('21), a sligthly below average year ('22) and one really terrible year again thus far? That is...not that impressive? Not that tournament winnings is a real indicator. I honestly would be worried if through all the years the split of tournament winnings would be 33% exactly, because that would feel like player skill was eliminated completly from the equation...
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing. herO? Obvious choice, but it isn't like he was an Uber-Tier player in the past. Classic? I think it is safe to say his performance in the WTL Code A wasn't a balance-issue. Creator? A guy that was a great ace for Prime, but hasn't done much else in his career? The half-retired Stats? Or is the tournament winning skill of Nightmare, Nice and Astrea really just burrowed under balance-problems? Who knows, but I somehow doubt it
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
So basically Protoss had one shitty year (2020), a perfectly average year ('21), a sligthly below average year ('22) and one really terrible year again thus far? That is...not that impressive? Not that tournament winnings is a real indicator. I honestly would be worried if through all the years the split of tournament winnings would be 33% exactly, because that would feel like player skill was eliminated completly from the equation...
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing. herO? Obvious choice, but it isn't like he was an Uber-Tier player in the past. Classic? I think it is safe to say his performance in the WTL Code A wasn't a balance-issue. Creator? A guy that was a great ace for Prime, but hasn't done much else in his career? The half-retired Stats? Or is the tournament winning skill of Nightmare, Nice and Astrea really just burrowed under balance-problems? Who knows, but I somehow doubt it
I mean if the game were to be perfectly balanced Maru would win 80%+ of the tournaments and it wouldn’t be super funny It’s alright to have a little bit of imbalance in order to keep things fun, the difficulty is to have the right amount in order to make the current scene as healthy as possible
On September 21 2023 03:24 MM-yingxiong wrote: is it ptr first or?
"With the new Patch 5.0.12 released today, we've tried to the accomplish the following goals,"
I read it as its live, doesnt mention PTR. I dont play the game myself , only watches so cant confirm sadly.
if you click through to the patch notes it says "PTR release", though. So I'll side with the idea that they aren't completely mad and releasing an untested balance patch straight into the live game.
Speed upgrade replaced with Caduceus Reactor Community Council Comment: Replaces the current unused Medivac upgrade
So why is unused? cuz most play map is 1v1 small map. do you have play map like big game hunter? try cross the map with 5-6 medivac with full unit and you will know how important is speed upgrade.
my biggest question is why replace upgrade why not try just add it??? may be the core have not place? may be with 1 more unuse upgrade can change very much pro game？or 8 bronze who play 4v4 big game hunter is not so important
On September 21 2023 03:24 MM-yingxiong wrote: is it ptr first or?
"With the new Patch 5.0.12 released today, we've tried to the accomplish the following goals,"
I read it as its live, doesnt mention PTR. I dont play the game myself , only watches so cant confirm sadly.
if you click through to the patch notes it says "PTR release", though. So I'll side with the idea that they aren't completely mad and releasing an untested balance patch straight into the live game.
Yeah noticed that later aswell. They edited the headline aswell so probably not the only one who got confused
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
It goes both ways though, except for particular build orders where you can quickly "see" if it's imbalanced or not, you have to accurately gauge players 'skill' to see if they should be evenly matched and judge if the game is balanced or not.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not. Even looking at player names + maps is not always enough, since sometimes players actually play poorly: fresh example in my mind being herO in the GSL playing very poorly in PvP
You are right though that the "perception" of who "should" win events is affected by balance, since playing a race that is strong should help you get better results, which will make people think you are strong, then they will expect you to "deserve" these results no matter the balance. The opposite is true: if you are affected by balance negatively long enough, the perception of your strength from people should be lower, so they will think you don't deserve better results, no matter the balance.
It becomes tricky for players like ShoWTimE, who are strong and very skilled, but IMHO don't play protoss the optimal way to get the best results. Being too predictable / not being aggressive enough (his 4 gate blink build is for sure weaker than herO or MaxPax, despite it being one of the best tools in a PvT series) Depending on how you buff protoss (ie. allow for super strong builds, or improve their overall macro game), not the same players will get the same "boost"
Looking at aligulac, you can see that the two players with the best PvT rating, by a large margin, are those capable of great blink stalker micro / the most aggro protoss, herO and MaxPax.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
So basically Protoss had one shitty year (2020), a perfectly average year ('21), a sligthly below average year ('22) and one really terrible year again thus far? That is...not that impressive? Not that tournament winnings is a real indicator. I honestly would be worried if through all the years the split of tournament winnings would be 33% exactly, because that would feel like player skill was eliminated completly from the equation...
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing. herO? Obvious choice, but it isn't like he was an Uber-Tier player in the past. Classic? I think it is safe to say his performance in the WTL Code A wasn't a balance-issue. Creator? A guy that was a great ace for Prime, but hasn't done much else in his career? The half-retired Stats? Or is the tournament winning skill of Nightmare, Nice and Astrea really just burrowed under balance-problems? Who knows, but I somehow doubt it
I mean if the game were to be perfectly balanced Maru would win 80%+ of the tournaments and it wouldn’t be super funny It’s alright to have a little bit of imbalance in order to keep things fun, the difficulty is to have the right amount in order to make the current scene as healthy as possible
Yes, the guy who wins one out of five tournaments he enters would in fact win four out of five if the game was balanced...
Of course balance will always affect merit. And I would never deny that Protoss might be underpowered, which on the highest level could be the last 1-2% that hinders a world-class Protoss to win a tournament. But if balance alone was the issue considering tournament victories (which again is a bad metric - if a terran wins a tournament against seven Protoss in the playoffs, it still would count as a "bad performance" for Protoss), the race is more like 10-20% behind...and that would show on every level, not just pro-play.
I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
In terms of ratings (like a power rank) I would put:
Serral - 99 Dark - 95 Reynor - 90 to 96 depending on prizepool/practice Solar - 90-93 RagnaroK - 87-91
Total protoss: 451 - 463 Total terran: 459 - 476 Total zerg: 461 - 474
The top 5 of all three races are pretty close to each other, albeit there is a higher deviation between min and max for terran because of Clem being much better at TvZ than his other MUs, and ByuN sometimes dipping low when his wrist issues flare up. The big issue for protoss is really just that MaxPax isn't KR (doesn't play in the GSL) + does not come offline, so for the biggest tournaments (GSL + international DH) protoss won't have their best or 2nd best player. No amount of balance changes will fix that
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not.
The reason why you can tell that a patch that made Mixu better than Maru would be imbalanced is because there are a bunch of other zerg players who are doing better than Mixu. So if he beats Maru, that means a bunch of other zergs also beat Maru, and presumably none of the terrans are able to beat these zergs. If nobody was doing better than Mixu at zerg, then the fact that he could never beat Maru would be a sign that zerg has an issue.
A better way to put it is that what makes it easy to see that Mixu is not as good as Maru is the comparison with how zergs that are better than him fare vs Maru, not the comparison to Maru himself.
Apologies to Mixu that he gets used as an example there ^^'
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not.
The reason why you can tell that a patch that made Mixu better than Maru would be imbalanced is because there are a bunch of other zerg players who are doing better than Mixu. So if he beats Maru, that means a bunch of other zergs also beat Maru, and presumably none of the terrans are able to beat these zergs. If nobody was doing better than Mixu at zerg, then the fact that he could never beat Maru would be a sign that zerg has an issue.
Apologies to Mixu that he gets used as an example there ^^'
Not necessarily though. Before the last patch, Maru was nigh invincible in TvT: no terran could beat Maru in the match-up, but the match-up was perfectly balanced. It could theoretically happen to be nigh invincible in a non-mirror match-up despite the game being balanced, albeit it's not very likely, and that player would also probably be nigh invincible in the mirror match-up
Plus, with the Mixu thing, you can see a clear gameplay difference between the two players, without having to look at how other zergs are doing in the match-up: you could see macro not being "perfect", struggling to keep up with multitask, etc. Sure, it's easier to see that the macro is not perfect when you can compare the gameplay of Mixu with that of better zergs, but even without the other zergs you can see it
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not.
The reason why you can tell that a patch that made Mixu better than Maru would be imbalanced is because there are a bunch of other zerg players who are doing better than Mixu. So if he beats Maru, that means a bunch of other zergs also beat Maru, and presumably none of the terrans are able to beat these zergs. If nobody was doing better than Mixu at zerg, then the fact that he could never beat Maru would be a sign that zerg has an issue.
Apologies to Mixu that he gets used as an example there ^^'
Not necessarily though. Before the last patch, Maru was nigh invincible in TvT: no terran could beat Maru in the match-up, but the match-up was perfectly balanced. It could theoretically happen to be nigh invincible in a non-mirror match-up despite the game being balanced, albeit it's not very likely, and that player would also probably be nigh invincible in the mirror match-up
Plus, with the Mixu thing, you can see a clear gameplay difference between the two players, without having to look at how other zergs are doing in the match-up: you could see macro not being "perfect", struggling to keep up with multitask, etc. Sure, it's easier to see that the macro is not perfect when you can compare the gameplay of Mixu with that of better zergs, but even without the other zergs you can see it
Sure, but if there were no players who could do better than him as zerg that you could draw a comparison to, then it would make sense to me to conclude that zerg is much harder to play "perfect" than terran is, and the imbalance would lie there. It's a bit abstract to think about.
I think if you play perfectly protoss is quite strong, the main thing that impacts winrates of protoss is that a lot of mistakes cost them the game almost immediately or put them extremely behind, while mistakes from terran or zerg are less punitive.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not.
The reason why you can tell that a patch that made Mixu better than Maru would be imbalanced is because there are a bunch of other zerg players who are doing better than Mixu. So if he beats Maru, that means a bunch of other zergs also beat Maru, and presumably none of the terrans are able to beat these zergs. If nobody was doing better than Mixu at zerg, then the fact that he could never beat Maru would be a sign that zerg has an issue.
Apologies to Mixu that he gets used as an example there ^^'
Not necessarily though. Before the last patch, Maru was nigh invincible in TvT: no terran could beat Maru in the match-up, but the match-up was perfectly balanced. It could theoretically happen to be nigh invincible in a non-mirror match-up despite the game being balanced, albeit it's not very likely, and that player would also probably be nigh invincible in the mirror match-up
Plus, with the Mixu thing, you can see a clear gameplay difference between the two players, without having to look at how other zergs are doing in the match-up: you could see macro not being "perfect", struggling to keep up with multitask, etc. Sure, it's easier to see that the macro is not perfect when you can compare the gameplay of Mixu with that of better zergs, but even without the other zergs you can see it
I don't think you can make that comparison. Maru was nigh invincible in TvT, but was vulnerable in TvZ. At the same time, Clem meanwhile got stomped frequently at TvT and was extremely strong at TvZ. Some playstyles just click better for some players than others. It's why you can't just tell a player like herO that he should switch to Zerg... his strengths as a player appear to fit better with Protoss than with Zerg. Those same style differences come into play in the opponents' race, albeit to a lesser extent. Clem's insane marine micro all over the map works extremely well against banelings, but it doesn't stop them from getting blown up by tanks.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
In terms of ratings (like a power rank) I would put:
Serral - 99 Dark - 95 Reynor - 90 to 96 depending on prizepool/practice Solar - 90-93 RagnaroK - 87-91
Total protoss: 451 - 463 Total terran: 459 - 476 Total zerg: 461 - 474
The top 5 of all three races are pretty close to each other, albeit there is a higher deviation between min and max for terran because of Clem being much better at TvZ than his other MUs, and ByuN sometimes dipping low when his wrist issues flare up. The big issue for protoss is really just that MaxPax isn't KR (doesn't play in the GSL) + does not come offline, so for the biggest tournaments (GSL + international DH) protoss won't have their best or 2nd best player. No amount of balance changes will fix that
if you continue being this reasonable while providing in-depth analysis to back your perspective you're going to end up getting banned from the internet.
It’s the eye test that Protoss doesn’t pass, especially as the game scales there is just less a very skilled player can do with the race compared to the other two. In earlier skirmishes you see plenty of comparable feats of control.
Terrans can show off their bio micro for basically the whole game and multiprong with it. Zergs have a fast army to shark around with, and with the APM to spare can keep spreading creep and benefitting from good mechanics.
The current contingent has good professional BW players, a different game sure but harder mechanically again.
They’re easier to play up to a certain level, then they lack the tools to be competitive at the very tip-top level, it’s been this way for forever now.
And short of more radical changes that’s unlikely to flip around anytime soon IMO.
Terrans and Zergs have gotten so good at exploiting their race’s higher ceilings over the years that to get back to some kind of parity Protoss has to play differently in a more fundamental way, or be totally broken at levels below peak pro gaming to compensate and I don’t see either happening
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
For example, it's easy to see now the gap in skill between Maru and someone like Mixu, so if you had a patch that made Mixu beat Maru several times without Maru being able to beat Mixu, you would quickly know the game has become really imbalanced. However, when the skills are close, like at the very top, it becomes harder to know what is due to balance and what is not.
The reason why you can tell that a patch that made Mixu better than Maru would be imbalanced is because there are a bunch of other zerg players who are doing better than Mixu. So if he beats Maru, that means a bunch of other zergs also beat Maru, and presumably none of the terrans are able to beat these zergs. If nobody was doing better than Mixu at zerg, then the fact that he could never beat Maru would be a sign that zerg has an issue.
Apologies to Mixu that he gets used as an example there ^^'
Not necessarily though. Before the last patch, Maru was nigh invincible in TvT: no terran could beat Maru in the match-up, but the match-up was perfectly balanced. It could theoretically happen to be nigh invincible in a non-mirror match-up despite the game being balanced, albeit it's not very likely, and that player would also probably be nigh invincible in the mirror match-up
Plus, with the Mixu thing, you can see a clear gameplay difference between the two players, without having to look at how other zergs are doing in the match-up: you could see macro not being "perfect", struggling to keep up with multitask, etc. Sure, it's easier to see that the macro is not perfect when you can compare the gameplay of Mixu with that of better zergs, but even without the other zergs you can see it
I don't think you can make that comparison. Maru was nigh invincible in TvT, but was vulnerable in TvZ. At the same time, Clem meanwhile got stomped frequently at TvT and was extremely strong at TvZ. Some playstyles just click better for some players than others. It's why you can't just tell a player like herO that he should switch to Zerg... his strengths as a player appear to fit better with Protoss than with Zerg. Those same style differences come into play in the opponents' race, albeit to a lesser extent. Clem's insane marine micro all over the map works extremely well against banelings, but it doesn't stop them from getting blown up by tanks.
Yeah it’s a great strength of the game that even with very developed metas there’s still stylistic preferences and differences between players.
Which guides race choices but is even pretty apparent between players of the same race
Thank god this patch isn't live. It's such a messy patch. Upgrades will have wonky values that cannot be predicted by its unit's damage. They want more interaction late game, while buffing Tempest/BL which are the most uninteractable units. Ultra is buffed because it's a worse option, which is obvious because BL/Inf and Lurker/Viper/Inf are broken late game comps. Ultas will now cost the same minerals as Immortals, which is laughable. Disruptor is alrdy a shit option of a unit and so nerfing it will actually remove mid game variety. The Inf is not a specialized unit, Fungal is the best spell in the game and vs. everything. BC's, Airtoss, Ghosts as well as vs. Marines, Lings, Banes and Blink Stalkers. Toss dies to Terran because they made Overcharge a glorified Chrono Boost. A 50% boost on a building's effect.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
So basically Protoss had one shitty year (2020), a perfectly average year ('21), a sligthly below average year ('22) and one really terrible year again thus far? That is...not that impressive? Not that tournament winnings is a real indicator. I honestly would be worried if through all the years the split of tournament winnings would be 33% exactly, because that would feel like player skill was eliminated completly from the equation...
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing. herO? Obvious choice, but it isn't like he was an Uber-Tier player in the past. Classic? I think it is safe to say his performance in the WTL Code A wasn't a balance-issue. Creator? A guy that was a great ace for Prime, but hasn't done much else in his career? The half-retired Stats? Or is the tournament winning skill of Nightmare, Nice and Astrea really just burrowed under balance-problems? Who knows, but I somehow doubt it
herO (GSL and Atlanta championships) and Creator (top 4 Valencia) were doing much better last patch before super battery and disruptor nerfs.
Comparing pre and post patch stats at a premier tournament.
DH Masters Atlanta 2022 Main event ZvP - 45.6% PvT- 45.7%
Honestly the medivac upgrade change is stupid too.
Keep the speed upgrade, i remember people saying it was actually good and useful, since Terran lacks mobility in the late game on big maps compared to Protoss and Zerg. It was a way to help give Terran more lategame mobility. It can even be used to help for Mech if you want to do Mech drops or micro with hellbat drops etc.
Just buff it, having medivacs that regen faster is weird... i guess maybe it's a way to help mitigate the effect of AOE splash on bio?
On September 21 2023 23:59 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Honestly the medivac upgrade change is stupid too.
Keep the speed upgrade, i remember people saying it was actually good and useful, since Terran lacks mobility in the late game on big maps compared to Protoss and Zerg. It was a way to help give Terran more lategame mobility. It can even be used to help for Mech if you want to do Mech drops or micro with hellbat drops etc.
Just buff it, having medivacs that regen faster is weird... i guess maybe it's a way to help mitigate the effect of AOE splash on bio?
The only reason I can see for the change is that, aesthetically, it's unpleasant to have so many medivacs blocking the view of the infantry.
I mean, at some point in the game, we saw too many medivac on the field and its cutting into the army supply of the Terran. So having the upgrade might allow Terran to get more fighting unit out. The cost 250/250 (Fusion Core + Upgrade) might be worth it at 3 base economy.
On September 21 2023 11:10 Balnazza wrote: As for the other guy: Protoss might still have some great names around, but not only are a lot of them half-retired (like Stats or sOs), but they also already fulfilled their military service. While the top zergs and terrans in Korea (Dark, Cure, Maru, Solar) have competed without break. And from all the Protoss that have returned I would argue that only herO has become better, a lot of them (like Classic) still struggle to reach former glories.
This is absurd. Protoss can't just be underpowered because Protoss players aren't playing well. How do we know they're doing poorly due to skill rather than balance? Uh, I dunno, you feel like they're just not that good. But that's definitely why.
If Protoss had a dip in results for a few months, even a year, maybe I could buy what you're saying. But it's been much longer than that. Protoss won 1/13 International Premier events in 2020, 5/16 in 2021, 3/13 in 2022, and so far in 2023 0/6. That's 9/48 or a little under 19%. "Protoss players bad" isn't an adequate explanation.
Just look at the list of Protoss players in the last GSL qualifier...which of these players in your opinion should be winning Premier events? And yes, I mean *should be*, so the level of the likes of Maru and Serral, who when they drop out before the Top 4 you would consider it a bad showing.
This doesn't play. In a game with asymmetrical balance there's no way to know that someone should be winning a match, let alone an event. It feels right to you to think that Maru and Serral are more deserving because of the history that you have of watching them win. In a game that was unbalanced in favor of protoss you would have a history of watching herO or Maxpax win and there would be no way to figure out that Serral 'deserves' something else.
The only fair way to approach a game like this is balance, merit is a silly notion.
Ehh, ofc there is. The game might by asymmetrical, but at the end of the day there has to be some form of notion of merit / skill otuside of the race they play. How fast are they? How well do they micro and macro? Is their strategic and tactical thinking top notch? Ofc the specific balance of each race plays into these things (because some skills might be more important than others in context), but there still needs to be some understanding of it, otherwise we might as well balance around players who truly are not good enough to win, just for them to win. The notion that "balance" means that every race wins as much as the other at the top level is silly, balance is if players of 'equal strength' have equal chance to win. The main problem of current day sc2 is that the player pool doesn't allow us to assume that we actually have players of equal strength throughout the races at the top level (not just thinking best vs best players either). There are no new players coming along who would challenge and replace people at the top level, we have a playerpool which generally gets smaller and smaller, and also a scene which is far from its height where one could also assume that people truly do their 100% to get results. The current environment simply isn't that, at all, so it almost becomes unlikely that we'd have players of the same calibre at the top level, equally distributed across the races. It's a fantasy. How does one manage that? I am not sure, and i personally do believe that the races aren't equally likely to allow for consistent top results either, though i think both things are true at the same time. Balance / design issues, and players who aren't directly comparable in strength. Not that i can prove it (or anyone), but i think it makes sense if one realizes where the scene is.
If we're going by "merit/skill", i always feel that protoss needs to pull off insane feats and balls of steel to compete. And that it's the easiest for them to take game ending damage due to small slip ups.
It takes SO much effort (unit control, micro, decision making, good defense and timing) for Protoss to defend early Terran pushes for example, meanwhile it's very easy for the Terran to group everything up and siege up, stim, and start forcing tons of pressure and mistakes. (I play Terran too, so I'm not biased, i really do feel it is relatively much simpler and easy).
Protoss units have a high ceiling, and you need to use each of their strengths to the fullest to defend a lot of things. For example blink stalkers can't just blink on tanks and shoot, you also need to split their fire to not overkill Tanks, it's THAT demanding. Whereas if you're Terran, you don't have to worry about that even, and your positioning is way less important and punishing. One wrong blink, one wrong read, you can lose. Remember they have fog of war, they're not spectators, they often have to guess where to run and flank and blink, they don't know where the tanks are.
This is one reason why we should consider making units slightly less hard-countery (something Blizzard agreed was a big lesson learned over the years for SC2). Because for example, if Immortals are super strong vs Tanks but not marines, and Colossus super strong vs Marines but not Marauder/Tank, then the unit control will always be demanding because it's balanced around them firing against the right units and not wasting shots. If it's balanced to account for pros having an imperfect level of micro, then they'll be too strong in other situations.
