Spire build time reduced from 71 seconds to 66 seconds.
Centrifugal Hooks now give +5 HP bonus to Banelings again.
Microbial Shroud reduces range attacks by 50% damage.
Microbial Shroud effect no longer persists for a few seconds after the unit has left the shroud.
Microbial Shroud cost increased from 75 to 100.
Microbial Shroud now requires an upgrade again (150/150).
Protoss
Energy Overcharge grant has been reduced from 100 to 50 energy.
Energy Overcharge cooldown reduced from 60 to 45 seconds.
Mothership HP reduced from 350/350 to 300/300.
Mothership movement speed reduced from 2.83 to 2.25.
Psionic Storm damage reduced from 10 to 5 damage per tick.
Psionic Storm duration increased from 0.39956 to 0.53312.
Psionic Storm radius increased from 1.5 to 2.25.
Psionic Storm period reduced from 0.7994 to 0.39956.
Psionic Storm period count increased from 6 to 12.
Dark Templar Blink attack delay reduced from 0.75 to 0.25.
Surveillance mode now reveals the Observers.
Surveillance mode increases vision from 13.75 to 15.
Purification radius increased from 1.5 to 1.75.
Purification cooldown reduced from 21.4 seconds to 17 seconds.
Stasis Ward duration reduced from 170 seconds to 90 seconds.
Terran
Siege Tank can no longer be abducted when in siege mode.
Viking cost reduced from 150/75 to 125/75.
Drilling Claws effectiveness increased from 1.07 to 0.71 seconds.
Hyperspeed Rotors research time decreased to from 100 to 79 seconds.
Liberator Sight reduced from 10 to 9.
Bug Fixes
Fixed an issue with Cyclone attack upgrade giving +1 instead of +2.
Fixed an issue with Cyclone Lock-On cooldown.
Fixed an issue with Orbital Commands not auto rallying.
Fixed an issue with Mothership attack at max range.
Fixed an issue where Mothership had a leftover redundant Psionic tag.
Fixed an issue where Mothership weapon behaved erratically when targeting Changelings.
Fixed an issue where Mothership was unable to designate and maintain the correct number of targets (4) for target-firing (including during movement).
Fixed an issue where Mothership's target-acquiring process would cause it to overly-prioritize low-priority targets (such as Larvae).
Fixed an issue where Mothership's range was less than intended.
Updated Protoss AoE UI indicator.
Fixed an issue where units with beam attacks would conflate each other's cooldowns.
Fixed an issue where Probes would become unresponsive near Assimilators.
Fixed an issue with Psionic Storm ticks were applying incorrectly, causing unintended reduced damage.
Fixed an issue where units unloaded out of transports would not reset their acquired attack target to the closest unit.
Fixed an issue where addon-build commands would be issued to the same barracks repeatedly rather than spread out.
Fixed an issue where hitting the key to construct an addon twice could result in the production structure lifting when certain settings were used.
Fixed an issue where "Set Rally" could not be issued if both flying and ground structures were simultaneously selected.
Fixed an issue where visual effects from abilities could be seen through the fog of war (Parasitic Bomb, Stimpack).
Fixed an issue where visual effects from abilities could not be seen even when large portions of the model were well within vision range (Guardian Shield, Microbial Shroud).
Fixed an issue where Disruptors lacked an AoE indicator.
Fixed an issue where units were using an outdated AoE indicator.
Fixed an issue where Stasis Wards had no pre-placement visual indicator or sound.
Fixed an issue where Liberators could designate an attack target while morphing from AG to AA but not while morphing from AA to AG.
Fixed an issue where Liberators commanded to siege in areas inside their range could result in slower execution than being commanded to siege outside their range.
Fixed an issue where the model for Zerg 6x6 rocks was set to be too large for its footprint and projectiles would not produce flesh squibs.
Fixed an issue where Ravagers would glide along the ground if told to move command after issuing a corrosive bile.
Fixed an issue where no target impact animation was present for corrosive bile.
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.
interesting changes, only thing I really dislike is the storm change, as I think storm is the one Protoss mechanic that creates really dynamic and interesting interactions with high displayablity of skill on both sides.
Other than that I dislike the abduct change mostly for design/lore reasons. Why wouldn't a Viper be able to abduct a tank, when it can even pull a Lurker from under the ground?
