EPT
its beautifulInteresting patch. Not a fan of hydra ability or battery overcharge removal though.
SC2 5.0.14 PTR patch notes - (Balance, Oct 21, 2024) - Pag…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
sidasf
94 Posts
its beautifulInteresting patch. Not a fan of hydra ability or battery overcharge removal though. | ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13991 Posts
For one stated intentions are to reduce camping and big blow out effects (which I find to be noble goals). However execution is questionable. Between buffing salvage, sensor towers, spines, spores and brood lords, I question if camping is truly discouraged. As far as big blow outs go, the blue flame buff is...terrifying, and rebuffing disruptors is odd to me. This brings me to my 2nd point of confusion. I may be incorrect here but not only is Protoss in a weak spot (at least at the pro scene) but is hyperfocused on the disruptor, a unit who's explosivity (figuratively and literally) determines games. Much like the warp gate nerf when LotV launched...I feel like Protoss needs to adjusted significantly such that they have buffed tools and a nerfed disruptor? Honestly I read overall as more nerfs than buffs to Toss with it's biggest buff being the Queen nerf which I find perplexing. Cool to see this many changes (and new spells) but overall I'm confused. Can anyone explain where I'm going wrong here? | ||
|
Ciaus237
South Africa287 Posts
Also hydra stim is silly, it does not fit the unit at all and feels rather clunky. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8245 Posts
| ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16121 Posts
But the sum total of the unit changes just add up to a whole lot of nothing IMO. Except Hydralisks got the biggest buff in here, and I can't understand why. Why do Hydralisks need yet another buff? Where is the fucking data that is suggesting that Zerg needs Hydralisks to have Stimpacks? This looks like the Cyclone changes to me. No one asked for it, Zerg definitely doesn't need it, and it will absolutely cause a ruckus in the meta for no discernable reason than some dev thinks it's "cool." | ||
|
luxon
United States117 Posts
| ||
|
kajtarp
Hungary487 Posts
| ||
|
Zambrah
United States7393 Posts
Also a lot of weird buffs to things that make for turtle-y games here, despite the stated intentions to reduce that lol. | ||
|
geokilla
Canada8245 Posts
| ||
|
Hider
Denmark9433 Posts
| ||
|
Athenau
571 Posts
Also hilarious that they consider the cyclone change a success, since the the only thing they succeeded at was making the unit irrelevant. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5219 Posts
The first goal is to nerf defensive and camping playstyles for all races, both related to early and late game on the higher levels of play. We will target specific units, buildings and abilities suited for camping, to promote more active gameplay across all stages of the game. Good timing, I had just found the professional way to say "I do you so"... We identified this as a strong possibility early on release of HOTS. Too bad it took so long and this doesn't address the core issues. But bring back Blue Flame Hellion Wars baby! | ||
|
Drahkn
195 Posts
| ||
|
followZeRoX
Serbia1451 Posts
| ||
|
Fanatic-Templar
Canada5819 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26285 Posts
On October 22 2024 07:04 followZeRoX wrote: 3 things stolen from SG What did they steal? It feels about equivalent to the United Kingdom complaining about a few artifacts of theirs being in foreign museums | ||
|
BonitiilloO
Dominican Republic627 Posts
but i think queen should cost 250 the unit itself it way too good for his price. | ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4235 Posts
| ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17274 Posts
seriously, these changes are interesting. i think its great that the balance council takes into account several levels of play. the balance council should be getting paid. C'mon M$ give these guys some money. If the Balance Council started a funding drive I'd donate. Furthermore, I do not look at it as a "charitable donation". I am getting a quality game play experience in return. So far, the Balance Council has been solid. | ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On October 22 2024 05:07 Cricketer12 wrote: I don't really follow or play SC2 at this point so my opinion and analysis admittedly mean diddly squat but this patch...confuses me. For one stated intentions are to reduce camping and big blow out effects (which I find to be noble goals). However execution is questionable. Between buffing salvage, sensor towers, spines, spores and brood lords, I question if camping is truly discouraged. As far as big blow outs go, the blue flame buff is...terrifying, and rebuffing disruptors is odd to me. This brings me to my 2nd point of confusion. I may be incorrect here but not only is Protoss in a weak spot (at least at the pro scene) but is hyperfocused on the disruptor, a unit who's explosivity (figuratively and literally) determines games. Much like the warp gate nerf when LotV launched...I feel like Protoss needs to adjusted significantly such that they have buffed tools and a nerfed disruptor? Honestly I read overall as more nerfs than buffs to Toss with it's biggest buff being the Queen nerf which I find perplexing. Cool to see this many changes (and new spells) but overall I'm confused. Can anyone explain where I'm going wrong here? The disruptor isn't nearly as central for protoss as it use to be outside of pvp, I couldn't really tell you why honestly, one of the previous patch change. Protoss does well in lower level GM (and they seem to imply it's too strong/frustating in lower leagues), but yeah overall it read like a fairly big nerf to toss, at least until the late game. | ||
| ||