Protoss units move at such different speeds too, and there is so much to control. Guardian shield, blink stalker, don't block your chargelots, don't let chargelots glitch out, also turn on your Oracle laser or lift stuff up with Phoenixes, make sure your Immortal doesn't waste 2 shots on a marine because that could have been 1 tank, now they have a 2nd tank reinforcing and you no longer can engage with your 5 gateway units, and now you lose ! etc. It all just feels so incredibly punishing.
It's not each of these individually in a vacuum that is that difficult or complicated. It's that it's like you have all these ingredients in your recipe, and they ALL have to do their job as planned, because if 1 ingredient fails, everything else might fall apart. Or you might have a chance if you can figure out instantly what to do differently in the engagement, but it takes so much more difficult problem solving and quick thinking than Terran army control and micro does, which is way more straightforward. There's no such thing as like, oh you stimmed 1 second too late and you lost the fight hard. Or you decided to split 5 marines to the left when you should have ran to the right, and now suddenly you have to sac all your tanks. Or like oh you lose 1-2 support units and now you don't have the pieces you need to fight. You can still fight and attack with your Terran army even if things go wrong, it's never as punishing or game ending as Protoss army control.
I'm always wow'd whenever I see Creator defend a Terran or Zerg push. I really love the way he plays, it screams merit and skill (when he's doing well, sure sometimes he's sloppy). Imagine the amount of risk and skill is needed to have HTs loaded up in your WPs and very carefully trying to feedback their raven or get a storm off to dodge EMPs and vikings. Think about how punishing and difficult it is to try to position it in a place that can avoid dying while also getting those feedback/storms off. I can't ever imagine maining Protoss. And on top of that, you have to have your army split between your natural and third, with just the right amount and just the right control. Blink stalkers have to be at the 3rd so you can kite and poke the terran army from behind or the side and delay the push, colossus have to not get picked off, you have to choose where to use your 1 Overcharge correctly and not let it get picked off, and also hopefully you build it in the correct location for the angle they decided to push, you also have to be ready to FF your natural if they try to go up there, and also watch out for drops in the main! Don't let your colossus or observers get sniped! If anything goes slightly wrong, you better think fast and come up with just the right solution to save yourself, otherwise everything falls apart and Terran will punish heavily.
And all this just to survive, it's not like doing all this means you crush the push and gain a big advantage. Maybe this is why I'm not a protoss player, but as a terran player it just screams skill and precision. It's so sad to me seeing zerglings glitch by a zealot/adept and causing game ending damage. Or a protoss to defend crackling/baneling runby after runby, only to finally lose 15 probes to 1 runby, and suddenly they don't have the econ anymore to keep trading evenly with the Zerg and get overwhelmed.
This is just talking about Protoss defending vs Terran, but i feel like Protoss is like this in general as a race. How about mass liberators? Takes an insane amount of effort to fight against than it does for Terran to spam liberation zones and leapfrog. You need such precision, it's really saddening how people meme that Protoss is "easy" or "low APM" or whatever. It's no longer the A-move deathball it used to be. Sure you might say that they have Disruptors, but Disruptors are not always that consistent, and you don't need perfect splits to compete against them. You can even take 1-2 perfect disruptor shots here and there and still have an even game.
One thing that i think might be being forgotten, is that Protoss units are weaker at defense by design. Why? Because if units were strong, attacking with Warpgate would be too imbalanced. So Gateway units have to be slightly weak so that Warpgate attacks aren't too powerful. This means that at home when defending, where Warpgate isn't really relevant, your army is weaker than Terran/Zerg's army. That's why Batteries and Overcharge were added, and it's really confounding to me how the balance council thought that nerfing Overcharge and buffing the ability to get more Interference Matrixes earlier, wouldn't fuck up PvT. Did they really think that AA missile reducing 1 less armor was going to make up for nerfed Overcharge and buffed Interference Matrix? Or that slightly faster Obs would compensate? Or that getting +1 upgrades a few seconds earlier was going to help? There was no raw power given to Protoss to compensate for what was taken away.
Even many people on TL called it and said it looks like it will be even harder for Protoss to defend, and look what happened? PvT winrate dropped to 40%, and so many Protoss struggle vs Terran now. Just because players hated waiting 10 seconds for Overcharge to run out, and wanted to be able to attack into Overcharge and overpower it. So they attack into it, lose a fight, then say that Overcharge is OP. You could have just waited 10 seconds... it's not like Terran or Zerg loses the game if you don't end the game 10 seconds earlier. Yes, 10 seconds can matter in an all-in or timing attack, but attacking into it certainly isn't better than waiting it out (unless you Bile it or such).
@Yoshi a fine post sir. In a crude sense to me it feels Terran is meant to be the glass cannon race, and in many ways it is.
But it is Protoss that is the exceedingly brittle race. Partly due to core design, this has just got worse over time as players improvised. Partly due to being a race held together by various band aids.
With a perfect game, with great execution the top folks can still pull it off, but even a Serral or a Maru don’t play optimally every game.
Case in point, super batteries/formerly MSC. I was never a fan of either but on the flip side Protoss would just outright die most games without even getting properly started. Those are huge band aids.
I actually love a bunch of Protoss units, they’re IMO some of the better in the game as they have pretty defined strengths, weaknesses and need skill to use. But oh boy do many of them not scale well.
Either they just melt as terrible terrible damage kicks in the higher supply goes, or they’re too difficult to use as part of a workable late game composition through simply requiring too many manually triggered abilities.
Ever seen stellar Phoenix control at the same time as fine blink micro? Pretty much doesn’t happen when there’s more than a handful of units. To take just one example, it’s prohibitively difficult to do given how fast engagements go down, perhaps in a game that slows it down a la Stormgate you could have a faction so reliant on spells and abilities.
In combination this all makes them rather brittle and on a knife edge. I think you could take two decent pros of the various races into Archon mode and the Terran/Zergs aren’t going to be hugely better than a Maru or Serral in controlling an army, but the Protoss archon is going to be able to do things considerably beyond any single member of the Protoss pantheon
Also ‘bonus material’, lazy copy paste of a response on the Reddit thread, feel I may as well!:
Exactly. Is it a style, or is it ‘stuff that comes from factories’? People can’t even seem to decide on that!
I’d argue that while not a 1:1 similarity, historic Zerg styles especially slow pushes with swarmhost backing, or some Airtoss styles shared a lot in common with BW mech come the lategame.
But people hated those styles and wanted them patched out
I’d also argue that battlemech, while I find it fine as a style shares very little in common with BW mech, and the cyclone in general doesn’t synergise well with any tank backbone very well.
What is a cyclone good at? Staying at max lock-on range and kiting constantly. What is a tank good at? Zoning a position at range while being static and hopefully you can keep various tank killers at a distance.
There’s pretty obvious overlap and you end up with two main scenarios (and ok notches in between)
1. The Cyclone is too brittle, not tanky enough or just not cost efficient enough to shield tank positions well, so mech still isn’t especially viable.
2. The Cyclone is potent and supply/cost efficient enough, mobile and can shoot up. Why build a tank-based core of your army in the first place? If there is ONE general consensus on what mech is, the iconic siege tank features heavily. What you’d likely see is a bunch of timings of Cyclone/Hellion or Cyclone/Bio. A change in meta sure but not one that IMO constitutes the ‘mech’ that is the continued complaint and rationale for these changes.
So what kind of ‘mech’ is this cyclone buff meant to make viable?
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
Imo, balance plays a factor but so do the players skill. Most of the top Protoss players retired: Zest, Stats, and PartinG for example.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
Imo, balance plays a factor but so do the players skill. Most of the top Protoss players retired: Zest, Stats, and PartinG for example.
Okay and life, rogue, jaedong, soulkey retired as well I don't see your point. Players retire, it happens, my point is you balance around who IS playing the game, not who was.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
The amount of intentional dishonesty and framing here is appalling. First of all, when those guys were all still playing Protoss was still underperforming in tournaments, 2nd of all stats is back, 3rd of all why are u comparing the lowest players to the best and saying they have to match why not say Classic/herO instead of creator/showtime? I think we all know why. 4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
On September 22 2023 00:33 tigera6 wrote: I mean, at some point in the game, we saw too many medivac on the field and its cutting into the army supply of the Terran. So having the upgrade might allow Terran to get more fighting unit out. The cost 250/250 (Fusion Core + Upgrade) might be worth it at 3 base economy.
I think, this will be an upgrade that terrans get on their way to ranged libs, will also allow for more bio or libs on the field over medivacs. Either way a massive buff to late game terran.
What baffles me is the first statement of them trying to help mid-late game protoss vs terran, and then they nerf the one unit that was actually good at that stage, without giving anything else. Like this change wont magically makes colossi better vs mass marauder. My one hope is that with the change immortal is getting it will be better performing in the matchup.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
The amount of intentional dishonesty and framing here is appalling. First of all, when those guys were all still playing Protoss was still underperforming in tournaments, 2nd of all stats is back, 3rd of all why are u comparing the lowest players to the best and saying they have to match why not say Classic/herO instead of creator/showtime? I think we all know why. 4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
I don't think protoss was underperforming at the time? In 2022, protoss won more money than terran, albeit slightly Winnings/2022 In 2021, protoss won the most money, even more than zerg Winnings/2021 In 2020, protoss won more money than terran Winnings/2020 In 209, zerg won an absurd amount of money, but protoss still won more money than terran Winnings/2019 Same in 2018
Only in 2023 protoss has underperformed money wise Winnings/2023 ; which is partly explained by the departure of Neeb and the KR protoss (Zoun, Trap, PartinG, Zest, etc.)
In 2022, SHoWTimE was #9 in earnings and he is #5 in 2023 since there are far less top protoss around. Heck, MC is now in the rankings because of gamers8, and #9 / #10 protoss earners are trigger and SKillous.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
The amount of intentional dishonesty and framing here is appalling. First of all, when those guys were all still playing Protoss was still underperforming in tournaments, 2nd of all stats is back, 3rd of all why are u comparing the lowest players to the best and saying they have to match why not say Classic/herO instead of creator/showtime? I think we all know why. 4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
I don't think protoss was underperforming at the time? In 2022, protoss won more money than terran, albeit slightly Winnings/2022 In 2021, protoss won the most money, even more than zerg Winnings/2021 In 2020, protoss won more money than terran Winnings/2020 In 209, zerg won an absurd amount of money, but protoss still won more money than terran Winnings/2019 Same in 2018
Only in 2023 protoss has underperformed money wise Winnings/2023 ; which is partly explained by the departure of Neeb and the KR protoss (Zoun, Trap, PartinG, Zest, etc.)
In 2022, SHoWTimE was #9 in earnings and he is #5 in 2023 since there are far less top protoss around. Heck, MC is now in the rankings because of gamers8, and #9 / #10 protoss earners are trigger and SKillous.
Earnings are never really an accurate measurement for balance state. Tell me how (no offense to any of these players, they are all great) but someone like pilipili winning $600 dollars in the NA regional is the same as DRG being eliminated in the ro24 of GSL after having to face Cure and Dark. However, if you are going to go off earnings as a metric, what would matter most is global winnings which you still see other races outperforming the toss. Furthermore take a look at the Aligulac balance report and see which race is lagging and for how long. Tell me that is just a coincidence or cough up any sort of rationale. http://aligulac.com/periods/ . It's a complete joke. I swear part of the reasoning people want to argue toss is not underpowered is because they lose to protoss in their 4k/5k ladder games. Like, JUST LOOK AT THE DATA. /rant
in what you linked btw, 2023: a single toss in top 10 of global earnings 2022: a single toss 2021: 3 2020: 2 2019: 4 (and the one time they are not underrepresented they place in the bottom 4 earners where first place (zerg) earned more than all four of them combined.)
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
The amount of intentional dishonesty and framing here is appalling. First of all, when those guys were all still playing Protoss was still underperforming in tournaments, 2nd of all stats is back, 3rd of all why are u comparing the lowest players to the best and saying they have to match why not say Classic/herO instead of creator/showtime? I think we all know why. 4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
I don't think protoss was underperforming at the time? In 2022, protoss won more money than terran, albeit slightly Winnings/2022 In 2021, protoss won the most money, even more than zerg Winnings/2021 In 2020, protoss won more money than terran Winnings/2020 In 209, zerg won an absurd amount of money, but protoss still won more money than terran Winnings/2019 Same in 2018
Only in 2023 protoss has underperformed money wise Winnings/2023 ; which is partly explained by the departure of Neeb and the KR protoss (Zoun, Trap, PartinG, Zest, etc.)
In 2022, SHoWTimE was #9 in earnings and he is #5 in 2023 since there are far less top protoss around. Heck, MC is now in the rankings because of gamers8, and #9 / #10 protoss earners are trigger and SKillous.
Earnings are never really an accurate measurement for balance state. Tell me how (no offense to any of these players, they are all great) but someone like pilipili winning $600 dollars in the NA regional is the same as DRG being eliminated in the ro24 of GSL after having to face Cure and Dark. However, if you are going to go off earnings as a metric, what would matter most is global winnings which you still see other races outperforming the toss. Furthermore take a look at the Aligulac balance report and see which race is lagging and for how long. Tell me that is just a coincidence or cough up any sort of rationale. http://aligulac.com/periods/ . It's a complete joke. I swear part of the reasoning people want to argue toss is not underpowered is because they lose to protoss in their 4k/5k ladder games. Like, JUST LOOK AT THE DATA. /rant
in what you linked btw, 2023: a single toss in top 10 of global earnings 2022: a single toss 2021: 3 2020: 2 2019: 4 (and the one time they are not underrepresented they place in the bottom 4 earners where first place (zerg) earned more than all four of them combined.)
Earnings is what is ultimately important for the players. It's a decent proxy for balance, as the earnings were completely skewed in favor of zerg when zerg was at its most OP. I don't see how "winning a GSL" is a good proxy for balance btw.
This year, the earnings being lower for protoss are partly explained by the high number of top protoss that stopped playing, and might also be partly explained by balance. But to think that protoss has been underpowered for years is kinda dishonest, it's just not true
If there were ever a top Protoss in modern SC2 (LotV), that was able to be in the top echelon of players like Maru, Serral, Rogue... then the evidence and data would suggest that the rest of the Protoss players are just lacking in skill, and that it's very possible and realistic for Protoss to compete at the top top level.
However, what we see is there is not a single Protoss that is or was ever on that level. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Protoss is a weak race at the top level, rather than that Protoss players are just worse than Terran and Zerg players. You could say Classic and Stats each had some good eras in LotV, and Zest even won a couple things occasionally, but it's nowhere close to Terran and Zerg. Especially Zerg, which we've known was overpowered for much of LotV and it took many nerfs (and the last community patch thankfully) to finally bring them back down to what seems like a fairly good state now.
Even though Trap was also very consistent in LotV for 1-2 years, he never won any GSL Code S. Why? (Other than PvZ being too hard for years). Is it because he chokes? It's most likely that Protoss as many people think and agree, is simply hard to be consistent at the top top level, and because it's such a punishing race to play.
Sure Protoss players seem less consistent and make slip ups, but do you really think it's just because they're all bad? Or is it because the race is more demanding to play? People criticize players like Creator fumbling an attack or throwing the game due to 1 bad engagement etc. Yes, it looks sloppy and terrible when things don't go well. But did you consider that maybe, Protoss has to regularly make bold risky and committal moves? And that's why occasionally, you're going to get a bad read and make a mistake? How about the other side of things, their incredible feats and unit micro. Manuevering a WP with HTs in it to try to feedback Ravens and storm Bio, while trying to avoid EMP, interference matrix, and viking fire. Why is it that they can do very very difficult things, yet tend to make game ending mistakes that Terran/Zerg don't have as often? It seems clear that it's just the race to me. If they keep making these slipups so often, it's simply because the race is more demanding to play than the others. Assuming that all Protoss players are just bad is a pretty shitty conclusion.
And with the recent community patch, Protoss is in an even weaker state... If the argument is that Protoss was fine before, well as of the last community patch Protoss definitely isn't fine. They clearly got nerfed after the patch, it was clear just from the patch notes alone, no testing or results were needed.
On September 22 2023 17:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If there were ever a top Protoss in modern SC2 (LotV), that was able to be in the top echelon of players like Maru, Serral, Rogue... then the evidence and data would suggest that the rest of the Protoss players are just lacking in skill, and that it's very possible and realistic for Protoss to compete at the top top level.
However, what we see is there is not a single Protoss that is or was ever on that level. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Protoss is a weak race at the top level, rather than that Protoss players are just worse than Terran and Zerg players. You could say Classic and Stats each had some good eras in LotV, and Zest even won a couple things occasionally, but it's nowhere close to Terran and Zerg. Especially Zerg, which we've known was overpowered for much of LotV and it took many nerfs (and the last community patch thankfully) to finally bring them back down to what seems like a fairly good state now.
Even though Trap was also very consistent in LotV for 1-2 years, he never won any GSL Code S. Why? (Other than PvZ being too hard for years). Is it because he chokes? It's most likely that Protoss as many people think and agree, is simply hard to be consistent at the top top level, and because it's such a punishing race to play.
Sure Protoss players seem less consistent and make slip ups, but do you really think it's just because they're all bad? Or is it because the race is more demanding to play?
And with the recent community patch, Protoss is in an even weaker state... If the argument is that Protoss was fine before, well as of the last community patch Protoss definitely isn't fine. They clearly got nerfed after the patch, it was clear just from the patch notes alone, no testing or results were needed.
Zest was at that level for sure, he was the best protoss and in the same tier of players as Maru, Rogue, Dark.
On September 22 2023 17:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If there were ever a top Protoss in modern SC2 (LotV), that was able to be in the top echelon of players like Maru, Serral, Rogue... then the evidence and data would suggest that the rest of the Protoss players are just lacking in skill, and that it's very possible and realistic for Protoss to compete at the top top level.
However, what we see is there is not a single Protoss that is or was ever on that level. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Protoss is a weak race at the top level, rather than that Protoss players are just worse than Terran and Zerg players. You could say Classic and Stats each had some good eras in LotV, and Zest even won a couple things occasionally, but it's nowhere close to Terran and Zerg. Especially Zerg, which we've known was overpowered for much of LotV and it took many nerfs (and the last community patch thankfully) to finally bring them back down to what seems like a fairly good state now.
Even though Trap was also very consistent in LotV for 1-2 years, he never won any GSL Code S. Why? (Other than PvZ being too hard for years). Is it because he chokes? It's most likely that Protoss as many people think and agree, is simply hard to be consistent at the top top level, and because it's such a punishing race to play.
Sure Protoss players seem less consistent and make slip ups, but do you really think it's just because they're all bad? Or is it because the race is more demanding to play?
And with the recent community patch, Protoss is in an even weaker state... If the argument is that Protoss was fine before, well as of the last community patch Protoss definitely isn't fine. They clearly got nerfed after the patch, it was clear just from the patch notes alone, no testing or results were needed.
Zest was at that level for sure, he was the best protoss and in the same tier of players as Maru, Rogue, Dark.
During the only period of SC2 history where protoss was strong Zest won a bunch of stuff playing protoss. And then he got destroyed in the last five years like everyone else.
On September 22 2023 17:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If there were ever a top Protoss in modern SC2 (LotV), that was able to be in the top echelon of players like Maru, Serral, Rogue... then the evidence and data would suggest that the rest of the Protoss players are just lacking in skill, and that it's very possible and realistic for Protoss to compete at the top top level.
However, what we see is there is not a single Protoss that is or was ever on that level. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Protoss is a weak race at the top level, rather than that Protoss players are just worse than Terran and Zerg players. You could say Classic and Stats each had some good eras in LotV, and Zest even won a couple things occasionally, but it's nowhere close to Terran and Zerg. Especially Zerg, which we've known was overpowered for much of LotV and it took many nerfs (and the last community patch thankfully) to finally bring them back down to what seems like a fairly good state now.
Even though Trap was also very consistent in LotV for 1-2 years, he never won any GSL Code S. Why? (Other than PvZ being too hard for years). Is it because he chokes? It's most likely that Protoss as many people think and agree, is simply hard to be consistent at the top top level, and because it's such a punishing race to play.
Sure Protoss players seem less consistent and make slip ups, but do you really think it's just because they're all bad? Or is it because the race is more demanding to play?
And with the recent community patch, Protoss is in an even weaker state... If the argument is that Protoss was fine before, well as of the last community patch Protoss definitely isn't fine. They clearly got nerfed after the patch, it was clear just from the patch notes alone, no testing or results were needed.
Zest was at that level for sure, he was the best protoss and in the same tier of players as Maru, Rogue, Dark.
During the only period of SC2 history where protoss was strong Zest won a bunch of stuff playing protoss. And then he got destroyed in the last five years like everyone else.
He reached several Katowice finals / GSL finals and even beat Rogue in an offline bo7.
I think something that is always overlooked in balance discussions is how that varies as a function of series length. Protoss is and probably always will be busted in Bo1 like ladder because we can just yolo it and open up the Great Book, it's probably even-ish in Bo3, but as you go into Bo5 and Bo7 it's just too easy to exploit Protoss weaknesses compared to Terran or Zerg. And frankly, I don't think that has ever been addressed in the history of SC2.
On September 22 2023 17:14 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If there were ever a top Protoss in modern SC2 (LotV), that was able to be in the top echelon of players like Maru, Serral, Rogue... then the evidence and data would suggest that the rest of the Protoss players are just lacking in skill, and that it's very possible and realistic for Protoss to compete at the top top level.
However, what we see is there is not a single Protoss that is or was ever on that level. It's much more reasonable to conclude that Protoss is a weak race at the top level, rather than that Protoss players are just worse than Terran and Zerg players. You could say Classic and Stats each had some good eras in LotV, and Zest even won a couple things occasionally, but it's nowhere close to Terran and Zerg. Especially Zerg, which we've known was overpowered for much of LotV and it took many nerfs (and the last community patch thankfully) to finally bring them back down to what seems like a fairly good state now.
