|
On September 22 2025 17:23 Kitai wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 15:26 MJG wrote:On September 22 2025 13:39 Kitai wrote:On September 22 2025 08:04 WombaT wrote:On September 22 2025 07:31 Kitai wrote:
Players, tournaments, metas, community members, and patches all come and go. But the one thing that has and always will remain the same in SC2 is an outcry of armageddon preachers every time patch notes come around. I agree with the overall sentiment, but just because the boy cried wolf erroneously before doesn’t mean there’s not a wolf roaming about, hungry for blood this time. It’s probably the most extreme singular change I’ve ever seen in 15 years of the game, if we’re talking the storm change. Which, even worse is like legitimately bugged to be even shitter than the proposed change is meant to be, so people can’t test it. What’s worse, I don’t even think the overall patch is that bad! It’s a mix of things I think are good, some I think are interesting but ‘wait and see’ The patch in the totality, it’s like sitting down for one of those fancy meals where you get like 7-8 courses of small meals, beautifully presented, and you try out some dishes you mightn’t like alongside your stock, lock favourites. Some might turn out better than you’d expected, some worse. The storm change is like getting to course 8 and someone has taken a dump on your plate. They’ve arranged it to be very fine dining presentation wise, but ultimately someone has served you shit. You’re probably refusing to pay, no matter how good the preceding courses. Just revert that specific change, see how it goes. I think it’s potentially an OK, possibly good patch with that singular removal. If you keep it in, I think it is quite probably the worst patch the game has ever seen. And I’m not being hyperbolic If it's bugged, yeah that's bad and they need to fix it. The change itself changes the best use cases for storm - it's a nerf in some scenarios but also gives it more utility in other scenarios. 3 times the duration at half the DPS means it does 1.5x more total damage per cast. It will be better against sieged units. It will make for a better zoning tool for retreating armies and ramps. It will be less effective for "I clicked here and now everything I clicked on is dead". Remember in WoL when they deleted the Khaydarin Amulet research because they realized being able to warp in HTs with instant storm was hilariously broken? Well, energy overcharge lets protoss do that again, and with the significant buffs to energy overcharge in this patch, HT would have been OP again without some change to storm and this is what they decided on. Everyone back then was so sure it was the end of Protoss too - they claimed there would be no way to defend expos or drops without it. But life moved on, and Protoss still won championships. TL;DR, let the pros cook, let the meta settle, and if worse comes to worse and Protoss win rates really do tank as a result then they can change it back. Theorycrafting only gets you so far. You think there are significant buffs to Energy Overcharge in this patch? Oh boy... Yeah my bad, I didn't read that one closely enough. I thought it reduced the amount of nexus energy required, not amount granted. But it doesn't change my point that a cooldown reduction would still result in more HT with instant storms.
The idea behind the nerf is that one Templar can't be warped in and instantly have two Storms available.
That's a sensible change.
Storm doesn't need to be nerfed at the same time. Storm wasn't a problem for 15 years, it isn't the problem now.
|
On September 22 2025 16:11 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 01:40 Mizenhauer wrote:On September 22 2025 01:29 -KG- wrote:On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:
Look, I've generally been pro-Balance Council and have defended them for many, many patches. I think they've come up with some good, interesting concepts, shaking things up while keeping the game reasonably balanced. I haven't believed in the Zerg Cabal conspiracy theories. But this proposed patch is utterly absurd, and in itself practically vindicates every claim ever made about the Balance Council being reactive and basing their changes around mob-dynamic buffing and nerfing of races.
(...)
But the thing is, there are no interesting concepts in this proposed patch: the only way to read this is literally just Protoss being punished and nerfed into virtual unplayability. I can't imagine what kind of process would result in this patch. If this is the model for balancing, then something's clearly gone massively wrong somewhere. I thought about these conspiracy theories the same way as when Trump cries about how the election was stolen - undocumented and harmful claims far from reality. But with this......I just don't see any explanation. Even though these changes won't go through (and they most definitely won't) then I think the damage has been done and the councils intentions seem more clear than ever before. What an absolute disaster for the game and the community. But these changes didn't come from the balance council........ Multiple people have claimed this change from the status quo without any source, and have been unable to provide one when challenged. Do you have one?
