We happy to push 5.0.13 to which features a variety of Map Pool Updates and Balance. We would like to thank our partners at ESL, Balance Community Council and Community Mapmakers for all your contributions that went into 5.0.13.
MAP POOL UPDATE
1v1
Goldenaura LE
Site Delta LE
Oceanborn LE
Post-Youth LE
Amphion LE
Crimson Court LE
Dynasty LE
Alcyone LE
Ghost River LE
2v2
Catalesque CE
Divergence CE
Nightscape CE
Emerald City CE
Heavy Artillery LE
Overgrown Facility
Reclamation LE
Rhoskallian LE
Graystone Ravine
3v3
Flashback CE
Black Site 2E
Sandstorm CE
Mountain Pass CE
Sentinel CE
Jungle Depths LE
Bastion of the Conclave
Misty Swamp
Buried Caverns
4v4
Alaeni Enclave CE
Enigma CE
Fractional Disstilation Plant
Lexiphanicism CE
Multiprocessor CE
Concord LE
Forgotten Sanctuary
Shipwrecked LE
Tuonela LE
VERSUS
Balance Council on 5.0.12
Patch 5.0.12 was a big effort from the community balance council working on it, and we would like to thank everyone for providing their feedback and to apologize for us not being able to communicate proactively.
While we believe that some of the previous patch goals were successfully achieved, other goals, e.g. related to the Protoss versus Terran matchup, are yet to be accomplished.
Certain changes originally received mixed feedback from the community and also led to unintentional consequences, particularly in the case of Cyclones, so we might need to revisit those.
With the upcoming patch we would like to take a more careful approach and focus on fewer goals to improve the current state of the game.
The progamers involved in the balance council feel that the state of Terran versus Zerg and Protoss versus Zerg doesn't require any major balance changes.
Balance Council 5.0.13 Goals
Improve the state of Protoss versus Terran matchup at the professional level.
Mainly accomplished by changes to Terran units.
Address the community concerns about the most oppressive openings like Cyclone all-ins and Widow Mine drops.
Implement QoL improvements and the small changes proposed by the map making community to give more freedom in the competitive map design.
BALANCE UPDATE
General
Worker attack range increased from 0.1 to 0.2.
Worker inner radius (collision with terrain / structures) reduced from 0.375 to 0.3125.
Adjusted footprint size of Vespene Geysers (maintain previous interactions with Workers and Geysers).
Allows mapmakers to create 'Worker only Paths'.
'Zerg Rocks' now lose hp off creep.
Allows mapmakers to create rocks which lose HP over time, naturally opening up pathways on maps.
Mineral Fields can now be destroyed by collapsible rock towers.
Terran
Liberator
Advanced ballistics range bonus reduced from 3 to 2.
Widow Mine
Invisibility while reloading now requires Drilling Claws upgrade instead of a constructed Armory.
Splash damage radius reduced from 1.75 to 1.5.
Now gives an attack alert to the enemy when burrowing in range of enemy units.
Alert is not given for already burrowed Widow Mines when enemies enter range.
Increased visibility of targeting line and targeted unit.
Reduced maximum impact of shots by reducing the radius (has a greater impact towards shots in Mineral lines due to how units clump).
Reduced game ending moments when Armory-cloaked Widow Mines are dropped throughout multiple Protoss bases in the midgame.
Now gives more opportunity for counterplay through the changes to visuals and alerts.
Armory
Cost reduced from 150/100 to 150/50.
Engineering Bay
Infantry weapons/armor upgrades cost reduced from 100/175/250 to 100/150/200.
Cyclone
Weapon cooldown increased from 0.48 to 0.58.
Lock On now cooldown increased from 0 to 2.86.
Weapon now has turret tracking, damage point reduced from 0.119 to 0.036.
Health increased from 110 to 130.
Raven
Interference Matrix can no longer target units already targeted or affected by Interference Matrix.
Zerg
Hatchery/Lair/Hive
Creep spread radius increased from 12 to 13.
Infestor
Fungal Growth range increased from 9 to 10.
Vision range while burrowed reduced from 10 to 8.
Unburrow time increased from 0.357 - 0.714 seconds to 0.625 - 0.714 seconds.
Range relates to random delay.
Increased size of moving burrowed Infestor visuals effects.
Overlord
Transport Overlord morph time increased from 12.14 to 15 seconds.
Transport Overlord move speed increased from 1.10 to 1.28 (2.83 to 3.00 with Pneumatized Carapace).
Protoss
Observer
Build time reduced from 21.4 to 17.9 seconds.
Health/Shields increased from 40/20 to 40/30.
Model size increased by 10% / Surveillance Mode animation speed increased by 75%.
Sentry
Damage increased from 6 to 6 (+4 vs Shields).
Light attribute tag removed.
Pylon
Sight range increased from 9 to 10.
BUG FIXES & QUALITY OF LIFE UPDATE
Siege Tank (Unsieged) Turret now tracks previously attacked unit.
Fixed an issue where Siege Tank attack animation would sometimes not play.
Fixed an issue with Reaper's KD8 Charge Animation.
Fixed an issue with Ghost's Snipe tooltip not showing bonus damage vs psionic.
Fixed an issue where Banelings could deal additional damage on ramps.
Activating Generate Creep on overlords now activates for all selected Overlord types (Drop / Default).
Lurker subgroup priority increased (Now has higher priority than Ravager).
Fixed an issue where Immortals would not fire while surrounded by units or partially covered by Forcefields.
Immortal Turret now tracks previously attacked unit.
Fix tooltip on Mothership Cloak Field buff.
Fixed various issues with Recall.
No longer includes units already being Recalled.
All Recall abilities now cancel Adept Psionic Transfer and Disruptor Purification Nova.
Tempest Tectonic Destabilizers upgrade now also applies to attacks targeting flying buildings.
Fixed an issue where Guardian Shield would not apply to units on a different cliff level than the Sentry.
Fixed an issue where certain Vespene Geysers would not update visually when Depleted.