Even though Trap was also very consistent in LotV for 1-2 years, he never won any GSL Code S. Why? (Other than PvZ being too hard for years). Is it because he chokes? It's most likely that Protoss as many people think and agree, is simply hard to be consistent at the top top level, and because it's such a punishing race to play.
Sure Protoss players seem less consistent and make slip ups, but do you really think it's just because they're all bad? Or is it because the race is more demanding to play?
And with the recent community patch, Protoss is in an even weaker state... If the argument is that Protoss was fine before, well as of the last community patch Protoss definitely isn't fine. They clearly got nerfed after the patch, it was clear just from the patch notes alone, no testing or results were needed.
Zest was at that level for sure, he was the best protoss and in the same tier of players as Maru, Rogue, Dark.
During the only period of SC2 history where protoss was strong Zest won a bunch of stuff playing protoss. And then he got destroyed in the last five years like everyone else.
He reached several Katowice finals / GSL finals and even beat Rogue in an offline bo7.
4 second places in 4 years + 1 win in a super tournament.
You just said he was the same tier as Maru, Rogue, Dark.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before? Or do you think the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play at all? (then i could moreso see your statement making sense). Ofc you have to balance a game around the potential of the race in human play, not around who is the best atm in the pro scene. To be clear, if the scene is healthy, if there are new players trying to push for the top (and some succeeding), if the competitive integrity of the scene is high, then ofc one can more or less assume that the top players of each race are about the same 'skill', one can balance around that as a result. (more or less). But when we are in an environment like ours, where this simply is not the case, when both the player pool is shrinking if anything, and the scene doesn't really provide a professional career to the degree where people can consider it a viable path, then this simply isn't true. Yeah stats might be back, but how hard is he trying to get to the absolute top again in the current, dying scene? Many players aren't as motivated anymore because anyone with half a brain realizes that sc2 pro won't be a viable profession for all that much longer anyway. So we can balance around "the best we have", but that will most likely result in actual imbalance, because balance isn't about having an equal outcome at all costs, it's about equal opportunity to do as well as the other races. (and this factors in merit). Which isn't to say that protoss doesn't need some help, i tend to think it does, i think that some design decisions and balance makes it so that picking protoss reduces the consistency one can achieve, but i majorly disagree with your foundational pov on balance.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
The amount of intentional dishonesty and framing here is appalling. First of all, when those guys were all still playing Protoss was still underperforming in tournaments, 2nd of all stats is back, 3rd of all why are u comparing the lowest players to the best and saying they have to match why not say Classic/herO instead of creator/showtime? I think we all know why. 4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Sure, use herO and Classic instead: They both came back from military which explains a big drop in performance. herO also was always good, but I wouldn't say he was on the same level as the guys who actually won tournaments. Still, I think he managed to become better after military than he was before, but apparently it isn't enough to compete with the heavy hitters.
And no, what appalling is that you are seriously saying "hey sorry, but if the fat kid can't win the 100m dash, it needs to get a 40m headstart". That is not how competition works. The job of game-balance is basically to eliminate itself from the equation of who wins a tournament. It is NOT to hold hands for players so they can compensate their lack of skill.
Lastly, I want to mention how funny it is that Earnings for you are not a good proxy for balance, but winning tournaments somehow is...
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before?
Yes if Ragnarok is the best zerg in the world he should be competitive against the best terrans or protosses. Why would you want to watch a game with three races where only two races are competitive, that's silly.
This whole line of argumentation is cope anyway because it relies on the notion that some of the retired protosses might be crushing today if they were still here, while we have the real world, where we could observe them not crushing before they retired, to test that theory against.
On September 22 2023 22:07 Balnazza wrote: Sure, use herO and Classic instead: They both came back from military which explains a big drop in performance. herO also was always good, but I wouldn't say he was on the same level as the guys who actually won tournaments. Still, I think he managed to become better after military than he was before, but apparently it isn't enough to compete with the heavy hitters.
And no, what appalling is that you are seriously saying "hey sorry, but if the fat kid can't win the 100m dash, it needs to get a 40m headstart". That is not how competition works.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
Yes if Ragnarok is the best zerg in the world he should be competitive against the best terrans or protosses. Why would you want to watch a game with three races where only two races are competitive, that's silly.
I didn't specifiy, but i think the context made it clear that in this case the "better" zerg players are simply not playing anymore, so ragnarok becomes the best, not because his skill level increased, but because the situation made him best. I assume you realized that is what i meant though. I don't see how that is silly, the races WOULD be competitive, it's just that no zerg player is good enough to make use of their race to be competitive with the best players of the other races.
This whole line of argumentation is cope anyway because it relies on the notion that some of the retired protosses might be crushing today if they were still here, while we have the real world, where we could observe them not crushing before they retired, to test that theory against.
There is no cope, it's just a reasonable interpretation of the current scene. It would be rather unreasonable to say something similar at the height of sc2's competitiveness (ideally also with actual newcomers going through the ranks, which tbf never truly happened that much compared to other healthy scenes), but as it stands? It seems unreasonable to believe that the skill level of the top players is distributed evenly across the races. As i said, i think there should be some changes, i don't believe that protoss has the toolset as a race to be as consistent as say zerg in particular, but the foundational idea that the game has to be balanced around the outcome no matter what is absurd. If the ragnarok example didn't make the point strong enough, imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is as skilled as a random master player, you definitely don't think we should balance around that, do you?
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before? Or do you think the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play at all? (then i could moreso see your statement making sense). Ofc you have to balance a game around the potential of the race in human play, not around who is the best atm in the pro scene. To be clear, if the scene is healthy, if there are new players trying to push for the top (and some succeeding), if the competitive integrity of the scene is high, then ofc one can more or less assume that the top players of each race are about the same 'skill', one can balance around that as a result. (more or less). But when we are in an environment like ours, where this simply is not the case, when both the player pool is shrinking if anything, and the scene doesn't really provide a professional career to the degree where people can consider it a viable path, then this simply isn't true. Yeah stats might be back, but how hard is he trying to get to the absolute top again in the current, dying scene? Many players aren't as motivated anymore because anyone with half a brain realizes that sc2 pro won't be a viable profession for all that much longer anyway. So we can balance around "the best we have", but that will most likely result in actual imbalance, because balance isn't about having an equal outcome at all costs, it's about equal opportunity to do as well as the other races. (and this factors in merit). Which isn't to say that protoss doesn't need some help, i tend to think it does, i think that some design decisions and balance makes it so that picking protoss reduces the consistency one can achieve, but i majorly disagree with your foundational pov on balance.
The thing is that there is no objective way to measure skill. In an asymmetrical game you can never say with 100% confidence that player A really won because he's the better player Even if the best Zerg in the world would be Ragnarok, we couldn't say 100% confidently that he's worse than the top P/T players because players also can improve and others get worse and also it could be possible that Ragnarok was always as good as them and his race just used to hold him back, while Serral/Reynor/Dark were 2 times as good as the top players from the other races.
But that's not even the case here, with Classic and herO there are two proven championship level players active.
Maybe Protoss would win more if Zest/Trap/PartinG would still play but that's just hypotheticals, you can't use that as an argument. Maybe they would do just as bad as the current Protoss players, maybe Zerg would win every tournament if Life was still playing etc. etc. In balance discussions you can't use hypothetical results that might or might not have happened if other players were active at the moment.
The reason we have to balance around the current player set is because it's the only measurement of balance at the highest level there is, that isn't based on assumptions of hypothetical scenarios.
On September 22 2023 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the ragnarok example didn't make the point strong enough, imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is as skilled as a random master player, you definitely don't think we should balance around that, do you?
Yes we should balance around that especially in this example because in this example zerg is so bad that even the best player is stuck in master and unable to develop a game interesting enough to not be some random no name, that would mean there's something especially wrong with zerg's balance.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before? Or do you think the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play at all? (then i could moreso see your statement making sense). Ofc you have to balance a game around the potential of the race in human play, not around who is the best atm in the pro scene. To be clear, if the scene is healthy, if there are new players trying to push for the top (and some succeeding), if the competitive integrity of the scene is high, then ofc one can more or less assume that the top players of each race are about the same 'skill', one can balance around that as a result. (more or less). But when we are in an environment like ours, where this simply is not the case, when both the player pool is shrinking if anything, and the scene doesn't really provide a professional career to the degree where people can consider it a viable path, then this simply isn't true. Yeah stats might be back, but how hard is he trying to get to the absolute top again in the current, dying scene? Many players aren't as motivated anymore because anyone with half a brain realizes that sc2 pro won't be a viable profession for all that much longer anyway. So we can balance around "the best we have", but that will most likely result in actual imbalance, because balance isn't about having an equal outcome at all costs, it's about equal opportunity to do as well as the other races. (and this factors in merit). Which isn't to say that protoss doesn't need some help, i tend to think it does, i think that some design decisions and balance makes it so that picking protoss reduces the consistency one can achieve, but i majorly disagree with your foundational pov on balance.
The thing is that there is no objective way to measure skill. In an asymmetrical game you can never say with 100% confidence that player A really won because he's the better player Even if the best Zerg in the world would be Ragnarok, we couldn't say 100% confidently that he's worse than the top P/T players because players also can improve and others get worse and also it could be possible that Ragnarok was always as good as them and his race just used to hold him back, while Serral/Reynor/Dark were 2 times as good as the top players from the other races.
But that's not even the case here, with Classic and herO there are two proven championship level players active.
Maybe Protoss would win more if Zest/Trap/PartinG would still play but that's just hypotheticals, you can't use that as an argument. Maybe they would do just as bad as the current Protoss players, maybe Zerg would win every tournament if Life was still playing etc. etc. In balance discussions you can't use hypothetical results that might or might not have happened if other players were active at the moment.
The reason we have to balance around the current player set is because it's the only measurement of balance at the highest level there is, that isn't based on assumptions of hypothetical scenarios.
It doesn't matter that one cannot be 100% objective about it, this is a foundational issue regarding how the game should be balanced, not what makes it the easiest to "balance". Yes, if we think the game is balanced when the outcomes are equal, then we can do that mostly, but that is, as i argue, not what balance actually entails in a scenario like ours. One can assume somewhat equal distribution of skill if the scene is healthy, if there are new players coming into the scene trying to become the best, then we can assume that the law of large numbers more or less evens it out. But as it stands we definitely cannot assume that, for multiple reasons i already stated.
So i am not appealing to any specific player not being here any longer, i am appealing to the state of the scene on the whole, that it doesn't allow us to believe that the outcomes SHOULD be similar at the very top. And as most conversations really just look at number of tournament wins, this is just totally nonsensical argumentation.
An ideal approach would try to understand why certain dynamics are 'unfair', try to understand what tools a race has allows them to be more consistent than others, try to eliminate high variance interactions which seem to be in favor of a particular race due to its design, etc. Is that "objective" in the same way as superficially looking at outcomes? No. But that doesn't mean the latter is the better approach.
On September 22 2023 22:41 The_Red_Viper wrote: If the ragnarok example didn't make the point strong enough, imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is as skilled as a random master player, you definitely don't think we should balance around that, do you?
Yes we should balance around that especially in this example because in this example zerg is so bad that even the best player is stuck in master and unable to develop a game interesting enough to not be some random no name, that would mean there's something especially wrong with zerg's balance.
I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is. Ofc this would never happen to this extent, even in an unhealthy environment like ours right now, BUT what is happening is that the current top player pool doesn't get newcomers to push for the top, allowing us to assume that the distribution of skill is equal. That is the whole point of the argument.
If Serral, Dark, Solar and Reynor suddenly retired, you can expect Zerg to not win anymore tournaments. Does this mean we need to buff Zerg even more to compensate? Come on now...
On September 22 2023 22:55 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is.
The reason why that seems absurd to you is because you offered an absurd hypothetical. It is impossible that we would reach a situation where the best zerg in the world would be someone who is in master and unable to get higher than that. But if we take your absurd hypothetical and pretend it's reality, the conclusion would not be "Zergs are master noobs", it would be "there is something seriously wrong with zerg at a fundamental level".
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before? Or do you think the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play at all? (then i could moreso see your statement making sense). Ofc you have to balance a game around the potential of the race in human play, not around who is the best atm in the pro scene. To be clear, if the scene is healthy, if there are new players trying to push for the top (and some succeeding), if the competitive integrity of the scene is high, then ofc one can more or less assume that the top players of each race are about the same 'skill', one can balance around that as a result. (more or less). But when we are in an environment like ours, where this simply is not the case, when both the player pool is shrinking if anything, and the scene doesn't really provide a professional career to the degree where people can consider it a viable path, then this simply isn't true. Yeah stats might be back, but how hard is he trying to get to the absolute top again in the current, dying scene? Many players aren't as motivated anymore because anyone with half a brain realizes that sc2 pro won't be a viable profession for all that much longer anyway. So we can balance around "the best we have", but that will most likely result in actual imbalance, because balance isn't about having an equal outcome at all costs, it's about equal opportunity to do as well as the other races. (and this factors in merit). Which isn't to say that protoss doesn't need some help, i tend to think it does, i think that some design decisions and balance makes it so that picking protoss reduces the consistency one can achieve, but i majorly disagree with your foundational pov on balance.
The thing is that there is no objective way to measure skill. In an asymmetrical game you can never say with 100% confidence that player A really won because he's the better player Even if the best Zerg in the world would be Ragnarok, we couldn't say 100% confidently that he's worse than the top P/T players because players also can improve and others get worse and also it could be possible that Ragnarok was always as good as them and his race just used to hold him back, while Serral/Reynor/Dark were 2 times as good as the top players from the other races.
But that's not even the case here, with Classic and herO there are two proven championship level players active.
Maybe Protoss would win more if Zest/Trap/PartinG would still play but that's just hypotheticals, you can't use that as an argument. Maybe they would do just as bad as the current Protoss players, maybe Zerg would win every tournament if Life was still playing etc. etc. In balance discussions you can't use hypothetical results that might or might not have happened if other players were active at the moment.
The reason we have to balance around the current player set is because it's the only measurement of balance at the highest level there is, that isn't based on assumptions of hypothetical scenarios.
It doesn't matter that one cannot be 100% objective about it, this is a foundational issue regarding how the game should be balanced, not what makes it the easiest to "balance". Yes, if we think the game is balanced when the outcomes are equal, then we can do that mostly, but that is, as i argue, not what balance actually entails in a scenario like ours. One can assume somewhat equal distribution of skill if the scene is healthy, if there are new players coming into the scene trying to become the best, then we can assume that the law of large numbers more or less evens it out. But as it stands we definitely cannot assume that, for multiple reasons i already stated.
So i am not appealing to any specific player not being here any longer, i am appealing to the state of the scene on the whole, that it doesn't allow us to believe that the outcomes SHOULD be similar at the very top. And as most conversations really just look at number of tournament wins, this is just totally nonsensical argumentation.
An ideal approach would try to understand why certain dynamics are 'unfair', try to understand what tools a race has allows them to be more consistent than others, try to eliminate high variance interactions which seem to be in favor of a particular race due to its design, etc. Is that "objective" in the same way as superficially looking at outcomes? No. But that doesn't mean the latter is the better approach.
Those two go hand in hand. If one race is getting destroyed at the pro level there are bound to be certain dynamics that appear unfair when following the pro scene. Like +2 Banes one-shotting workers currently appears "unfair" and makes Protoss to fragile, but if Serral, Reynor and Dark would retire tomorrow, it would seem like an easily defendable tactic for top Protoss players.
On September 22 2023 22:55 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is.
The reason why that seems absurd to you is because you offered an absurd hypothetical. It is impossible that we would reach a situation where the best zerg in the world would be someone who is in master and unable to get higher than that. But if we take your absurd hypothetical and pretend it's reality, the conclusion would not be "Zergs are master noobs", it would be "there is something seriously wrong with zerg at a fundamental level".
It seems like you just do not want to engage the idea that your foundational principle of balance only works if we can assume that the skill of the players is evenly distributed. This hypothetical was this extreme because you didn't wanna work with the ragnarok example, which is certainly possible to happen. So don't blame me that i go for an even more extreme one to showcase the point, it's really your fault.
The conclusion you add at the end here just completely neglects the parameters, in your worldview it seems like you simply do not entertain that skill levels can be different at the top and that this causes unequal outcomes (at least partially; i will add for the third time now that i personally also think that the design / balance plays into it too atm). Both things can be true at the same time though, and especially in our current environment it seems fairly likely that people like serral are indeed simply better players than say herO. If the scene was more healthy, with lots and lots of players trying to become pro and we would have the same scenario, it would be a lot more likely that the best protoss players are indeed similarly skilled and the outcome should be closer to equal.
On September 21 2023 21:07 Swaann wrote: I took the 5 top ranked player by race on aligulac. Toss : herO, Maxpax, Classic, Showtime, Creator Terran : Maru, Clem, Cure, Byun, Heromarine Zerg : Serral, Dark, Reynor, Solar, Ragnarok
Sorry but i don't feel this is same quality sample. herO is good, but never has been considered a top top player like Serral, Maru, Dark etc. Maxpax is only doing online tournament. Classic still struggle since military. Showtime and Creator ...
So yeah, i think the real issue is here.
Holy "bad word I can't type on TL forums." You can not be serious. Consider that maybe for a second, the reason these Protoss players aren't as accomplished as the ones from the other two races could have something to do with balance?
So when the top 10 Protoss players retire, there is a law that says the next ten players have to magically jump in skill to catch up to the rest? Rogue retired and Ragnarok (or Solar) got into the Top 5 zergs because of that. Doesn't mean Ragnarok is suddenly as good as Rogue. Same for terran. TY and Innovation dropped out, so Heromarine could jump in - a player that has not won a Premier tournament in his career. But sure, the reason Showtime and Creator are not as good as peak Zest, Stats and PartinG is a balance-issue...
4th no matter what, balance of the game should be around who IS playing the game, not who WAS playing the game. Saying welp, protoss, you're out of luck because no one talented is playing your race is a horrible mindset, and horrible for game health assuming ~33% of players play Protoss.
Do you actually believe that? Imagine a scenario where the best zerg in the world is ragnarok. Should the game suddenly be balanced so he wins as much a zerg players have before? Or do you think the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play at all? (then i could moreso see your statement making sense). Ofc you have to balance a game around the potential of the race in human play, not around who is the best atm in the pro scene. To be clear, if the scene is healthy, if there are new players trying to push for the top (and some succeeding), if the competitive integrity of the scene is high, then ofc one can more or less assume that the top players of each race are about the same 'skill', one can balance around that as a result. (more or less). But when we are in an environment like ours, where this simply is not the case, when both the player pool is shrinking if anything, and the scene doesn't really provide a professional career to the degree where people can consider it a viable path, then this simply isn't true. Yeah stats might be back, but how hard is he trying to get to the absolute top again in the current, dying scene? Many players aren't as motivated anymore because anyone with half a brain realizes that sc2 pro won't be a viable profession for all that much longer anyway. So we can balance around "the best we have", but that will most likely result in actual imbalance, because balance isn't about having an equal outcome at all costs, it's about equal opportunity to do as well as the other races. (and this factors in merit). Which isn't to say that protoss doesn't need some help, i tend to think it does, i think that some design decisions and balance makes it so that picking protoss reduces the consistency one can achieve, but i majorly disagree with your foundational pov on balance.
The thing is that there is no objective way to measure skill. In an asymmetrical game you can never say with 100% confidence that player A really won because he's the better player Even if the best Zerg in the world would be Ragnarok, we couldn't say 100% confidently that he's worse than the top P/T players because players also can improve and others get worse and also it could be possible that Ragnarok was always as good as them and his race just used to hold him back, while Serral/Reynor/Dark were 2 times as good as the top players from the other races.
But that's not even the case here, with Classic and herO there are two proven championship level players active.
Maybe Protoss would win more if Zest/Trap/PartinG would still play but that's just hypotheticals, you can't use that as an argument. Maybe they would do just as bad as the current Protoss players, maybe Zerg would win every tournament if Life was still playing etc. etc. In balance discussions you can't use hypothetical results that might or might not have happened if other players were active at the moment.
The reason we have to balance around the current player set is because it's the only measurement of balance at the highest level there is, that isn't based on assumptions of hypothetical scenarios.
It doesn't matter that one cannot be 100% objective about it, this is a foundational issue regarding how the game should be balanced, not what makes it the easiest to "balance". Yes, if we think the game is balanced when the outcomes are equal, then we can do that mostly, but that is, as i argue, not what balance actually entails in a scenario like ours. One can assume somewhat equal distribution of skill if the scene is healthy, if there are new players coming into the scene trying to become the best, then we can assume that the law of large numbers more or less evens it out. But as it stands we definitely cannot assume that, for multiple reasons i already stated.
So i am not appealing to any specific player not being here any longer, i am appealing to the state of the scene on the whole, that it doesn't allow us to believe that the outcomes SHOULD be similar at the very top. And as most conversations really just look at number of tournament wins, this is just totally nonsensical argumentation.
An ideal approach would try to understand why certain dynamics are 'unfair', try to understand what tools a race has allows them to be more consistent than others, try to eliminate high variance interactions which seem to be in favor of a particular race due to its design, etc. Is that "objective" in the same way as superficially looking at outcomes? No. But that doesn't mean the latter is the better approach.
Those two go hand in hand. If one race is getting destroyed at the pro level there are bound to be certain dynamics that appear unfair when following the pro scene. Like +2 Banes one-shotting workers currently appears "unfair" and makes Protoss to fragile, but if Serral, Reynor and Dark would retire tomorrow, it would seem like an easily defendable tactic for top Protoss players.
