Greetings from the StarCraft II Community Balance Council!
First off, we would like to thank everyone for providing feedback on and testing the previously proposed changes. We would also like to reassure that the balance updates are a joint effort from the entiry community, and your feedback is very important for the direction the Balance Council is heading. Upon analysing the perception of the first iteration of this balance patch and the games played on the PTR server, we would like make the following adjustments for further testing.
Battery Overcharge removal
Developer Comment: After receiving playtesting feedback, we see that many players have enjoyed the flexibility provided by the new ability, and we would like to continue testing this proposed change. However there has also been a strong concern about Protoss defense in the early game after losing the Battery Overcharge ability, specifically against Terran rushes. We will be testing the following changes to try and improve Protoss's ability to defend in these scenarios:
Cyclone
Cyclone changes from 5.0.12 / 5.0.13 reverted.
Developer Comment: The Cyclone changes from 5.0.12, despite indeed bringing the unit back to play in all matchups as originally planned, have also led to reduced Protoss build diversity in the early game, as well as leading to certain troubles while defending rush builds in the Terran vs Protoss matchup. We think reverting to the old Cyclone, which was being requested from a major part of the community, can also improve Protoss early game build diversity and stability.
Stalker
Stalker train time (Gateway) reduced from 30 seconds to 27 seconds.
Developer Comment: The Stalker build time change is added to help address builds such as proxy 2 Barracks Marauder, which were very difficult to defend even with the Battery Overcharge ability. We think that this change will allow Protoss to more comfortably defend similar rush builds, but we will also closely monitor the consequences of this change for aggressive Protoss builds.
Late-game concerns
Ghost
Ghost supply increased from 2 to 3.
Developer Comment: With the release of PTR, we've received additional feedback from the progamers and community members that Ghosts power level seems to be too high for their cost and supply, despite multiple targeted nerfs in the recent years. Following this feedback, we would like to directly adjust the Terran army's lategame strength through this change.
Mothership
Mothership now can no longer be targeted by Abduct.
Developer Comment: We have received strong community feedback about this change, since the Mothership was made untargetable by Neural Parasite in the past. With the changes back to 400/400 cost/8 supply Mothership, we would like to test this idea to make the Mothership less fragile in the Zerg vs Protoss matchup.
Ultralisk
Ultralisk Anabolic Synthesis bonus move speed reduced from 0.82 to 0.59.
Developer Comment: We would like to test a slight reduction in the move speed of Ultralisks, bringing it down to the same move speed as stimmed Marines/Marauders. This is to try and make Terran players feel more comfortable moving out on the map in the late-game, as well as balance out increases in strength from the push priority change.
Removed changes
Brood Lord changes removed.
Tempest damage point change removed.
Liberator changes removed.
Developer Comment: We agree to feedback received that these changes could lead to more drawn out games, which this patch is trying to move away from, and these changes are no longer being tested. With Ghosts being weakened as well, we no longer believe that Brood Lords changes are needed to adjust the level of its power.
Other changes
Hydralisk
Dash (name is not finalized) speed bonus increased from 60% to 100%.
Dash is now point targeted, giving the Hydralisk a move order to the target location.
Developer Comment: The previously tested functionality was too hard to make use of for many players, so we would like to make this adjustment to try and make the ability more functional and powerful.
Lurker
Lurker health reduced from 200 to 190.
Lurker sight increases from 10 to 11.
Developer Comment: As we continue to test the Disruptor changes, we would like to reduce the Lurker health to 190 so it will not survive 2 Purification Nova hits. The sight range is also being increased to fix an issue caused by the Lurker having identical attack and sight ranges, leading to its attack range having slight inconsistencies depending on angle.
Removed changes
Missile Turret Salvage change removed.
Developer Comment: We agree with feedback that this change would be counter-productive to making less drawn out defensive games. We are continuing to test the addition of the Salvage ability to the Sensor Tower, as it should allow for more interesting usage of the Sensor Tower in accordance with the other proposed Sensor Tower changes.
Blue Flame change removed.
Spine Crawler changes removed.
Developer Comment: We believe that Spine Crawler adjustment is a risky change as it would lead to proxy Hatchery strategies in Zerg vs Protoss being significantly stronger, as well as increasing the strength of 12pool + Drone rushes in Zerg vs Zerg. With Spines back to their old power and Zergs being less reliant on Queens, we would like to also revert the Blue Flame change as in the current state of balance this might reduce Zerg's build order variety to only Roach-based openings.
Full Updated Changelog
Protoss
Nexus
Battery Overcharge removed.
New ability: Energy Recharge (50 Energy / 60 second cooldown)
Recharges 100 Energy to any unit or structure within 8 range of a Nexus.
Shield Battery
Shields/HP increased from 150/150 to 200/200.
Stalker
Train time from Gateway reduced from 30 to 27 seconds.
Colossus
Shields/HP changed from 150/200 to 100/250.
Tempest
Supply Cost reduced from 5 to 4.
vs Air attack range reduced from 14 to 13.
Immortal
Cost reduced from 275/100 to 250/100.
Weapon cooldown increased from 1.04 to 1.14.
Disruptor
Purification Nova radius increased from 1.375 to 1.5.
Purification Nova damage reduced from 145 (200 vs shields) to 100 (200 vs shields).
Mothership
Cost increased from 300/300 to 400/400.
Supply cost increased from 6 to 8.
Mothership now can no longer be targeted by Abduct.
Damage increased from 6x6 to 6x4x4 (36 damage vs 1 target to 24 damage vs 4 targets each).
Terran
Cyclone
Reverted to patch 5.0.11 Cyclone.
Salvage
Damage now cancels the Salvage process.
Salvage timer is now visible to enemies.
Planetary Fortress
Armor reduced from 3 to 2.
Sensor Tower
Cost reduced from 125/100 to 100/50.
Radar range reduced from 27 to 22.
Can now be salvaged.
Orbital Command
Calldown: Extra Supplies increases the target Supply Depot's current/max health to 500.
Ghost
Supply cost increased from 2 to 3.
Thor
Explosive Payload (splash mode) damage increased from 6 (12 vs light) to 8 (12 vs light).
Explosive Payload splash radius increased from 0.5/100% to 0.5/100%, 0.75/75%, 1.25/50% (radius/damage %).
Explosive Payload attack range reduced from 10 to 7.
Zerg
Queen
Cost increased from 150/0 to 175/0.
Hatchery
Cost reduced from 300/0 to 275/0.
Spore Crawler
Damage increased from 15 to 20.
Health reduced from 400 to 300.
Hydralisk
Muscular augments creep speed bonus reduced from 1.03 to 0.74.
New research: Frenzy (name is not finalized)
Cost: 100/100, 64 seconds. Requires Hive.
Increases move speed by 100% for 0.71 seconds.
Infestor
Microbial Shroud now lasts for 3.6 seconds on units leaving the Shroud.
Ultralisk
Increased allied push priority from 0 to 1 (now pushes allied units out of the way when moving).
Anabolic Synthesis move speed bonus reduced from 0.82 to 0.57.
Bug fixes & Quality of Life changes
Orbital Command Scanner Sweep visual now uses team color.
Command Center, Nexus and Hatchery now auto rally to mineral fields.
Workers waiting for Refinery, Extractor or Assimilator to finish do not count as idle.
SCV random delay between moving while building adjusted from 3.57- 7.14 to 4.64-6.07 (same average).
Added icon to command card for Infestor, Hellion, Hellbat showing unupgraded passive upgrades.
Siege Tank and Immortal tracking change from previous patch reverted due to causing unintentional retargeting.
Fixed an issue where blinding cloud caused certain melee units attacks to be more easily canceled.
Fixed an issue where blinding cloud could cause Planetaries to not be attack units at melee range in certain angles.
Fixed an issue with issuing orders on certain types of rocks in fog.
Fixed an issue with Changeling zealot move animation speed.
Tweaked Hydralisk move animation speed to match it’s actual movement speed.
Fixed an issue where Gravaton Beam could be cancelled within 0.04 seconds of casting by teleport/transport abilities.
Fixed an issue where Lurker's attack could be cancelled when the target leaves range/dies and no other unit is in attack range.
I'll post the same thing here I guess, in combination with the new map pool that is less terran friendly I am quite confident that protoss is going to be a little too strong now, but we'll see.
I love the Ghost change. Nerfs the unit where it's at its most problematic while not nerfing its important interactions with enemy spell casters.
Also love how it encourages Terrans to treat Ghosts like a Specialist unit again instead of massing them which is what they are designed to be.
Not crazy about the Mothership getting special immunity from Abduct since I think it's bad design, but that entire unit is bad design. I wish they'd just replace it with Arbiters and call it a day.
We would also like to reassure that the balance updates are a joint effort from the entiry community, and your feedback is very important for the direction the Balance Council is heading
Someone read my TL post 🙃
Until they add a way to deal with mass bc ghost, they are still not addressing problems at the lower level. I've had enough games vs Ruff where he turtles on 3 bases on bc ghost and amoves me on 8 base. Tempests are so trash.
Also lol at proposing then walking back such insane liberator buffs and disruptor/overcharge nerfs that now people see this as better when it's still a big nerf for protoss.
On November 01 2024 05:22 Charoisaur wrote: Doesn't seem to bad but not sure how terran is supposed to win TvZ lategame now. I don't see any changes to compensate Ghost nerf?
Zerg now definitely seems like the winner of the patch with P and T mostly nerfed
They basically said, Terran players figure it out yourself. Late game TvZ will be even more turtling than before, with PF/Tank/Libs instead of Ghost.
Edit: Also the Cyclone revert will impact mostly TvT opening, Cyclone will now be made as an early defensive units and thats about it.
(humming) democracy is coming...to the USA... (/humming)
Glad to see the Balance Council responding to such overwhelming feedback! And with very bold changes.
The cyclone nerf is huge. I will miss the new cyclone just a little (probably alone among Protoss players); but there's no question that that change very negatively affected PvT build diversity and kind of threw the whole matchup into disarray. And the Stalker change is actually very very nice! It's a straight-up buff, but a very targeted one. My only question is that it's unclear to me how much this will help with the kind of Tank pushes that were most buffed by Overcharge removal and seemed like the biggest potential problem? Also I think that this set of changes will be so impactful for early game TvP that it's conceivable Terran might eventually need some help. But overall restoring Protoss build order diversity and even giving them some potential cheeses early game again is very very good. It has the potential to just straight-up improve the matchup, regardless of how the balance eventually shakes out.
I am also one of the few people who hasn't been particularly anti-Ghost. At least for PvT, I think I would much rather see the Liberator nerfed than the Ghost, as it seems more unfun and a bigger problem; but I think this will be a good change for ZvT and is probably way overdue. Will have to see how big it ends up being.
I am sad to see the Liberator restored unchanged, including all the terrible range interactions where you have to get a Stargate; but I can understand that having made some big changes to PvT early game they don't want to nerf late game too much. But then, this really wasn't a Liberator nerf anyway? Idk, I still think Liberator changes to make it less oppressive in PvT would be very very good, and hopefully they will actually get to that in a meaningful way.
Also not too sure about the Disruptor changes, but restoring the Lurker interaction is good. Will need to see more how this works out. If Protoss early game is better but then Terran getting out Liberators is even more of a little-counterplay power swing, it's still a problem imo.
Very very glad to see them listening to the feedback and unbuffing Turrets and Spines, but confused by them keeping the Spore Crawler buff in. Even with the Queen changes, this seems like a nerf to PvZ Stargate openers? Tho I guess with the new Overcharge ability that will help Oracle openers. I don't really get it still though.