Fixed various issues with Rocks appearance on the minimap.
Fixed various issues with Healing Shrines.
Fixed an issue where Cyclone Lock On could activate on a hidden unit (Bug where Lock On would never end).
Fixed an issue where Shield Battery's Recharge impact model was visible through the fog.
Fixed an issue where Shield Battery could not be ordered to stop recharging a structure while auto-cast was enabled.
Fixed an issue where Disruptors were treated differently when being dropped by a transporter that was not a Warp Prism.
Fixed an issue where Acceleration and Inhibitor Zones affected structures on the ground.
Curious to play with the new changes. Terran upgrade cost reduction is going to be nice to tinker with.
Still not a fan of the widow mine burrowing alert, but curious to see how the radius reduction feels.
Aside from that still pretty disappointed in the toss changes. And really not understanding the overlord drop buffs, maybe I missed the people asking for this lol.
Also the hatch creep buff didn't they nerf that a couple patches ago? Curious to see if we actually get more variety to map design as a result
I think it would be a great addition for Probes and Drones to autosplit Widow Mine shots - the above 4 nerfs and the additional alert might just not be enough to make the only viable TvP tactic vs 4g Blink completely useless.
When Terran gets a nerf, why does it always have to be atleast 2-3 nerfs for the same unit at once? Why can't we take steps gradually, see how it goes, then adjust when neccessary?
On March 27 2024 05:32 Psz wrote: I think it would be a great addition for Probes and Drones to autosplit Widow Mine shots - the above 4 nerfs and the additional alert might just not be enough to make the only viable TvP tactic vs 4g Blink completely useless.
When Terran gets a nerf, why does it always have to be atleast 2-3 nerfs for the same unit at once? Why can't we take steps gradually, see how it goes, then adjust when neccessary?
Nah that's not enough, we also need zealot and ling bane autosplit. Lord forbid terran can take a bunch ling bane out at once. You will get overrun and you will enjoy it. On a more serious note, I'm with you. It's even more egregious that supposedly this was strictly a tvp patch and yet zergs get compensatory buffs in addition to indirect buffs from the terran nerfs. I guess clem winning an international tournament and maru gsl is too much
Edit: Again community has nothing to say, they don't really care about feedback. Oh wait they did care about Feedback, when apparently Reynor told them to remove it. Cabal wins again.
The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game. In my opinion members of the balance council should not be allowed to hide from the public. Conflicted individuals, especially those who are actively competing in sc2, or developing competing games should immediately be remove from any decisions about game balance.
Competition gamers balancing the game they compete in, is the same as criminals on the police force. Utterly insane.
Glad the Cyclone change went through / didn't revert!
Just too bad they didn't give the Cyclone +1 (+1 vs Mechanical) per attack upgrade. (They could have tweaked the damage/dps to keep it consistent with the 10% rule thing). But, I did test it out with upgrades in unit tester, and it was actually able of slightly beating mass immortal of equal cost/supply. So, maybe it was slightly too good..
Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Don't love the widow mine radius change, let's see how much it ends up mattering in practice/if other buffs compensate.
One thing I'm curious about is the indirect impact of faster observer build time - 3 seconds isn't massive, but robo build time is such a vital resources for Toss. Over the course of longer games it could matter a lot?
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
Agreed. I'm not saying that everyone is like this, but to those who are on the council or those who say that they want to feel protected and that we should be thankful for their efforts and not complain that we don't know who they are: hey, I never said I want you on the council on the first place.
I want who's on the council to be known. If they can't handle the heat or the burden of responsibility behind their decisions, I don't trust them to be on the council and I don't want them speaking for or representing me. If they don't feel confident enough in the decisions to die by them, then that's on them.
It's really weird that we know so little about who's approving or finalizing these changes. There is no accountability. I suppose you could say that Blizzard is still approving them in order to make them live, but is it just some intern or other blizzard employee helping do this? Is there someone who can be the face and put their name over these patches, someone to take responsibility? If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
Why is it every time Zerg gets a nerf they get an equally big buff to something else to compensate , which then get's abused by the top zergs and it turns out that became OP. You just nerfed kamikaze Infestor burrow fungals but now you basically buffed zerg late game army by giving Infestor 1 more range. 1 more range in hands of pro's is huge,1 range can decide a game easily. I seriously question whoever is on this balance council when you basically just buffed Infestor/Broodlord/Corruptor comps.
Infestor just needed a vision and or visual nerf so single burrowed infestors can't win games that's all you needed to do
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
The problem with complaining within the video game industry sphere is that people complain about numerous issues which are not that big a deal or there is zero evidence. You'd think Randy Pitchford ordered the deaths of 10 million people the way Borderlands fans talk about him.
Therefore, when something legit like this comes up... its hard for people outside the video game bubble to see how bad this is.
Recently, at the GDC a few people got roofied. No one cares man. There is so much whining and complaining from industry employees about nonsense issues that people have stopped listening to the whining.
I have pirated versions of almost everything I play. I recommend you do the same.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
I understand you're satisfied, but no one's asking them to put their lives on the line. They can sign up or not sign up. I bought all 3 expansions, I don't want them to remove or change things I like about the game. Unfortunately, I didn't have a choice who gets to join the balance council and change the game, but they're able to make that choice.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
Saw this when it was posted, yeah it's pretty crazy.
I hope a gigantic bubble pops involving either blizzard or another company around this and similar issues.
Arbitrary terms of sale is fucking crazy.
Not to mention games like WoW implementing an entirely subjective "social contract" that is 'enforced' through an automated report system that is maliciously and heavily abused. The hilarity is two-fold, since people reporting maliciously don't get punished, and the 'appeals' are automated through AI. It actually happened to me but luckily I have contact with someone who used to be on the team and told me a method that auto flags your ticket to be viewed by an actual human.