I disagree. There has to be some interactions we can look at in a vacuum and decide if they are healthy for the game or not. Not everything is predicated on extremely high skill levels, some interactions are just imbalanced because the cost benefit is ridiculous. With that being said, yes it is difficult and potentially imperfect to do differentiated analysis like that, ideally there would be a lot of stats regarding what kind of strategy / interaction results in what % of wins / losses to help with the interpretation. Still, as i said before, just because this is difficult doesn't mean it's not the better approach how to understand balance.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
On September 22 2023 22:55 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is.
The reason why that seems absurd to you is because you offered an absurd hypothetical. It is impossible that we would reach a situation where the best zerg in the world would be someone who is in master and unable to get higher than that. But if we take your absurd hypothetical and pretend it's reality, the conclusion would not be "Zergs are master noobs", it would be "there is something seriously wrong with zerg at a fundamental level".
It seems like you just do not want to engage the idea that your foundational principle of balance only works if we can assume that the skill of the players is evenly distributed. This hypothetical was this extreme because you didn't wanna work with the ragnarok example, which is certainly possible to happen. So don't blame me that i go for an even more extreme one to showcase the point, it's really your fault.
The conclusion you add at the end here just completely neglects the parameters, in your worldview it seems like you simply do not entertain that skill levels can be different at the top and that this causes unequal outcomes (at least partially; i will add for the third time now that i personally also think that the design / balance plays into it too atm). Both things can be true at the same time though, and especially in our current environment it seems fairly likely that people like serral are indeed simply better players than say herO. If the scene was more healthy, with lots and lots of players trying to become pro and we would have the same scenario, it would be a lot more likely that the best protoss players are indeed similarly skilled and the outcome should be closer to equal.
But even in the extreme example we should still be balancing in the same way. It's not "my fault" or "I don't want to engage", I'm just telling you you're looking at it wrong, the assumptions that you're making are much more dangerous in terms of balancing a game because they aren't based on anything measurable.
On September 22 2023 22:55 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is.
The reason why that seems absurd to you is because you offered an absurd hypothetical. It is impossible that we would reach a situation where the best zerg in the world would be someone who is in master and unable to get higher than that. But if we take your absurd hypothetical and pretend it's reality, the conclusion would not be "Zergs are master noobs", it would be "there is something seriously wrong with zerg at a fundamental level".
It seems like you just do not want to engage the idea that your foundational principle of balance only works if we can assume that the skill of the players is evenly distributed. This hypothetical was this extreme because you didn't wanna work with the ragnarok example, which is certainly possible to happen. So don't blame me that i go for an even more extreme one to showcase the point, it's really your fault.
The conclusion you add at the end here just completely neglects the parameters, in your worldview it seems like you simply do not entertain that skill levels can be different at the top and that this causes unequal outcomes (at least partially; i will add for the third time now that i personally also think that the design / balance plays into it too atm). Both things can be true at the same time though, and especially in our current environment it seems fairly likely that people like serral are indeed simply better players than say herO. If the scene was more healthy, with lots and lots of players trying to become pro and we would have the same scenario, it would be a lot more likely that the best protoss players are indeed similarly skilled and the outcome should be closer to equal.
But even in the extreme example we should still be balancing in the same way. It's not "my fault" or "I don't want to engage", I'm just telling you you're looking at it wrong, the assumptions that you're making are much more dangerous in terms of balancing a game because they aren't based on anything measurable.
I don't think i am. I think you are. I think you just want equal outcomes no matter if 'deserved' or not. Now maybe that would be ideal in a sense of entertainment for an audience, as generally each viewer identifies with certain races, and more variety in matchups all throughout a tournament is good too. I can see that argument, but obviously this runs counter to a sense of competitive integrity. Ideally we surely want people who are 'better' to win, because they got there through work and dedication. I don't want chess to be balanced in a way where magnus carlsen wins fewer tournaments just because fans of other players think it is boring. I don't think my approach is "more dangerous", i don't make any claims regarding what an outcome should be like in specific, you do. You are the person who wants to force something, i am saying that one should look at other things to balance the game 'fairly', not that it doesn't have to be looked at at all.
On September 22 2023 22:58 geokilla wrote: If Serral, Dark, Solar and Reynor suddenly retired, you can expect Zerg to not win anymore tournaments. Does this mean we need to buff Zerg even more to compensate? Come on now...
That is the logical conclusion of balancing based on outcome. And as i said, i think this kinda works in healthy scenes (though even there i think it shouldn't be the only consideration), but it definitely doesn't work in our current one.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
In the meantime herO is casually coming back from a 1-3 deficit vs Maru, but people will act like protoss just can't beat terrans. Oh and he easily beat HeroMarine as well.
Did u watch the games? Every single game was an all in. herO being able to stop 3 1 base all ins is not a great indicator of balance and moreover, one or two series is not indicative of anything due to a multitude of factors
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
On September 22 2023 23:26 The_Red_Viper wrote: I don't think i am. I think you are. I think you just want equal outcomes no matter if 'deserved' or not. Now maybe that would be ideal in a sense of entertainment for an audience, as generally each viewer identifies with certain races, and more variety in matchups all throughout a tournament is good too. I can see that argument, but obviously this runs counter to a sense of competitive integrity. Ideally we surely want people who are 'better' to win, because they got there through work and dedication. I don't want chess to be balanced in a way where magnus carlsen wins fewer tournaments just because fans of other players think it is boring. I don't think my approach is "more dangerous", i don't make any claims regarding what an outcome should be like in specific, you do. You are the person who wants to force something, i am saying that one should look at other things to balance the game 'fairly', not that it doesn't have to be looked at at all.
Your perception of what is deserved is based on what is happening, and what is happening is based on balance. What is dangerous when you decide to substitute 'merit' for 'balance', is that you're creating many situations that are problematic without realizing it. What if Maxpax starts winning against the players who deserve to win? Is it imbalanced, or has he reached the level of being 'deserving'? How do you know? Maybe we should patch him down so that he doesn't win against those 'deserving' players, or maybe we shouldn't. What if Serral has a slump, and starts losing? Is he no longer deserving, or do we keep him in that status? For how long?
If you organize the parameters of your game around the idea that it is fair for someone in particular to be winning in the end, the game doesn't just become less interesting to watch for spectators, it also becomes silly to play for the pros. Would you dedicate years of your life to a game in which it is understood that if you become the best player you can be with your tools, your opponent with other tools is supposed to win more often than you because they are more deserving?
Magnus Carlsen doesn't play against people who have different tools than him, so we know that when he wins he deserves it. We know that white has a slight advantage over black in chess. What if Magnus Carlsen only played the white pieces? Would being the best in the world be as impressive, or would we want to know if he could also do it in a balanced environment where everyone starts from the same point?
Well no, my argument isn't that specific players "deserve it" because of the name value, it is based on parameters one could analyse regarding their gameplay. I just mention played names like say ragnarok because it is an easy proxy, we all have some idea how strong he is compared to say serral or reynor, and i think we generally also believe him to be weaker than people like maru or herO. The idea is not that there are certain players who are always locked into a tier with no change happening, that would be absurd. So if you think that is what i am arguing i see the confusion. I am arguing that there is a way to interpret how well people are playing, a way to interpret that certain dynamics in a game are questionable, a way to interpret things outside of the strict outcome analysis you seem to suggesting as the only way to balance a game. Is it difficult? Sure, but that doesn't stop me from believing it is the only real way to understand balance. Balance is two players with equal skill having the same chance to win vs each other, not the best player of race a having an equal chance to win vs the best of race b. Or to say it more broadly, that the top players of each race should more or less win the same amount of matches / tournaments, this isn't what balance is, this is an outcome which only works when the skillsets are evenly distributed, and there is no reason to think that it is at this moment of sc2, in fact i'd say it seems unlikely that it is.
I understand that magnus doesn't play vs different tools, the argument was solely based on the idea that it might become boring for spectators when the same race / players win most of the time, as i said, i could see this argument being part of the equation here, and my reply to it was to appeal to competitive integrity. I am not sure if this is an argument you would make, that the spectator experience based on the race they feel attached to is important to consider, but i think people have made that argument before and it at least feels like you'd think that it is indeed important, as that feels like it is an important core of an outcome based balance view.
To transfer your question to sc2, i DO in fact think that zerg is the race which allows players to be most consistent, i don't think serral would do what he does with protoss. But i don't base this off of him winning more than herO, i think he is also better than herO as a player, i think he probably would do better with protoss than herO. I think both things are true at the same time. It's not a matter if pure %es, it's a matter of how they play, where i see the strengths, how protoss loses a lot of games compared to zerg, not just that they don't win as often.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man.
Okay, sorry, I will stop using arguments and switch to the apparently correct way of discussing this: So, uh, Protoss is balanced, because it really feels that way. But like, totally! Better? Convinced?
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
herO obviously had a mini-slump, anyone who watched his (admittedly incredibly entertaining) disaster-fest versus Nightmare could see he was super sloppy for a while compared to his best shape.
Equally I mean, Protoss had a tournament winning player for the first time since Trap hard carried the race in that respect (still doesn’t get enough credit IMO), things looked to be trending into a good spot after Protoss was lagging for YEARS and Blizz’s next balance pass was to overall nerf Toss?
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem.
herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that.
On September 22 2023 22:55 The_Red_Viper wrote: I am not sure if you are bad faith here or what is happening. In this example the zerg player is a current master player, his skillset is that of a master player right now. But he becomes the best zerg in the world because all zerg players above him right now do not play any longer. This is an extreme example to showcase how silly your approach is.
The reason why that seems absurd to you is because you offered an absurd hypothetical. It is impossible that we would reach a situation where the best zerg in the world would be someone who is in master and unable to get higher than that. But if we take your absurd hypothetical and pretend it's reality, the conclusion would not be "Zergs are master noobs", it would be "there is something seriously wrong with zerg at a fundamental level".
It seems like you just do not want to engage the idea that your foundational principle of balance only works if we can assume that the skill of the players is evenly distributed. This hypothetical was this extreme because you didn't wanna work with the ragnarok example, which is certainly possible to happen. So don't blame me that i go for an even more extreme one to showcase the point, it's really your fault.
The conclusion you add at the end here just completely neglects the parameters, in your worldview it seems like you simply do not entertain that skill levels can be different at the top and that this causes unequal outcomes (at least partially; i will add for the third time now that i personally also think that the design / balance plays into it too atm). Both things can be true at the same time though, and especially in our current environment it seems fairly likely that people like serral are indeed simply better players than say herO. If the scene was more healthy, with lots and lots of players trying to become pro and we would have the same scenario, it would be a lot more likely that the best protoss players are indeed similarly skilled and the outcome should be closer to equal.
But even in the extreme example we should still be balancing in the same way. It's not "my fault" or "I don't want to engage", I'm just telling you you're looking at it wrong, the assumptions that you're making are much more dangerous in terms of balancing a game because they aren't based on anything measurable.
I don't think i am. I think you are. I think you just want equal outcomes no matter if 'deserved' or not. Now maybe that would be ideal in a sense of entertainment for an audience, as generally each viewer identifies with certain races, and more variety in matchups all throughout a tournament is good too. I can see that argument, but obviously this runs counter to a sense of competitive integrity. Ideally we surely want people who are 'better' to win, because they got there through work and dedication. I don't want chess to be balanced in a way where magnus carlsen wins fewer tournaments just because fans of other players think it is boring. I don't think my approach is "more dangerous", i don't make any claims regarding what an outcome should be like in specific, you do. You are the person who wants to force something, i am saying that one should look at other things to balance the game 'fairly', not that it doesn't have to be looked at at all.
On September 22 2023 22:58 geokilla wrote: If Serral, Dark, Solar and Reynor suddenly retired, you can expect Zerg to not win anymore tournaments. Does this mean we need to buff Zerg even more to compensate? Come on now...
That is the logical conclusion of balancing based on outcome. And as i said, i think this kinda works in healthy scenes (though even there i think it shouldn't be the only consideration), but it definitely doesn't work in our current one.
This sums it up.
You can't balance around perceived skill because it's perceived by people with biases. You can't be too reactionary about tournament results, because we all know there are more variables than just race. Nonetheless, those results over time are ultimately all there is to hang your hat on.
All of us, including me and everyone is this thread, are biased about the factions we want to see win and the ones we want to see lose. We should stick to the numbers, but not be nazi's about them either.
My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating:
Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place.
I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful.
Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack.
Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem.
herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that.
herO has won one tournament more on the last patch than the current won, though of course much bigger ones. If you look at his Top 4 results alone, he had a good streak of like 10 months in a row on the last and current patch combined in which he did well and then dropped off. Combine that with the fact that the other protoss didn't drop off but stayed mostly in their "around the middle", except for Maxpax, I honestly doubt the certainty in which you attribute this to balance alone
On September 23 2023 14:33 Agh wrote: My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating:
Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place.
I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful.
Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack.
Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race.
I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem.
herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that.
herO has won one tournament more on the last patch than the current won, though of course much bigger ones. If you look at his Top 4 results alone, he had a good streak of like 10 months in a row on the last and current patch combined in which he did well and then dropped off. Combine that with the fact that the other protoss didn't drop off but stayed mostly in their "around the middle", except for Maxpax, I honestly doubt the certainty in which you attribute this to balance alone
On September 23 2023 14:33 Agh wrote: My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating:
Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place.
I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful.
Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack.
Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race.
I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
I feel that problems comes essentially from stalkers because of :
WIKI SC2 QUOTE "Stalkers are relatively gas inefficient units, particularly as an armored unit because this makes them weak to Marauders and Immortals, and Stalkers may get phased out towards the end game as more specialised units are unlocked in the tech tree."
Then you can also add roachs to this list because of their cheap gas cost (25 gas / 50 gas). Their use is really punitive if you miss your pressure. When i look at the base units of protoss i see zealots which are tanky and quite good against everything except banes, ghost etc but if you ask yourself which role stalkers are made for, it becomes less obvious, it s like if their role was stucked between all ranged base unit (hydras, marauders, roachs) and from my opinion, if stalkers are bad against zerglings, they should be at less ok-ish against roachs (which isn t the case)
Then the marauders bonus against armored seems to be overpowered (stimpack+medivacs)
Adepts were just a band-aid because they didn t adress the bigest problem of protoss base units which their lack of complementarity between stalkers and zealots (regarding the protoss death ball). Oftenly Protoss players do 1 stalkers for 3 or 4 zealots in end game, that s a proof of stalkers end game problem
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
I mean I'm going to try and resist being patronizing but you introduced the notion of consistency as important like five posts ago and suddenly I'm supposed to have an explanation for herO not doing equally well in all of his tournaments?
No, you don't need to explain his slumb, because it is just that. But you yourself said that herO before won tournaments and now he does not and you were the one who connected that to the last patch. I just showed you that herO winning or not winning tourneys did have nothing to do with the patch, but just with him. And that is the entire problem Protoss has...or maybe like 95% of the problem.
herO's results were better in the last patch before protoss was nerfed, yes. The argument that it's based on herO's consistency rather than balance is a non-argument because consistency isn't detached from balance. If one of your races has a win condition that requires more things to go right than the others, then the players from that race will be less consistent. If the cyclone made it in the game as it is right now then suddenly the zergs would become very inconsistent let me tell you that.
herO has won one tournament more on the last patch than the current won, though of course much bigger ones. If you look at his Top 4 results alone, he had a good streak of like 10 months in a row on the last and current patch combined in which he did well and then dropped off. Combine that with the fact that the other protoss didn't drop off but stayed mostly in their "around the middle", except for Maxpax, I honestly doubt the certainty in which you attribute this to balance alone
On September 23 2023 14:33 Agh wrote: My thoughts on the game to make it more enjoyable, competitive, and less frustrating:
Remove the 3 major polarizing units. Disruptor, Widow Mine, Lurker. The power level of these three units in terms of cost effectiveness combined with game impact is absurd. Any lapse of focus and any one of these 3 units can end a game in seconds, they simply have no place.
I'd even go further and remove Liberators, Swarm Hosts, and Colossus, but these are much less impactful.
Further balance design change: -Drastically increasing Brood Lord move speed but removing their ability to spawn units. -Adding an additional Adept upgrade that adds very minor splash damage to compensate for the removal of the other two units, and giving Zealot charge a choice for their autocast - either doing extra damage(current) or gaining extra shield. -Changing ghost reducing base damage by 2 to 8(16), and reducing their health by 10 but allowing them to gain stimpack.
Whenever I come back to the game the feeling of frustration always overpowers the sense of enjoyment. It's just from the units and interactions, if it was from lack of ability I would be fine with it. I play random and don't have a bias towards any race.
I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
I feel that problems comes essentially from stalkers because of :
WIKI SC2 QUOTE "Stalkers are relatively gas inefficient units, particularly as an armored unit because this makes them weak to Marauders and Immortals, and Stalkers may get phased out towards the end game as more specialised units are unlocked in the tech tree."
Then you can also add roachs to this list because of their cheap gas cost (25 gas / 50 gas). Their use is really punitive if you miss your pressure. When i look at the base units of protoss i see zealots which are tanky and quite good against everything except banes, ghost etc but if you ask yourself which role stalkers are made for, it becomes less obvious, it s like if their role was stucked between all ranged base unit (hydras, marauders, roachs) and from my opinion, if stalkers are bad against zerglings, they should be at less ok-ish against roachs (which isn t the case)
Then the marauders bonus against armored seems to be overpowered (stimpack+medivacs)
Adepts were just a band-aid because they didn t adress the bigest problem of protoss base units which their lack of complementarity between stalkers and zealots (regarding the protoss death ball). Oftenly Protoss players do 1 stalkers for 3 or 4 zealots in end game, that s a proof of stalkers end game problem
I quite like the Stalker, more of a light skirmisher that rewards finesse, I think it does have quite a defined role, and clear downsides and strengths.
But within the context of SC2 as is, and as you correctly point out stalkers just melt and don’t throw enough DPS down in many scenarios.
On September 24 2023 08:43 Drahkn wrote: Very clever not to give out the names of the people in the council , that way when they f this up no-one can be held accountable
I’m pretty sure most of the people on the council are known to be on the council, wtf are you talking about?
On September 24 2023 08:43 Drahkn wrote: Very clever not to give out the names of the people in the council , that way when they f this up no-one can be held accountable
I’m pretty sure most of the people on the council are known to be on the council, wtf are you talking about?
Most is a strong statement, but there are definitely a fair bit who have talked about being on it.
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue?
Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue?
Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The important part is that *I* hate libs and mines. I also love Lurker, which you apparently dislike...and so on. Not to mention that removing these units would force you to buff other units to compensate and honestly, I don't think people need more reasons to throw marines and zerglings at each other
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue?
Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The important part is that *I* hate libs and mines. I also love Lurker, which you apparently dislike...and so on. Not to mention that removing these units would force you to buff other units to compensate and honestly, I don't think people need more reasons to throw marines and zerglings at each other
It’s just a bloody unforgiving game, part of why it’s such a great watch when these gods amongst men are playing it rather than us mere mortals
I just don’t think there’s a particularly big gap between units people dislike for being particularly brutally punishing like mines or disruptors, and everything else.
When forcefields were a larger crutch for Protoss, look away and your T opponent stims in, or your Zerg pounces and you’re equally as dead.
Ghosts pop out the fog and EMP your temps, good luck!
Plus similar interactions if you’re a T/Z player too obviously
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue?
Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The important part is that *I* hate libs and mines. I also love Lurker, which you apparently dislike...and so on. Not to mention that removing these units would force you to buff other units to compensate and honestly, I don't think people need more reasons to throw marines and zerglings at each other
It’s just a bloody unforgiving game, part of why it’s such a great watch when these gods amongst men are playing it rather than us mere mortals
I just don’t think there’s a particularly big gap between units people dislike for being particularly brutally punishing like mines or disruptors, and everything else.
When forcefields were a larger crutch for Protoss, look away and your T opponent stims in, or your Zerg pounces and you’re equally as dead.
Ghosts pop out the fog and EMP your temps, good luck!
Plus similar interactions if you’re a T/Z player too obviously
In one of the first GSLs, Terran bio sitting in Protoss's natural with the threat of stimming and running up the ramp when the Terran player felt it was a good moment and the Protoss player wasn't looking featured in almost every game, and a lot of Protoss players just died to "had to move the camera to place a building, and that was the moment Terran went for it." It was a pretty bad meta, imo.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man.
Okay, sorry, I will stop using arguments and switch to the apparently correct way of discussing this: So, uh, Protoss is balanced, because it really feels that way. But like, totally! Better? Convinced?
Well, it's not less convincing than "One Protoss player did well in one tournament, checkmate."
On September 23 2023 18:23 Balnazza wrote: I hate Mines and Libs with a passion, but I really doubt that in the late-stages of the games we are in it is wise to remove units from the game, especially if you want to remove three to six at once. That just limits options and makes the game less entertaining
Why would it be hard to doubt when your statement highlights the issue?
Without players there isn't really a product to "watch" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The important part is that *I* hate libs and mines. I also love Lurker, which you apparently dislike...and so on. Not to mention that removing these units would force you to buff other units to compensate and honestly, I don't think people need more reasons to throw marines and zerglings at each other
It’s just a bloody unforgiving game, part of why it’s such a great watch when these gods amongst men are playing it rather than us mere mortals
I just don’t think there’s a particularly big gap between units people dislike for being particularly brutally punishing like mines or disruptors, and everything else.
When forcefields were a larger crutch for Protoss, look away and your T opponent stims in, or your Zerg pounces and you’re equally as dead.
Ghosts pop out the fog and EMP your temps, good luck!
Plus similar interactions if you’re a T/Z player too obviously
I agree focusing on which units are "most devastating" is a bad idea. But I do think it's worth looking at when those devastating units come out and how much they cost to the person using them. For example, an early couple of Banelings or Widow Mines in a mineral line can end a game but also cost relatively little. Whereas Protoss is unlikely to get the same level of damage without something that's borderline all-in. Like, Oracles are a larger investment and also less likely to do anything devastating.