Anyway, the other things seem pretty straightforward; making Mothership unabductable isn't that big of a deal, but it's something people have been asking for whatever so it's a nice thing to toss to the populus as it were.
For all the criticisms, I feel that this patch has actually been very good for the game/community so far lol. We've gotten a lot of good discussion and criticism from pros and ordinary fans alike. Alive game! Now we just need that ESL/GSL announcement. Hopefully the Balance Council knows something we don't here.
We should buff units that are skill/micro centric and make that buff in a way that only the very best will be able to take full advantage of it. I can see herO leveraging this change to bring back 3-Oracle-Blink opener in ZvP - the most active and engaging playstyle I've enjoyed in any era of ZvP. With the small nerf to queen cost, this might make the 3-Oracle-Blink even more effective.
Whether it is too much or too little remains to be seen. Buffing gateway units is always tricky b/c of warp-tech.
On November 01 2024 05:22 Charoisaur wrote: Doesn't seem to bad but not sure how terran is supposed to win TvZ lategame now. I don't see any changes to compensate Ghost nerf?
Zerg now definitely seems like the winner of the patch with P and T mostly nerfed
They basically said, Terran players figure it out yourself. Late game TvZ will be even more turtling than before, with PF/Tank/Libs instead of Ghost.
Edit: Also the Cyclone revert will impact mostly TvT opening, Cyclone will now be made as an early defensive units and thats about it.
Because the Cyclone fucking sucks. If they put it on Reactor and make it even halfway decent it dominates TvT's early game and it's a problem for Protoss in the early game since it invalidates pretty much every Stargate opening.
And if they put it on the Tech Lab it becomes a unit you ONLY make to counter early air from Terran or Protoss. They can't even put it on the Reactor and require an armory because then it comes out too late to counter Oracles, Mass Reaper and other shit we use it for.
They can't win with this unit the way it's designed. It's just a bad unit.
Lots of good changes. Mothership finally can't be abducted! BL and Tempest don't become too microable which promotes camping from afar when they are supposed to be siege units and need to committ to do full damage, etc.
However, Cyclone revert AND BF revert is big. I agree Cyclones have ruined PvT build diversity. But please throw Mech some kind of bone in TvP. Mech lategame isn't that much stronger if at all than the other race's lategames, and the early game is quite weak. Hellions and a few tanks struggle to defend bio pressure early in TvT, especially with the quicker Raven and 11 second disable. And more importantly Mech struggles vs blink stalkers and mass chargelots in TvP due to LotV economy/timing changes. I would be totally fine with the Broodlings getting back more of its power, in exchange for a tiny Hellbat buff (so that it helps TvP mech), or something like that.
If Blue Flame getting 5 more damage was limiting ZvT build openers to roach, then can't you buff Hellions/Blue Flame another way? For example make Blue Flame give +2 (+3 vs Light), instead of +5 vs Light. Just something small to slightly make up for Mech struggling with mass chargelots early and bio pressure early. If Hellions are slightly less shitty vs non-Light units, that few extra damage here and there adds up without having to buff Cyclones or Tanks.
For Cyclones, the upgrade used to give +20 vs Armored, but then they said "Mech's weakness is it's too specialized" and made it just +10 vs All, making it weaker vs the things it was good at. Mech is similar to Protoss in that it's designed to have powerful specialized units, not all-rounders like Bio. It simply reduces the potential power of a good Mech comp. At the time, it was meant to be a buff and help out Mech. But why not make it more clearly a buff such as +5 (+10 vs Armored) or +10 (+5 vs Armored)? I would argue +10 vs All was a nerf because it did that much less damage to things it was good for.
For Ghost, i still liked the idea of making it Light, since it would give more power to Colossus and make it more soft-counter the Ghost, and potentially give more use for Adept or Phoenix comps in PvT. And so you can't clump and snipe as effectively without risk vs Fungals+Banelings. And because making it Light would affect Ghosts for TvP mech less than making it 3 supply does. But it would still be too much for a 2 supply unit. Perhaps it can be 3 supply for now and also add Light tag if it's still an issue in the future.
For Liberators, I think if the cheaper 125 gas is going to be kept, then I still like the idea of trying to make Libs require Tech Lab. So it's harder to transition into mass 6 Liberator production with the same reactored Starports you use for Medivacs/Vikings. I mean it's a flying tank after all and even stronger than Tanks lategame since it flies. (It used to be 150 before Balance Council deemed Lib transitions were too expensive lol, Tempests meanwhile..) I think just making 2-3 Liberators at a time is already sufficient for your army. 2 rounds of Libs and then you'd have 4-6 Liberators which is enough to supplement your army and start zoning things out.
Okay, since we're finally abording Supply changes for unit, time to make the real decisions and bring Queens to 3 supply. This is how you actually make Zerg early game less of a free pass, not 25 more mineral.
On November 01 2024 05:48 Pentarp wrote: I love the stalker change.
We should buff units that are skill/micro centric and make that buff in a way that only the very best will be able to take full advantage of it. I can see herO leveraging this change to bring back 3-Oracle-Blink opener in ZvP - the most active and engaging playstyle I've enjoyed in any era of ZvP. With the small nerf to queen cost, this might make the 3-Oracle-Blink even more effective.
Whether it is too much or too little remains to be seen. Buffing gateway units is always tricky b/c of warp-tech.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this only buffs your stalker build time out of basic gateway, not warp gate.
I did not expect to see the Mothership abduct change. I always found it hilariously dumb that Toss invests 400/400 just to die instantly come fight time. Toss tries to cast feedback in time but one always gets through. Not to mention the lore absurdity of a single tongue pulling a floating Protoss city. Wild to me it took this long to look at.
I feel like these changes are definitely better, (I mean ofc) but maybe still not enough. I'll wait to see more pro games over a long time as I think this is the version that ESL will go through with but I'm not sure yet. My biggest concern is it may limit protoss builds. We saw maxpax have success vs Terran but if you need to 4 gate blink every game off 2 base and other openers like Stargate or eco variations like 2 gate blink expand fall out of meta, or even Colossus openers and u can only 4 gate blink that is BAD. the team will have to be on standby to hotfix because you can not have that be the meta for 6+ months. I'm worried about marauder all ins proxy too. These you won't see spammed too much unless in a high stakes tournament so I think it may fly under the radar but if for example Stargate openers fall out of fashion it could also get stronger as pros used to just build a voidray to hold if it's just stalkers now, and no overcharge, it may be an issue. Not saying for sure we'll have to see, but I think there are a lot of factors and way this patch could turn out bad. How about for example you make marauder Concussive Shells require a tech to research? Like starport unlocked or something. This helps with both concerns players have raised with proxy marauder rushes and also 3 rax timings without battery overcharge.
On November 01 2024 10:34 CicadaSC wrote: I feel like these changes are definitely better, (I mean ofc) but maybe still not enough. I'll wait to see more pro games over a long time as I think this is the version that ESL will go through with but I'm not sure yet. My biggest concern is it may limit protoss builds. We saw maxpax have success vs Terran but if you need to 4 gate blink every game off 2 base and other openers like Stargate or eco variations like 2 gate blink expand fall out of meta, or even Colossus openers and u can only 4 gate blink that is BAD. the team will have to be on standby to hotfix because you can not have that be the meta for 6+ months. I'm worried about marauder all ins proxy too. These you won't see spammed too much unless in a high stakes tournament so I think it may fly under the radar but if for example Stargate openers fall out of fashion it could also get stronger as pros used to just build a voidray to hold if it's just stalkers now, and no overcharge, it may be an issue. Not saying for sure we'll have to see, but I think there are a lot of factors and way this patch could turn out bad. How about for example you make marauder Concussive Shells require a tech to research? Like starport unlocked or something. This helps with both concerns players have raised with proxy marauder rushes and also 3 rax timings without battery overcharge.
If the cyclone change is reverted you'll be able to go oracle as well
On November 01 2024 10:34 CicadaSC wrote: I feel like these changes are definitely better, (I mean ofc) but maybe still not enough. I'll wait to see more pro games over a long time as I think this is the version that ESL will go through with but I'm not sure yet. My biggest concern is it may limit protoss builds. We saw maxpax have success vs Terran but if you need to 4 gate blink every game off 2 base and other openers like Stargate or eco variations like 2 gate blink expand fall out of meta, or even Colossus openers and u can only 4 gate blink that is BAD. the team will have to be on standby to hotfix because you can not have that be the meta for 6+ months. I'm worried about marauder all ins proxy too. These you won't see spammed too much unless in a high stakes tournament so I think it may fly under the radar but if for example Stargate openers fall out of fashion it could also get stronger as pros used to just build a voidray to hold if it's just stalkers now, and no overcharge, it may be an issue. Not saying for sure we'll have to see, but I think there are a lot of factors and way this patch could turn out bad. How about for example you make marauder Concussive Shells require a tech to research? Like starport unlocked or something. This helps with both concerns players have raised with proxy marauder rushes and also 3 rax timings without battery overcharge.
If the cyclone change is reverted you'll be able to go oracle as well
It isn't cyclones countering oracle I am concerned with, it being you having less resources for a ground fighting army. So let's say you go oracle into blink 3 base, I could see this being weak to Terran 3 rax timings for example without overcharge. It was already a tight hold and many seen it as a "counter build".
On November 01 2024 10:34 CicadaSC wrote: I feel like these changes are definitely better, (I mean ofc) but maybe still not enough. I'll wait to see more pro games over a long time as I think this is the version that ESL will go through with but I'm not sure yet. My biggest concern is it may limit protoss builds. We saw maxpax have success vs Terran but if you need to 4 gate blink every game off 2 base and other openers like Stargate or eco variations like 2 gate blink expand fall out of meta, or even Colossus openers and u can only 4 gate blink that is BAD. the team will have to be on standby to hotfix because you can not have that be the meta for 6+ months. I'm worried about marauder all ins proxy too. These you won't see spammed too much unless in a high stakes tournament so I think it may fly under the radar but if for example Stargate openers fall out of fashion it could also get stronger as pros used to just build a voidray to hold if it's just stalkers now, and no overcharge, it may be an issue. Not saying for sure we'll have to see, but I think there are a lot of factors and way this patch could turn out bad. How about for example you make marauder Concussive Shells require a tech to research? Like starport unlocked or something. This helps with both concerns players have raised with proxy marauder rushes and also 3 rax timings without battery overcharge.
If the cyclone change is reverted you'll be able to go oracle as well
It isn't cyclones countering oracle I am concerned with, it being you having less resources for a ground fighting army. So let's say you go oracle into blink 3 base, I could see this being weak to Terran 3 rax timings for example without overcharge. It was already a tight hold and many seen it as a "counter build".
Maybe, yeah, hard to say right now. Your oracles are also much better than they used to be I feel like there's at least room to play, you can really spam stasis.
Screw the +10 vs All Mag-Field, bring back +20 vs Armored
This would also allow for Oracle/Phoenix openers to be even less weak vs Cyclones. Cyclones already did fine vs Stargate openers BEFORE +20 vs Armored mag field got changed to +10 vs all. We had already been seeing players like Maru occasionally open Marine/Cyclone/Viking vs Stargate and then transition into full-on Mech.
We already have Hellions/WMs/Hellbats for small units and Light units. If they were to ask Mech players, the large majority prefer the +20 vs Armor upgrade. It was the balance council who thought that rounding out the Cyclone was what Mech players needed.
The +10 vs All Mag-field was also weaker at defending early Roach/Ravager all-ins, which Mech openers are susceptible to in TvZ. It was also weaker at dealing with Void ray proxy cheese and Tempest proxy cheese, and now proxy Batteries will be harder to kill too...