LR's content is great, would be amazing if more people were exposed to it. Unfortunately most people are content being ignorant and oblivious, probably consuming some random garbage on their leased apple products.
balance wise I think terran will be fine but my problem with this patch is that it reduced variety. Before the patch you had the options to play bio mine or bio tank, now it seems bio tank will be the only option (other than mech)
But I think it's to promote Muta,Ling,Bane style, of course they don't tell you this, but we cannot read too much into the patch comments. They probably just decided the changes, then appointed one person to write some nice pr things for the patch notes. I wish we had no patches, I can make my sc2mod and not have it change every time they decide to patch the game. We can keep watching old replays and we don't get new potentially game breaking bugs. The patches don't actually accomplish fixing any problems, they just push numbers around, making it harder to remember the attributes of units and frankly making the game more silly, the Sentry change is a good example of this.
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:59 CicadaSC wrote:
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
in the last 9 years i've spent $0 on SC2 so i'm not expecting some amazing level of service. I'm happy with what I'm getting.
They're not employees, they're volunteers. If they were working at a company and relied on it for a stable livelihood, then it'd be understandable to keep their privacy. They already have their employer Blizzard being the face and holding accountability for their work. Balance Council however aren't getting paid and chose to participate on their own decision. If they don't feel comfortable, then don't participate.
Think for example if conflicted interests ended up pushing some changes into the game that the community hates. What would we do then? With full privacy they can get away with whatever they want. If we know who they are and their reputation is on the line, then maybe good changes will be slower to implement but bad changes would also be harder to pass, and with a game that's been updated and patched for over a decade, it's better at this point to not risk fucking things up.
i do not expect the volunteers to put their life on the line so i can play SC2 for free. i'm spending no money on the game. i'm not expecting much.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
The problem with complaining within the video game industry sphere is that people complain about numerous issues which are not that big a deal or there is zero evidence. You'd think Randy Pitchford ordered the deaths of 10 million people the way Borderlands fans talk about him.
Therefore, when something legit like this comes up... its hard for people outside the video game bubble to see how bad this is.
Recently, at the GDC a few people got roofied. No one cares man. There is so much whining and complaining from industry employees about nonsense issues that people have stopped listening to the whining.
I have pirated versions of almost everything I play. I recommend you do the same.
You keep harping on about random messages that people send on the internet, as if anything ever comes from it. Just look at all the ideas being posted in various politcal threads on this forum. Nothing ever comes of it. And just hiding behind "dEaTh tHrEaTs" is a really shit excuse to have completely intransparent balance making. Just as in government, public oversight is necessary to keep the decision makers in check.
Balance decisions, like government decisions, need the public eye to keep the participants honest.
I refuse to stand idly by, while people who want to have big sales $$ for zerospace, continue to ruin sc2.
On March 27 2024 09:07 Cyro wrote: Batshit insane and illegal agreement - in particular the section regarding waiving your legal rights - required to play SC2 (even offline) as of this patch.
Saw this when it was posted, yeah it's pretty crazy.
I hope a gigantic bubble pops involving either blizzard or another company around this and similar issues.
Arbitrary terms of sale is fucking crazy.
Not to mention games like WoW implementing an entirely subjective "social contract" that is 'enforced' through an automated report system that is maliciously and heavily abused. The hilarity is two-fold, since people reporting maliciously don't get punished, and the 'appeals' are automated through AI. It actually happened to me but luckily I have contact with someone who used to be on the team and told me a method that auto flags your ticket to be viewed by an actual human.
LR's content is great, would be amazing if more people were exposed to it. Unfortunately most people are content being ignorant and oblivious, probably consuming some random garbage on their leased apple products.
On March 27 2024 08:31 Drahkn wrote: Why is it every time Zerg gets a nerf they get an equally big buff to something else to compensate , which then get's abused by the top zergs and it turns out that became OP. You just nerfed kamikaze Infestor burrow fungals but now you basically buffed zerg late game army by giving Infestor 1 more range. 1 more range in hands of pro's is huge,1 range can decide a game easily. I seriously question whoever is on this balance council when you basically just buffed Infestor/Broodlord/Corruptor comps.
Infestor just needed a vision and or visual nerf so single burrowed infestors can't win games that's all you needed to do
When there is no oversight, and not necessity to take responsibility, the balance council can do whatever the fuxk it wants. So if there were a zerg bias in there, why should they ever act differently?
The only way towards accountability and responsibility is transparency. No more shady backroom "community"-council.
On March 27 2024 17:29 ejozl wrote: But I think it's to promote Muta,Ling,Bane style, of course they don't tell you this, but we cannot read too much into the patch comments. They probably just decided the changes, then appointed one person to write some nice pr things for the patch notes. I wish we had no patches, I can make my sc2mod and not have it change every time they decide to patch the game. We can keep watching old replays and we don't get new potentially game breaking bugs. The patches don't actually accomplish fixing any problems, they just push numbers around, making it harder to remember the attributes of units and frankly making the game more silly, the Sentry change is a good example of this.
Oh DAMN. You're totally right. Muta Ling Bling was so classic, but it's been out of style for many years now. WMs were just too scary vs muta flocks. This is a great change. It would suck if Bio WM isn't a thing anymore, but I think it will still be used as an option. It's OK if Bio Tank becomes the most popular option again.
Also, yeah I realized too the comments they share really don't cover all the important reasons for the changes. Just some of them. For example for the Cyclone change, it doesn't say any comment on how it's transferring power from being able to kill worker lines very fast, to being stronger in a straight up fight. Or anything about how making it weaker in the early game but stronger later will make it less popular of an opener for Bio players, while making Mech stronger.
Armory change said nothing about helping Mech, or Thor openings, or buffing those niche/cheesey Drilling Claw rush builds. Etc. Liberator change didn't mention how it'll give mapmakers more freedom.
Liberator range nerf can be interesting in TvT too. It can make Bio+Lib less strong lategame, benefitting Mech players who can build upgraded Thors.
not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
Aye but Brood War historically at least had third party ladders that enabled more radical map balancing than we’ve ever seen in SC2, so I can sort of get the different approaches. And even now with a more locked down Blizz ladder the maps are still way, way more divergent.