There's no proof on either side of the argument, so again maybe we should refrain from assumptions and try to get more clarification? Simply pointing out how easy it is to refute/confirm by posting online is not a strong argument, either.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On September 22 2025 18:39 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 16:11 Cyro wrote:On September 22 2025 01:40 Mizenhauer wrote:On September 22 2025 01:29 -KG- wrote:On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:
Look, I've generally been pro-Balance Council and have defended them for many, many patches. I think they've come up with some good, interesting concepts, shaking things up while keeping the game reasonably balanced. I haven't believed in the Zerg Cabal conspiracy theories. But this proposed patch is utterly absurd, and in itself practically vindicates every claim ever made about the Balance Council being reactive and basing their changes around mob-dynamic buffing and nerfing of races.
(...)
But the thing is, there are no interesting concepts in this proposed patch: the only way to read this is literally just Protoss being punished and nerfed into virtual unplayability. I can't imagine what kind of process would result in this patch. If this is the model for balancing, then something's clearly gone massively wrong somewhere. I thought about these conspiracy theories the same way as when Trump cries about how the election was stolen - undocumented and harmful claims far from reality. But with this......I just don't see any explanation. Even though these changes won't go through (and they most definitely won't) then I think the damage has been done and the councils intentions seem more clear than ever before. What an absolute disaster for the game and the community. But these changes didn't come from the balance council........ Multiple people have claimed this change from the status quo without any source, and have been unable to provide one when challenged. Do you have one? There's no proof on either side of the argument, so again maybe we should refrain from assumptions and try to get more clarification? Simply pointing out how easy it is to refute/confirm by posting online is not a strong argument, either.
I'm asking for more information if it exists. Nobody on the major starcraft forums has been able to provide it. I've asked six people directly and spent a significant amount of time researching without success.
Burden of proof is on those making the claim of a radical change, not on affirming the status quo. Why would a change happen? When and how did it happen? Is this backed up by a trusted source, e.g. a blizzard post on their forum or some posts/videos from a pro player?
If somebody that i've never heard of drops a random sentence like "balance council is gone now so it was blizz" then i am already being generous by asking for the source of that information, googling around and digging through reddit threads to try to prove something that somebody else said. If i can't do that and they don't want to reply to me, it's going into the trash bin rather than into my brain as an established fact.
This is just critical thinking. It's not a personal attack.
|
On September 22 2025 19:56 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 18:39 Creager wrote:On September 22 2025 16:11 Cyro wrote:On September 22 2025 01:40 Mizenhauer wrote:On September 22 2025 01:29 -KG- wrote:On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:
Look, I've generally been pro-Balance Council and have defended them for many, many patches. I think they've come up with some good, interesting concepts, shaking things up while keeping the game reasonably balanced. I haven't believed in the Zerg Cabal conspiracy theories. But this proposed patch is utterly absurd, and in itself practically vindicates every claim ever made about the Balance Council being reactive and basing their changes around mob-dynamic buffing and nerfing of races.
(...)
But the thing is, there are no interesting concepts in this proposed patch: the only way to read this is literally just Protoss being punished and nerfed into virtual unplayability. I can't imagine what kind of process would result in this patch. If this is the model for balancing, then something's clearly gone massively wrong somewhere. I thought about these conspiracy theories the same way as when Trump cries about how the election was stolen - undocumented and harmful claims far from reality. But with this......I just don't see any explanation. Even though these changes won't go through (and they most definitely won't) then I think the damage has been done and the councils intentions seem more clear than ever before. What an absolute disaster for the game and the community. But these changes didn't come from the balance council........ Multiple people have claimed this change from the status quo without any source, and have been unable to provide one when challenged. Do you have one? There's no proof on either side of the argument, so again maybe we should refrain from assumptions and try to get more clarification? Simply pointing out how easy it is to refute/confirm by posting online is not a strong argument, either. I'm asking for more information if it exists. Nobody on the major starcraft forums has been able to provide it. I've asked six people directly and spent a significant amount of time researching without success. Burden of proof is on those making the claim of a radical change, not on affirming the status quo. Why would a change happen? When and how did it happen? Is this backed up by a trusted source, e.g. a blizzard post on their forum or some posts/videos from a pro player? If somebody that i've never heard of drops a random sentence like "balance council is gone now so it was blizz" then i am already being generous by asking for the source of that information, googling around and digging through reddit threads to try to prove something that somebody else said. If i can't do that and they don't want to reply to me, it's going into the trash bin rather than into my brain as an established fact. This is just critical thinking. It's not a personal attack.
Either way someone has some serious explaining to do with this abomination of a patch 
|
France13011 Posts
Yeah, I also heard here or on reddit that this is not from the balance council. But given how difficult it was to have blizzard actually implement patches / bugfixes / new maps in the game, I highly doubt that they somehow decided to have a look at starcraft balance again.