Excited for spire, baneling, microbial shroud and Viking changes. Zerg seems to have gotten by far the best changes imo
I like the Spire changes vT, I'd love for muta ling bling to be more viable, vP I'm not sure it will change much. Hopefully it doesn't make Mutas too good in ZvZ. I feel like the abduct change makes no sense, but between blinding clouds and +5 health on banelings I think Zerg will be fine.
Don't like the storm changes, storm was fine in almost all metas, toss just has too many of them rn and the nerf to energy overcharge fixes that. I would also like something to nerf tempests and make Protoss ground better against lurkers, but maybe that's too much to expect of the balance council.
Terran changes seem fine. I'd be open to a change that makes ghosts 2 supply again but a little bit less tanky, but this would also be possibly tricky to balance.
Psionic Storm duration increased from 2.86 to 8.58.
Psionic Storm damage reduced from 10 to 5 damage per tick.
Let's turn the most iconic ability of Protoss into another ability used solely for zoning. The strong, expensive, slow race apparently also can't have anything that is actually good in a fight. The entire racial identity is now in NOT fighting.
On September 19 2025 03:00 Sent. wrote: Those Storm and Microbial Shroud changes are huge.
Anyone knows why they are buffing the Viking and why they are making it cheaper instead of adjusting its combat stats in some way?
Well, terran needs some help in lategame after the Ghost nerf last patch and now Baneling and Shroud buffs. Probably cheaper instead of stronger so maxed terran won't be OP again
I may have to draw upon my old balance whining ways. At least increase storm radius if you're going to make it a zoning tool? Make it so the buffed mass banelings don't just roll through the little tickling cloud?
I'm no oracle but I don't see how this storm change doesn't either lead to massive changes elsewhere or get significantly reworked soon - after a period where no Protoss wins a game that currently requires storm to win, of course.
The storm change is absolutely stupid. The Microbial Shroud change is basically reintroducing Dark Swarm into SC2 only 15 years after the game first came out which is also hilarious.
At what point are they just going to recognize that Abduct was a terrible idea for a spell and replace it entirely. They now have 2 restrictions on what kinds of units it can be used on. How many other units are they gonna add to that list? Tanks in Siege Mode are literally the unit in the tutorial for the spell in the campaign, if you cant abduct those then what the hell is even the point of the spell anymore?
All of this is just more evidence that the balance team is throwing darts at a board with a blindfold on. No actual vision in any of these changes, they're just trying things out to see what sticks, which wouldn't be such a bad idea except we KNOW from years and years of experience that once shit is put on the PTR it RARELY gets removed or majorly adjusted before it hits live realms. No matter how bad the idea is, it must plague the ladder for 6 months before they walk it back and start the entire process over again.
Shroud reducing range damage by 50% make Lurker-Hydra effing un-killable now, like what unit not doing range damage from Terran? At least Protoss get Zealot- Archon. That is just like Dark Swarm in BW now.
And Tank can still be Blinding Cloud, but with Cheaper Viking then Terran can just zone out those Vipers easier. Also, cheaper Vikings meaning no more Colossi build from PvT, nor BLord from ZvT.
The storm and observer changes are just unjustifiable and awful...I'm glad we're getting a patch but these two changes are nonsensical and damaging to the game state. Who approved these? Storm was just fine as an ability, it was energy overcharge that made it problematic. Now that that is nerfed there is no need to butcher storm.
Alright, I was a HUGE advocate of Protoss nerfs, but I'm pretty sure that is going way overboard (especially the storm one). I like the general trend and the underlying ideas, but man will a P ever win something again ?
(HM is jokingly saying in his stream "Ah, Harstem is now in charge", but notice a lot of those changes actually were in a Harstem balance change ideas : . Harstem = balance council confirmed )
Beside the storm change and many of the ideas are interesting. The microbial shroud change can be tweaked. I am very curious to see how it plays out. Combined with tank change, could completely change how the game plays out.
Since I am a big abduct hater. Any nerf to that is welcome. The vikings buff. I don't fully get it. But I hate tier 3 air so any indirect nerf to that I am fine with.