Output wise I’m honestly pretty happy with this current system, ideally would it be more transparent? Sure! But the old adage that there are only two things certain in this life, death and taxes is outdated and needs to include balance whining as another inevitability.
Whoever puts their head above the parapet is just going to get absolutely slammed by the more rabid elements of the fan base. And anyone who claims otherwise is either unbelievably optimistic or deluded.
I’m sure David Kim had a great time being chewed out constantly for years, and he was paid to do that. Why would volunteers put themselves in such a firing line?
On March 27 2024 08:12 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: If we don't know who's making the decisions and who has what ideas for the game, how do they know if the community agrees with the ideas they're pushing for? It's fine to be called a Balance Council, but it's definitely not a "Community Balance Council".
On March 27 2024 07:41 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Thx for posting. Terran lifer here. Been playing since March 2010.
As long as the match maker keeps my winning % near 50% I'm all good. I am looking forward to having fun with the changes.
On March 27 2024 07:09 Branch.AUT wrote: The intransparent nature of community balance council is bad for the game.
i disagree. The balance gods no longer have a giant multibillion dollar behemoth protecting them. I respect their privacy and look forward to competing on the new patch.
Also, when game developers try to come across like they are "my friend" it immediately raises suspicion.
Nah. If you're going to be making changes to the game everyone plays, people should know who is making those changes. If you don't want it to be known, you don't have to be on the balance council. No one is forcing you. It's a public service. Also there is invested interest and bias from races. If balance council is 50% zerg 30% terran and 20% protoss it should be known.
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
The patch that makes the game super fresh^3000 won't come either, so why not leave things as they are without risking introducing more and more bugs, let alone potentially worsen the UX with badly designed balance changes (not implying that the latest patch is super bad)?
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
Aye but Brood War historically at least had third party ladders that enabled more radical map balancing than we’ve ever seen in SC2, so I can sort of get the different approaches. And even now with a more locked down Blizz ladder the maps are still way, way more divergent.
Output wise I’m honestly pretty happy with this current system, ideally would it be more transparent? Sure! But the old adage that there are only two things certain in this life, death and taxes is outdated and needs to include balance whining as another inevitability.
Whoever puts their head above the parapet is just going to get absolutely slammed by the more rabid elements of the fan base. And anyone who claims otherwise is either unbelievably optimistic or deluded.
I’m sure David Kim had a great time being chewed out constantly for years, and he was paid to do that. Why would volunteers put themselves in such a firing line?
Yeah I don't expect anyone to take responsibility for making decisions but it honestly still seems a bit shady from the community perspective. I mean sure the Zerg Cabal thing is a meme but theoretically it could really be possible that balance gets run by a group of pro players wanting to strengthen their race and there's nothing the community could do about it, the other pro players have signed NDAs and wouldn't be able to talk about it... not sure if blizzard has any control mechanisms in place or if they have completely abandoned the game.
That's why I'm more in the camp of no more balance changes (well, not really, I've always been in that camp tbh)
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
Aye but Brood War historically at least had third party ladders that enabled more radical map balancing than we’ve ever seen in SC2, so I can sort of get the different approaches. And even now with a more locked down Blizz ladder the maps are still way, way more divergent.
Output wise I’m honestly pretty happy with this current system, ideally would it be more transparent? Sure! But the old adage that there are only two things certain in this life, death and taxes is outdated and needs to include balance whining as another inevitability.
Whoever puts their head above the parapet is just going to get absolutely slammed by the more rabid elements of the fan base. And anyone who claims otherwise is either unbelievably optimistic or deluded.
I’m sure David Kim had a great time being chewed out constantly for years, and he was paid to do that. Why would volunteers put themselves in such a firing line?
Yeah I don't expect anyone to take responsibility for making decisions but it honestly still seems a bit shady from the community perspective. I mean sure the Zerg Cabal thing is a meme but theoretically it could really be possible that balance gets run by a group of pro players wanting to strengthen their race and there's nothing the community could do about it, the other pro players have signed NDAs and wouldn't be able to talk about it... not sure if blizzard has any control mechanisms in place or if they have completely abandoned the game.
That's why I'm more in the camp of no more balance changes (well, not really, I've always been in that camp tbh)
The first step would be, to require each member of the community to write two sentences worth of their thoughts about each change. Before they get implemented. So it is a proposal, instead of a justification. Then the community at large can discuss these changes.
Away from a group of shadowy "community members", that supposedly know better than everyone else. Who have no oversight and questionable motives.
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
Point is there's no game designers involved in the current balancing process, it's players, and in case of active pros that is potentially problematic, so can see why people have issues dealing with an almost complete blackbox when the thing is being labelled 'community council'. Kinda have to agree on the verbal abuse thing, though, it's just an unfortunate reality.
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
Point is there's no game designers involved in the current balancing process, it's players, and in case of active pros that is potentially problematic, so can see why people have issues dealing with an almost complete blackbox when the thing is being labelled 'community council'. Kinda have to agree on the verbal abuse thing, though, it's just an unfortunate reality.
the game designers are the people designing the game. i get that you're saying in this case the designers are not experienced industry professionals, which may be true but it still doesn't mean they need to be "transparent"
the product is either good or it's not. who's hired and who's included on a dev team are internal issues, and my point is none of us really has any business or purpose talking about it unless labor laws are being broken. reminds me of when M:TG players learned about the term "FIRE design" and started using it as scapegoat for any time a card was printed and they didn't like it. the player's role is to express that they either like or don't like the end user product, not to scrutinize internal policy (again, unless labor laws are involved, people are being exploited/harassed, etc)
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
Point is there's no game designers involved in the current balancing process, it's players, and in case of active pros that is potentially problematic, so can see why people have issues dealing with an almost complete blackbox when the thing is being labelled 'community council'. Kinda have to agree on the verbal abuse thing, though, it's just an unfortunate reality.
the game designers are the people designing the game. i get that you're saying in this case the designers are not experienced industry professionals, which may be true but it still doesn't mean they need to be "transparent"
the product is either good or it's not. who's hired and who's included on a dev team are internal issues, and my point is none of us really has any business or purpose talking about it unless labor laws are being broken. reminds me of when M:TG players learned about the term "FIRE design" and started using it as scapegoat for any time a card was printed and they didn't like it. the player's role is to express that they either like or don't like the end user product, not to scrutinize internal policy (again, unless labor laws are involved, people are being exploited/harassed, etc)
Labor laws? For those to apply, people need to be interviewed, hired and paid. Balance council members aren't paid. They have no business relationship with blizzard. Its voluntary self-exploitation for the benefit of a multi-billion corporation.