Note: Ofc my ideal proposal is +5 (+10 vs Armored) or +10 (+5 vs Armored), for a true buff.
To Be Honest, StarCraft 2's 5.0.3 patch way back in 2020 June to September season was the most popular. StarCraft 2 had the most number of games played then per season ever in its life span. What ever happened after that brought it to the dwindling fall and to what ever it is today. See for your self:
On November 01 2024 07:27 Noocta wrote: Okay, since we're finally abording Supply changes for unit, time to make the real decisions and bring Queens to 3 supply. This is how you actually make Zerg early game less of a free pass, not 25 more mineral.
I'm fully onboard with the idea of making the queens 3 supply. Some counter nerfs need to done to zerg so it won't get out of control.
I think this patch is worse than the previous proposal.
I look at it and it looks to me like it is nerfing all three races. I think part of what makes patches fun is new powers, but if everyone is weakened, everyone feels bad. I like making Ghosts slightly less mass-able by increasing supply, but it doesn't really change any ghost interactions and so I would like to see Zerg have a more viable lategame response to Ghosts (like Brood Lord changes, even if it is just the bug fix with no buffs). I like the idea of Terran having a more viable midgame unit - I think the blue-flame change seemed aimed at that. Maybe revert the Void Ray move speed nerf? Or give back a reduced battery overcharge? Protoss are getting a big new toy in the Energy Overcharge, but because they are losing Battery Overcharge, it feels like a nerf overall.
On November 01 2024 12:00 Intelligence13 wrote: To Be Honest, StarCraft 2's 5.0.3 patch way back in 2020 June to September season was the most popular. StarCraft 2 had the most number of games played then per season ever in its life span. What ever happened after that brought it to dwindling fall and to what ever it is today. See for your self:
This can easily be attributed to the COVID pandemic leading to people being able to work from home (or be unemployed at home), and having much more time to play and watch SC2. Viewership also rose during this time, and towards the end of the pandemic has decreased back to roughly where it was before. Many people during COVID came back to check on SC2 and give it a try.
But, you might also be right about something. The game was surely more stable and balanced in a more professional manner than the Balance Council's patches.
On November 01 2024 12:00 Intelligence13 wrote: To Be Honest, StarCraft 2's 5.0.3 patch way back in 2020 June to September season was the most popular. StarCraft 2 had the most number of games played then per season ever in its life span. What ever happened after that brought it to dwindling fall and to what ever it is today. See for your self:
This can easily be attributed to the COVID pandemic leading to people being able to work from home (or be unemployed at home), and having much more time to play and watch SC2. Viewership also rose during this time, and towards the end of the pandemic has decreased back to roughly where it was before. Many people during COVID came back to check on SC2 and give it a try.
But, you might also be right about something. The game was surely more stable and balanced in a more professional manner than the Balance Council's patches.
You guys realize this was also the void ray meta? We aren't seriously suggesting going back to that, are we? Pre 5.0.2 I could at least see an argument, but we can't forget the first balance council patch got us away from that nonsense of a meta.
On November 01 2024 12:00 Intelligence13 wrote: To Be Honest, StarCraft 2's 5.0.3 patch way back in 2020 June to September season was the most popular. StarCraft 2 had the most number of games played then per season ever in its life span. What ever happened after that brought it to dwindling fall and to what ever it is today. See for your self:
This can easily be attributed to the COVID pandemic leading to people being able to work from home (or be unemployed at home), and having much more time to play and watch SC2. Viewership also rose during this time, and towards the end of the pandemic has decreased back to roughly where it was before. Many people during COVID came back to check on SC2 and give it a try.
But, you might also be right about something. The game was surely more stable and balanced in a more professional manner than the Balance Council's patches.
You guys realize this was also the void ray meta? We aren't seriously suggesting going back to that, are we? Pre 5.0.2 I could at least see an argument, but we can't forget the first balance council patch got us away from that nonsense of a meta.
Actually, that was the last balance patch the Blizz team gave us before the Balance Council. The first patch Balance Council gave us was the gutting of Protoss by nerfing Battery Overcharge AND making Ravens quicker and cheaper while keeping Matrix duration at 11 secs, making early Raven pushes stronger than ever and leading to PvT to plummet to ~40% winrate at the pro level, the worst winrate for any MU in the history of SC2 (when looking at a period of a few months).
They seem to want to make a big statement each time they make changes and so end up making irrelevant changes that aren't needed. Furthermore, many of these changes actually encourage turtling, whereas others are likely to result in reduced build order diversity, neither of which are good things (with the former going against their stated aim).
I would trim the patch down significantly in the following manner:
Protoss
Battery Overcharge/Energy Recharge - All this does is neuter Protoss build diversity in all three match-ups. Battery Overcharge is a necessary band-aid in the early-game, but it does nothing in the late-game once armies are large enough, and so removing it won't actually affect turtling all that much. Massed static defence is what a turtle will use, not a single Shield Battery.
Shield Battery - This isn't needed if you keep Overcharge in the game. It's also a buff to turtling because massed Shield Batteries will be harder to deal with. I'd personally love to see this go through because it's a direct buff to every cheese that I enjoy using, but it's not required and I'm not as selfish as the head of the Balance Council.
Stalker - This isn't needed if you keep Overcharge in the game. I'd personally love to see this go through because it's a direct buff to every cheese that I enjoy using, but it's not required and I'm not as selfish as the head of the Balance Council.
Colossus - This isn't needed if you keep Overcharge in the game.
Tempest - Tempests are useful for breaking turtling opponents by forcing them out of their shell, so a buff here is a step towards the Balance Council's stated goals. The change to their air-attack range is a good counter-balance because it won't impact the Tempest's usefulness against turtling opponents, because turtling players tend to rely on ground units (Tanks, Lurkers) and static defence instead of air units.
Immortal- Nerfing the unit that Protoss ground armies require if they're going to be aggressive is the opposite of discouraging turtling.
Disruptor - I don't think this fits in with their goal of preventing turtling, but it does fit with a previously stated goal of reducing the number of frustrating game-ending events that can happen in an instant. Disruptors are very frustrating to play against at lower-levels for this very reason, but they're nothing more than zoning tools at higher levels. These changes will make the Disruptor less frustrating to play against at lower-levels, but they will make the Disruptor a better zoning tool at higher levels, which I think is a sensible way to buff high-level Protoss without making Disruptors oppressively strong at lower-levels. I'd also consider removing the additional Shield damage as well, because I don't think that PvP needs Disruptors to be so good at blowing up Stalkers, but I also hate Disruptors as a general rule so I'm not the best person to ask about them!
Mothership - The Abduct change is sorely needed to give the Mothership a vibe of dominance on the battlefield, especially if it's going to cost as much as it will after these changes. This change will allow the Mothership to be used more aggressively, instead of having to hide in the backlines, and that definitely discourages turtling. The supply and cost nerfs are definitely needed to counter-balance the Abduct change. I don't think the auto-attack changes will matter in high-level games because who really wants the Mothership to be auto-attacking? But the auto-attack changes do add some necessary "coolness" to the unit for lower-level play.
Terran
Cyclone - I don't like the current Cyclone, and I don't think changing it back achieves anything to do with the stated goals of the patch. But changing it back would allow more build order diversity in PvT, which is probably a good thing, so I wouldn't be upset if this change did go through.
Salvage - I don't personally think this will make much difference, but I can at least see how it aligns with the idea of discouraging turtling.
Planetary Fortress - I think that this may be a step too far when combined with the Ghost nerf. It is the Ghost that anchors Terrans turtling in the late-game, not the Planetary Fortress.
Sensor Tower - Again, I don't personally think this will make much difference, but I can at least see how it aligns with the idea of discouraging turtling.
Orbital Command - This is a completely unnecessary change.
Ghost - Something needs to be done about the Ghost to discourage Terrans turtling in the late-game. At the same time, I don't see what else Terran is supposed to do against a late-game Zerg other than turtle, so I don't know if this change will actually achieve anything other than making Terran weaker against late-game Zerg. Discouraging turtling is great if there is an alternative, but I don't see where that alternative is. A buff to something else that Terran has is required to make this nerf useful, but what can you buff for TvZ that won't also impact TvP?
Thor - Sure. Whatever. Nobody cares about Thors.
Zerg
Queen - A nerf that has been needed for a long time. I'd personally go further, but this is a start.
Hatchery - The idea of changing the cost of a Hatchery after all these years is abhorrent. It also lessens the impact of nerfing Queens, which I don't think is a nerf that needs lessening. The Queen needs a straight-up nerf, it doesn't need a counter-balance.
Spore Crawler - Buffing Spore Crawlers encourages Spore Crawler forests, which in-turn encourages turtling. Definitely not a good change, and it goes against the stated aims of the patch.
Hydralisk - The "Frenzy" ability is an utterly pointless gimmick, and I don't think Muscular Augments need to be nerfed if you're not giving Hydralisks the "Frenzy" ability. That said, I wouldn't be too upset if these changes went through because I don't think they make a great deal of difference.
Infestor - Microbial Shroud is plenty strong the way that it is.
Ultralisk (Push Buff) - I don't think we can justify any buffs for the Ultralisk unless Terran is given something to compensate for the Ghost nerf, because Ghosts are basically the only counter Terran has to the Ultralisk. Buffing the Ultralisk in any manner will only encourage Terrans to turtle harder.
Ultralisk (Speed Nerf) - I feel this might be needed to you're going to encourage Terrans to move out once Ultralisks are on the field.
Lurker - The health change is a necessary counter-balance to the Disruptor changes. The sight change is a necessary buff to fix a bug. Both of these changes are fine.
EDIT:
Please can the OP be updated to include the Lurker changes in the "full updated changelog" so that they're visible to everyone despite the Balance Council's inability to write their own patch notes properly?
For Ghost, i still liked the idea of making it Light, since it would give more power to Colossus and make it more soft-counter the Ghost, and potentially give more use for Adept or Phoenix comps in PvT. And so you can't clump and snipe as effectively without risk vs Fungals+Banelings. And because making it Light would affect Ghosts for TvP mech less than making it 3 supply does. But it would still be too much for a 2 supply unit. Perhaps it can be 3 supply for now and also add Light tag if it's still an issue in the future.
I think ghost endurance against banelings is one of the key point for GM to hold on again so many banelings. Zerg player will try to detect and trap ghost which are running, zerg player must pay a higher cost for clean this heavy gas cost unit (compared to marines)
On November 01 2024 14:57 thorn969 wrote: I think this patch is worse than the previous proposal.
I look at it and it looks to me like it is nerfing all three races. I think part of what makes patches fun is new powers, but if everyone is weakened, everyone feels bad. I like making Ghosts slightly less mass-able by increasing supply, but it doesn't really change any ghost interactions and so I would like to see Zerg have a more viable lategame response to Ghosts (like Brood Lord changes, even if it is just the bug fix with no buffs). I like the idea of Terran having a more viable midgame unit - I think the blue-flame change seemed aimed at that. Maybe revert the Void Ray move speed nerf? Or give back a reduced battery overcharge? Protoss are getting a big new toy in the Energy Overcharge, but because they are losing Battery Overcharge, it feels like a nerf overall.
Change the supply cost of ghost unit is a good answer because Terran players considered ghost as a basic unit (that s not the case due to his gas cost prize)
On November 01 2024 07:27 Noocta wrote: Okay, since we're finally abording Supply changes for unit, time to make the real decisions and bring Queens to 3 supply. This is how you actually make Zerg early game less of a free pass, not 25 more mineral.
I'm fully onboard with the idea of making the queens 3 supply. Some counter nerfs need to done to zerg so it won't get out of control.
