|
On September 19 2025 16:34 SharkStarcraft wrote:
The Zerg council has struck again, and it's a home run!
Let's increase Baneling health, while nerfing storm's damage by 50%! A brilliant idea, truly brilliant. Can't wait for the cute little green blobs of joy to finally roll in unabstructed!
Also, now that storm is useless in PvT, let's make the Viking insanely cheap for no apparent reason! The colossus must stay useless at all costs! Fabulous changes, truly fabulous. Protoss was winning almost 1/3 of the big events this year, can't have that! Also, they're performing really well in the 200$ weekly cups!!111 Bring down the righteous hammer of nerf.
Let's nerf the late game Skytoss army by gutting Storm's damage, but let's also decrease Spire Cost so Corruptors can be spammed easier and then for good measure let's change Microbrial Shroud so that Lurkers are now even more ridiculous than they were before and they were already so strong that Protoss felt forced into building an air based army to deal with them in the first place.
Oh and Storm is also nigh useless against Terran now too just for good measure.
Yea I knew they were gonna cycle back and bring Protoss back down because that's how the cycle always goes, but this time around they are doing it in an especially stupid way.
|
My best idea from a night lack of sleep: make storm deal no damage to Toss unit and Heal Shield, bring up the bullshit to match the Shroud.
|
On September 19 2025 18:30 tigera6 wrote:
My best idea from a night lack of sleep: make storm deal no damage to Toss unit and Heal Shield, bring up the bullshit to match the Shroud.
I don't think the answer to terrible changes are even more terrible changes.
|
Would be cool to get a decent treatment as at this point I don't feel we should get hyped that we get SOMETHING on PTR anymore. And by decent I mean some explanation about the thought process behind the changes that aren't bug fixes.
It's good to experiment and try out bold(er) changes, but then also please give us some details about the thought process behind them.
This is still the same self-introduced design problem that stems from introducing more AoE options for Protoss. If you want to change AoE options for Protoss to feel more distinct, touch the freaking Disruptor and make it shoot Force Fields or something. Or make the Tempest deal splash damage against ground and turn it into a proper air Siege Tank.
This feels like just slinging shit at the wall again and see what might stick.
|
On September 19 2025 18:34 Creager wrote:
Would be cool to get a decent treatment as at this point I don't feel we should get hyped that we get SOMETHING on PTR anymore. And by decent I mean some explanation about the thought process behind the changes that aren't bug fixes.
It's good to experiment and try out bold(er) changes, but then also please give us some details about the thought process behind them.
This is the entirety of the thought process:
On July 01 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:
Protoss isn't allowed to win things, but Protoss has recently won THREE things, and such wrongthink will surely be punished by the righteous nerfhammer of the most holy Balance Council.
|
On September 19 2025 18:35 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 18:34 Creager wrote:
Would be cool to get a decent treatment as at this point I don't feel we should get hyped that we get SOMETHING on PTR anymore. And by decent I mean some explanation about the thought process behind the changes that aren't bug fixes.
It's good to experiment and try out bold(er) changes, but then also please give us some details about the thought process behind them. This is the entirety of the thought process: Show nested quote +On July 01 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:
Protoss isn't allowed to win things, but Protoss has recently won THREE things, and such wrongthink will surely be punished by the righteous nerfhammer of the most holy Balance Council.
Not sure if anybody at Blizzard actually counts wins per race, you're expecting too much here, I think.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
On September 19 2025 18:52 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 18:35 MJG wrote:On September 19 2025 18:34 Creager wrote:
Would be cool to get a decent treatment as at this point I don't feel we should get hyped that we get SOMETHING on PTR anymore. And by decent I mean some explanation about the thought process behind the changes that aren't bug fixes.
It's good to experiment and try out bold(er) changes, but then also please give us some details about the thought process behind them. This is the entirety of the thought process: On July 01 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:
Protoss isn't allowed to win things, but Protoss has recently won THREE things, and such wrongthink will surely be punished by the righteous nerfhammer of the most holy Balance Council. Not sure if anybody at Blizzard actually counts wins per race, you're expecting too much here, I think.