Lategame, I don't really have any problem with units like Disruptors, Seige Tanks, or Lurkers devastating the unwary. That's what they're for.
Hey Balnazza remember before the last patch that nerfed protoss, when herO was competitive with the heavy hitters and winning tournaments? How have you determined that the 40m headstart is not what the other two races received in that last patch that nerfed protoss?
herO has won two Major tournaments on this patch and reached Top 4 at Kattowice. Almost like he is the best protoss in the world, but plays a bit too inconsistent to compete with the big 3...weird.
Damn do you reckon maybe the fact that in the current state of the game mistakes as protoss cost you the game almost immediately while it is much more realistic to recover from a mistake as terran or zerg plays a part into how consistent players manage to be?
So four month ago herO made less mistakes?
What happened four months ago?
herO won his last tournament four month ago, so apparently the balance changed since then, otherwise he would have kept winning? Since you are that sure that the current state of the game is entirely balance-dependant and has nothing to do with skill?
Truly a devastating rhetorical question in the war against the straw man.
Okay, sorry, I will stop using arguments and switch to the apparently correct way of discussing this: So, uh, Protoss is balanced, because it really feels that way. But like, totally! Better? Convinced?
Well, it's not less convincing than "One Protoss player did well in one tournament, checkmate."
If there's a broken unit in the game after every video on the patch literally didn't mention the unit because it was so obviously broken that it wouldn't make it to the game I'm going to have a laugh
Yeah I really don't like the patch, wish they had just left the game as it is like BW, instead of making big weird changes just for the sake of making changes
So how good is it? Does that mean tournaments from today on will use the infamous new patch? Hopefully they can fix the game quickly since it seems broken
On September 29 2023 16:09 Tsubbi wrote: weeks of "stay calm, these are just just experimental changes" passed, now this abomination of a patch goes live? what a nightmare
People were naive to expect any different.
Whoever is calling the shots now had their minds made up that they wanted to shake up the game, even if it caused a ton of balance issues and there wasn't going to be any stopping them.
This was kind of my take on the entire situation. I would have preferred a stable moderately balanced patch as the "final patch" obviously I don't think this will be the final patch. I still worry that any replayability down the line will be hurt if we are left on a busted patch at the end of Lotv.
I feel the same way about how WoL ended. Perma busted on the bl/Infestor patch.
I m always late in my comments but i agree with all comments which are pointing cyclones like a "new-mech-marines".
While Protoss have no "all-around-unit", This patch seems to add a cog in the machine where is no need, and aims to fill something already plenty.
Actually as the game is pretty good in term of balance, adding a new unit without replacing some of units which are close to this one in term of functions (like Thors) will cause an adverse effect to the game.
I m regretting that this patch will do damage to the balance, and obviously this is only the tree which hides the forest.
Is it still not playable on EU server? IT does not even allow me to launch the game on previous 5.011 patch showing an error and requiring to re-install, I can only play on NA server on new patch, but not EU
Wow, it's almost like the "balance" team is now kicking someone who's been lying down for a very long time unable to get up. I gave up several patches ago but it's such a shame for the game that they can't (or won't) make all three races competitive on the highest level.
On September 29 2023 19:21 Durnuu wrote: Balance council trying to kill sc2 before their own RTS gets released, understandable
This is what it really feels like.
Zerg is legit dead after this patch, they just ruined the race for anyone who isn't Serral or Reynor. How can you double nerf a CORE unit vs terran bio and then not nerf terran bio (and then buff it)? Nerfing not only baneling damage but baneling hp is insane. How the fuck is zerg supposed to deal with marines? On top of that infestor cast range is nerfed, broodlings are now complete shit with the new broodlings (slower, less attack speed, less hp), and not to mention the lurker nerf. Zerg is already 21% of GM. They are not balancing the game, they are balancing around the top 15 players until maru and showtime can brute force their way through Serral, while ruining the game for 99.9% of players (ladder players, low-mid level tourn players, watchers,) AKA the lifeblood of the game.
Also makes sense considering scarlett is working on her own new rts and stormgate devs have shilled keys to a bunch of streamers/top players. The last two patches were great, this one is terrible. There needs to be a follow up within a month or so with adjustments. To leave Starcraft 2 in this game state is criminal. Of course the balance council hides behind anonymity, ignores feedback and escapes and culpability.
Really try not to comment a ton on balance, but this patch is truly, truly awful in so many regards. As other people have mentioned, the game in the patch state feels very random and unstable under the top 20 players in the world.
On October 02 2023 05:27 Glorfindelio wrote: Really try not to comment a ton on balance, but this patch is truly, truly awful in so many regards. As other people have mentioned, the game in the patch state feels very random and unstable under the top 20 players in the world.
The patch was released 2 days ago, and is still NA only. Maybe we can wait a bigger sample to judge...
On September 29 2023 19:21 Durnuu wrote: Balance council trying to kill sc2 before their own RTS gets released, understandable
This is what it really feels like.
Zerg is legit dead after this patch, they just ruined the race for anyone who isn't Serral or Reynor. How can you double nerf a CORE unit vs terran bio and then not nerf terran bio (and then buff it)? Nerfing not only baneling damage but baneling hp is insane. How the fuck is zerg supposed to deal with marines? On top of that infestor cast range is nerfed, broodlings are now complete shit with the new broodlings (slower, less attack speed, less hp), and not to mention the lurker nerf. Zerg is already 21% of GM. They are not balancing the game, they are balancing around the top 15 players until maru and showtime can brute force their way through Serral, while ruining the game for 99.9% of players (ladder players, low-mid level tourn players, watchers,) AKA the lifeblood of the game.
Also makes sense considering scarlett is working on her own new rts and stormgate devs have shilled keys to a bunch of streamers/top players. The last two patches were great, this one is terrible. There needs to be a follow up within a month or so with adjustments. To leave Starcraft 2 in this game state is criminal. Of course the balance council hides behind anonymity, ignores feedback and escapes and culpability.
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.
What little I heard from the few folks who are known to be on the council and their feedback to the proposed patch, it was very mixed overall, and almost universally negative on the cyclone changes.
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.
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.
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 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.
On October 02 2023 05:27 Glorfindelio wrote: Really try not to comment a ton on balance, but this patch is truly, truly awful in so many regards. As other people have mentioned, the game in the patch state feels very random and unstable under the top 20 players in the world.
The patch was released 2 days ago, and is still NA only. Maybe we can wait a bigger sample to judge...
Sounds good to me. The patch seems bad but some of the reactions are over the top, and also it seems like we're pretending the game wasn't in an awful state before the patch, which I can't get behind.
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 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:
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
Although I already know what the bottom line is, how exactly is it considered good practice to roll out a patch to production for one region and use this as a test bed? Sure, PTR activity level was probably too low, but then again, we have a 'TESTING' tab in competitive which could be hypothetically utilized instead of a balance mod, which would make testing MUCH more convenient.
I mean this whole process is pretty bonkers, especially since I'm not fond of this 'shake up the meta' thinking going on in SC2, get the game to a really good place and stop fiddling around with it, jesus.
If you are all whinning because Banelings nerf then you have to demand a gas cost reduction from 25 to 20. Decrease the power of banelings isn t totally out of mind since one baneling explosion can deal more than1000 damage point (in case of a burrowed baneling).
Enjoy !
On October 02 2023 19:02 Creager wrote: Although I already know what the bottom line is, how exactly is it considered good practice to roll out a patch to production for one region and use this as a test bed? Sure, PTR activity level was probably too low, but then again, we have a 'TESTING' tab in competitive which could be hypothetically utilized instead of a balance mod, which would make testing MUCH more convenient.
I mean this whole process is pretty bonkers, especially since I'm not fond of this 'shake up the meta' thinking going on in SC2, get the game to a really good place and stop fiddling around with it, jesus.
Yes i m wondering why this solution isn t used yet...
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?
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 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
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 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 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.
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
It's been a long time since fungal was used as a way to actually kill bio - it's a control tool to allow other units to catch it. If could do negative damage and still be considered pretty all right.
And if you get to broodlords vs thors alone, as a zerg you're already dead anyway - broodlords are a true siege unit, rather than the all-countering powerhouse they were in earlier versions of the game The one exception is large number of microed broodlords using terrain, that could easily poke/crowd the enemy to death without ever being hit back - that will be even stronger now due to the added mobility
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.
No, that's how Zergs play currently even against mass Ghosts and PFs. BL transitions are pretty rare and most Zergs avoid doing them if they can due to Thors being so good against them.
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
It's been a long time since fungal was used as a way to actually kill bio - it's a control tool to allow other units to catch it. If could do negative damage and still be considered pretty all right.
And if you get to broodlords vs thors alone, as a zerg you're already dead anyway - broodlords are a true siege unit, rather than the all-countering powerhouse they were in earlier versions of the game The one exception is large number of microed broodlords using terrain, that could easily poke/crowd the enemy to death without ever being hit back - that will be even stronger now due to the added mobility
yea. so a stimmed bio ball (45 hp marines) running, getting fungaled, will eventually get as low as 15 hp in 5.0.11, or 20 hp in 5.0.12. this is pretty significant, if zerg does not have enough shit to kill the bio, they could survive to join the other dudes and try again later. If this does not matter, let's revert the fungal damage to 30 dmg.
BL: I believe the BL change will affect PvZ mostly. Note the broodlings were also modified/nerfed (lifetime reduced) so this combined with the added mobility of the host BL probably will not matter at all in TvZ. We most probably will not see the sieges you just described and Dark/Reynor executed not too long ago against I forgot who it was.
Even though I'm a fan of the infestor "mid" change, I'm not sure if it makes a difference for the ladder zerg. infestor are slow and cost a lot of gas.
from the feeling late game strength is taken out, which favors Terran with their strong mid game.
I'm glad Wardi's Korean Royale event finished under the old patch. The games in that event can make for an interesting control group in any study of the changes to the meta.
Honestly, it is pretty discouraging as a long time ladder zerg to see my core units constantly nerfed patch after patch for the last 3 years. Other races ( especially terran) keep getting new toys, new tools , buffs, and i just get everything nerfed. Queens, creep multiple times, banelings multiple times, broodlords multiple times, lurkers multiple times, infestors multiple times. They removed infested terrans, made swarm hosts weaker. They even nerfed banelings, one of our most core unit, multiple times. Meanwhile, they keep buffing widowmines...
I might be a bit bias towards my race( Zerg), but it feels to me the entire community is massively bias towards terran, and will use anything to twist the narrative in their favor. The stats were released on reddit for last 3 months, and even before the patch, terran has been favored in both matchups, despite Serral being 93% vs terran. Yet, the patch nerfs EVERYTHING that was good vs terran for both races. Disurptors, banelings, lurkers, infestors, broodlords, all nerfed hard.
Maybe Im crazy, but maybe Zergs players with more credibility need to start speaking up as loud as the terrans. Lets be real, both terran and protoss players favorite matchup is probably playing vs zerg. Zerg has no harass, no all-ins, and its basically playing single player for first 7minutes. If you keep nerfing zergs this hard, you wont have any more zergs to play vs on the ladder guys, its already bad, look at top EU ladder numbers, the number of race they play against, its ridiculous how little zergs get to high GM compared to other races.
Zerg is way too hard to play now compared to other races, and we have very little tools to make the game hard for our opponents.
We need some changes to make Zerg easier for normal players, changes that wont affect Serral or Reynor.
Im talking stuff like: Overlord rally, queen rally, select all queens hotkey, auto attack for spell casters, different egg color for overlords that are morphing, so you know if you actually have overlords coming or not. It is clear from ladder numbers that zerg has become way too hard to play compared to other races. ( It used to be the easiest arguably, but with all the queen nerfs and creep nerfs, zerg became very hard, and is backed up by the fact that the higher you get on ladder, the fewer zergs there are.
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: Honestly, it is pretty discouraging as a long time ladder zerg to see my core units constantly nerfed patch after patch for the last 3 years. Other races ( especially terran) keep getting new toys, new tools , buffs, and i just get everything nerfed. Queens, creep multiple times, banelings multiple times, broodlords multiple times, lurkers multiple times, infestors multiple times. They removed infested terrans, made swarm hosts weaker. They even nerfed banelings, one of our most core unit, multiple times. Meanwhile, they keep buffing widowmines...
as a ladder player who plays with all 3 races i totally get it. i play 10% of my time and Zerg and 50% as terran and yet my Zerg ranking is consistently higher than my terran ranking. there is no terran equivalent of "ya just throw some zerglings at it".
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: We need some changes to make Zerg easier for normal players, changes that wont affect Serral or Reynor.
The time for the game being balanced at multiple play levels is over. that was only possible when the game had a giant budget and the "consumer focus groups" to go along with it. I've accepted the fact that Platinum and Diamond level players will no longer be a focus of the games development going forward. Despite that , the game is the most fun I can have... so I still play it even though my player level is being ignored by the balance people.
If you are unhappy with being ignored I suggest you pick another game. ATVI is no longer bankrolling this project.
On October 03 2023 21:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as a ladder player who plays with all 3 races i totally get it. i play 10% of my time and Zerg and 50% as terran and yet my Zerg ranking is consistently higher than my terran ranking. there is no terran equivalent of "ya just throw some zerglings at it".
We can throw around anecdotes all we like, but GM is 21% Zerg right now. I'm not sure there has ever been a worse represented race for top of ladder to lower-mid pro level (aside from maybe 2010?) For masters and GM players, there's clearly something going on. After a season or two of these changes, we might even get it to 15%
On October 03 2023 21:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as a ladder player who plays with all 3 races i totally get it. i play 10% of my time and Zerg and 50% as terran and yet my Zerg ranking is consistently higher than my terran ranking. there is no terran equivalent of "ya just throw some zerglings at it".
We can throw around anecdotes all we like, but GM is 21% Zerg right now. I'm not sure there has ever been a worse represented race for top of ladder to lower-mid pro level (aside from maybe 2010?) For masters and GM players, there's clearly something going on. After a season or two of these changes, we might even get it to 15%
right, and if u keep reading my post you'll figure out why both your anecdote and my anecdote do not matter. do not expect a game carefully crafted to balance at multiple play levels. that time is over.
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: Honestly, it is pretty discouraging as a long time ladder zerg to see my core units constantly nerfed patch after patch for the last 3 years. Other races ( especially terran) keep getting new toys, new tools , buffs, and i just get everything nerfed. Queens, creep multiple times, banelings multiple times, broodlords multiple times, lurkers multiple times, infestors multiple times. They removed infested terrans, made swarm hosts weaker. They even nerfed banelings, one of our most core unit, multiple times. Meanwhile, they keep buffing widowmines...
So this patch : nerf ghost, nerf hellbat, nerf raven. Rework cyclone wich is better in some situation and worse in some other, pretty meh and odesn't really change much. Buff (lol) widow mine .. is this even a buff ? It won't change anything tbh.
Last balance patch : nerf raven, nerf ghost, nerd magfield vs armored/buff vs other, amazing buff on banshee speed (lul again), reduction cost lib
The one before : nerf drillings claws
The one before : armory stuff cloaked widow mines, impactful in TvP, not really in TvZ
The one before : nerf BC, nerf raven, nerf libe, small buff Thor (depend of the situation tbh), small cost reduction blue flame
Zerg is not the only race receiving nerfs
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: I might be a bit bias towards my race( Zerg), but it feels to me the entire community is massively bias towards terran, and will use anything to twist the narrative in their favor. The stats were released on reddit for last 3 months, and even before the patch, terran has been favored in both matchups, despite Serral being 93% vs terran. Yet, the patch nerfs EVERYTHING that was good vs terran for both races. Disurptors, banelings, lurkers, infestors, broodlords, all nerfed hard.
I think there is a ton of way to analyse balance but taking the winrate of 5 best players of each race especially with skill gap among them doesn't seems the most relevant way to me Aligulac is free, feel free to watch it : http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/ (probably not the best way to look at balance either, but a bigger sample seems more relevant to me)
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: Maybe Im crazy, but maybe Zergs players with more credibility need to start speaking up as loud as the terrans. Lets be real, both terran and protoss players favorite matchup is probably playing vs zerg. Zerg has no harass, no all-ins, and its basically playing single player for first 7minutes. If you keep nerfing zergs this hard, you wont have any more zergs to play vs on the ladder guys, its already bad, look at top EU ladder numbers, the number of race they play against, its ridiculous how little zergs get to high GM compared to other races.
All i see on forums at the moment is "cyclone so op" which is : 1. A joke tbh, the is nothing op right there, people are plat or totally unaware of 2 rounds of nerf since the first ptr version 2. Doesn't really seems tarran speaking really loud to me 3 Pretty early to get a good opinion on where the patch will lead the balance
Zerg having no all in .. i mean do you watch Dark sometimes ? From Terran pov it's like i can't do anything in early because queens shut down everything ... Races have strenght and weakness, zerg doesn't feel weak
I'm not sure zerg population is correlated to balance, probably a little but as you can see when zerg was totally op that was already a decreasing population.
On October 03 2023 20:58 Snakestyle1 wrote: Zerg is way too hard to play now compared to other races, and we have very little tools to make the game hard for our opponents.
We need some changes to make Zerg easier for normal players, changes that wont affect Serral or Reynor.
Im talking stuff like: Overlord rally, queen rally, select all queens hotkey, auto attack for spell casters, different egg color for overlords that are morphing, so you know if you actually have overlords coming or not. It is clear from ladder numbers that zerg has become way too hard to play compared to other races. ( It used to be the easiest arguably, but with all the queen nerfs and creep nerfs, zerg became very hard, and is backed up by the fact that the higher you get on ladder, the fewer zergs there are.
"my race is harder than the others ...." is usually a terran thing ! More seriously low zerg count because the race is difficult is your interpretation, doesn't make it true. There are others factors.
On October 03 2023 21:34 JimmyJRaynor wrote: as a ladder player who plays with all 3 races i totally get it. i play 10% of my time and Zerg and 50% as terran and yet my Zerg ranking is consistently higher than my terran ranking. there is no terran equivalent of "ya just throw some zerglings at it".
We can throw around anecdotes all we like, but GM is 21% Zerg right now. I'm not sure there has ever been a worse represented race for top of ladder to lower-mid pro level (aside from maybe 2010?) For masters and GM players, there's clearly something going on. After a season or two of these changes, we might even get it to 15%
right, and if u keep reading my post you'll figure out why both your anecdote and my anecdote do not matter. do not expect a game carefully crafted to balance at multiple play levels. that time is over.
There's a team of people actively working on the balance. I think it's pretty reasonable to expect that the entire upper level of ladder have any zergs in it.
Instead of tinkering with attack upgrades and making them inconsistent & nerfing Bane to 30 HP, they should've instead just reduced the AoE from 2.2 -> 2. This AoE is what makes the Baneling so insane when massed vs. anything. If it had 2 AoE, then we never needed to reduce its damage to non-Light units from 20. Also this nerfs how OP +2 Banes are vs. workers in the same way that the upgrade nerf does. Also the way they buffed Overlord drops, it just brings back the Bane bomb, so the intended nerf has even been lessened.. Also don't remember that the justification for the skytoss Protoss nerf, was that Queen walk was removed, but now with Overlord drop buff, it's back in the game. But airtoss is still made into garbage. So Zerg wins in the end after all this.
Speaking of the big Baneling AoE. Even with the Fungal nerf, it is still OP with its 2.25 radius. You nerfed EMP, but this Fungal AoE still persists, so Infestor > Ghost.
apparently , they can't get pros to play enough games to test the new patch. the pros are too busy in tournaments on the current patch.
so here is a really smart person who is a very good SC2 player effectively "falling on his sword" regarding his previous criticism of the "Balance Council".
Pimpin' AIn't Easy and neither is overseeing the SC2 competitive ecosystem.
On October 06 2023 02:15 ejozl wrote: Instead of tinkering with attack upgrades and making them inconsistent & nerfing Bane to 30 HP, they should've instead just reduced the AoE from 2.2 -> 2. This AoE is what makes the Baneling so insane when massed vs. anything. If it had 2 AoE, then we never needed to reduce its damage to non-Light units from 20. Also this nerfs how OP +2 Banes are vs. workers in the same way that the upgrade nerf does. Also the way they buffed Overlord drops, it just brings back the Bane bomb, so the intended nerf has even been lessened.. Also don't remember that the justification for the skytoss Protoss nerf, was that Queen walk was removed, but now with Overlord drop buff, it's back in the game. But airtoss is still made into garbage. So Zerg wins in the end after all this.
Speaking of the big Baneling AoE. Even with the Fungal nerf, it is still OP with its 2.25 radius. You nerfed EMP, but this Fungal AoE still persists, so Infestor > Ghost.
No. The fact banes are insane comes from the pathfinding movement in RTS which move every units close to each other.
It s unecessary to nerf aoe because it will break the skill curve, so there s a risk of being an useless unit at pro level while being a good unit on the ladder.
The only possible change that could solve this problem is about :
1) supply cost from 0.5 to 1 (+caracteristics update) 2) When bane is dead, it explodes creating an area which deal damage over time (or create acid tag not cumative which deal damage over time)
OR remove +5 health AND decrease gas cost
SC2 popularity is made on this unit, banelings and marines split skill, if you touch it you kill the game imo.
But this would be instead of the +5 health removal. Both are hard nerfs and will affect the Marine vs Baneling interaction. Marines/Tanks shooting down Banes quicker will mean less splitting. While smaller AoE will mean more effective splitting.
Supply nerf on the Baneling is more than fair, though I don't like Supply nerfs with 200 being the max supply. Already the armies are too small upon max-out. This is the reason Protoss doesn't have a late game, they have the least supply efficient army. The most egregious examples being the Void Ray and Tempest and now the Disruptor and Daughtership can join them.