I think it would be a too drastic change. Queen is not a magic unit entirely, it s more a support unit. 3 unit supply is a strong nerf, and i will take a look today at wardi tv but let s be honest i won t be surprised to see less wins for Terran. Of course Queen is more active in early mid game unit but it s an important unit in the zerg mecanics so it will affect the overall start and a lot of build orders.
I think it could be fix in creating a morph to the queen for some gas cost in order to allow her a faster developpement of the mucus. Actually, the mineral cost tweak is a little bit awkward.
It s easy to understand that part of a queen is rigged by injection (only minerals cost) and another part, tumors and mucus spread require control by a gas cost limit
So let s argue this because it s good sense, and we have to promote the dev team in their patch because overall they are doing well.
PS: you could make a difference between queens in looking at their tumors, a morphed queen would have tumors which extend creep faster (equal to the actual speed). The idea of this change is to prioritize functions of the queen (it s not about split the queen in two unit even if it looks like)
For Ghost, i still liked the idea of making it Light, since it would give more power to Colossus and make it more soft-counter the Ghost, and potentially give more use for Adept or Phoenix comps in PvT. And so you can't clump and snipe as effectively without risk vs Fungals+Banelings. And because making it Light would affect Ghosts for TvP mech less than making it 3 supply does. But it would still be too much for a 2 supply unit. Perhaps it can be 3 supply for now and also add Light tag if it's still an issue in the future.
I think ghost endurance against banelings is one of the key point for GM to hold on again so many banelings. Zerg player will try to detect and trap ghost which are running, zerg player must pay a higher cost for clean this heavy gas cost unit (compared to marines)
Hmm that's a good point, ~10 banelings to clear even 5 somewhat clumped up ghosts is very worth it. It doesn't look right but math wise, banelings are still an efficient way to kill Ghosts if you can close the distance.
The only thing though is that the HT has 40 HP 40 Shield and dies to 3 baneling hits. This makes me wonder if the HT can have its Light tag removed. This wouldn't effect much but just a thought.
For Ghost, i still liked the idea of making it Light, since it would give more power to Colossus and make it more soft-counter the Ghost, and potentially give more use for Adept or Phoenix comps in PvT. And so you can't clump and snipe as effectively without risk vs Fungals+Banelings. And because making it Light would affect Ghosts for TvP mech less than making it 3 supply does. But it would still be too much for a 2 supply unit. Perhaps it can be 3 supply for now and also add Light tag if it's still an issue in the future.
I think ghost endurance against banelings is one of the key point for GM to hold on again so many banelings. Zerg player will try to detect and trap ghost which are running, zerg player must pay a higher cost for clean this heavy gas cost unit (compared to marines)
Hmm that's a good point, ~10 banelings to clear even 5 somewhat clumped up ghosts is very worth it. It doesn't look right but math wise, banelings are still an efficient way to kill Ghosts if you can close the distance.
The only thing though is that the HT has 40 HP 40 Shield and dies to 3 baneling hits. This makes me wonder if the HT can have its Light tag removed. This wouldn't effect much but just a thought.
I don t know to me the key unit of protoss is the stalker.
On November 01 2024 21:16 swarminfestor wrote: My suggestion to get mothership's abduct ability abolished is set to be materialized. What does it mean by "Brood Lord changes removed"?
It means that these changes, which were stated in the previous balance update were stashed:
Brood Lord
Broodling HP is increased from 20 to 30. Broodling Weapon Cooldown decreased from 0.57 to 0.46. Fixed the bug which prevented Brood Lord from dealing full damage while shooting from the maximum distance.
Developer Comment: Brood Lord seemed to lose too much power in head to head fights after the previous set of changes - the broodling changes are now reverted which, combined with the bug fix, should help the unit to perform better in various lategame scenarios.
On November 01 2024 05:48 Pentarp wrote: I love the stalker change.
We should buff units that are skill/micro centric and make that buff in a way that only the very best will be able to take full advantage of it. I can see herO leveraging this change to bring back 3-Oracle-Blink opener in ZvP - the most active and engaging playstyle I've enjoyed in any era of ZvP. With the small nerf to queen cost, this might make the 3-Oracle-Blink even more effective.
Whether it is too much or too little remains to be seen. Buffing gateway units is always tricky b/c of warp-tech.
Correct me if I'm wrong but this only buffs your stalker build time out of basic gateway, not warp gate.
Mothership change is about the only good change for Protoss in this patch, and any nerf for the other races is more than welcome since they are way stronger than Protoss at the elite level.
It would be nice if proxy stalker rush could be a threat so zergs and terrans are forced to play more honest and cant get away with greed , they are way to comfortable in the early game, but who am I joking if Protoss gets 1 scary early game build it will probably get nerfed within a month or two.
On November 01 2024 12:00 Intelligence13 wrote: To Be Honest, StarCraft 2's 5.0.3 patch way back in 2020 June to September season was the most popular. StarCraft 2 had the most number of games played then per season ever in its life span. What ever happened after that brought it to dwindling fall and to what ever it is today. See for your self:
This can easily be attributed to the COVID pandemic leading to people being able to work from home (or be unemployed at home), and having much more time to play and watch SC2. Viewership also rose during this time, and towards the end of the pandemic has decreased back to roughly where it was before. Many people during COVID came back to check on SC2 and give it a try.
But, you might also be right about something. The game was surely more stable and balanced in a more professional manner than the Balance Council's patches.
You guys realize this was also the void ray meta? We aren't seriously suggesting going back to that, are we? Pre 5.0.2 I could at least see an argument, but we can't forget the first balance council patch got us away from that nonsense of a meta.
Actually, that was the last balance patch the Blizz team gave us before the Balance Council. The first patch Balance Council gave us was the gutting of Protoss by nerfing Battery Overcharge AND making Ravens quicker and cheaper while keeping Matrix duration at 11 secs, making early Raven pushes stronger than ever and leading to PvT to plummet to ~40% winrate at the pro level, the worst winrate for any MU in the history of SC2 (when looking at a period of a few months).
I think it's really important we get this correct- because what Blizzard did was unforgivable. The last official blizzard made patch was 5.0.2 (Patch 5.0.2) which included a 4 way buff to the void ray. Then Blizzard just walked away.
The next balance patch was 5.0.9 (https://news.blizzard.com/en-us/starcraft2/23774006/starcraft-ii-5-0-9-ptr-patch-notes) put together by the community. Unclear looking back at it if this was the balance council in full effect, or more of a beta balance council. This nerfed the void ray, blink DTs, queen walks, and both fast burrow upgrades. This was a pretty good patch.
I wish that BC's got a bit bigger, and stronger, with maybe one other ability, and their supply got heavier too, so it got a propoer funcion in the game. A halfway mothership, lets say
On November 02 2024 02:25 Blitzball04 wrote: Good that it remove some of the absolutely nonsense changes such as the savage turrets
Ghost got a supply nerf, I highly doubt it really matters since pros will still get the same amount of ghosts and a couple less marine. Hardly a nerf
I rather see they nerf the ghost emp. Protoss shield will never get lower than 25% due to emps
In SC2 some units are specialized to be more end or start game efficient. I don t know why you are underestimating this change because ultra late game of Terran is full of ghosts, do you watch clem or maru endgame seriously ?
If your are a football manager then someone told you because you have 11 messi that you should play only with 7 players, i have some personal doubts about your chance of winning.
Aim to change the vikings damage bonus from 'armored' to 'mechanical' which means only zerg flying unit would be an issue.
But as they aren t so important compared to protoss flying units, i mean you can nerf a little bit corrupter, there s no problem about it (14+ 6 against massive to 12 + 8 against massive) and broodlords have no attack so it can be 'ignored'
Vikings is hard counter of colossus since many years, i m demanding a change
What I wonder specifically about the Cyclone revert is how this kinda invalidates their self-proclaimed goals of trying to make mech play more viable across all matchups, or doesn't it? Are they going to still address that or is this more like a 'whew, we were just slinging stuff at the wall and that at least didn't break the game.' moment and we just move on with more wall-slinging random stuff to shake up the meta a bit?
Sure, the Thor change might turn out to be really good, but that still doesn't seem to address the problem of mech naturally leaning towards a defensive if not turtly composition with the Siege Tank, Liberators and Thors, which also is something they apparently don't want.
As having favored defensive macro-oriented mech play whenever possible, with this iteration of the game I find myself countered by so many different things that despite TvT there's really not much of a point going down that old factory route, maybe against Zerg if you add a shit ton of Ghosts, ofc.
On November 02 2024 03:27 Creager wrote: What I wonder specifically about the Cyclone revert is how this kinda invalidates their self-proclaimed goals of trying to make mech play more viable across all matchups, or doesn't it? Are they going to still address that or is this more like a 'whew, we were just slinging stuff at the wall and that at least didn't break the game.' moment and we just move on with more wall-slinging random stuff to shake up the meta a bit?
Sure, the Thor change might turn out to be really good, but that still doesn't seem to address the problem of mech naturally leaning towards a defensive if not turtly composition with the Siege Tank, Liberators and Thors, which also is something they apparently don't want.
As having favored defensive macro-oriented mech play whenever possible, with this iteration of the game I find myself countered by so many different things that despite TvT there's really not much of a point going down that old factory route, maybe against Zerg if you add a shit ton of Ghosts, ofc.
Buffing the Cyclone doesn't really do anything in making Mech play viable though, that's the problem. The Cyclone doesn't fit in a Mech army well. It's fragile and wants to move around, and that doesn't play nice with Siege Tanks and Thors that definitely don't want to move around.
The only thing that buffing Cyclones does is make them a more enticing general purpose opener, which naturally transitions into Mech. But that comes with all kinds of drawbacks like absolutely ruining TvT and invalidating Protoss Stargate openers regardless of what unit composition Terran is going for. Terran can just as easily build Bio out of a Cyclone opener as they can build Mech.
Cyclones are never used in a Mech composition past the early to early midgame unless your entire gameplan is to JUST mass Cyclones and Hellions and that doesn't work against Protoss anyway that only works against Zerg.
It just isn't designed to synergize with the other units in a Factory based army other than the Hellion. If they want to make Mech more viable, especially vs Protoss, fucking around with Cyclones isn't the answer.
On November 02 2024 02:25 Blitzball04 wrote: Good that it remove some of the absolutely nonsense changes such as the savage turrets
Ghost got a supply nerf, I highly doubt it really matters since pros will still get the same amount of ghosts and a couple less marine. Hardly a nerf
I rather see they nerf the ghost emp. Protoss shield will never get lower than 25% due to emps
In SC2 some units are specialized to be more end or start game efficient. I don t know why you are underestimating this change because ultra late game of Terran is full of ghosts, do you watch clem or maru endgame seriously ?
If your are a football manager then someone told you because you have 11 messi that you should play only with 7 players, i have some personal doubts about your chance of winning.
After these changes the patch still nerfes Protoss early and mid game, now nerfes Terran early and late game, and Zerg gets nerfs early game and buffs mid to late game. Seems to be a good day for Zergs, specially for late-game ZvT Protoss will still suffer as it is, with yet another round of totally unjustified nerfs. As the clear lagging race, it is the one that has to get buffs, not Zerg.
On November 02 2024 03:27 Creager wrote: What I wonder specifically about the Cyclone revert is how this kinda invalidates their self-proclaimed goals of trying to make mech play more viable across all matchups, or doesn't it? Are they going to still address that or is this more like a 'whew, we were just slinging stuff at the wall and that at least didn't break the game.' moment and we just move on with more wall-slinging random stuff to shake up the meta a bit?