I don't know how you can call the Cyclone changes anything but a nerf. The tradeoff is 18% less DPS for 18% more HP, and a 2.8 second lock-on cooldown vs no cooldown. This is a unit meant for harassment and contesting map control. It isn't a tanking unit. There's absolutely no reason to "tank" with 125/50 cyclones when you have 100 mineral hellbats available.
As such it is unambiguously worse. It does less damage and kites less effectively before.
Edit: Heromarine is trying out the new cyclones and, surprise, they suck.
On March 27 2024 22:58 shikadisoda wrote: not exactly sure what changed with worker movement but it feels amazing. they glide and pivot so much better now. i think the efficacy of worker pulls as a last resort defense could seriously be affected by this
i also think the "quality of life" change on lurker target priority might be a bigger deal than it seems and make a noticeable difference in pvz ground fights
as for people complaining about "transparency" of balance changes in 2024 get a grip. we're lucky this game exists at all and has servers let alone balance updates. if you've been diamond for the past 15 years then the patch that makes you GM isn't coming
the opinion of many is that balance updates aren't necessary, the game is in a pretty good state and broodwar showed that a game doesn't need constant balance changes to remain interesting.
Honestly the idea of the developer outsourcing balance to pro players who's income depends on their race being strong seems a little insane to me, so far I don't think it has worked that bad, but it should be no surprise that the system receives some criticism
criticizing and opining that the changes are unnecessary is just discussion, that's nornal and totally different from people calling for "transparency" as if this were a government embezzling public funds
there's literally zero point in blasting the identities of the specific people being consulted on balance other than to give bored people an opportunity to send them verbal abuse. the phenomenon of gamers thinking they're entitled to a debate with game designers is incredibly silly (not just for starcraft) and like i said people need to get a grip
Are these so-called 'game designers' who've been meticulously working on SC2's recent balance updates in a room with us right now?
not really sure i'm following your point or what your joke has to do with what i was saying
Point is there's no game designers involved in the current balancing process, it's players, and in case of active pros that is potentially problematic, so can see why people have issues dealing with an almost complete blackbox when the thing is being labelled 'community council'. Kinda have to agree on the verbal abuse thing, though, it's just an unfortunate reality.
As countless others have said by now, the council does not represent me. They weren't elected or approved, nor were 99.99% of people given the opportunity to have ANY involvement in the process whatsoever. We know nothing about the capabilities, biases or records of anybody involved, even in an anonymised format. We have no information on if the council is 2 people or 20. There is no veto or approve power by the community for changes that are put forth. There is no structured path for ideas, propositions or feedback to be fairly considered.
For all of those reasons and more it's ridiculously disingenuous to call it a community council.
With no mandate i don't see why anybody in the community actually stands behind their patches. If you're gonna agree to the crazy forced arbitration and digital rights clauses to keep playing SC2 legally beyond March 2024 then it's easy to make a mod which bypasses the tyranny, even to run all tournaments from said mod.
On March 28 2024 03:20 Athenau wrote: I don't know how you can call the Cyclone changes anything but a nerf. The tradeoff is 18% less DPS for 18% more HP, and a 2.8 second lock-on cooldown vs no cooldown. This is a unit meant for harassment and contesting map control. It isn't a tanking unit. There's absolutely no reason to "tank" with 125/50 cyclones when you have 100 mineral hellbats available.
As such it is unambiguously worse. It does less damage and kites less effectively before.
Edit: Heromarine is trying out the new cyclones and, surprise, they suck.
Good points. Thinking about it now, they were reducing the base speed / upgrade speed because the no cooldown lock on was so good. Now that the lock on has a cooldown, why not give it a little more range, or buff the speed upgrade to give more speed than it does now?
If the problem is early game cyclones, and bio players using cyclones (since the goal was to strengthen Mech and make it more viable, Bio was fine), then sure nerf it early on and gate more of its power behind the upgrade that Bio players would have to go out of their way to get.
The idea of giving it better damage scaling with upgrades into the lategame was good, now it's gone and it's totally just a nerf. They could have given it +1 damage (+1 vs Mechanical) per upgrade.
They could have even given it +1 base damage to make up for it now not being able to do as much damage due to the worse kiting.
will look forward to it when they have to do additional patch to adjust for TvP because this patch didn't do enough just because they listened to whining reddit balance whiners about stuff like widow mines that would affect TvZ way more than TvP just for sake for 1 build (mine drop) that affects lower level Protoss on ladder. Overall patch has been zerg buff more than anything when Protoss was the one lacking.
It's strange how best performing race gets compensatory patches when historically, stuff like Raven (maru) and reaper (Byun) has been nerfed due to a single player performance-but zerg has been dominating premier tournaments while protoss having nearly no presence. I get they need to be careful because Protoss is a very strong ladder race, but shouldn't the game be balanced around toppest levels?
Stuff like buffing infestor range +1 is something I don't get when majority of winners of tournaments have been Zerg. Just nerf terran/zerg accordingly and bring up Protoss. Ladder might be more protoss dominanted, but when hasn't it been? It's just how Protoss is with it being stronger at lower non-pro levels. It's just T and Z at SC2 tourneys now.