That sums about up how I feel about it. I still don't think that the ghost changes are a huge buff to P considering that the problem is that ghosts effectively remove 30-50% hp on all gateway units and without gateway buffer the tech just melts and P's best unit got nerfed. Like I get that they're trying to make P units better vs emp but emp is still ridiculously good on a ridiculously good unit that just gets massed and cloaks, so who cares about a slightly smaller radius or longer guardian shield duration. An emped toss army can't fight until shields are back and guardian shield isn't going to offset that the Toss army has 33% less hp on zealots and 50% hp less on stalkers.
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.
Effectively P traded a sizeable colossus buff for some buffs on niche units and a slight immo buff and a nerf to the disruptor. 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. 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?
That sums about up how I feel about it. I still don't think that the ghost changes are a huge buff to P considering that the problem is that ghosts effectively remove 30-50% hp on all gateway units and without gateway buffer the tech just melts and P's best unit got nerfed. Like I get that they're trying to make P units better vs emp but emp is still ridiculously good on a ridiculously good unit that just gets massed and cloaks, so who cares about a slightly smaller radius or longer guardian shield duration. An emped toss army can't fight until shields are back and guardian shield isn't going to offset that the Toss army has 33% less hp on zealots and 50% hp less on stalkers.
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.
Effectively P traded a sizeable colossus buff for some buffs on niche units and a slight immo buff and a nerf to the disruptor. 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. 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?
That sums about up how I feel about it. I still don't think that the ghost changes are a huge buff to P considering that the problem is that ghosts effectively remove 30-50% hp on all gateway units and without gateway buffer the tech just melts and P's best unit got nerfed. Like I get that they're trying to make P units better vs emp but emp is still ridiculously good on a ridiculously good unit that just gets massed and cloaks, so who cares about a slightly smaller radius or longer guardian shield duration. An emped toss army can't fight until shields are back and guardian shield isn't going to offset that the Toss army has 33% less hp on zealots and 50% hp less on stalkers.
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.
Effectively P traded a sizeable colossus buff for some buffs on niche units and a slight immo buff and a nerf to the disruptor. 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. 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?
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.
in order to change, test, and implement anything requires money to pay employees to do these things. this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week.
i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project.
if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun.
On October 10 2023 05:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in order to change, test, and implement anything requires money to pay employees to do these things. this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week.
i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project.
if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun.
What testing do you need beyond the initial ‘this cyclone change isn’t good’ that was generally a very strong majority when it WAS tested and floated?
What does it have to do with budget?
They DID the budget part in doing preview builds, sticking it in test realms. They have a whole ton of pros who, to my knowledge do it for free consulting with them who said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
They had community hubs like TL where generally people said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
The only deciding factor here is pushing different builds that already exist.
They have the budget to at least make, test and roll out changes. What changes they actually choose to push to the live version of the game therefore are largely disassociated from budget no?
the team creating a new balance patch is not part of the team that makes game design decisions. you have to pay the team creating the new balance patch money. and that budget has declined. therefore, we are seeing mistakes.
On October 10 2023 05:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in order to change, test, and implement anything requires money to pay employees to do these things. this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week.
i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project.
if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun.
What testing do you need beyond the initial ‘this cyclone change isn’t good’ that was generally a very strong majority when it WAS tested and floated?
What does it have to do with budget?
They DID the budget part in doing preview builds, sticking it in test realms. They have a whole ton of pros who, to my knowledge do it for free consulting with them who said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
They had community hubs like TL where generally people said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
The only deciding factor here is pushing different builds that already exist.
They have the budget to at least make, test and roll out changes. What changes they actually choose to push to the live version of the game therefore are largely disassociated from budget no?
You’re not seriously arguing this point, come on.
the patch was not tested because there is no testing budget. that is how a super obvious bug like the cyclone bug got through.
Pig stated the pros didn't play much on the PTR because they were too busy playing tourneys.
The big decrease in the budget for SC2 has had a negative impact on the quality and reliability of the balance patch process.
On October 10 2023 06:42 JimmyJRaynor wrote: the team creating a new balance patch is not part of the team that makes game design decisions. you have to pay the team creating the new balance patch money. and that budget has declined. therefore, we are seeing mistakes.
On October 10 2023 05:27 JimmyJRaynor wrote: in order to change, test, and implement anything requires money to pay employees to do these things. this is why the current patch was implemented in such a haphazard fashion with different servers on different patches for almost a week.
i'm good though. i realize what is going on and my expectations are close to zero. which is in alignment with the budget for this project.
if you want to get excited about the screw ups... have fun.
What testing do you need beyond the initial ‘this cyclone change isn’t good’ that was generally a very strong majority when it WAS tested and floated?
What does it have to do with budget?
They DID the budget part in doing preview builds, sticking it in test realms. They have a whole ton of pros who, to my knowledge do it for free consulting with them who said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
They had community hubs like TL where generally people said the cyclone change was a bad idea.
The only deciding factor here is pushing different builds that already exist.
They have the budget to at least make, test and roll out changes. What changes they actually choose to push to the live version of the game therefore are largely disassociated from budget no?
You’re not seriously arguing this point, come on.
the patch was not tested because there is no testing budget. that is how a super obvious bug like the cyclone bug got through.
Pig stated the pros didn't play much on the PTR because they were too busy playing tourneys.
The big decrease in the budget for SC2 has had a negative impact on the quality and reliability of the balance patch process.
The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour.
Something like the Collosus gaining extra range and remaining unfixed for a decent chunk of time, absolutely is indicative of a lower dev/testing team and budget. That sort of thing didn’t used to happen.
This is a different case.
Most meaningful testing has always been done by the community because no QA team is big enough, or good enough at the top end to replicate a player base from scrub thru professionals.
Historically Blizz either had confidence and just trusted their judgement and implemented a patch, or left it for the community to see how patches went down, were received and if unintended exploits became possible.
In this instance there was feedback, from PTR tournaments, from the PTR and from people just logicing and theorycrafting that the cyclone change specifically was a bad idea.
The budget for developing the change was already used in getting it ready and pushing it to the PTR. The testing has already generally returned the requisite feedback on these specific changes. One can always test more, and there’s quite a lot of overlapping changes in a game like this, as to whether the rest of the patch is good/bad maybe there isn’t enough yet.
But yet the cyclone went in regardless of this. Why have a balance council in the first place if you disregard their judgement?
I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
I'm curious, if it is even possible for tournaments to run on old patches, like the Void Ray Patch. I liked the game back when there was a slimmer of hope of a Protoss victor in tournaments that matter, and before Terran got overbuffed. I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over.
I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it.
On October 19 2023 21:54 ejozl wrote: I'm curious, if it is even possible for tournaments to run on old patches, like the Void Ray Patch. I liked the game back when there was a slimmer of hope of a Protoss victor in tournaments that matter, and before Terran got overbuffed. I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over.
I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things.
Yeah I've thought about that too, the way they are doing things by voting on different ideas that are thrown out basically means there can't be any overarching vision behind the changes. David Kim and the subsequent blizzard balance team surely made mistakes, but you could clearly see they had specific goals / a specific vision in mind on what they want to achieve - and ultimately they succeeded as at the point when they had to abandon the game, it was in a vastly better state than in early WoL, so they have overall improved the game tremendously.
I can't say that for the current council, most of the changes seem okay on paper but they also seem quite random and not following any specific vision. I can't say they have improved the game at all.
Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour.
you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour?
Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended.
But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out.
Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem.
They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier.
Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative.
The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers
I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else.
If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here.
On October 19 2023 21:54 ejozl wrote: I'm curious, if it is even possible for tournaments to run on old patches, like the Void Ray Patch. I liked the game back when there was a slimmer of hope of a Protoss victor in tournaments that matter, and before Terran got overbuffed. I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over.
I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things.
Yeah I've thought about that too, the way they are doing things by voting on different ideas that are thrown out basically means there can't be any overarching vision behind the changes. David Kim and the subsequent blizzard balance team surely made mistakes, but you could clearly see they had specific goals / a specific vision in mind on what they want to achieve - and ultimately they succeeded as at the point when they had to abandon the game, it was in a vastly better state than in early WoL, so they have overall improved the game tremendously.
I can't say that for the current council, most of the changes seem okay on paper but they also seem quite random and not following any specific vision. I can't say they have improved the game at all.
Gamers are great at articulating what they don’t like, much less so at well, designing games that they actually enjoy.
On the other hand top level players, particularly pros have more insight than anyone to the nitty gritty and the ramifications and potential enabled by changes.
I feel like the best balance would have been the devs having that vision, informed by general user research, and the pros help to refine it and determine what would, wouldn’t work, and what potential undesirable externalities could be introduced.
Consultants really over well, however the structure works currently
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour.
you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour?
Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended.
But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out.
Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem.
They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier.
Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative.
The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers
I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else.
If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here.
now that you know the Cylcone is bugged maybe you can better understand the problem. if you've been watching Groups A,B, and C of the GSL this season you'll notice the Cyclone has become an endangered species.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
On October 19 2023 21:54 ejozl wrote: I'm curious, if it is even possible for tournaments to run on old patches, like the Void Ray Patch. I liked the game back when there was a slimmer of hope of a Protoss victor in tournaments that matter, and before Terran got overbuffed. I also pick this patch because it is before the cabal took over.
I think changes for the sake of changes will ultimately destroy your game. People expect changes to happen, so you want to adhere to this want. And so you trade goodness for something that is worse, but different. David Kim was right in his thought to try and make the perfect game. I'm not saying btw that this game does not need patches, but it should be to try to reach perfection, rather than doing random things.
Yeah I've thought about that too, the way they are doing things by voting on different ideas that are thrown out basically means there can't be any overarching vision behind the changes. David Kim and the subsequent blizzard balance team surely made mistakes, but you could clearly see they had specific goals / a specific vision in mind on what they want to achieve - and ultimately they succeeded as at the point when they had to abandon the game, it was in a vastly better state than in early WoL, so they have overall improved the game tremendously.
I can't say that for the current council, most of the changes seem okay on paper but they also seem quite random and not following any specific vision. I can't say they have improved the game at all.
Gamers are great at articulating what they don’t like, much less so at well, designing games that they actually enjoy.
On the other hand top level players, particularly pros have more insight than anyone to the nitty gritty and the ramifications and potential enabled by changes.
I feel like the best balance would have been the devs having that vision, informed by general user research, and the pros help to refine it and determine what would, wouldn’t work, and what potential undesirable externalities could be introduced.
Consultants really over well, however the structure works currently
Just because you are great at playing a particular game and have a very good understanding of how it internally works doesn't automatically make you a good game designer, but to be fair the problem with the whole thing isn't the proposed changes by themselves, but deploying them unaltered to live servers without any review/reflection process for adjustments.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour.
you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour?
Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended.
But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out.
Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem.
They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier.
Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative.
The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers
I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else.
If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here.
now that you know the Cylcone is bugged maybe you can better understand the problem. if you've been watching Groups A,B, and C of the GSL this season you'll notice the Cyclone has become an endangered species.
Odd in that there was a lot of Cyclone builds but ok just make stuff up
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
I wish Protoss could get reactored Phoenixes. I love the unit, but it's such a commitment and so hard to bounce back when you take losses.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: I just don’t see how this specific call can be attributed to a lack in budget. You’ve built your new feature, you’ve surveyed users and they don’t like it largely. You doing it anyway isn’t due to a budget constraint but a poor judgement call
call? the Cyclone is fucked. you can drill down to any single individual software development activity. and you can pull out the final step of the process and then observe that it took 1 minute and then claim the budget should be less than $1 for it.
On October 11 2023 01:11 WombaT wrote: The cyclone isn’t a bug though, it’s intended behaviour.
you can brick your opponent's Cyclone by picking up its target and putting it in a transport like a Medivac or Warp Prism. that is intended behaviour?
Brick it how? Is it left unable to utilise its regular attack for a period or what? That’s new to me if that is happening, and would, I imagine be unintended.
But pick-ups and blinks out of range have been counterplay options, and IMO good ones from the day the cyclone rolled out.
Pig talks a lot of sense there, and I’ve not disputed budget is an overall factor, but specifically for the cyclone how is that the problem.
They’ve got their volunteers in the balance council, they had a PTR run, they had people run PTR tourniesthey’ve plenty of avenues for feedback from players from the scrub to the pro tier.
Feedback on that particular change? Pretty bloody negative.
The budgetary constraint of what? One person taking a few hours to run through correspondence with the balance council, browse the TL PTR thread and r/Starcraft2 for a bit? Maybe a few Discord servers
I’m still unsure why you’re arguing budgetary constraints rather than someone, somewhere being lazy or exercising poor judgement. The whole point of a patch is to improve the general experience, if you’re ignoring the market research you’ve already done, I don’t see how it can be anything else.
If they didn’t do the market research of test PTR builds and just rolled out whatever, then yes maybe I would concede that the problem is budgetary but that isn’t the case here.
now that you know the Cylcone is bugged maybe you can better understand the problem. if you've been watching Groups A,B, and C of the GSL this season you'll notice the Cyclone has become an endangered species.
Odd in that there was a lot of Cyclone builds but ok just make stuff up
Do you want to go through each game 1 by 1 in groups A, B, and C and count the Cyclones built. It is a low number. We can go through each game if you like though.
You do not have a handle on the basic facts of this discussion if you did not know about the Cyclone brick bug.
DUring Group A play a total of 4 Cyclones were built during 5 Terran games. We can go thru Group B and C as well if you like.
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
I wish Protoss could get reactored Phoenixes. I love the unit, but it's such a commitment and so hard to bounce back when you take losses.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
It doesn't really mean that it's a better unit. It's just that the Cyclone wants to fight at the edge of its range, but with Blink back micro you can negate the Cyclone's strength or force them to dive to kill hurt Stalkers, and they're not as good at trading in a straight up fight.
Tanks counter Stalkers in a vacuum, but the shitty thing is that with the LotV economy changes, the timing is such that Blink Stalkers are strong vs Mech/Tanks early on, and make it hard to take a 3rd safely and early enough to keep the game even. That's part of what the new Cyclone is supposed to address, to round out the early game for Mech. If both early Cyclones and early Tanks struggle vs Blink openings, then Mech will still struggle to be viable.
That said, the new Cyclone at least fares better vs blink than the old Cyclone. I'm not really proposing the Cyclone to be buffed exactly, but there are many possible ways to adjust it so that it's less impacted by Blink, and maybe weaker in other areas or stages of the game to balance it out.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
What surprised me, it takes one month to realize. That s why i was trying to make vids about stalkers, dude, i was so right. Now you have to look (i repeat) why stalkers is armoured, while it s a gateway unit (and considered like a fast unit with their blink ability ):
techlab => armored units reactor => light units
gateway => light robot => armored
zerg buildings => independency
philosophy and uniformity is important, now you know what i tried to say during one month.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
have they fixed the Cyclone brick bug? or can i still load up stuff in my Medivac and permanently disable the Cyclone firing at the unit I put in my Medivac?
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
So a new core unit could benefit from 'cyclone anti air weapon' in order to help Protoss to aim medivacs - a more 'all around unit' compare to salkers which would need less micro and less expensive (If there s an issue with stalkers as a core unit (high gas cost / risk of snowballing))
Actually it s the void ray which have a bonus against armored (against air units)
PS: as Banshees and mutalisks are light units, it can be realy interesting (because the damage of this weapon will be able to kill medivacs and it wouldn t have worked if the weapon could counter more air units with 2 supply cost) After patch 3.8.0 and Before Patch 4.7.1 a version of this weapon exists:
Lock On can now target air units and air structures only. Range is unchanged, and the ability now deals 160 damage over 14 seconds. Removed auto-cast for the Lock On ability. Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3. Increased health from 120 to 180. The Cyclone no longer requires a Tech Lab, and can now be built with a Reactor.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
Zerg doesn't need any buffs in TvZ. The obvious answer to fixing TvP is to roll back some of the unjustified Protoss nerfs (disruptor, battery) instead of screwing up another match up for no good reason.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T.
It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it.
If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
Well MMM supported by ghosts is something that happens in late midgame. And then the ghost count increases and eventually libs enter the field.
Mass ghost+libs is definitely lategame, but it's a progression from bio+tank into ghost+tanks into ghost+libs+tanks and P just doesn't have a way to deal with ghost+tanks or ghost+tanks+libs other than fleet beacon tech and fleet beacon tech takes too long and is too expensive to build up (it's really strong if you get there however).
I think part of the patch goal was to lessen immediate ghost impact and strengthen the immediate impact of lategame stargate by making mothership and tempest less easy to pick off, which I think is a smart approach. I just don't think that's enough for a 60:40 matchup, but admittedly I haven't seen enough high lvl PvT to judge yet.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
Well MMM supported by ghosts is something that happens in late midgame. And then the ghost count increases and eventually libs enter the field.
Mass ghost+libs is definitely lategame, but it's a progression from bio+tank into ghost+tanks into ghost+libs+tanks and P just doesn't have a way to deal with ghost+tanks or ghost+tanks+libs other than fleet beacon tech and fleet beacon tech takes too long and is too expensive to build up (it's really strong if you get there however).
I think part of the patch goal was to lessen immediate ghost impact and strengthen the immediate impact of lategame stargate by making mothership and tempest less easy to pick off, which I think is a smart approach. I just don't think that's enough for a 60:40 matchup, but admittedly I haven't seen enough high lvl PvT to judge yet.
Nerfing EMP radius should reduce the impact of MMM supported by ghosts only.
On October 20 2023 02:48 [Phantom] wrote: Regarding the cyclone... I don't think this change will age well. One thing I don't understand it's why it doesn't require technolab. It's already better than a stalker, and now it comes 2 at a time? This enables terran to make them very fast, and remake them very fast. If they are going to let them be reactored they need to increase their building time.
The unit itself is very unfun...an automatic stim marine that shoots and kites at the same time... I think the unit will age as badly as Brood Lords and Swarm host.
And if this is the type of change Scarlett proposes that doesn't bode well for her game or stormgate.
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T.
It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it.
If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
lots of pros die to it especially with the 2 rax reaper openings into fast 16 marine drop since it´s really easy for T to execute and really hard to miscalculate as Z with engaging too early, not enough queen support, bad surround etc. --> thats just 1 example of MMM medivacs being too strong (its not marines oder marauders).
if T is too weak after nerfing medivac healing rate or energy regen just buff T in another way. its not a "winrate" issue.
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: [quote]
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T.
It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it.
If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
lots of pros die to it especially with the 2 rax reaper openings into fast 16 marine drop since it´s really easy for T to execute and really hard to miscalculate as Z with engaging too early, not enough queen support, bad surround etc. --> thats just 1 example of MMM medivacs being too strong (its not marines oder marauders).
if T is too weak after nerfing medivac healing rate or energy regen just buff T in another way. its not a "winrate" issue.
I m pretty sure that medivacs healing rate is overpowered, and i think you re right on this point, it s do-able and the risk to see gameplay unbalanced after this tweak is important. There s also marauders and colossus damage which can be clearly improved (10 + 10 to 12 + 8, 10 + 5 to 12 + 4). An easy way to balance after the heal nerf (from 4hp/s to 3hp/s) is to make shield bonus from +10 to +15. Then you can increase a very little bit the attack speed of glings to reduce the gap with adrealin glands (and btw restore +5 hp bonus of banelings upgrade).
Even if on the paper, marines hp buff looks big (from 55 to 60), you must remember that marines are only effective with stim so the real buff is more like " from 45 to 50", not impossible.
For Terran bio, yes. Just like the disruptor nerf and the fungal nerf. So fun seeing MMM run over everything on ladder. Meanwhile zerg players in masters and GM continue to quit in droves like they have since 2020.
As an annecdotal experience (i'm not master), My ladder games are now like 7 terrans,2 protoss and 1 zerg. (that's the last 10 games in my match history)
The ammount of terrans on ladder is absurd, and very very few zergs
i find playing Terran and Protoss more fun than Zerg. I'm not expecting a group of volunteers with a budget of $0 to fix that though. I don't find many RTS games to be more fun than playing Zerg in SC2 though. So I'll stick with SC2.
During my ladder play I notice ~ 1/3 Zerg. So I guess someone likes it.
On October 20 2023 06:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: [quote]
It's really weird to me too that Liberators can also be reactored. It's a flying siege tank.
The cyclone is in a weird spot. Design wise it's weird that it can be reactored, yet still takes the same ~30 secs to build. Balance wise, it makes sense though. Mech has trouble producing units early on since Factories are expensive. So being able to reactor out cheap all-rounder units early on helps smoothen out the early game.
The part that sucks is that Blink Stalkers still counter them a bit too hard. It would be ideal if the autoattack was strengthened and the lock-on was a slightly weaker attack. Or if the cyclone's lock on made it move a little slower and in return got more range or damage. That kind of design would make Blink micro less impactful and make the Cyclone more interesting and have more counterplay.
The Cyclone and the Stalker is the exact same unit now. Same costs and +vs Mech and +vs Armoured is almost the same. They are both striders that need micro to make them good and they both scale poorly with upgrades. If Cyclones beats Stalkers or vice versa, it just means that it is a stronger unit. What they should do is not make boring ass same units. Mech has Tanks to counter Stalkers, so it does not need Cyclones to do this. However, it ofc needs to do more vs. Stalkers than Hellions.
First statement : Cyclones looks like to stalkers
If first statement is true, it s possible to compare the cyclone redesign error of the council menber with a reproduction of an older unit, which means somehow that council members target well one of Protoss issue but not adress a good patch. As you know stalkers are really controversial units and depends a lot of your skill level, pro, hardcore or casual.
So, in assuming first statement is true, it s also possible to say that stalkers are mainly because of their expensive price, the most relative cost efficient unit depending of your skill (need as much skill as marines split).
Second Statement : Stalkers are the most relative cost efficient unit (depending of your skill)
If you agree on this reasonning, which means 2) is a direct consequence of 1) then Stalkers roles can be considered as an harassement/kitting unit excepting in end game where they suffer of their lack of dps.