Sure, the Thor change might turn out to be really good, but that still doesn't seem to address the problem of mech naturally leaning towards a defensive if not turtly composition with the Siege Tank, Liberators and Thors, which also is something they apparently don't want.
As having favored defensive macro-oriented mech play whenever possible, with this iteration of the game I find myself countered by so many different things that despite TvT there's really not much of a point going down that old factory route, maybe against Zerg if you add a shit ton of Ghosts, ofc.
Buffing the Cyclone doesn't really do anything in making Mech play viable though, that's the problem. The Cyclone doesn't fit in a Mech army well. It's fragile and wants to move around, and that doesn't play nice with Siege Tanks and Thors that definitely don't want to move around.
The only thing that buffing Cyclones does is make them a more enticing general purpose opener, which naturally transitions into Mech. But that comes with all kinds of drawbacks like absolutely ruining TvT and invalidating Protoss Stargate openers regardless of what unit composition Terran is going for. Terran can just as easily build Bio out of a Cyclone opener as they can build Mech.
Cyclones are never used in a Mech composition past the early to early midgame unless your entire gameplan is to JUST mass Cyclones and Hellions and that doesn't work against Protoss anyway that only works against Zerg.
It just isn't designed to synergize with the other units in a Factory based army other than the Hellion. If they want to make Mech more viable, especially vs Protoss, fucking around with Cyclones isn't the answer.
Totally agree with your points, my intention was not trying to advocate for a "more general purpose" version of the unit or that the Cyclone is the unit to "fix mech", but question the general direction and philosophy behind any changes made at this point beyond adjusting and hopefully improving overall balance.
What's the point in stating goals behind changes when they get reverted in future patches due the need of fixing other stated goals? Don't remember who, but somebody said that it at times feels like the reasoning behind a change is formulated after the change, not the other way round and I sort of have to agree with that assessment.
And in this case I'd prefer the game balance not being touched by arbitrary changes.
Spore crawler change is the biggest issue. Showtime talked about with dns Zerg will still make the same amount of queens zvp 6-7 and with spore buff he doesn't see how protoss will find any damage, especially against the likes of Serral. That is massive.
On November 02 2024 03:27 Creager wrote: What I wonder specifically about the Cyclone revert is how this kinda invalidates their self-proclaimed goals of trying to make mech play more viable across all matchups, or doesn't it? Are they going to still address that or is this more like a 'whew, we were just slinging stuff at the wall and that at least didn't break the game.' moment and we just move on with more wall-slinging random stuff to shake up the meta a bit?
Sure, the Thor change might turn out to be really good, but that still doesn't seem to address the problem of mech naturally leaning towards a defensive if not turtly composition with the Siege Tank, Liberators and Thors, which also is something they apparently don't want.
As having favored defensive macro-oriented mech play whenever possible, with this iteration of the game I find myself countered by so many different things that despite TvT there's really not much of a point going down that old factory route, maybe against Zerg if you add a shit ton of Ghosts, ofc.
Buffing the Cyclone doesn't really do anything in making Mech play viable though, that's the problem. The Cyclone doesn't fit in a Mech army well. It's fragile and wants to move around, and that doesn't play nice with Siege Tanks and Thors that definitely don't want to move around.
The only thing that buffing Cyclones does is make them a more enticing general purpose opener, which naturally transitions into Mech. But that comes with all kinds of drawbacks like absolutely ruining TvT and invalidating Protoss Stargate openers regardless of what unit composition Terran is going for. Terran can just as easily build Bio out of a Cyclone opener as they can build Mech.
Cyclones are never used in a Mech composition past the early to early midgame unless your entire gameplan is to JUST mass Cyclones and Hellions and that doesn't work against Protoss anyway that only works against Zerg.
It just isn't designed to synergize with the other units in a Factory based army other than the Hellion. If they want to make Mech more viable, especially vs Protoss, fucking around with Cyclones isn't the answer.
Totally agree with your points, my intention was not trying to advocate for a "more general purpose" version of the unit or that the Cyclone is the unit to "fix mech", but question the general direction and philosophy behind any changes made at this point beyond adjusting and hopefully improving overall balance.
What's the point in stating goals behind changes when they get reverted in future patches due the need of fixing other stated goals? Don't remember who, but somebody said that it at times feels like the reasoning behind a change is formulated after the change, not the other way round and I sort of have to agree with that assessment.
And in this case I'd prefer the game balance not being touched by arbitrary changes.
It needs to be made clear by now that the Balance Council is not acting in any kind of coordinated or planned manner. They're reactionary, and their changes are not always thought out. The Cyclone patch should have made that abundantly clear. That was a change no one asked for, on a unit no one likes, that had consequences that everyone with a brain saw coming.
You watch videos of known members of the balance council stating they were surprised and confused that the Cyclone Changes ever made it to the live servers, meaning that not even they knew what the hell was going on with that patch.
I wish I knew who the actual final decision makers were in this entire process. Is it someone at Blizzard? Is it someone at ESL? Who was the person that pushed those Cyclone Changes through when seemingly no one on the balance council wanted them because it was obvious what kind of impact they would have?
Probably the same person who thought buffing the Void Ray 4 times in the last patch Blizzard did was a good idea when that was an even BIGGER set of brain dead decisions.
My point in this rant is there isn't a consistent or even always rational set of decision makers here. I don't know why and I don't know who is to blame for it. But if you're wondering why their logic keeps jumping about like this, that probably has something to do with it.
The balance council may have succeeded in making Protoss viable without battery overcharge, let's just accept that premise for a moment, so people are liking the changes but overall Protoss is still not being buffed. It's just being made to survive without that crutch. Show me 1 change in here that you look at and go "Yeah, herO/Classic are gonna beat Serral now."
On November 02 2024 07:52 CicadaSC wrote: The balance council may have succeeded in making Protoss viable without battery overcharge, let's just accept that premise for a moment, so people are liking the changes but overall Protoss is still not being buffed. It's just being made to survive without that crutch. Show me 1 change in here that you look at and go "Yeah, herO/Classic are gonna beat Serral now."
Maybe herO/Classic shouldn't beat Serral (aka the better player...) by getting buffed with protoss buffs? Protoss is mostly OP in the lower playlevels, it obviously isn't weak. But on the highest level it's the mechanical and tactical better player, that matters most, so Protoss isn't auto-dominant
On November 02 2024 07:52 CicadaSC wrote: The balance council may have succeeded in making Protoss viable without battery overcharge, let's just accept that premise for a moment, so people are liking the changes but overall Protoss is still not being buffed. It's just being made to survive without that crutch. Show me 1 change in here that you look at and go "Yeah, herO/Classic are gonna beat Serral now."
herO went 2-3 vs Serral and 3-0 vs Reynor at the world cup, I'd say that's pretty competitive already. The pro consensus is not that protoss is weak in PvZ, so if protoss doesn't die to zerg pushes due to the lack of photon overcharge I think we'll continue to see the same matchup, which is fine. If protoss becomes the slightly better race in PvT as well which I suspect it will, then protoss will be in a very good position. I'm not saying it's going to be broodlord infestor or something silly like that but I would certainly start getting my hopes up.
On November 02 2024 02:25 Blitzball04 wrote: Good that it remove some of the absolutely nonsense changes such as the savage turrets
Ghost got a supply nerf, I highly doubt it really matters since pros will still get the same amount of ghosts and a couple less marine. Hardly a nerf
I rather see they nerf the ghost emp. Protoss shield will never get lower than 25% due to emps
In SC2 some units are specialized to be more end or start game efficient. I don t know why you are underestimating this change because ultra late game of Terran is full of ghosts, do you watch clem or maru endgame seriously ?
If your are a football manager then someone told you because you have 11 messi that you should play only with 7 players, i have some personal doubts about your chance of winning.
Terrible comparison and just shows you don’t know much about how late game works.
You need to watch more games and improve your knowledge
On November 02 2024 02:25 Blitzball04 wrote: Good that it remove some of the absolutely nonsense changes such as the savage turrets
Ghost got a supply nerf, I highly doubt it really matters since pros will still get the same amount of ghosts and a couple less marine. Hardly a nerf
I rather see they nerf the ghost emp. Protoss shield will never get lower than 25% due to emps
In SC2 some units are specialized to be more end or start game efficient. I don t know why you are underestimating this change because ultra late game of Terran is full of ghosts, do you watch clem or maru endgame seriously ?
If your are a football manager then someone told you because you have 11 messi that you should play only with 7 players, i have some personal doubts about your chance of winning.
Terrible comparison and just shows you don’t know much about how late game works.
You need to watch more games and improve your knowledge
I don t need you to tell me what i need to do.
The patch is literally called "ghost patch". If you think it won t impact enought the game i suggest you to open a new thread for explaining us why this patch is useless
The nerf to the ghost looks like a bribe to stop the masses from grumbling. They whined - here you go, shut up. In reality, they are completely satisfied with the current pew pew and are not at all embarrassed by the fact that the ghost is a stupid universal deathball unit, which in the same TvZ counters just all the Zerg units. Just all. Lurkers? Pew pew. Ultralisks? Pew pew. Broodlords? Pew pew. Hydra or roaches? Pew pew. You don't even need to spend pew pew on lings. It is also very convenient that this unit also counters all casters. Well, just a magical unit. If the Terran guesses to build a couple of tanks to protect against banelings, then that's it - the game is a success, sit and build houses for 40 minutes and do pew pew. Very interesting games are turning out.....
On November 02 2024 19:37 BlackEyed wrote: The nerf to the ghost looks like a bribe to stop the masses from grumbling. They whined - here you go, shut up. In reality, they are completely satisfied with the current pew pew and are not at all embarrassed by the fact that the ghost is a stupid universal deathball unit, which in the same TvZ counters just all the Zerg units. Just all. Lurkers? Pew pew. Ultralisks? Pew pew. Broodlords? Pew pew. Hydra or roaches? Pew pew. You don't even need to spend pew pew on lings. It is also very convenient that this unit also counters all casters. Well, just a magical unit. If the Terran guesses to build a couple of tanks to protect against banelings, then that's it - the game is a success, sit and build houses for 40 minutes and do pew pew. Very interesting games are turning out.....
Yes and so ?
Zerglings have one of the best dps and speed of the game, you can win a game with just injection and spamming them from eggs. So technically, it s the same, they are a good all around unit if they are followed by banelings
If i want write about what seems good into the patch i will, despite your bad manners.
Dev team works on ghosts tweak since a long time, they are many patchs concerning this unit, you are again complaining on something while the idea will reduce the possibility for terrans to answer to multiple and various army composition.
The only bad thing is the fact that Zerg or Protoss will oftenly max out to 200 and the late game style will occur oftenly (but it s like that since 12 workers blizzard decision , despite the agreement of the community)
anyway even a five year old child can understand that a change supply cost is a radical decision
Reading/watching some feedback from the pros, I see what seems to be some legitimate concern that Zerg lategame will be too weak now vs Protoss with the Mothership and Tempest changes. ZvP was already quite balanced before the patch (and arguably even a little P favored), so I can see the argument; I like the Tempest and Mothership buffs a lot, but it does make sense to me that Zerg will need some kind of real late-game buff to balance that out. Ofc, with the Ghost change I understand they might not want to buff ZvT lategame too much, but I don't think it's a huge risk.
Actually, the Hydra and Shroud changes are clearly supposed to be the counter-buff; and I think this is a smart direction to take to allow ground to be more competitive against Protoss late-game armies. This might not be enough, though I also feel like Shroud was already pretty good; I'll be interested to see how it plays when it's finally tested. As people say, late game is the hardest area to test bc so few games go to late game.