Like it would make absolutely no sense to buff Terran in BW and TY brought up comparison witih BW Terran and Zerg. and if people are gonna ask where he talked about it, its around 30-40min marks in this vod : https://vod.afreecatv.com/player/119042257
On March 28 2024 03:20 Athenau wrote: I don't know how you can call the Cyclone changes anything but a nerf. The tradeoff is 18% less DPS for 18% more HP, and a 2.8 second lock-on cooldown vs no cooldown. This is a unit meant for harassment and contesting map control. It isn't a tanking unit. There's absolutely no reason to "tank" with 125/50 cyclones when you have 100 mineral hellbats available.
As such it is unambiguously worse. It does less damage and kites less effectively before.
Edit: Heromarine is trying out the new cyclones and, surprise, they suck.
Good points. Thinking about it now, they were reducing the base speed / upgrade speed because the no cooldown lock on was so good. Now that the lock on has a cooldown, why not give it a little more range, or buff the speed upgrade to give more speed than it does now?
If the problem is early game cyclones, and bio players using cyclones (since the goal was to strengthen Mech and make it more viable, Bio was fine), then sure nerf it early on and gate more of its power behind the upgrade that Bio players would have to go out of their way to get.
The idea of giving it better damage scaling with upgrades into the lategame was good, now it's gone and it's totally just a nerf. They could have given it +1 damage (+1 vs Mechanical) per upgrade.
They could have even given it +1 base damage to make up for it now not being able to do as much damage due to the worse kiting.
There's no point in proposing solutions if the balance council doesn't see this as a problem. Since they're supposed to be a bunch of pros and ex-pros, it's implausible that they don't recognize the consequences of their changes, so one is left with the conclusion that this is intentional, just like making a bunch of changes that affect TvZ in a patch that's supposed to fix TvP is intentional.
TL;DR version: Don't assume the balance council is operating in good faith.
On March 28 2024 03:20 Athenau wrote: I don't know how you can call the Cyclone changes anything but a nerf. The tradeoff is 18% less DPS for 18% more HP, and a 2.8 second lock-on cooldown vs no cooldown. This is a unit meant for harassment and contesting map control. It isn't a tanking unit. There's absolutely no reason to "tank" with 125/50 cyclones when you have 100 mineral hellbats available.
As such it is unambiguously worse. It does less damage and kites less effectively before.
Edit: Heromarine is trying out the new cyclones and, surprise, they suck.
Good points. Thinking about it now, they were reducing the base speed / upgrade speed because the no cooldown lock on was so good. Now that the lock on has a cooldown, why not give it a little more range, or buff the speed upgrade to give more speed than it does now?
If the problem is early game cyclones, and bio players using cyclones (since the goal was to strengthen Mech and make it more viable, Bio was fine), then sure nerf it early on and gate more of its power behind the upgrade that Bio players would have to go out of their way to get.
The idea of giving it better damage scaling with upgrades into the lategame was good, now it's gone and it's totally just a nerf. They could have given it +1 damage (+1 vs Mechanical) per upgrade.
They could have even given it +1 base damage to make up for it now not being able to do as much damage due to the worse kiting.
There's no point in proposing solutions if the balance council doesn't see this as a problem. Since they're supposed to be a bunch of pros and ex-pros, it's implausible that they don't recognize the consequences of their changes, so one is left with the conclusion that this is intentional, just like making a bunch of changes that affect TvZ in a patch that's supposed to fix TvP is intentional.
TL;DR version: Don't assume the balance council is operating in good faith.
It's really unfortunate. It's going to be so boring if TvZ just goes to mainly bio and mech goes back to being niche and weak. And if mech TvP goes back to unviable outside of mixing it up on the occasional map that it's decent on.
At this point I have to wonder if the current cyclone is even more desirable to me than the previous cyclone before it turned into a warhound on skates.
Nerfing Libs, WMs, and Cyclones could have led to a small Hellion/Hellbat buff targetted at Mech play (Bio players don't make more than 6-8 Hellions outside of the rare 2 Fact BFH opener which is pretty much a Mech opener). But instead we get nothing... meanwhile Zerg keep getting more fun Overlord shenanigans.
I was actually so motivated to grinding and playing SC2 again (finally got back to masters MMR lol), and now my motivation is killed. At least Armory gas is lower and Infestor/BL is overall still weaker than before. And maybe opening with a few Cyclone vs Protoss is still a good option for Mech. The nerf seems more noticeable when you get to mid-sized armies where you want to be constantly kiting and locking on.
On March 28 2024 14:19 tigera6 wrote: It looks to me like Terran gameplay would be focused on the Bio timing push more than ever, those 2-2 and 3-3 timing on 3-4 bases would be brutal.
Looks to me like zergs should just skip this season
They should've probably gated the Cyclone behind the cheaper Armory and had the scaling for the upgrades to try for mech viability with a 15 dmg Cyclone. And not had the Z,T buffs.
On March 28 2024 08:11 jinjin5000 wrote: will look forward to it when they have to do additional patch to adjust for TvP because this patch didn't do enough just because they listened to whining reddit balance whiners about stuff like widow mines that would affect TvZ way more than TvP just for sake for 1 build (mine drop) that affects lower level Protoss on ladder. Overall patch has been zerg buff more than anything when Protoss was the one lacking.
It's strange how best performing race gets compensatory patches when historically, stuff like Raven (maru) and reaper (Byun) has been nerfed due to a single player performance-but zerg has been dominating premier tournaments while protoss having nearly no presence. I get they need to be careful because Protoss is a very strong ladder race, but shouldn't the game be balanced around toppest levels?
Stuff like buffing infestor range +1 is something I don't get when majority of winners of tournaments have been Zerg. Just nerf terran/zerg accordingly and bring up Protoss. Ladder might be more protoss dominanted, but when hasn't it been? It's just how Protoss is with it being stronger at lower non-pro levels. It's just T and Z at SC2 tourneys now.