So why did this rumor start?
|
On September 22 2025 21:47 -KG- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 19:56 Cyro wrote:On September 22 2025 18:39 Creager wrote:On September 22 2025 16:11 Cyro wrote:On September 22 2025 01:40 Mizenhauer wrote:On September 22 2025 01:29 -KG- wrote:On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:
Look, I've generally been pro-Balance Council and have defended them for many, many patches. I think they've come up with some good, interesting concepts, shaking things up while keeping the game reasonably balanced. I haven't believed in the Zerg Cabal conspiracy theories. But this proposed patch is utterly absurd, and in itself practically vindicates every claim ever made about the Balance Council being reactive and basing their changes around mob-dynamic buffing and nerfing of races.
(...)
But the thing is, there are no interesting concepts in this proposed patch: the only way to read this is literally just Protoss being punished and nerfed into virtual unplayability. I can't imagine what kind of process would result in this patch. If this is the model for balancing, then something's clearly gone massively wrong somewhere. I thought about these conspiracy theories the same way as when Trump cries about how the election was stolen - undocumented and harmful claims far from reality. But with this......I just don't see any explanation. Even though these changes won't go through (and they most definitely won't) then I think the damage has been done and the councils intentions seem more clear than ever before. What an absolute disaster for the game and the community. But these changes didn't come from the balance council........ Multiple people have claimed this change from the status quo without any source, and have been unable to provide one when challenged. Do you have one? There's no proof on either side of the argument, so again maybe we should refrain from assumptions and try to get more clarification? Simply pointing out how easy it is to refute/confirm by posting online is not a strong argument, either. I'm asking for more information if it exists. Nobody on the major starcraft forums has been able to provide it. I've asked six people directly and spent a significant amount of time researching without success. Burden of proof is on those making the claim of a radical change, not on affirming the status quo. Why would a change happen? When and how did it happen? Is this backed up by a trusted source, e.g. a blizzard post on their forum or some posts/videos from a pro player? If somebody that i've never heard of drops a random sentence like "balance council is gone now so it was blizz" then i am already being generous by asking for the source of that information, googling around and digging through reddit threads to try to prove something that somebody else said. If i can't do that and they don't want to reply to me, it's going into the trash bin rather than into my brain as an established fact. This is just critical thinking. It's not a personal attack. Either way someone has some serious explaining to do with this abomination of a patch
We won't get an explanation and nobody will take responsibility.
At least David Kim had the chutzpah to do both.
|
On September 22 2025 19:56 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 18:39 Creager wrote:On September 22 2025 16:11 Cyro wrote:On September 22 2025 01:40 Mizenhauer wrote:On September 22 2025 01:29 -KG- wrote:On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:
Look, I've generally been pro-Balance Council and have defended them for many, many patches. I think they've come up with some good, interesting concepts, shaking things up while keeping the game reasonably balanced. I haven't believed in the Zerg Cabal conspiracy theories. But this proposed patch is utterly absurd, and in itself practically vindicates every claim ever made about the Balance Council being reactive and basing their changes around mob-dynamic buffing and nerfing of races.
(...)
But the thing is, there are no interesting concepts in this proposed patch: the only way to read this is literally just Protoss being punished and nerfed into virtual unplayability. I can't imagine what kind of process would result in this patch. If this is the model for balancing, then something's clearly gone massively wrong somewhere. I thought about these conspiracy theories the same way as when Trump cries about how the election was stolen - undocumented and harmful claims far from reality. But with this......I just don't see any explanation. Even though these changes won't go through (and they most definitely won't) then I think the damage has been done and the councils intentions seem more clear than ever before. What an absolute disaster for the game and the community. But these changes didn't come from the balance council........ Multiple people have claimed this change from the status quo without any source, and have been unable to provide one when challenged. Do you have one? There's no proof on either side of the argument, so again maybe we should refrain from assumptions and try to get more clarification? Simply pointing out how easy it is to refute/confirm by posting online is not a strong argument, either. I'm literally asking for more information if it exists. Nobody on the major starcraft forums has been able to provide it. I've asked six people directly and spent a significant amount of time researching without success. I have no idea why anyone might be making this claim, and they won't show me. Burden of proof is on those making the claim of a radical change, not on affirming the status quo.
From what we can observe directly: We received patch notes without the usual introductory paragraph and further explanations regarding these changes, so that's a deviation from their usual MO. I also have no idea where this claim came from, but this is a noticable difference from all previous patches where the balance council was involved.
Of course that does by no means translate to them not being involved, but it's a deviation nonetheless, for whatever reason that might be.