On November 02 2024 02:25 Blitzball04 wrote: Good that it remove some of the absolutely nonsense changes such as the savage turrets
Ghost got a supply nerf, I highly doubt it really matters since pros will still get the same amount of ghosts and a couple less marine. Hardly a nerf
I rather see they nerf the ghost emp. Protoss shield will never get lower than 25% due to emps
In SC2 some units are specialized to be more end or start game efficient. I don t know why you are underestimating this change because ultra late game of Terran is full of ghosts, do you watch clem or maru endgame seriously ?
If your are a football manager then someone told you because you have 11 messi that you should play only with 7 players, i have some personal doubts about your chance of winning.
Terrible comparison and just shows you don’t know much about how late game works.
You need to watch more games and improve your knowledge
On November 02 2024 03:27 Creager wrote: What I wonder specifically about the Cyclone revert is how this kinda invalidates their self-proclaimed goals of trying to make mech play more viable across all matchups, or doesn't it? Are they going to still address that or is this more like a 'whew, we were just slinging stuff at the wall and that at least didn't break the game.' moment and we just move on with more wall-slinging random stuff to shake up the meta a bit?
Sure, the Thor change might turn out to be really good, but that still doesn't seem to address the problem of mech naturally leaning towards a defensive if not turtly composition with the Siege Tank, Liberators and Thors, which also is something they apparently don't want.
As having favored defensive macro-oriented mech play whenever possible, with this iteration of the game I find myself countered by so many different things that despite TvT there's really not much of a point going down that old factory route, maybe against Zerg if you add a shit ton of Ghosts, ofc.
I think the overall goal is to make more unit comps viable in every MU (this was always Blizz's goal and one of SC2's strengths over BW) But the cyclone limited PvT openers/strategies a lot, compared to just making Mech TvP a little less fringe viable
The Cyclone was definitely very helpful for Mech TvP btw and does synergize with traditional Tank based play, you can think of it as a Goliath on skates - a cheap, rounded unit with accessible AA, a decent mineral sink and trades decently with other race's T1 units, and in small numbers beats Blink Stalkers slightly, but around ~8 Cyclone mark or when blink stalkers can 1 shot cyclones it starts leaning Stalker favor again, but at least it does provide some additional Mech openings vs Blink stalker openings to help you get that 3rd up that Mech TvP struggles with so much more in LotV due to econ+timing changes, rather than just opening up tanks each game which struggles vs Blink Stalkers.
The Cylcone being cheap and reactorable also meant that you could use it as a rounded reinforcement unit after trading some supply after a battle, and better reinforce any position on the map you might have after an engagement.
Example game is G5 of Byun vs Maxpax recently. Great TvP mech game with heavy use of Cyclone, but still revolving around a traditional tank core. He even setup forward positions with turrets that controlled the middle of the map and was in striking position of the opponent's bases. It was one of those great mech games that involved fortifying positions around the map and being active + aggressive.
I'm not sure if it was, but being able to salvage turrets would help Mech setup these fortified positions and be a bit less scared of random air switch surprises, and it helps tank damage and give detection in general. But i understand reverting this cus that idea was pretty wild and i don't like the idea of getting money back on things you invested to defend early harass/cheeses.
The Thor explosive payload buff will already help vs Interceptors, and being even stronger vs Muta - at first I was a little afraid if Thor becomes too strong of an AA unit, but as with Golaith vs Carrier in BW, the Thor/Goliath will still be relatively clunky and immobile compared to flying units that can bypass terrain, so it's OK. Being able to rely more on Thors (which have a strong ground attack) and have slightly less Thors frees up supply for your Mech army, indirectly buffing its ground strength without having to fuck with units like the Tank that would fuck with Bio play as well.
I do think the current Cyclone as I always said had a bad design (in a vacuum), though it has merit in filling some flaws in LotV Mech especially TvP. But Mech really could use some help (even just a tiny bit!) to secure 3rd faster and safer vs Blink stalker and hold your first 3-4 bases easier vs mass gateway/chargelot. Cyclone still lost to Blink Stalker as the previous Cyclone did, but at least this one doesn't get countered so easily by blinking away and interrupting the Lockon.
It's sad that the blue flame buff is being reverted, without any other kind of buff to Hellion. I've been advocating for making Blue Flame give +2 (+3 vs Light) instead of just +5 vs Light, to make Hellions trade a bit less shittily against Stalkers (and Marauder/Roach too), and help Mech's early game out with just a tiny bit more damage. Hellions will still lose to Stalker/Marauder/Roach with a little basic splitting, and it would require Blue Flame upgrade which Bio usually doesn't get. Bio usually never goes beyond ~8 Hellions or so, and if they do it's the very rare Blue Flame harass opening.
It's a bit sad but, the community doesn't like mech and doesn't want to waste energy trying to test things out for mech. Almost all players who liked mech play (whether traditional positional tank style, battle mech, or turtle mech) have already stopped playing and following the game, of course. It would be very commendable if they tried a bit more to make Mech a tiny bit more viable in TvP (and lesser extent TvT - Raven Matrix is terrible), despite the large majority of community not caring about mech and many even hating it, keeping in mind survivor bias and that we should ideally make a game that allows for more playstyles that appeal to more different players and not just focus on the playstyles that the current remaining players enjoy. A bit of a tangent, but i hear sometimes pros or casters say "i don't want to play/see a 20-25 minute game that's boring!" and i just scratch my head. Because whenever I see a back and forth 25-40 min macro game in BW (or even SC2), that's when it gets very fun to watch. I don't like watching games that end in the first or second push where things are decided so early. But that is an example of "survivor bias". The people remaining end up wanting short "exciting" and "aggressive" 10-15 minute games that end quickly because that's how SC2 has been for a large part of its history.
My 2c: having a strong dynamic and constrast between a defender and an aggressor makes for very exciting games as well, if not more than 2 players both just attacking each other. When 1 is on the defensive, there is more tension, and the tactics of the aggressor can become even more cool and fun to watch. For example picking apart defenses in BW, it was more methodical and took more effort. A good example in SC2 is the classic and most liked TvZ MU. Usually Zerg is on the defender (at least in WoL+HotS), with Terran keeping them in check with constant harass. In recent LotV, it's shifted moreso towards Terran defending and surviving against Zerg swarms. An example where picking apart defenses in SC2 is too easy and makes for boring gameplay is TvT for example, all you do now is build more Ravens to counter more Ravens, and very easily disable a tank line and A move into it. Not exciting or tense to watch. TvT used to be great and fun to watch and positional before Interference Matrix, and it got worse when they made Raven cheaper and quicker to build while keeping Matrix at 11 secs. Another issue is that they shifted too much power away from Raven to Ghost, leading to overreliance of Ghost in TvZ and also problems in TvP. Bio now has 2 spellcasters - (Raven compliments Bio more than Mech), and Mech is left without a mech spellcaster, giving even less reason to go Mech in TvT.
Sorry for the rambling lol. It's pretty futile unfortunately, too many changes have been made that gutted Mech more and more and it's difficult to fix now without reverting things like Raven Matrix and the high dps and low duration auto turret which have been in the game too long now. And there aren't enough players left who like mech for the balance council to care about.
Btw few ideas to consider for Energy Charge, to help compensate for weaker early game with no Battery Overcharge:
1) It restores 200 Energy over 10 seconds. 2) It restores 100 Shield in addition to 100 Energy. 3) It restores 100 Shield and Energy over 10 seconds.
I think these are pretty self-explanatory:
-Making it restore over time would allow you to buff the total amount of energy restored, so it's more closer to a direct replacement of Battery Overcharge (Batteries only have 100 Energy max) when cast on a Battery. Restoring only 100 Energy on a Battery is a bit underwhelming compared to using it on a Sentry or HT.
-Making it restore Energy (or both Energy + Shield) over time makes EMP less effective in a way: They have to choose between EMP earlier to stop Protoss from using the Shield/Energy, or wait til they have 100 Shield/Energy to use a EMP at its fullest, or wait until 75 Energy to stop a HT from Storm. Also, it might seem like 200 energy (2-3 storms) over 10 secs could be way too much storms, but keep in mind the opponent now has time to react and back off or EMP. With instant energy restoration, Protoss can restore energy instantly after EMP and cast storm before getting EMP'd again. I think it'd lead to a bit of a silly test in speed and be unnecessarily volatile. Also, HTs likely have some energy already, so it more likely would gain roughly 150 Energy at most (if the opponent retreats - if not then HTs can cast storm to expend energy and then gain the full 200 total energy over time), while giving 200 energy over time to a Battery even if opponent disengages still allows you to utilize the 200 energy for healing.
-It would become visually much clearer to see and give the opponent more time to recognize and react.
-Restoring Shield might feel like it's too strong and similar to Battery Overcharge, but keep in mind it'd be for 1 specific unit, you can't change the unit that's being healed like with Battery Overcharge
-Same with the idea of restoring 200 energy over 10 secs; it would be for 1 specific unit/building, you can't change it
The numbers are rough and can be tweaked, but I feel one of these is the way to go and intuitive/clear enough game design wise for the ability, and makes sure Protoss early isn't too weak without Battery Overcharge. It also allows for as much or more skill expression and choices. It also gives choices for the opponent, such as when to EMP and how/when to engage.
to me the problem with cyclones can be resumed because of the addition of another armored unit while the balance between armored and light was still in favor of armored unit.
In my mind stalkers are these units which are in this bad spot, they are 'armored' while they are fast, able to harass and be played with micro. I feel some people don t want to tweak stalkers, but they should.
If you looks closer, armored units aren t defined to be fast, except in zerg races but usually it s balanced by a very short range attack. Stalkers are clearly a strong unit until mid game and i feel they are fine like this but in switching their armor to light, it could open a new place for a new armored unit.
PS: Surprisingly, tech lab units are defined to be armored and reactor units mean to be light. Then cyclone become the first armored unit able to be 'reactored' which is a none sense. Then if the question is about the reactor i would allow cyclones to have two lock on targets counterbalanced by increasing supply cost from 2 to 3
On November 03 2024 20:14 Vision_ wrote: to me the problem with cyclones can be resumed because of the addition of another armored unit while the balance between armored and light was still in favor of armored unit.
In my mind stalkers are these units which are in this bad spot, they are 'armored' while they are fast, able to harass and be played with micro. I feel some people don t want to tweak stalkers, but they should.
If you looks closer, armored units aren t defined to be fast, except in zerg races but usually it s balanced by a very short range attack. Stalkers are clearly a strong unit until mid game and i feel they are fine like this but in switching their armor to light, it could open a new place for a new armored unit.
PS: Surprisingly, tech lab units are define to be armored and reactor units mean to be light. Then cyclone become the first armored unit able to be 'reactored' which is a none sense. Then if the question is about the reactor i would allow cyclones to have two lock on targets counterbalanced by increasing supply cost from 2 to 3
Changing Stalkers to Light is a ridiculous idea. That would mean they suddenly take bonus damage from Banelings, Hellions/Helbats and most importantly Phoenixes.
It would be a huge nerf to all 3 match ups. ZvP because Zerg doesn't really have a lot of anti-armored damage and giving them the Light tag would just make them extra fragile vs Banelings. vs Terran because now Hellions deal bonus damage to literally EVERY unit off of the Gateway.
And PvP it would absolutely ruin the match up because now the only unit you can make in the early to midgame to counter Phoenixes other than Phoenixes gets absolutely demolished by them, when they already were a pretty poor counter unit to begin with.
The only way I could see this working was if you completely redesigned the Stalker into a harassment unit and gave Protoss the Dragoon to replace it as the core ranged damage dealer in the army. But that's far too radical of a change for any balance patch so it will never happen. We're not going to start adding new core combat units to the game. So this would just end up being a big nerf to Protoss in all 3 match ups.