Like it would make absolutely no sense to buff Terran in BW and TY brought up comparison witih BW Terran and Zerg. and if people are gonna ask where he talked about it, its around 30-40min marks in this vod : https://vod.afreecatv.com/player/119042257
I'm interested in what he's saying, but it's in korean
On March 29 2024 05:08 Mmakorea wrote: The idea and Terran should have 2 play style either bio or mech should die. But mech was viable in BW is a weak argument. Different games
I also remember that in the only matchup where both bio and mech were viable, people favoured bio heavily as being more fun and more dynamic.
On March 29 2024 05:08 Mmakorea wrote: The idea and Terran should have 2 play style either bio or mech should die. But mech was viable in BW is a weak argument. Different games
I also remember that in the only matchup where both bio and mech were viable, people favoured bio heavily as being more fun and more dynamic.
And I say this as a Fantasy fan.
I have no desire to see more mech.
Mech in SC2 is just a slightly less mobile deathball, and people are pretty vocal on hating deathballs.
People hated metas like heavy swarmhost, or airtoss, which to me only really differ from what folks consider mech by virtue of the race employing them not being Terran.
I love mech and its intricacies in BW, but I just don’t think it translates as well to SC2. Things are less spread, it’s way easier to move whole armies around, the eco buildup is different etc etc.
Mech is either too powerful, which it basically never is, or it’s too weak and has people complaining it’s not viable.
There are certain elements missing IMO that make mech so interesting in BW, but not necessarily an easy fit for SC2. I think unit control is a big one, another huge one is the eco asymmetry is way less pronounced.
In BW you can have a Toss up multiple bases on a Terran and trading cost-inefficiently trying to find holes in the defence. Maxing out takes a lot longer, and you have a lot of anti-mech plays you can make with basic units. Zealot bombs, or lings/zealots dragging mines etc.
In SC2 the biggest eco disparity across all matchups is being conventionally expected to be up one base. As tanks don’t overkill their friendly fire is much less exploitable.
I think it’s why you see units that, while not officially designated so, are basically anti-mech units. The viper being a big one, Tempests being another, although with that air ball role.
If Terran could reliably get up a solid mech ball that’s within a reasonable supply gap, decent ups, Zerg and Toss’ basic ground forces essentially just melt, in a manner they don’t in BW.
Marine/tank mirror makes for some damn fantastic StarCraft, but I think ultimately mech probably should suck in the non-mirrors, because the alternative is likely that it’s too strong and a frustrating style to play/watch if you’re on the other side.
In an ideal world it should be a viable choice and something stylistically different, absolutely. But it’s been over a decade and SC2 has really struggled to hit a sweet spot where it’s an equivalently good choice over bio, and not too powerful outright.
Some may consider it a false dichotomy, although I think we’ve had long enough to maybe consider it a real one, but if the choices are a mech that is too weak, or too strong I think the better call is probably the former.
On March 29 2024 05:08 Mmakorea wrote: The idea and Terran should have 2 play style either bio or mech should die. But mech was viable in BW is a weak argument. Different games
Imagine if Protoss say they want 2 play style viable either pure gateway or pure Robo.
It would indeed be dumb if Protoss could mass pure Robo, but thankfully the races aren't designed that way and can't be compared 1:1 like that. Let's look at how their production and upgrades are structured and designed:
Terran production + upgrades is split into Barracks, Factory, and Starport. The production+tech is kind of combined. Protoss production has a Gateway base, and has access to 3 different tech trees for support. Upgrades are split between ground and air, so there is overlap, hence no need to go pure Robo or pure Templar. Zerg is very fluid since all can be produced from larvae with the right tech building, but upgrades are separated a little into melee, ranged, and air. As a result, Zergs can pick from different core compositions like Ling Bling and add Ultras later, or Roach Ravager or Hydra Lurker, or go for more air heavy comp like mass Mutas.
SC2 has made lots of progress in making every tech path and unit usable in some way. For example, Protoss can open with Robo, Stargate, or Twilight as first tech in all 3 MUs, to some degree. They can also choose to get Colossus/Disruptor for their first splash, or Archon/HT or even DTs, or Tempest/Carrier support (Classic does this sometimes) or even rush to Skytoss in weird niche cases. For Terran, they should be able to do Bio (Barracks based) or Mech (Factory based) because the production/upgrades are split that way, with units from the other buildings as support. For Zerg, they should be very versatile and able to fluidly change between unit comps.
In SC1, Terran couldn't go Bio and Mech all 3 MUs. This is more of a flaw than intended game design. Protoss's 3 tech paths weren't as viable as openers in as many MUs. For example Scouts sucked, no phoenix or oracle opener and no ability to rush to skytoss or build Carriers/Tempests as your first big tech support unit. Zerg was more limited too, for example in ZvZ it was just Muta wars, going ground/hydras wasn't good enough.
SC2 allowed each race to use their units/production/tech to the fullest, but Mech in particular has been very disregarded over the years, even though with the right situations it has led to very fun and exciting matches (Maru vs Stats with cyclone Mech, Ty vs sOs right before his military leave, or Bio vs Mech in TvT in general).
SC2 devs have mentioned trying to make every unit viable/usable in every MU, and I think that's one of the great things about SC2 compared to BW. I support making getting Tempest as Protoss's first big tech support unit more viable, because I think it'd be cool and it's almost there already with Classic using it sometimes. I also support making Protoss have more openers other than getting Twilight+Blink most of the time in PvT, and same with almost always opening Stargate oracle in PvZ. I support Zerg being able to tech to lots of different options, which I feel they are able to do very commonly in games. So, I simply support Terran also having increased variety in going both Bio and Mech in all 3 MUs. Ideally, all races have the most tech options and unit comps to choose from, which just makes the other races also have more options to choose from in response. Win win!
Also, i think being able to go mass gateway is a cool style. I think TvT in WoL being able to be pure Bio, marine tank, or Mech was also really cool. Anyone remember the trinity of MMA (Marine Tank) vs Polt (Pure Bio) vs MVP (Mech)?