The worst part is that Blizzard doesn't, but some of the remaining competitors spend their time doing what arguably amounts to anonymously rigging the game so that they can make more money.
I no longer accept that these changes are made in good faith, and i don't think that these guys should have access to modify the game design and balance now or ever again. They are severely harming our game.
IMO the game should be reverted to one of the Blizzard patches (decided by the community) and the council dissolved as a failed experiment due to far too much bias, too little accountability and the inability to fix mistakes (even massive ones) for a prolonged period of time.
Please spread the word if you agree.
|
On September 19 2025 18:52 Creager wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 18:35 MJG wrote:On September 19 2025 18:34 Creager wrote:
Would be cool to get a decent treatment as at this point I don't feel we should get hyped that we get SOMETHING on PTR anymore. And by decent I mean some explanation about the thought process behind the changes that aren't bug fixes.
It's good to experiment and try out bold(er) changes, but then also please give us some details about the thought process behind them. This is the entirety of the thought process: On July 01 2025 17:03 MJG wrote:
Protoss isn't allowed to win things, but Protoss has recently won THREE things, and such wrongthink will surely be punished by the righteous nerfhammer of the most holy Balance Council. Not sure if anybody at Blizzard actually counts wins per race, you're expecting too much here, I think.
Bold of you to assume that Blizzard are the ones driving these changes.
These changes are been driven by casters/players who shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the controls.
Blizzard need to revert to one of their own patches (many of them were much more balanced than the current patch as per balance data readily available on Liquipedia) or else we're going to continue having year upon year of completely skewed tournament results stemming from poorly thought out, minimally tested design changes, like what we've had during this patch due to Energy Overcharge.
|
That storm change will make storm completely worthless , if you seriously suggest changes like these, it is seriously questionable you have any idea about the game. Longer duration storm is indirect buff to medivacs healing and bio which is already borderline to strong against protoss.
It is an indirect buff to banling / ling runby since they can just run straight through the storm into the mineral line without dying. It will be easier to save your workers from storm harassment. To even suggest this change clearly says how this balance council is not fit for the job.
|
"Protoss won a couple of tournaments and we can't have that."
That's what these patch notes are saying to me.
|
Bisutopia19398 Posts
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment.
|
On September 19 2025 20:31 BisuDagger wrote:
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment.
It's purely to make Protoss more difficult because either:
a) Your Observers are invisible, but will be included in an F2.
b) Your Observers are visible, but will not be included in an F2.
I actually think the Surveillance/Oversight modes on Observers and Overseers are dumb, but removing them would be a better option than only punishing Protoss for using them.
|
On September 19 2025 20:31 BisuDagger wrote:
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment.
If I had to guess it would be to balance out the HT rework so Protoss can't just zone out everything too easily. Makes the Observer weaker so Protoss defenses aren't just impenetrable. The HT may be too weak and not zone out anything but I believe that is the philosophy.
|
United Kingdom20345 Posts
Artosis weighed in
This might be the stupidest change I've ever seen ?
Am I missing something here?
On September 19 2025 20:31 BisuDagger wrote:
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment.
It was not. We have no justification or explanation for any of the changes and we have no idea who is trying to push them either.
I think this is the worst patch attempt i've seen in 15 years
|
On September 19 2025 20:59 CicadaSC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 20:31 BisuDagger wrote:
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment. If I had to guess it would be to balance out the HT rework so Protoss can't just zone out everything too easily. Makes the Observer weaker so Protoss defenses aren't just impenetrable. The HT may be too weak and not zone out anything but I believe that is the philosophy.
This is probably the justification, but it would only make sense if a long, weak storm were actually a problematically-strong zoning tool. But as people have pointed out, this storm can pretty much just be walked through, and it's not like HTs have super long range anyway. And it certainly doesn't justify breaking a basic rule of the game and the unit and adding a random annoyance for Toss players only.