In other terms, the only way to fix Protoss is to emphasize his harassement role in end game then the bonus against light units must be increased in regard of some reduction of their statistics (with why not switching tag from heavy to 'light' or 'none' also) or with a tought new upgrade. Then a decisive part of the rework is to decide if this tweak need the addition of a new basic unit as dragoon or a second tweak of the blink upgrade but it will decrease the gameplay in all area of the game whatever you are casual, hardcore or pros
That s why i m for adding the dragoon : this kind of change will help casual and hardcore gamer to masterize Protoss better, and pros will be happy to keep their threat key unit which can be improved in their role especially in end game. Then you have to care about the obvious overlaping function with dark templars upgrade, which will require now something different; you also have to remove adepts.
I m thinking if i m right that there s not so many variations. By now SC2 need more discussing about stalkers attributes which are armored AND fast movement with slow dps,... that s a little bit confusing with the RTS code
Here my wishes after this patch ( Bring back Infested Terrans !!! )
- Restore old cyclones (for now)
- Add Dragoon as basic unit with some upgrades and specificities - Remove Adepts to preserve the number of units - Blink Dark Templars upgrade remove in exchange of a new upgrade - Stalkers is now an harrasement unit (emphasis on his role, light or none armor ? increase bonus against light / bonus upgrade ? supply cost from 2 to 3 ?)
I feel like at this point you could just give adepts anti-air and move stalkers as a heavier anti-air option (with better stats) into robotics. BvL is pretty weak on anti-air anyways, so you'd prolly just keep stalkers for anti-air unless you go phoenix. You'd solve gateway all-ins and protoss lategame supply efficiency issues if you buffed the stalker a bit and gateway would transition more into harass instead of army core.
You'd prolly need to reduce robo cost in exchange, but tbh I'd like to see reduced protoss t2 production building cost anyways even if we aren't talking sweeping changes to units. I don't get why Protoss has to pay way more for their unit production buildings than any other race, they'd have so much more options if every Robo or SG didn't cost an immortal. The way it is now they just have to keep spamming gateway units cause they can't afford the upgraded production buildings. In the meantime Terran can reactor for a quarter of the cost and zerg's production buildings cost only minerals.
It's also one of the reasons we rarely see MS and why Protoss transitions/mixed tech takes forever, the cost to tech switch are just nutty. With the nerfs to Stargate openings it's even worse.
Like the main problem with PvT is that in midgame Protoss can't trade with the bio ball/ghost+medivacs, especially not if they get supported by mines/tanks/libs. They don't have a robo/gw unit other than the disruptor that doesn't get beaten by tanks and the disruptor is highly unreliable. If P had an easier time adding tempests that would be subject to change.
Since when is a Terran army with ghosts and libs considered midgame? That's pretty much end-game comp for Terrans.
definetly. and while the ghost in masses is still too strong the biggest thing to look at in my opinion for midgame should be medivac healingrate / medivac energy regen. MMM has always been and still is too strong if there arent the perfect counters around for specific timings.
Best thing would be to not nerf MMM itself but make stimming hurt more. at least that would bring more counter play from opponents like stim and retreat and more decision making on both sides like "do i stim again or retreat etc." or "do i let the nexus / hatch after i suck out another stim or not etc."
The year is 2023. Civilization has collapsed. Yet, people are still complaining about MMM like it's 2010.
then talking about T being too strong in midgame...well that else to look at? it´s a smaller problem in TvZ although even there too many games are instantly lost to just 16 marinedrops still but more so in TvP.
That's exactly it. There's no clear indication that T is too strong in the midgame. T is strongest in mid-game, for sure. But other races are able to overcome it and reach late-game that is stronger than T.
It's still a little early with the new cyclone patch. I think the most prudent course of action is to monitor the interactions and see the effect at competitive levels. If we see overrepresentation of Terrans, that's another indication. So far, I'm not seeing it.
If you're dying to 16 marine drop, it's a skill issue.
lots of pros die to it especially with the 2 rax reaper openings into fast 16 marine drop since it´s really easy for T to execute and really hard to miscalculate as Z with engaging too early, not enough queen support, bad surround etc. --> thats just 1 example of MMM medivacs being too strong (its not marines oder marauders).
if T is too weak after nerfing medivac healing rate or energy regen just buff T in another way. its not a "winrate" issue.
I dont know if you can make too many queens in TvZ. Look at Serral.
Again, if something is too easy and too powerful, you'll see Terran pros use it to reach higher stages of competition. See: BL/infestor and blinkstalker era. Every pro abused those strats.
This recent GSL has really balanced representation with a zerg winning finals. Ultimately, its some to watch and see unfold.
On November 04 2023 05:27 [Phantom] wrote: As an annecdotal experience (i'm not master), My ladder games are now like 7 terrans,2 protoss and 1 zerg. (that's the last 10 games in my match history)
The ammount of terrans on ladder is absurd, and very very few zergs
Zerg's macro cycle is too hard at lower tiers. Im not surprised.
Patch 5.0.12 is a game-changer for starcraft II. It's all about enhancing Protoss early-game stability, diversifying mid-late game compositions, and making specialized units more relevant. Visual clarity improvements and greater late-game interaction are cherries on Top. https://carxstreetapkk.com/ This update promises a more exciting and Versatile competitive scene. Kudos to the development team! 🚀🎮
While balance at the pinnacle of skill has been the gold standard, the "lower" levels of of play also matter.
A big chunk of viewership will be watching the qualifiers, playoffs and semi-finals. Those games should not be dominated by one race. Ideally, there should be roughly even representation. Viewers should be able to enjoy the full variety of the games possible in SC2.
Balance at lower-tiers also impact pros and semi-pros who can offset their expenses with smaller tournaments. The health of the scene should be viewed holistically when considering balance.
Again, I re-iterate that the new patch is still being figured out by pros and the meta will settle.
But going forward, I hope that Protoss can be rewarded more for their skill and punished more for their mistakes. This will mean that top Protoss will be able to win more tourneys but lower-tiers will not be so dominated by Protoss.
I went through the premier tournaments list (discounting wcs america) and counted every unique finalist.
Void Ray patch: 6 aug 2020 -> 23 jan 2023: t: clem,maru,cure,ty,bunny 5 z: reynor,serral,rogue,dark,solar,lambo,ragnarok 7 p: stats,trap,zoun,zest,creator,hero,astrea 7
Now doing the same for patches since the cabal took over (overcharge nerf, void ray nerf, disruptor nerf) 23 Jan and forward: t: oliveira,maru,cure,gumiho 4 z: serral,reynor,dark,solar 4 p: maxpax 1
Coupled with the fact that only 1 Protoss (herO) is in the top 10 earners for 2023.
Then it's easy to see why people are not happy with the state of the game. And you really shouldn't be surprised if this has already resulted/will result in a 2/3 of the viewership for tournaments. I can speak for me personally that ESL open Cups have become more exciting than top tournaments, because of the fact that Protoss actually have a decent shot at winning.
Protoss has the worst depth of individual player skill in 2023.
Trap is retired Zest is retired Stats came back but isn't anywhere near his old form MaxPax only attends online Classic and Creator are decent herO has very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
Its really not that hard to see. Saying that Protoss is weak and that results in poor performance is just false. If you cloned MaxPax 5x, tournaments would look vastly different.
On November 14 2023 03:31 TaKeTV wrote: Protoss has the worst depth of individual player skill in 2023.
Trap is retired Zest is retired Stats came back but isn't anywhere near his old form MaxPax only attends online Classic and Creator are decent herO has very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
Its really not that hard to see. Saying that Protoss is weak and that results in poor performance is just false. If you cloned MaxPax 5x, tournaments would look vastly different.
Your post would make at least some sense if:
-Stats, Trap, Zest, and Classic collectively won anything bigger than a Super Tournament after MSC was removed. But instead all they did was win smaller premier tournaments once in a while, while getting curb stomped by Terran/Zerg in the big time tournaments in terms of prestige and/or prize money that we tend to consider the pinnacle of Starcraft 2 play (Blizzcon, Katowice, Code S). Funnily enough, the sole Protoss player that one time managed overcome these odds and go on a miracle run is the guy you think is the shakiest, herO. Funny how that works.
-MaxPax actually won big, even in terms of online events. Where are his impressive tournament wins even online? Claiming that Protoss doesn’t win tournaments because MaxPax only plays online is ridiculous.
-And herO’s “very shaky or poor performance” didn’t start immediately after the unwarranted nerf to Protoss (overcharge nerf, Disruptor nerf, Carrier nerf, etc)….You know, the same state of the game in which a player like Oliviera could do something that Protoss legends have been unable to do for 6 years. When Hurricane beats Rogue once in a ST, Protoss timings are too OP and they are nerfed. When Oliviera makes a dream run knocking out the best P/Z players in the world in the biggest tournament of the year to become world champion, we just chalk it up to Terran "depth of talent" - one must look at the context of everything. Protoss is not treated the same way as T/Z, and it's been that way for several years, and the consequences have been significant in terms of tournament performance.
By the way if you cloned MaxPax (who is by all metrics worse than herO at actually winning) 5x, Protoss tournament performance would still be weak, just like it was when in-form Stats, Zest, Classic, and Trap were the top of the race and still unable to do anything but win a code s here and there or something. And, no offense to MaxPax, because he’s a hell of a player, but he is not in the same league as Stats, Zest, in-form Classic, and Trap were, or herO is now.
It's also easy to write off a player like Creator as merely "decent" when he plays a race as unforgiving at their level of play as Protoss - the man is a recent GSL finalist
On November 14 2023 03:31 TaKeTV wrote: Protoss has the worst depth of individual player skill in 2023.
Trap is retired Zest is retired Stats came back but isn't anywhere near his old form MaxPax only attends online Classic and Creator are decent herO has very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
Its really not that hard to see. Saying that Protoss is weak and that results in poor performance is just false. If you cloned MaxPax 5x, tournaments would look vastly different.
Your post would make at least some sense if:
-Stats, Trap, Zest, and Classic collectively won anything bigger than a Super Tournament after MSC was removed. But instead all they did was win smaller premier tournaments once in a while, while getting curb stomped by Terran/Zerg in the big time tournaments in terms of prestige and/or prize money that we tend to consider the pinnacle of Starcraft 2 play (Blizzcon, Katowice, Code S). Funnily enough, the sole Protoss player that one time managed overcome these odds and go on a miracle run is the guy you think is the shakiest, herO. Funny how that works.
-MaxPax actually won big, even in terms of online events. Where are his impressive tournament wins even online? Claiming that Protoss doesn’t win tournaments because MaxPax only plays online is ridiculous.
-And herO’s “very shaky or poor performance” didn’t start immediately after the unwarranted nerf to Protoss (overcharge nerf, Disruptor nerf, Carrier nerf, etc)….You know, the same state of the game in which a player like Oliviera could do something that Protoss legends have been unable to do for 6 years. When Hurricane beats Rogue once in a ST, Protoss timings are too OP and they are nerfed. When Oliviera makes a dream run knocking out the best P/Z players in the world in the biggest tournament of the year to become world champion, we just chalk it up to Terran "depth of talent" - one must look at the context of everything. Protoss is not treated the same way as T/Z, and it's been that way for several years, and the consequences have been significant in terms of tournament performance.
By the way if you cloned MaxPax (who is by all metrics worse than herO at actually winning) 5x, Protoss tournament performance would still be weak, just like it was when in-form Stats, Zest, Classic, and Trap were the top of the race and still unable to do anything but win a code s here and there or something. And, no offense to MaxPax, because he’s a hell of a player, but he is not in the same league as Stats, Zest, in-form Classic, and Trap were, or herO is now.
It's also easy to write off a player like Creator as merely "decent" when he plays a race as unforgiving at their level of play as Protoss - the man is a recent GSL finalist
Great counterarguments
Creator is not at all just decent. Sure he has trouble staying calm sometimes and chokes sometimes, but let's look at all the games where he doesn't do that. The dude shows so many impressive feats in games. Remember when he took 2 games off Rogue in the finals? And he was close to taking a 3rd game as well if he killed that proxy hatch that had like 10 HP left. Even players like Trap wouldn't be expected to necessarily be able to take 2 games off of Rogue in a Code S Bo7 Finals. Classic is also very solid recently, and was one of the top Protoss of LotV.
Zerg is known to have been overpowered around 2019, or at least the strongest race for much of LotV. So clearly, it's safe to say that Protoss has been weak. You could say Terran has been weak as well, if not for the recent 2 patches making PvT hard for Protoss (battery nerf without compensating for it along with interference matrix timing buffs).
Don't forget that sOs only retired in 2021. The guy who won 3 world championships during HotS. Something is wrong with Protoss in LotV, and it's easy to see. Look at how many games GSL players lose to a ling flood, whether they misplace their adept/zealot at the wall by a pixel, or when they place it correctly but they glitch the lings past by spam clicking. If such a small mistake gets punished by losing a game, you have yourself a fragile and very punishing race. If it leads to even just a few pros losing games a year, that's too much already.
On November 14 2023 11:30 Zambrah wrote: I will go to my grave believing Trap would have been a Maru-level legend if he didn't play Protoss
Speak for yourself :p
Nah he’s not quite there but he’s the most absurdly underrated player in the whole scene IMO, and definitely the most underrated Protoss.
Look how much he actually won when the entire race won absolutely zilch, for like 1-2 years. The record for consecutive GSL Ro8+s which nobody is going to beat, at least equivalently given the format changes.
A few GSL finals and I think he’d definitely have won one if he’d got a bit of bracket luck and ran into some Ts when his PvT was absolutely out of this world good. Had the full gamut of aggression thru reactive macro under his belt and was incredibly, incredibly clean.
His sheer consistency and clean play while playing the fragile race is why I love him so much, some of the absolute tightest play on the race that just ain’t the right fit for that.
Watching tight Protoss play is such a delight to watch. I wish for how punishing Protoss can be at times when you're not perfectly clean, that there was slightly higher peaks for the race when you do play perfect.
On November 14 2023 14:45 Zambrah wrote: His sheer consistency and clean play while playing the fragile race is why I love him so much, some of the absolute tightest play on the race that just ain’t the right fit for that.
On November 14 2023 14:45 Zambrah wrote: His sheer consistency and clean play while playing the fragile race is why I love him so much, some of the absolute tightest play on the race that just ain’t the right fit for that.
hoooooooly shit you are so based
As much as it was a beautiful love-in before, it’s hit another level with the entry of Trap’s undisputed number one fan!
Trap only blemish on his resume was his lack of performance at Blizzcon/IEM Global Final. If it was him who made 2 IEM final instead of Zest, he would have a much better case to be the best Protoss player ever. Of course there is the lack of GSL but lots of Protoss didnt win that in LoTV.
On November 14 2023 17:36 tigera6 wrote: Trap only blemish on his resume was his lack of performance at Blizzcon/IEM Global Final. If it was him who made 2 IEM final instead of Zest, he would have a much better case to be the best Protoss player ever. Of course there is the lack of GSL but lots of Protoss didnt win that in LoTV.
That is a blemish but to be fair Zest’s runs were down to him coming up with some new build for those tournies and him getting absolutely stomped when his opponents figured it out, rather than him actually playing stellar StarCraft. That’s a bit harsh but you get what I mean. Trap’s peak period he was just playing really consistently well for a really long time.
I don’t think there is a Protoss GOAT, a bunch of players who excelled at various things and I can’t really rate them above each other, and there’s a fair few players who have a very Yin-Yang relationship too.
MC - The pioneer, some killer instinct. Laid the groundwork for how brutal timing attacks and all-in oriented Protoss (the Great Book of Protoss Bullshit really haha) Rain - For my money for sheer top end talent and level, maybe the best, but a relatively short period at the top level. Laid the groundwork for how macro Protoss was played.
hero - A consistent tournament threat and Proleague player with a sometimes suicidally aggressive style. Stats - A consistent tournament threat and Proleague player with a sometimes suicidally passive macro style.
Zest - Probably the player with the most longevity in terms of popping in and winning things. Not the most mechanically gifted player and relied a lot on innovating builds and optimising them. Classic - Player with a ton of longevity who was very strong mechanically and a very stock standard player, although not averse to pulling off some crazy builds.
$o$ - Not the most regularly consistent contender for individual honours but boy did he peak on the biggest of stages. Also a borderline insane player stylistically at times to compensate for not quite being at the top table mechanically Trap - Probably put in the most resolutely consistent long period of top level form of any Protoss, but flubbed his lines when on the very biggest of stages. A very stock/versatile player stylistically who excelled in execution above anything else.
Honourable mentions to HerO of the Liquid variety and Creator, two very good players who perhaps struggled in reining in emotions at times in their careers.
As much as I like to bemoan the general state of Protoss, as most of us do the one thing I would say in favour of the race is that it does facilitate a lot of different styles and flavours of play, at the top level Terrans and Zergs are a bit more homogenous.
On November 14 2023 03:31 TaKeTV wrote: Protoss has the worst depth of individual player skill in 2023.
Trap is retired Zest is retired Stats came back but isn't anywhere near his old form MaxPax only attends online Classic and Creator are decent herO has very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
Its really not that hard to see. Saying that Protoss is weak and that results in poor performance is just false. If you cloned MaxPax 5x, tournaments would look vastly different.
Rogue is retired InNoVation is retired SoO/TY came back but aren't anywhere near their old forms ByuN has had a very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
If there were 6 different maxpax, then yes the list would be: 6,4,4. But funnily enough, even then Protoss would still be behind on the race earnings.
I don't necessarily disagree that protoss depth is the worst, but 1/9th, or 1/10th of the total player depth is asking for a bit much.
Would love to heat the balance council's thoughts after the patch since it's been a second and we have a better selection of games to analyze.
It looks like Zerg is definitely weaker against both races, especially Terran. Solar winning GSL doesn't chance my opinion on this, Solar has been in great form lately, his decision making has been top notch. Other top matchs ups I've witnessed it seems like bio trades ALOT better against banelings and using banelings for run byes into probe lines seems to have taken a bit of a dive.
I'm all good with Zerg getting nerfed a tad, but where does Protoss stand against Terran? To me they seem even weaker then they were before, and wasnt that one of the primary goals of this patch?
Next patch needs to to specifically targeted to PvT.
On November 14 2023 17:36 tigera6 wrote: Trap only blemish on his resume was his lack of performance at Blizzcon/IEM Global Final. If it was him who made 2 IEM final instead of Zest, he would have a much better case to be the best Protoss player ever. Of course there is the lack of GSL but lots of Protoss didnt win that in LoTV.
Yeah no ones arguing that Trap is the protoss GOAT but he absolutely is in contention for best protoss of LotV.
Going back to the discussion of the patch, does anyone think that the new maps and their sizes are affecting balance more than some of the balance changes themselves? Cyclone, which was a huge topic, isn't used that much outside of TvT because it's still weak. Also, in TvZ, the highest level games are determined by Terran withstanding whatever Zerg can throw while they mine. If Zerg cannot mine anymore because their side of the map has no more resources, then it's GG for Zerg because Terran is too cost efficient. In Protoss matchups, the Disruptor supply nerf is affecting them pretty hard in 200/200 fights. The nerf to Banelings seems a bit too big and maybe they should at least get +5 HP back?
My personal view on some of the current matchup (non-mirror) from the pro gameplay: +TvZ: The new Cyclone does one thing really well, that is shutting down the early Roach aggression from 2-base Zerg. Now Terran dont have to have Banshee nor Tanks to defend, just Cyclone and Bunker is good enough to shut down any attempt from Zerg. But other than that the Cyclone hasnt done much in the matchup, mass Cyclone Mech style is still fragile as hell and does not have enough DPS. Standard TvZ game are still the same imo, with the change on Banes (5 less HP AND less damage bonus vs light) are not noticeable but pretty sure in effect. Should they revert this change? I doubt it, unless the Zerg struggle more in ZvT in the coming months. I am still trying to figure out why Mech is no longer viable on the previous and this current map pool, seems like top Terran suddenly choose not to use them, or just once in a Bo7.
+PvZ: In general, I feel that Protoss has done slightly better against Zerg with a more variety of build opening, although the Stargate-Oracle opening is still popular. Immortal-Archon -Storm seems to be a very powerful timing push that can demolish Zerg if they dont get out enough Roach or tech into Lurker/BLord in time. Zerg has tried some Ling-Hydra timing to rely the Hydra upgrade timing, but I havent seen lots of success from that, Roach-Ling-Bane is still the way to go in mid-game from Zerg.
+PvT: Cyclone hasnt done much in this matchup except for the 2-factory all-in version, they get countered by Voidray/Immortal with Shield Battery quite easily. It seems that the nerf on Raven is effective as we see less of the 1-Raven push from Terran against Colossi build. Raven is now being made but as harassment tool with Turret against non-SG opening. The standard 1-base push and 2-base push from Terran on Protoss still stay the same, with the result being mixed depending on whether Protoss can get up enough defense and units at that moment. The nerf on Ghost EMP radius is not very noticeable, but the nerf on Disruptor seems to be effective as I have not seen lots of game where Protoss stacking up their Disruptor count. Instead, Protoss stick with Gateway/Colossi/Immortal or Gateway/Archon/Storm and try to kill the Terran before they get enough Libs out.
Cyclone unfortunately didn't seem to fix Mech's struggle to hold a 3rd vs Blink Stalkers in TvP, however it certainly is easier with the newer Cyclone than the old Cyclone, and it seems like you can open with Mech at high GM KR level much more easily now thanks to the Cyclone, so I guess it did improve things.
However, Cyclone affects TvP early game (proxies etc.), so we should monitor that if it makes Protoss struggle even more early game.