Then we also have this information that after the previous patch was rolled out ESL sunset the Pro Tour, so effectively ended their involvement in SC2 esports and thus many concluded that the balance council was disbanded in response to that and we also haven't seen any output that contradicts this notion.
Would be great to get some honest comments from people (formerly) involved in this process.
And if that last sentence in your edit was directed at me, don't worry, no offense taken, I'm just intrigued as to why SC2 is getting any balance changes now after we've spent several iterations to make the game worse and it doesn't make much sense (to me) to let the same people take just another shot at it.
|
On September 22 2025 22:32 MJG wrote:
We won't get an explanation and nobody will take responsibility.
At least David Kim had the chutzpah to do both.
David Kim is the last thing any game past present or future needs again. Just look at Battle Aces.. oh wait.
I do miss typing out exactly what I was going to do when we rolled the fair and balanced* matchups/maps. If only he had information and scouting to build an adequate counter.
Vision was probably too clouded with the foresight of buffing king crabs to make an entire patch cycle on his new unforseen game unplayable and killing the interest.
|
On September 19 2025 02:11 SHODAN wrote:Terran - Siege Tank can no longer be abducted when in siege mode.
I have suggestions for council members.... Supress all abilities in-game
kappa
|
On September 22 2025 23:00 Agh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 22:32 MJG wrote:
We won't get an explanation and nobody will take responsibility.
At least David Kim had the chutzpah to do both. David Kim is the last thing any game past present or future needs again. Just look at Battle Aces.. oh wait.
It wasn't a comment on his ability. It was a comment on his accountability.
He was always accountable.
Whoever came up with this patch is not.
I didn't play Battle Aces, but the people I know who did play it had fun with it and were sad to see it cancelled.
From a personal point of view, I'd rather play "David Kim" WoL/HotS/LotV over "ESL" LotV.
|
United Kingdom20342 Posts
On September 23 2025 00:00 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2025 23:00 Agh wrote:On September 22 2025 22:32 MJG wrote:
We won't get an explanation and nobody will take responsibility.
At least David Kim had the chutzpah to do both. David Kim is the last thing any game past present or future needs again. Just look at Battle Aces.. oh wait. It wasn't a comment on his ability. It was a comment on his accountability. He was always accountable. Whoever came up with this patch is not. I didn't play Battle Aces, but the people I know who did play it had fun with it and were sad to see it cancelled.
From a personal point of view, I'd rather play "David Kim" WoL/HotS/LotV over "ESL" LotV.
If that's how it's gonna be, then we should make our own maps with whatever version is most appropriate
|
Northern Ireland27230 Posts
It was a clip I saw, I don’t have a source to hand as such.
According to Pig, they didn’t go through, or consult the Balance Council in the same manner as in the past.
However, some proposed changes are basically identical to those proposed in videos by prominent content creators, for example, Harstem.
What appears to potentially be happening is whoever’s on Blizz’s end isn’t calling the fabled council together as before, but neither are they workshopping all their own changes.
They’re just lifting some ideas, but skipping whatever process they had before.
Is my understanding, and I may be incorrect, or maybe there’s more info I haven’t seen.
|
|
|
Extremely interesting changes (as in I don't know what exactly that means).
Bigger storms, quicker ticks and slightly longer duration? I'm confused by the periods vs duration wording.
Nice to see they are giving the disruptor quite a bit of power back, but now protoss has even crazier zoning tools.
Shroud being an upgrade is interesting - will be very cool to see everything play out in Wardii's PTR tournament tomorrow!
|
they added MORE changes? unless they can commit to doing follow-up patches quickly (after the actual release), this seems too ambitious
|
On September 23 2025 06:30 funkyemy wrote:
Extremely interesting changes (as in I don't know what exactly that means).
Bigger storms, quicker ticks and slightly longer duration? I'm confused by the periods vs duration wording.
Nice to see they are giving the disruptor quite a bit of power back, but now protoss has even crazier zoning tools.
Shroud being an upgrade is interesting - will be very cool to see everything play out in Wardii's PTR tournament tomorrow!
I think basically the previous PTR had increased the duration of the storm, but they forgot to add more damage ticks to match?
|
Increasing the radius is necessary if they want to keep the storm weak, but I'm not sure if taking storm in that direction is going to help where the help is needed.
If Protoss is too strong below the world's top 20, gigastorms with respectable damage are going to make them even stronger there. Maybe they should consider adding bonus damage to certain unit types?
|
Wow, Blizzard didn't abandon the game, i guess.
|
is this Microsoft realising they own SC2 now?
|
Storm looks a tad bit too strong with the disrupter buff. I don't think both are necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