The synchronicity of these changes, as people have pointed out, is actually the most bonkers thing about this. For PvZ, you've nerfed Protosses' principal way of dealing with Corruptors to practical uselessness, while at the same time making Corruptors come out faster. Alright, so you've effectively ended Skytoss as a viable late-game strategy, making Protoss go ground. But you've also nerfed Protosses' principal way of dealing with Banelings to practical uselessness, while at the same time buffing Banelings' HP. And for some inconceivable reason you've also given Zerg ground Dark Swarm, buffing Banelings even further but also making Lurkers (already too strong for Protoss ground to be viable) unbeatable.
For PvT, you've nerfed one of Protosses' most important tools for dealing with the infinite bioball. Alright, so Protoss will go Robo. But wait, you've also buffed Vikings, the cheap, spammable counter to Colossus, making them even more cheap and spammable. And wait, it's worse than that, because your main tool for dealing with Vikings was in fact psi storm: ipso facto rendering Skytoss also unplayable against Terran. Okay, so I guess Protoss can just go pure ground without Templar or Colossus, and use nerfed Disruptors and/or Immortal Zealot and have both die to bioballs? Or do adept rushes every game???? But wait, mines have also been buffed. And, for some reason, Banshees.
Of course, all these consequences might conceivably be worth if it there was a big, new concept that required these balance issues. But the big, new concept is just...making Storm, one of the most iconic abilities into the game, into yet another weak zoning tool? As if Protoss didn't already have zoning tools, and as if this change didn't make Storm strictly weaker even as a zoning tool?
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.
Protoss, esp. Energy Overcharge, has been overtuned in the last patch: prominent pros were annoyed with Toss. Fine, fine. I think the claims are exaggerated, but retune Toss to make Clem happy. Buff Terran and Zerg with some cool new stuff of their own.
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.
|
Olli
Austria24422 Posts
Here's a very simple idea - make storm damage stack, keep the longer duration and damage. If you want storm to be a zoning tool, sure. But then let me storm an area and, if you walk through it, commit another storm to punish an overextension. Energy management on HT would become more important. It's an easy way to make the interaction with high templar both less punishing on quick initial burst damage and more skillful in that the decision-making on both sides becomes more important.
But if you're just going to 1A your army into mine through a choke point, let me storm that area 5 times and blow it to oblivion.
|
Perhaps terran can win vs protoss now?
|
On September 19 2025 21:22 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2025 20:59 CicadaSC wrote:On September 19 2025 20:31 BisuDagger wrote:
Yo, why are they picking on observers? Does someone have a good explanation as to why it’s not balanced if it stays cloaked? I apologize in advance is this was answered, but I haven’t read every comment. If I had to guess it would be to balance out the HT rework so Protoss can't just zone out everything too easily. Makes the Observer weaker so Protoss defenses aren't just impenetrable. The HT may be too weak and not zone out anything but I believe that is the philosophy. 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.
It's the same process as every other non-Blizzard balance patch.
A bunch of people with no game design experience and no game development experience attempt to balance a complex strategy game, but end up making things worse because they haven't got a single fucking clue what they're doing.
EDIT:
I'll slightly walk that back because the very first patch that the balance clowncil did was good, but that's largely because they came at it with an incredibly focused/limited concept of what needed changing.
Everything since then has been terrible.
|
France13023 Posts
On September 19 2025 21:41 MiCroLiFe wrote:
Perhaps terran can win vs protoss now?
Hopefully, the game has been quite terrible as of late.
Why do they say it's purely a blizzard made patch though?
I highly doubt anyone at Blizzard is still working on sc2, even part time, so why is there this rumor that the patch has not been made by the usual balance council?
|
It will be professional players who are maintaining contact with Blizzard through whatever communication channels they used before ESL started coordinating things.
Blizzard aren't actively developing the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