Different styles allow for more people to be able to identify with and enjoy playing a game in a way that fits their personality. Variety is good! Only making a game with a standard composition and standard strategies gets stale for most gamers much more quickly.
I'm not saying Mech needs to be played 50% of pro games. I think it's a reasonable to ask if Mech can increase from 0.1% usage in TvP to 5-10% in TvP. We've probably seen more protoss rush skytoss or get tempest/carrier as their first big tech option, than players going Mech TvP in GSL since 2010.
In both WoL and HotS mech was both cool and strong, though I always hated the Hellbat. If mech isn't working it's because of the new adhd philosophy to SC2, everything needs to be fast-paced and not drag things out. Mech would only make sense if the army is more cost efficient, but atm Bio is one of the most cost efficient comps, and it doesn't make sense to go for a faster paced mech, when you can just go Bio. So the homogenization has really hurt the amount of playstyles to go for, this is despite that every upgrade has been made cheaper and that the tech tree is really lenient (everything is really easy to get and production facilities provide a slew of new unit options.)
On March 30 2024 19:45 ejozl wrote: In both WoL and HotS mech was both cool and strong, though I always hated the Hellbat. If mech isn't working it's because of the new adhd philosophy to SC2, everything needs to be fast-paced and not drag things out. Mech would only make sense if the army is more cost efficient, but atm Bio is one of the most cost efficient comps, and it doesn't make sense to go for a faster paced mech, when you can just go Bio. So the homogenization has really hurt the amount of playstyles to go for, this is despite that every upgrade has been made cheaper and that the tech tree is really lenient (everything is really easy to get and production facilities provide a slew of new unit options.)
This is the sanest "mech viable" take I've read. I really mean it. Bio is too good for mech to possibly be as good. I hope the balance cabal realizes that you are right soon. I will print, frame and hang the patch notes on my wall, if they ever address this issue.
On April 03 2024 09:13 chrusher97 wrote: mech is not "cool" its boring AF to play against and watch. Its a discgrace to the terran race
That's cus it sucks currently so usually mech just turtles until it dies when it can't defend a full on frontal attack even with fortifications, or dies when it tries to move out cus it's too flimsy and not strong enough.
So, it should have design and balance changes to make it good and fun and cool
Imagine if bio wasn't cost efficient and was bad. What kind of strategies could you pull off? It'd be boring and uncool too.
Everything in SC2 has gotten faster faster faster. Mech hasn't, no wonder it sucks and isn't as fun and cool as other styles that got a lot of cool stuff.
Mech has gotten faster with Cyclones that even received a speed upg. Banshee got a speed upg, BC's got teleportation, Raven is not really a mech unit anymore, but it has gotten super speedy. There is even the Transformers upgrade.
Another thing that skews Terran towards Bio play is the MULE. They tried to make the MULE able to gather Vespine at the start of LotV, but decided against it. The MULE gives you additional minerals and the Marine is so superior to the Hellion that it's not really a competition. The new Cyclone being so mineral heavy does however make it easier for Mech to exist.
Removing the Bio tag from the Hell bat would be a start, then they wouldn't get crushed by Archons. I think a Medivac should also be able to carry 4 of them. There are other changes you could do as well, but this would be a great start to make the MULE synergize with Mech.
On April 03 2024 20:21 ejozl wrote: Mech has gotten faster with Cyclones that even received a speed upg. Banshee got a speed upg, BC's got teleportation, Raven is not really a mech unit anymore, but it has gotten super speedy. There is even the Transformers upgrade.
Another thing that skews Terran towards Bio play is the MULE. They tried to make the MULE able to gather Vespine at the start of LotV, but decided against it. The MULE gives you additional minerals and the Marine is so superior to the Hellion that it's not really a competition. The new Cyclone being so mineral heavy does however make it easier for Mech to exist.
Removing the Bio tag from the Hell bat would be a start, then they wouldn't get crushed by Archons. I think a Medivac should also be able to carry 4 of them. There are other changes you could do as well, but this would be a great start to make the MULE synergize with Mech.
True, i forgot about all those xD
And yeah, we could really buff Hellions/Hellbats a little! There are ways to buff it so it helps mostly Mech play and doesn't really change it for Bio.
Sucks that Hellbats were actually fine and plenty helpful in HotS in TvP, but with the new economy, Protoss can go mass gateway way too easily, so Hellbats are no longer good enough... would be really nice if Hellbats/Hellions got a buff.
And yeah i don't know if it'd be a problem to be able to load up 4 Hellbats anymore. They nerfed that pretty hard early HotS, when it used to do more dmg per hit too, but i feel it'd be able to be defended today. (It wouldn't be much different than evacuating workers vs WMs). In general it'd make it more viable to use Hellbat + Medivac styles for fighting and dropping on the opponent's army too, which is pretty fun and cool I think. A way to make mech stronger without straight buffing stats.
I wonder if they could play around a Hellbat upgrade, similar to how they gated the WM invisibility to Drilling Claws now. Maybe the Hellbat upgrade would let you transform Hellions to Hellbats, and you're allowed to load up 4 into a Medivac, or the Hellbat just has stronger stats than it does now. Or they could make it so that Transformation Servos also allows you to load up 4 Hellbats in a Medivac.
But ofc the other change is just make Blue Flame scale better for Hellions/Hellbats. For Hellions it can give a little more damage vs non-Light instead of 0 for example.
At least we have the Cyclone which is better than nothing... Banshee speed is also very helpful vs Chargelots and mass gateway since it effectively increases your dps slightly more and allows you to cover Chargelot harass even easier.
Really sucks that Raven isn't really a mech spellcaster anymore, now Bio has 2 spellcasters =/. So ofc it's hard to make mech stronger without buffing bio too...
It especially sucks that the Raven is Bio only, because Terran only has 2 spell caster units. There was room for them to implement a Factory based spell caster for LotV, but they wanted the Herc instead, which then was too similar to the Hellbat, which then got changed to the Cyclone.
EPT