We already talked about this problem,then i m sure i forgot those interactions (phoenix especially), so my bad.
What if stalkers would be allowed to blink while they are lifted (...)
For hellions it could be considered as a buff for Terrans,
Banelings are a really cost efficient unit and it s clearly an issue because they would be again a threat for Protoss but without any tests i can figure out. I will try some tests maybe first with banelings, then if they are good, i will test against a bio ball.
But the good news in the story is that if you increase slightly the base damage of stalkers, they will be able to "two shots" banelings, it s a hope in this suggestion
If you compare ZvP and ZvT for banelings interaction, i feel like there s a small gap in term of potential or sustain against banelings. Maybe Protoss can handle this kind of nerf against banelings; just check forcefield/biles interaction, if they were balanced with the common sense, biles won t break forcefields with a single shot for obvious reason. So this thing help to consider the suggestion.
On November 03 2024 16:26 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Btw few ideas to consider for Energy Charge, to help compensate for weaker early game with no Battery Overcharge:
1) It restores 200 Energy over 10 seconds. 2) It restores 100 Shield in addition to 100 Energy. 3) It restores 100 Shield and Energy over 10 seconds.
I think these are pretty self-explanatory:
-Making it restore over time would allow you to buff the total amount of energy restored, so it's more closer to a direct replacement of Battery Overcharge (Batteries only have 100 Energy max) when cast on a Battery. Restoring only 100 Energy on a Battery is a bit underwhelming compared to using it on a Sentry or HT.
-Making it restore Energy (or both Energy + Shield) over time makes EMP less effective in a way: They have to choose between EMP earlier to stop Protoss from using the Shield/Energy, or wait til they have 100 Shield/Energy to use a EMP at its fullest, or wait until 75 Energy to stop a HT from Storm. Also, it might seem like 200 energy (2-3 storms) over 10 secs could be way too much storms, but keep in mind the opponent now has time to react and back off or EMP. With instant energy restoration, Protoss can restore energy instantly after EMP and cast storm before getting EMP'd again. I think it'd lead to a bit of a silly test in speed and be unnecessarily volatile. Also, HTs likely have some energy already, so it more likely would gain roughly 150 Energy at most (if the opponent retreats - if not then HTs can cast storm to expend energy and then gain the full 200 total energy over time), while giving 200 energy over time to a Battery even if opponent disengages still allows you to utilize the 200 energy for healing.
-It would become visually much clearer to see and give the opponent more time to recognize and react.
-Restoring Shield might feel like it's too strong and similar to Battery Overcharge, but keep in mind it'd be for 1 specific unit, you can't change the unit that's being healed like with Battery Overcharge
-Same with the idea of restoring 200 energy over 10 secs; it would be for 1 specific unit/building, you can't change it
The numbers are rough and can be tweaked, but I feel one of these is the way to go and intuitive/clear enough game design wise for the ability, and makes sure Protoss early isn't too weak without Battery Overcharge. It also allows for as much or more skill expression and choices. It also gives choices for the opponent, such as when to EMP and how/when to engage.
I think it would help if it also gave +100 max energy for a duration. But it still wouldn't be sufficient to what a 100% battery overcharge, or mothership core pylon overcharge used to do.
I think Colossus/Vikings interaction when terran push is becoming an issue.
Terran only build vikings because of colossus, and vikings tweaks have been adressed since a long time. It can be absolutely balanced, but in my mind, if Terran still build vikings then there s maybe a problem (rigged)
In applying the same idea to colossus :
Colossus 250/100 to 150/100 armored removed, light added
It could be balanced in TvP and don t impact too much ZvP
This is a good direction for the patch to move imo, much better then the 1st iteration. Here is my pathetic and dumb balance suggestions, feel free to ridicule me.
- Mothership can be abducted, but the abduct pull is only half of what it is normally. This is to leave some Viper counter play, but now you need 2 Vipers to fully pull it into the Zerg forces. This means it requires a 400 gas investment from Zerg to be able to instantly kill the MS.
- Guardian Shield now reduces ranged damage by 3 instead of 2. This will make early game Sentries much more powerful defensively with Energy Overcharge against Terran aggression, and in the later parts of the game will make GW armies more durable against bio and hydra play.
- Adept attack changed from projectile to hitscan attack (correct me if the wording here is wrong) like a marine. This will increase Adepts damage by all but eliminating overkill, and make them more micro friendly. 2 birds with one stone, a GW unit is better but only if you have the micro to utilize it.
Same i m reporting some suggestions after watching at wardi tv :
Protoss Meta (Showtime/Clem) : blink into colossus thermal lance. Looks like Colossus push have no impact on the bio ball. In patch 4.0.0, the range was increased from 6 to 7 but they decreased also the damage, i m wondering if the damage can be restored
Patch 4.0.0: Thermal Lance damage changed from 12 to 10 (+5 light).
Hellions push (Clem/Solar) It looks hard to handle for Solar maybe due to the new queen price.
Damage Queen increase from 2 x 4 to 2 x (4 + 1) against armored
Terran Meta :
Medivacs slight nerf : medivacs healing point is 800, i think it s a bit too much so the rate should be decreased from 4 to 3 but the healing rate could be the same.
On November 03 2024 16:26 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Btw few ideas to consider for Energy Charge, to help compensate for weaker early game with no Battery Overcharge:
1) It restores 200 Energy over 10 seconds. 2) It restores 100 Shield in addition to 100 Energy. 3) It restores 100 Shield and Energy over 10 seconds.
I think these are pretty self-explanatory:
-Making it restore over time would allow you to buff the total amount of energy restored, so it's more closer to a direct replacement of Battery Overcharge (Batteries only have 100 Energy max) when cast on a Battery. Restoring only 100 Energy on a Battery is a bit underwhelming compared to using it on a Sentry or HT.
-Making it restore Energy (or both Energy + Shield) over time makes EMP less effective in a way: They have to choose between EMP earlier to stop Protoss from using the Shield/Energy, or wait til they have 100 Shield/Energy to use a EMP at its fullest, or wait until 75 Energy to stop a HT from Storm. Also, it might seem like 200 energy (2-3 storms) over 10 secs could be way too much storms, but keep in mind the opponent now has time to react and back off or EMP. With instant energy restoration, Protoss can restore energy instantly after EMP and cast storm before getting EMP'd again. I think it'd lead to a bit of a silly test in speed and be unnecessarily volatile. Also, HTs likely have some energy already, so it more likely would gain roughly 150 Energy at most (if the opponent retreats - if not then HTs can cast storm to expend energy and then gain the full 200 total energy over time), while giving 200 energy over time to a Battery even if opponent disengages still allows you to utilize the 200 energy for healing.
-It would become visually much clearer to see and give the opponent more time to recognize and react.
-Restoring Shield might feel like it's too strong and similar to Battery Overcharge, but keep in mind it'd be for 1 specific unit, you can't change the unit that's being healed like with Battery Overcharge
-Same with the idea of restoring 200 energy over 10 secs; it would be for 1 specific unit/building, you can't change it
The numbers are rough and can be tweaked, but I feel one of these is the way to go and intuitive/clear enough game design wise for the ability, and makes sure Protoss early isn't too weak without Battery Overcharge. It also allows for as much or more skill expression and choices. It also gives choices for the opponent, such as when to EMP and how/when to engage.
I think it would help if it also gave +100 max energy for a duration. But it still wouldn't be sufficient to what a 100% battery overcharge, or mothership core pylon overcharge used to do.
I didn t see many matchup but Protoss seems to have more difficulties to hold terran push especially the three tanks push.
On November 04 2024 02:33 Vision_ wrote: Hellions push (Clem/Solar) It looks hard to handle for Solar maybe due to the new queen price.
Damage Queen increase from 2 x 4 to 2 x (4 + 1) against armored
Oh no! Zerg might have to make units that aren't Queens? What a shame...
This is the exact intention of the nerf. We don't need to buff Queen damage to make up for Queens costing more, Zergs need to stop being greedy with their overreliance on Queens.
EDIT:
I posted this earlier:
Please can the OP be updated to include the Lurker changes in the "full updated changelog" so that they're visible to everyone despite the Balance Council's inability to write their own patch notes properly?
If Zerg got hydralisks T1 they could make a different unit of roachs able to counter the hellbat push.
But you re right let s say it s too simple as a suggestion. Medivacs are now the best unit of Terran, their heal affect hellbat which can kill zerglings by millions if they are constantly heal. The heal of medivacs cancel one attack of a queen, which mean that Zerg will oftenly try to catch the medivacs but it s a desperate move.
Let s be honest, we like the fact that some interactions between units are extremely deadly but sometimes i have to suggest the first idea which comes to my mind even if it s bad.
In reality there s no downside to make hydralisk T1, you can also remove banelings nest and switch centrifugal hooks to the spawning pool unlocked with the T2 technology (lair). One of the advantage of putting hydralisk T1 is the gamble for Zerg to make multiple hatchery before his lair upgrade. As the cost of hydralisk is pretty insane at start, Zerg can spend ressource for his defense but it has to be really cautious because if he gambles to counter attack then he could be stopped by the technology of Terran (or Protoss in the other case)
Plus, Baneling nest all-in T1 is not a used strategy at pro level, so the building is never exploited and his position in the tree can arguably be discussed
PS : this suggestion can be figured out if it really exists a difficulty for Zerg to hold hellbat push
Then there s maybe an idea beside moving hydralisks T1. Indeed, hydralisks is the first unit with three upgrades, so probably grooved spines can be available without Lair (which could open new build order and strategy)
Colossus has only been buffed since 4.0 it was much more powerful prior though, gaining +4 dmg pr. upg. The old colossus wouldn't even be OP because of how much more powerful lotv corruptors and vikings have become, here I agree.
I hope that the Purification Nova can deal not only 100(200 vs shields) within radius of 1.5. Beyond that, within radius of 1.5 to 2, it could deal an additional 25 damage.
This 25 damage wouldn’t directly kill any combat units, but 100+25 damage is just enough to kill Marauder and Ravager.
This means that Terran and Zerg wouldn’t have to worry about suddenly being hit by Purification Nova and suffering heavy losses, nor would they have to avoid every Purification Nova, as Marauder and Ravager can survive one Purification Nova damage.
However, this also means that if hit by one Purification Nova, they must be particularly cautious of a second hit. There wouldn’t be required two full damage Purification Nova to kill Marauder and Ravager, as one Purification Nova plus the secondary 25 damage would already cause significant losses.
Terran and Zerg players would need to evaluate their current status to determine if they can afford the cost of being hit by a Purification Nova, choosing between avoiding the Purification Nova or continuing the fight. This adds more depth compared to simply avoiding the Purification Nova.
Interestingly, mathematical calculations show that 145 × 1.375^2 × π ≈ 100 × 1.5^2 × π + 25 × (2^2 - 1.5^2) × π. The former is slightly higher than the latter, so this is still nerf for Purification Nova.
Yeah I feel Colossus is overdue for a small buff. It's the unit that you can buff without being worried about Protoss deathball becoming too strong like in WoL/HotS, and Colossus isn't a unit you want to mass like getting 8 of. (Corruptor and Vikings have been buffed and there's Vipers, and Matrix has been buffed indirectly with quicker/cheaper Ravens, and with no Battery Overcharge it'll be harder to open with them)
I especially feel this because the Disruptor is still in a nerfed state compared to when it was 3 supply and did more damage and had 1.5 radius. Some of that AOE/zoning power should be going somewhere, like the Colossus. It's fine if they don't want to revert Disruptor to 3 supply cus they still want to keep Disruptors as more of a support unit than a massable unit, but then give some more stable damage to Colossus.