I think people probably liked TvZ more when it was how it was in WoL/HotS, with it feeling like the Zerg was the one trying to survive neverending Terran harassment, and the Terran knowing it has to keep pressuring to stop Zerg from exploding economically. Now it seems reversed, Zerg explodes in economy no matter what so Terran is forced to just try to absorb the swarm over and over. I like watching those games too, but it does feel maybe less dynamic and more 1-dimensional.
Disruptor supply nerf seemed unnecessary. I think the right way to nerf them to scale worse in deathballs is to just increase their collission size (which they did a little, that was good because they were TINY before). They didn't need both the collission size nerf and the supply nerf. Keep the supply at 3, that way Protoss can afford to have 1-2 more Disruptors around the map to zone areas or defend bases. We only need to nerf specifically when you have 8-10 Disruptors in a deathball.
I think banelings not 1 shotting probes was very good because it targetted Protoss unfairly and was too punishing. However I think the +5 HP nerf was also warranted just because the Baneling still has a very unique and strong feature in that it is super supply efficient. The baneling allows a player with much superior economy to force a fight/trade and to end the game sooner. It's very "swarmy". However, it shouldn't be so core in so many other situations, Zerg has so many other cool units and tools, baneling shouldn't feel as much as a go-to as it was. Also, it wasn't good to make it so easy for a player with superior economy or a bit ahead in the game to be able to halt the opponent's potential growth and force the game to end sooner. It's better to have games be more back and forth and have more comeback potential, SC2 is already very fast paced and punishing compared to BW for example.
On November 15 2023 13:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think banelings not 1 shotting probes was very good because it targetted Protoss unfairly and was too punishing.
what about Wm drop, isn't it too punishing for toss? in general i find it strange that bane/disruptor get nerf and wm stays unchanged or gets small buff.
On November 15 2023 13:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think banelings not 1 shotting probes was very good because it targetted Protoss unfairly and was too punishing.
what about Wm drop, isn't it too punishing for toss? in general i find it strange that bane/disruptor get nerf and wm stays unchanged or gets small buff.
At the highest level, the Widow Mine drop is easily countered by pulling workers and with good map vision. Usually a distraction is required for the Widow Mines to be successful.
On November 15 2023 13:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think banelings not 1 shotting probes was very good because it targetted Protoss unfairly and was too punishing.
what about Wm drop, isn't it too punishing for toss? in general i find it strange that bane/disruptor get nerf and wm stays unchanged or gets small buff.
At the highest level, the Widow Mine drop is easily countered by pulling workers and with good map vision. Usually a distraction is required for the Widow Mines to be successful.
If easily countered meant not losing anything that would be fine, but it isn't really the case.
"Oh, I only got one probe each with my two widow Mines. Guess I'm down 50 minerals and 50 gas."
Except the probe pull cuts into that making it something that almost always trades even, with the potential to outright win the game, without much investment. (Both from a build standpoint as well as APM).
A similar brood war example is an arbiter recall in pvt. To defend this a Terran needs to successfully build turrets and lay Mines, probably netting close to 80 actions (much more if you eve consider T bringing some of their army.) On the other side the protoss has to devote about 6 actions to perform the recall.
Both of these things can pretty much outright win a game, yet the defense required to stop them is just insane
On November 15 2023 13:15 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I think banelings not 1 shotting probes was very good because it targetted Protoss unfairly and was too punishing.
what about Wm drop, isn't it too punishing for toss? in general i find it strange that bane/disruptor get nerf and wm stays unchanged or gets small buff.
At the highest level, the Widow Mine drop is easily countered by pulling workers and with good map vision. Usually a distraction is required for the Widow Mines to be successful.
If easily countered meant not losing anything that would be fine, but it isn't really the case.
"Oh, I only got one probe each with my two widow Mines. Guess I'm down 50 minerals and 50 gas."
Except the probe pull cuts into that making it something that almost always trades even, with the potential to outright win the game, without much investment. (Both from a build standpoint as well as APM).
A similar brood war example is an arbiter recall in pvt. To defend this a Terran needs to successfully build turrets and lay Mines, probably netting close to 80 actions (much more if you eve consider T bringing some of their army.) On the other side the protoss has to devote about 6 actions to perform the recall.
Both of these things can pretty much outright win a game, yet the defense required to stop them is just insane
Don't forget the counter to Widow Mines is pretty strong. How many times have we seen Terrains lose to something like Blink Stalkers because the Widow Mine drop was successfully defended? Also how would you nerf the drop without it affecting other aspects of the game? Like using it against Zealots or Ling-Bane? Sightly reduced damage? If so, then maybe get rid of the friendly fire considering Colossi and Banes don't do friendly fire either. Though that would affect the Phoenix mine drag.
The Mine should be invisible at all times while burrowed. The Sentinel Missile should deal 145+35 vs Mechanical and the AoE should be 35 damage.
Now a well placed Mine will successfully kill Phoenix, Medivacs and Banshees. They will kill Roaches unless the Zerg is quick enough to Burrow or Morph the Roach in response. They do what they need to do vs. Ling/Banes. Your Widow mine drop would be 3 Widow Mines and probably a Hellion or 2x Marines. Also you could combine it with the opening Reaper to kill of the 5 hp Workers. The only worrying fact is that they don't pwn Zealots, Adepts and Archons as badly. But to me this would be a great change for the game, Protoss really need buffs in this matchup. And it's not like the anti Shields is a unique role that Widow Mines give access to. There is the Ghost for this function. Protoss-Hater-Mines have been a thing for too damned long!
On November 16 2023 17:10 ejozl wrote: The Mine should be invisible at all times while burrowed. The Sentinel Missile should deal 145+35 vs Mechanical and the AoE should be 35 damage.
Now a well placed Mine will successfully kill Phoenix, Medivacs and Banshees. They will kill Roaches unless the Zerg is quick enough to Burrow or Morph the Roach in response. They do what they need to do vs. Ling/Banes. Your Widow mine drop would be 3 Widow Mines and probably a Hellion or 2x Marines. Also you could combine it with the opening Reaper to kill of the 5 hp Workers. The only worrying fact is that they don't pwn Zealots, Adepts and Archons as badly. But to me this would be a great change for the game, Protoss really need buffs in this matchup. And it's not like the anti Shields is a unique role that Widow Mines give access to. There is the Ghost for this function. Protoss-Hater-Mines have been a thing for too damned long!
Terran's have gotten special treatment for years and with Zerg they liked to turn a blind eye when things were blatantly overpowered ( just look at how much money zerg pro gamers made from the Brood Lord Infestor era or the swarmhost era etc it was a disaster and Zerg pro's still defended it, appalling.
Flip it over to Protoss and the nerf hammer would come like lightning comparatively to Terran or Zerg nerfs( Don't believe me go back in patchnotes and compare those era's and you can see it for yourself.)
Vikings increased damage vs mechanical ONLY to help against Protoss is also another great example of targeted buffs purely against Protoss that was never reverted.
Or other sneak buffs they added that was never required ( like only need armory for stealth widom mines no research required) which just aligns with the very easy straight forward playstyle of Terran which is anything you invest in to harass the enemy with you will have to construct in order to build your main composition in a clean macro build anyway so the investment is minimal and the reward is potentially huge. There is a nice flow in how Zerg and Terran develop , Protoss has a very clunky path into macro game if you choose to harass or pressure your opponent and you are forced to deal heavy damage for it to be worth it.
If you don't understand what I mean an example is if Protoss invests in Oracles or DT's or for example an adept harass into macro build Protoss MUST do massive damage or be behind, Zergs and Terrans can play macro with light harass options that can deal game ending damage should they succeed and if failed it's not that big of a deal. (Some damage is almost a given anyway like widomine drops are worth it so long as they kill 1 probe each and Protoss has to pull workers which hurts more then people realize)
Protoss does not have this option, everything with Protoss is fickle and on a knives edge you are always on the tipping point unlike Terran or Zerg who are way more durable and forgiving.
People always said Protoss is the easiest race to play, this is only true up until you reach a level where people don't die to the bullshit build orders anymore and you gotta play legit.
At Pro level you gotta play flawless as a Protoss and it is without doubt the most unforgiving race of the three
On November 15 2023 13:12 tigera6 wrote: My personal view on some of the current matchup (non-mirror) from the pro gameplay: +TvZ: The new Cyclone does one thing really well, that is shutting down the early Roach aggression from 2-base Zerg. Now Terran dont have to have Banshee nor Tanks to defend, just Cyclone and Bunker is good enough to shut down any attempt from Zerg. But other than that the Cyclone hasnt done much in the matchup, mass Cyclone Mech style is still fragile as hell and does not have enough DPS. Standard TvZ game are still the same imo, with the change on Banes (5 less HP AND less damage bonus vs light) are not noticeable but pretty sure in effect. Should they revert this change? I doubt it, unless the Zerg struggle more in ZvT in the coming months. I am still trying to figure out why Mech is no longer viable on the previous and this current map pool, seems like top Terran suddenly choose not to use them, or just once in a Bo7.
+PvZ: In general, I feel that Protoss has done slightly better against Zerg with a more variety of build opening, although the Stargate-Oracle opening is still popular. Immortal-Archon -Storm seems to be a very powerful timing push that can demolish Zerg if they dont get out enough Roach or tech into Lurker/BLord in time. Zerg has tried some Ling-Hydra timing to rely the Hydra upgrade timing, but I havent seen lots of success from that, Roach-Ling-Bane is still the way to go in mid-game from Zerg.
+PvT: Cyclone hasnt done much in this matchup except for the 2-factory all-in version, they get countered by Voidray/Immortal with Shield Battery quite easily. It seems that the nerf on Raven is effective as we see less of the 1-Raven push from Terran against Colossi build. Raven is now being made but as harassment tool with Turret against non-SG opening. The standard 1-base push and 2-base push from Terran on Protoss still stay the same, with the result being mixed depending on whether Protoss can get up enough defense and units at that moment. The nerf on Ghost EMP radius is not very noticeable, but the nerf on Disruptor seems to be effective as I have not seen lots of game where Protoss stacking up their Disruptor count. Instead, Protoss stick with Gateway/Colossi/Immortal or Gateway/Archon/Storm and try to kill the Terran before they get enough Libs out.
Super curious if you have some example top level games in pvz or pvt where p goes storm. Somehow most of the games i watch still have a strong preference for robo-tech.
On November 16 2023 17:10 ejozl wrote: The Mine should be invisible at all times while burrowed. The Sentinel Missile should deal 145+35 vs Mechanical and the AoE should be 35 damage.
Now a well placed Mine will successfully kill Phoenix, Medivacs and Banshees. They will kill Roaches unless the Zerg is quick enough to Burrow or Morph the Roach in response. They do what they need to do vs. Ling/Banes. Your Widow mine drop would be 3 Widow Mines and probably a Hellion or 2x Marines. Also you could combine it with the opening Reaper to kill of the 5 hp Workers. The only worrying fact is that they don't pwn Zealots, Adepts and Archons as badly. But to me this would be a great change for the game, Protoss really need buffs in this matchup. And it's not like the anti Shields is a unique role that Widow Mines give access to. There is the Ghost for this function. Protoss-Hater-Mines have been a thing for too damned long!
Terran's have gotten special treatment for years and with Zerg they liked to turn a blind eye when things were blatantly overpowered ( just look at how much money zerg pro gamers made from the Brood Lord Infestor era or the swarmhost era etc it was a disaster and Zerg pro's still defended it, appalling.
Flip it over to Protoss and the nerf hammer would come like lightning comparatively to Terran or Zerg nerfs( Don't believe me go back in patchnotes and compare those era's and you can see it for yourself.)
Vikings increased damage vs mechanical ONLY to help against Protoss is also another great example of targeted buffs purely against Protoss that was never reverted.
Or other sneak buffs they added that was never required ( like only need armory for stealth widom mines no research required) which just aligns with the very easy straight forward playstyle of Terran which is anything you invest in to harass the enemy with you will have to construct in order to build your main composition in a clean macro build anyway so the investment is minimal and the reward is potentially huge. There is a nice flow in how Zerg and Terran develop , Protoss has a very clunky path into macro game if you choose to harass or pressure your opponent and you are forced to deal heavy damage for it to be worth it.
If you don't understand what I mean an example is if Protoss invests in Oracles or DT's or for example an adept harass into macro build Protoss MUST do massive damage or be behind, Zergs and Terrans can play macro with light harass options that can deal game ending damage should they succeed and if failed it's not that big of a deal. (Some damage is almost a given anyway like widomine drops are worth it so long as they kill 1 probe each and Protoss has to pull workers which hurts more then people realize)
Protoss does not have this option, everything with Protoss is fickle and on a knives edge you are always on the tipping point unlike Terran or Zerg who are way more durable and forgiving.
People always said Protoss is the easiest race to play, this is only true up until you reach a level where people don't die to the bullshit build orders anymore and you gotta play legit.
At Pro level you gotta play flawless as a Protoss and it is without doubt the most unforgiving race of the three
Largely agreed that a bunch of Toss harassment openers don’t naturally flow into a macro setup and require doing a decent chunk of damage
Aren’t Zerg in the same kind of boat there though? At least as openers go. In mitigation I guess for Zerg trying to do early damage is something you do for variety, to throw an opponent off as Zerg tends to prosper in sitting back and powering
In the several or so ESL Europe, he has gotten streamrolled by either Zerg and Terran (including players like MarineLord and Lambo lol)
Just pointing this out for all the people who try to use MaxPax as a red herring.
Maxpax not participating in offline tournaments is completely irrelevant to everything when he cannot even win online regionals. This is not a knock against MaxPax. If his race was viable he wouldn't be in this position.
The top of the protoss race is just screwed. It's been that way since Stats, Zest, and Trap were peaking in LotV and there are no two ways around it.
On November 14 2023 03:31 TaKeTV wrote: Protoss has the worst depth of individual player skill in 2023.
Trap is retired Zest is retired Stats came back but isn't anywhere near his old form MaxPax only attends online Classic and Creator are decent herO has very shaky or poor performance since a long time now
Its really not that hard to see. Saying that Protoss is weak and that results in poor performance is just false. If you cloned MaxPax 5x, tournaments would look vastly different.
Your post would make at least some sense if:
-Stats, Trap, Zest, and Classic collectively won anything bigger than a Super Tournament after MSC was removed. But instead all they did was win smaller premier tournaments once in a while, while getting curb stomped by Terran/Zerg in the big time tournaments in terms of prestige and/or prize money that we tend to consider the pinnacle of Starcraft 2 play (Blizzcon, Katowice, Code S). Funnily enough, the sole Protoss player that one time managed overcome these odds and go on a miracle run is the guy you think is the shakiest, herO. Funny how that works.
-MaxPax actually won big, even in terms of online events. Where are his impressive tournament wins even online? Claiming that Protoss doesn’t win tournaments because MaxPax only plays online is ridiculous.
-And herO’s “very shaky or poor performance” didn’t start immediately after the unwarranted nerf to Protoss (overcharge nerf, Disruptor nerf, Carrier nerf, etc)….You know, the same state of the game in which a player like Oliviera could do something that Protoss legends have been unable to do for 6 years. When Hurricane beats Rogue once in a ST, Protoss timings are too OP and they are nerfed. When Oliviera makes a dream run knocking out the best P/Z players in the world in the biggest tournament of the year to become world champion, we just chalk it up to Terran "depth of talent" - one must look at the context of everything. Protoss is not treated the same way as T/Z, and it's been that way for several years, and the consequences have been significant in terms of tournament performance.
By the way if you cloned MaxPax (who is by all metrics worse than herO at actually winning) 5x, Protoss tournament performance would still be weak, just like it was when in-form Stats, Zest, Classic, and Trap were the top of the race and still unable to do anything but win a code s here and there or something. And, no offense to MaxPax, because he’s a hell of a player, but he is not in the same league as Stats, Zest, in-form Classic, and Trap were, or herO is now.
It's also easy to write off a player like Creator as merely "decent" when he plays a race as unforgiving at their level of play as Protoss - the man is a recent GSL finalist
Great counterarguments
Creator is not at all just decent. Sure he has trouble staying calm sometimes and chokes sometimes, but let's look at all the games where he doesn't do that. The dude shows so many impressive feats in games. Remember when he took 2 games off Rogue in the finals? And he was close to taking a 3rd game as well if he killed that proxy hatch that had like 10 HP left. Even players like Trap wouldn't be expected to necessarily be able to take 2 games off of Rogue in a Code S Bo7 Finals. Classic is also very solid recently, and was one of the top Protoss of LotV.
Zerg is known to have been overpowered around 2019, or at least the strongest race for much of LotV. So clearly, it's safe to say that Protoss has been weak. You could say Terran has been weak as well, if not for the recent 2 patches making PvT hard for Protoss (battery nerf without compensating for it along with interference matrix timing buffs).
Don't forget that sOs only retired in 2021. The guy who won 3 world championships during HotS. Something is wrong with Protoss in LotV, and it's easy to see. Look at how many games GSL players lose to a ling flood, whether they misplace their adept/zealot at the wall by a pixel, or when they place it correctly but they glitch the lings past by spam clicking. If such a small mistake gets punished by losing a game, you have yourself a fragile and very punishing race. If it leads to even just a few pros losing games a year, that's too much already.
Excellent points.
Speaking of ling floods, one of the most disgusting things I've seen in LotV was the 2018 Blizzcon Finals. Serral literally got a free win because of the ling flood nonsense you mentioned. A free win against the "Shieild of Aiur" "Aegis of Korea" - the greatest defensive Protoss in the history of the game. Stats outplayed Serral that entire series but sadly for Stats the Infested Terrans hadnt been removed yet.
Stats had been playing like a lunatic during that stretch. He was mechanically inferior to nobody. His race prevented him from winning a single Code S/Blizzcon/IEM during that stretch. It's not unsurprising that he was the last Protoss to win a Code S/anything big until herO did the impossible.
I think Colossi having 10 range was the buff/bug that Protoss needed. Let's bring it back and give Colossi a bit more base damage against armoured unit and then slightly less against light units.
On November 19 2023 04:09 NoMacroNoHonour wrote: when he cannot even win online regionals.
His online regionals have Clem, Serral and Reynor, who would be his main opponents in an offline event as well. Under the current patch which is the only relevant one, he lost to Showtime (underperformance but in PvP) and Clem (should happen 50% of the time). Seems fine.
I think protoss is probably still the weakest race in this patch, but it's way closer than in the last patch. That's a good thing. Someone should write that somewhere so it'll be me this time.
I think the problem still remains that Protoss can't really poke vs mid-lategame terran other than disruptor balls, which are very hit or miss and now fairly supply inefficient to boot. It's the reason libs+ghosts shit so hard on toss, toss needs to hard commit for AA because robo units don't shoot up and stargate is supply but not cost efficient and can get bullied fairly easily until massed (vipers/vikings).
In that regard making tempests more mobile imo was the right move, but these things are still really fucking expensive and can get run down pretty easily. Stalkers are just not enough of a threat to air and toss unlike T and Z can't just put down a few AA turrets for mins to solve possible air problems. I still think they should either reduce the cost of fleet beacons/stargates or buff P's aa (phoenix range/stalker bonus (range) vs air), but I get that the former opens up more cheese options.
On November 19 2023 04:36 geokilla wrote: I think Colossi having 10 range was the buff/bug that Protoss needed. Let's bring it back and give Colossi a bit more base damage against armoured unit and then slightly less against light units.
Instead of 10 (+5 vs Light) (x2), adjusting it even just to 11 (+3 vs Light) (x2) might feel noticeably better and be enough.
Also Colossi having 10 range gives Protoss a pretty decent tool vs Lurkers without needing Fleet Beacon tech. Disruptors work too yes but they only have 1 shot. A 10 range Colossus can slowly poke at a Lurker line and force them to pull back. They can still get hit by lurkers, but since Colossus naturally attack in an arc and are so big and high HP, it takes a while for lurkers to kill Colossus. With its current 9 range even, a couple colossus is already surprisingly effective at dealing with a few Lurkers especially since they tend to be burrowed in an arc, which doesn't have additional effect vs Colossus. Also I think with 10 range it may be possible for Colossus to shoot and then dodge backwards.
Tbh I think PvZ is fine. It wasn't nearly as imbalanced as PvT before the patch and the patch was a noticeable buff for P in PvZ. I don't think P needs targeted buffs for PvZ, at least not until the patch settled a bit.
Not sure that applies to PvT because of how imbalanced it was and the worst part of it arguably got worse with the disruptor nerfs. The nerfs to Raven and slight nerf to ghosts may be enough to make P more deadly in the early and midgame which may swing the matchup back, but I I haven't seen enough to really judge where it's at.
The balance is actually pretty good atm, with T>P>Z. But the big problem is that Protoss hasn't been favoured at the top level since HotS, which is honestly disgraceful. Protoss is by far the hardest race and it needs to be adressed. Protoss cannot win by playing straight up anymore, they used to be able to do this in HotS by playing very precise and gettng into a surperior army composition. These days Protoss have the weakest army composition, with incredible supply inefficiency. Protoss could with the power of Pylon Overcharge/Shield Battery and Shield Battery Overcharge win with succesful greed that was very hard to punish, benefitting the Protoss with the ultimate late game army composition much sooner, giving a huge window for Protoss to take the win/overwhelming lead. Protoss used to be able to cheese and thereby orchestrate the perfect bo7/bo5 to outwitt the other races. Now Shield Battery, Cannon Rushes, early Zealots, Robo/Star Gate proxies stink. Protoss cannot greed, cheese or play straight up without lowering their chances. It is like playing chess having only pawns, it is required that the the opponent play like a child. But of course they won't, so they just run circles around the Protoss. The only advantage I see that Protoss have atm, is that the action economy favours them. So by creating dilemmas to solve for the opponent, so much so that they cannot keep up, is the best shot the Protoss will have. And we see this quite a bit, but again, even here Protoss have taken a hit, with the Disruptor nerfs.
EPT
Winnings/2022
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/yLRBToK.jpg)