If not damage, then you could just give Colossus +50 HP, instead of swapping 50 Shield to HP. Vikings have more HP and are more microable, and corruptors move much faster than back then. Matrix is a thing now and disables them easier than back then. Colossus feel like big glass cannons that aren't that strong and could maybe just use a straight up 50 HP buff. Like they're strong when there's still low tech armies with lots of T1 light units, but they lose a lot of value once that's not the case anymore. This could make up for no more Battery Overcharge too.
Another weird thing about swapping 50 Shield to 50 HP for Colossus: This change helps lategame more so than early game, where T may not have enough EMPs to double EMP your Colossus or just doesn't want to use that much energy to remove that last 50 Shield. Earlier on when T doesn't have enough to double EMP, this may be a slight nerf in early game situations because you more easily take hull damage, and trying to poke at tank pushes with your Colossus and heal its Shields up will be weaker. So that's why I feel they should maybe just give it raw +50 HP buff. Then it strictly buffs earlier game where there is no more Battery Overcharge to help Colossus vs early pushes, as well as later game you'll have that extra 50 HP vs mass EMPs.
I'm reading some of the older comments: the 4 buffs to voids patch wasn't so stupid, the unit wasn't used at all and this patch made protoss relevant at pro lvl. It was overly ambitious, sure and some of it needed to be scaled back.
It's still better than what the council gave us, which is just anti protoss bias. It could be that the intern gave power to theese nerds because they responded toxically to this patch. Then they got power and they removed the chance to be a pro gamer for protoss players.
HerO went 2-6 vs. serral and 3-0 vs. reynor. HerO is the pvz specialist and literally revolutionized the game, meanwhile reynor is dogshit vs. protoss (pig's words). This matchup needs brains, and reynor clearly has a mental block vs. toss, and likes to play LoL and off race while herO is actually giving sc2 his all.
On November 06 2024 12:55 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Yeah I feel Colossus is overdue for a small buff. It's the unit that you can buff without being worried about Protoss deathball becoming too strong like in WoL/HotS, and Colossus isn't a unit you want to mass like getting 8 of. (Corruptor and Vikings have been buffed and there's Vipers, and Matrix has been buffed indirectly with quicker/cheaper Ravens, and with no Battery Overcharge it'll be harder to open with them)
I especially feel this because the Disruptor is still in a nerfed state compared to when it was 3 supply and did more damage and had 1.5 radius. Some of that AOE/zoning power should be going somewhere, like the Colossus. It's fine if they don't want to revert Disruptor to 3 supply cus they still want to keep Disruptors as more of a support unit than a massable unit, but then give some more stable damage to Colossus.
If not damage, then you could just give Colossus +50 HP, instead of swapping 50 Shield to HP. Vikings have more HP and are more microable, and corruptors move much faster than back then. Matrix is a thing now and disables them easier than back then. Colossus feel like big glass cannons that aren't that strong and could maybe just use a straight up 50 HP buff. Like they're strong when there's still low tech armies with lots of T1 light units, but they lose a lot of value once that's not the case anymore. This could make up for no more Battery Overcharge too.
Another weird thing about swapping 50 Shield to 50 HP for Colossus: This change helps lategame more so than early game, where T may not have enough EMPs to double EMP your Colossus or just doesn't want to use that much energy to remove that last 50 Shield. Earlier on when T doesn't have enough to double EMP, this may be a slight nerf in early game situations because you more easily take hull damage, and trying to poke at tank pushes with your Colossus and heal its Shields up will be weaker. So that's why I feel they should maybe just give it raw +50 HP buff. Then it strictly buffs earlier game where there is no more Battery Overcharge to help Colossus vs early pushes, as well as later game you'll have that extra 50 HP vs mass EMPs.
Tbh when I see Ps win PvT it's almost always on the back of colossi midgame timings (or blink stalker attacks tbf). They're heavily disfavored once libs+ghosts come out, they are quite weak to tank pushes until colossi come out, but the time between 2 colossi and a Ts getting enough vikings to deal with them is usually where P can often deal significant damage if they didn't get crippled earlier.
Tbh I'd buff P's AA. P's problem is that almost all of their reasonable answers to libs/lurkers get countered by AA and they have no reliable way to deal with air AA. P has by far the slowest production speed of air units and their ground to air is either a huge gas sink (high temps+archons) or kinda shit (stalkers), so whenever they get tempests, colossi or carriers the opposing side shits out a bunch of corruptors or vikings or just 2-3 vipers and trade them against the protoss high tech because stalkers don't cut it and the rest is extremely immobile (and expensive). And then it's ground vs ground again and P just looses that lategame.
I honestly think phoenixes should actually trade efficiently with vikings considering that the latter have tons of more range and T has way better ground to air anyways and libs do aoe and emps wreck phoenixes. I'd prolly add some damage to Phoenix range and a post-blink update for stalkers to twilight that gives them +4 damage vs air or something similar so early game isn't affected much.
On November 06 2024 12:55 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Yeah I feel Colossus is overdue for a small buff. It's the unit that you can buff without being worried about Protoss deathball becoming too strong like in WoL/HotS, and Colossus isn't a unit you want to mass like getting 8 of. (Corruptor and Vikings have been buffed and there's Vipers, and Matrix has been buffed indirectly with quicker/cheaper Ravens, and with no Battery Overcharge it'll be harder to open with them)
I especially feel this because the Disruptor is still in a nerfed state compared to when it was 3 supply and did more damage and had 1.5 radius. Some of that AOE/zoning power should be going somewhere, like the Colossus. It's fine if they don't want to revert Disruptor to 3 supply cus they still want to keep Disruptors as more of a support unit than a massable unit, but then give some more stable damage to Colossus.
If not damage, then you could just give Colossus +50 HP, instead of swapping 50 Shield to HP. Vikings have more HP and are more microable, and corruptors move much faster than back then. Matrix is a thing now and disables them easier than back then. Colossus feel like big glass cannons that aren't that strong and could maybe just use a straight up 50 HP buff. Like they're strong when there's still low tech armies with lots of T1 light units, but they lose a lot of value once that's not the case anymore. This could make up for no more Battery Overcharge too.
Another weird thing about swapping 50 Shield to 50 HP for Colossus: This change helps lategame more so than early game, where T may not have enough EMPs to double EMP your Colossus or just doesn't want to use that much energy to remove that last 50 Shield. Earlier on when T doesn't have enough to double EMP, this may be a slight nerf in early game situations because you more easily take hull damage, and trying to poke at tank pushes with your Colossus and heal its Shields up will be weaker. So that's why I feel they should maybe just give it raw +50 HP buff. Then it strictly buffs earlier game where there is no more Battery Overcharge to help Colossus vs early pushes, as well as later game you'll have that extra 50 HP vs mass EMPs.
Tbh when I see Ps win PvT it's almost always on the back of colossi midgame timings (or blink stalker attacks tbf). They're heavily disfavored once libs+ghosts come out, they are quite weak to tank pushes until colossi come out, but the time between 2 colossi and a Ts getting enough vikings to deal with them is usually where P can often deal significant damage if they didn't get crippled earlier.
Tbh I'd buff P's AA. P's problem is that almost all of their reasonable answers to libs/lurkers get countered by AA and they have no reliable way to deal with air AA. P has by far the slowest production speed of air units and their ground to air is either a huge gas sink (high temps+archons) or kinda shit (stalkers), so whenever they get tempests, colossi or carriers the opposing side shits out a bunch of corruptors or vikings or just 2-3 vipers and trade them against the protoss high tech because stalkers don't cut it and the rest is extremely immobile (and expensive). And then it's ground vs ground again and P just looses that lategame.
I honestly think phoenixes should actually trade efficiently with vikings considering that the latter have tons of more range and T has way better ground to air anyways and libs do aoe and emps wreck phoenixes. I'd prolly add some damage to Phoenix range and a post-blink update for stalkers to twilight that gives them +4 damage vs air or something similar so early game isn't affected much.
Or make the void ray actually useful AA, idk.
Yeah it's a tough one for sure. Viking gaining 10 HP really made it less close vs Phoenixes. Maybe Phoenix damage can be slightly reworked, like swap 1 damage to Light to All. Then it'd do slightly better vs Vikings, and could be a bit more of an all-rounder, doing slightly better vs Corruptors, Liberators, and even capital ships. It could be interesting because then Phoenixes can do slightly more damage to ground units too like Queens or Tanks. But maybe that'd make Phoenix wars just more prevalent in PvP.
I think tweaking the supply of some air units could be a way too, they're a bit weird right now:
1) Tempests should ideally be 5 supply instead of 4. I agree with making Disruptors 4 supply so they have more of a support role than something you mass. Making Tempest 4 supply instead of 5 is a good bandaid fix to give lategame P a little more power, since Tempests are so weak in a straight up fight against Corruptors for example. And I think having support Tempests (a non-splash zoning unit) as a more common answer to Libs and Lurkers can be fun to watch too.
However, my main issues with this is that identity wise it's supposed to be a capital ship, and secondly this means that you can have way more Tempests vs BCs now. Before, Mass BC used to wreck P lategame, but they buffed Tempest microability and manueverability so that warping ontop gives Tempest enough time to move away and be pretty OK and not rely on MS recall to escape. Now you can get 30 Tempests vs 20 BCs (25% more), which i think skews things a little much in Protoss's favor maybe. Even warping ontop will not be enough to get a decent trade now. If they keep Tempests at 4 supply, maybe just slightly nerf their damage vs Massive from +22 to +18 or something, so it takes 9 shots instead of 8 shots to kill a BC (48 total vs Massive instead of 52). That way in lategame maxed armies they still do slightly better vs Corruptors/Vikings supply wise and can be easier to get vs Libs/Lurkers, and not so much better vs BCs/Carriers/BLs.
2) Voids are a bit supply inefficient, but interestingly their Shield/HP/damage vs armored is basically the same as the Immortal (other than needing to turn on the beam). So, i see why it is 4 supply, but maybe 3 supply can be justified since the beam needs to be turned on, and Immortals have more potency in that they have burst shots whereas Void has to shoot steadily to do its damage. Protoss identity wise their stuff naturally has more supply, but a Void ray really doesn't feel like it has more power or value than a 3 supply Liberator, or a Disruptor or Immortal even. So, if Tempests would revert to 5 supply, maybe the Void can be buffed to 3 supply instead. That way you can mix in a few easier to help deal with mass Corruptors, and maybe rarely as an option vs Vikings/Libs/Lurkers.
I can't think of much other ways they can make Protoss slightly more supply efficient. It's either the Disruptor, Void, or Tempest. I'm leaning on the Void, it used to have 3 supply in WoL/HotS, so it wouldn't be too weird to go back. It isn't strong when massed. The only worry I have is that, even though being able to get 2 Corruptors for every Void mostly negates the Void being a "counter", when you're talking about a maxed out army then having just 5 Voids mixed in is enough to negate much of the Corruptor's ability to just roll over your Tempests/Carriers which is all you really need. And making it 3 supply making Zerg struggle even more in the lategame.
I mean it is kind of cool that the star gate has a 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 supply unit. But tempest don't feel like 5 and voids don't feel like 4.
I think the phoenix vs. viking war is actually not that bad. In wol, hots days t would always be up a base and now it is the opposite, so I actually think the phoenix is pretty strong. It's all the other terran units, such as widow mines and crew that makes it hard for phoenix to poke.
The void ray cannot be an issue at 3 supply, storm, fungal, queens, parasitic bomb and terran all hard counter void rays.
EPT
Patch 5.0.3