The Golden Armada against Zerg has to be dead if these storm changes go live, right? Storm and Archons are the only things that can hold off Corruptors and Storm is significantly better at that due to range. Now it would just tickle the Corruptors.
While a lot of people would cheer that, Protoss air has to be a threat to Zerg players going lurkers or lurkers become unbeatable after a point.
On September 19 2025 04:11 [PkF] Wire wrote: Is this something that's going to be tested and maybe adjusted before release ? The Blizzard article just gives the raw changes and nothing else.
It's a PTR change so technically these changes are not final yet. Realistically based on how these patches usually go, these changes are gonna hit the live realms with virtually no alterations and we'll be playing under them for several months before any more adjustments are made.
On September 19 2025 04:18 nimbim wrote: I don't mind any of the other changes, but storm I just don't understand. After 8 seconds the fight is mostly over. What's the use case for storm now?
These seem very random. The storm change means banelings are going to roll through it with ease. 50% damage reduction under microbial shroud is A CHOICE, too.
A fact that is super important to note: the "50% damage reduction" on microbial shroud is highly misleading. It does not mean that it will take 50% less damage, what it means is 50% less damage dealt before armor is subtracted. Let me give an example for clarity:
Suppose you have a roach with +3 armor (which means 4 armor total). and a +3 attack marine (9 damage). Then the damage is calculated as 50% of 9 = 4.5, and afterwards the armor is subtracted: 4.5-4=0.5 damage. Without microbial shroud it would have been 9-4=5 damage. So in this situation it is actually 90% less damage taken. In general it will always subtract 50% or more.
This design (choice?) currently has an advantage in that it made it an explicit hard counter to carriers in particular. When it now starts affecting all ranged units it will start feeling very unpredictable as it removes completely different damage percentages from different units and also depends a lot on armor upgrades.
Do we have the work force at SC Blizzard to change how this works?
edit: also they should rename psionic storm to psionic breeze
Uhhhhhh the storm change is WILD. That's definitely a big ol choice right there. Definitely wanted it to be adjusted, but the pendulum on this swings like a game in beta.
The other changes seem....interesting? Guess we're embracing our chaos arc!
I kinda like the direction of things, but the balance will definitely need to be tested. Currently I'm sure it's whack as hell.
Shroud being more like Plaque but less extreme is cool! But need to test if putting several shroud will make a mech comp too weak. Probably fine as long as you're not super tank heavy. Tanks not being abducted anymore is a cool change, blinding cloud and now shroud are already potent vs tanks. Getting ghosts now as Terran is harder (3 supply), so not needing to worry about Abduct as much is nice.
Storm change is WAY too crazy. If you don't want units to blow up so quick, maybe change the damage from 10 per tick to 8 or something. But this will fuck up the balance because certain things need to be able to be killed fast by psistorm. Or else they can run through them and still live. This will completely change things.
Viking reduction as a mech player is amazing, but sounds broken. It'll now be the same cost as Stalker and wreck them on the ground. They were already stronger before due to the +mechanical damage. Maybe this is an attempt to buff mech though without buffing the cyclone? Bio won't invest enough in Viking upgrades for them to scale well enough vs Chargelot/Stalker/Immortal, and Vikings on the ground don't compliment Bio well. I'm hoping this ends up being a genius change but it doesn't sound balanced.
I'm not sure if buffing Banshee Speed to research quicker was necessary. But I guess it might make TvP mech slightly more rounded due to having less of a window Protoss can all-in you.
Don't really like the Baneling HP being reverted back again. Especially now they have Shroud.
The observer change is weird too. Guess they want pro players to rely less on F2? Whereas being able to go into surveillance as a noob is still nice being able to F2 your army.
One thing I really appreciate though is that while they fixed the Cyclone lockon cd (it was shorter than it was supposed to be), they kept the bugged increased dps according to these notes. I hope they keep the increased dps (but do it properly instead of leaving it as a bug) as it's shown to allow mech TvP to work without breaking the Cyclone in other MUs/scenarios.
Saw HeroMarine streaming a PTR so came in to check the patch notes. Balance Council continues to be a joke. I'm glad I quit the game and have pretty much stopped watching SC2. I can't believe the Council decided to make Storms useless and nerf the Vipers like this. I'm a Terran fan because I like watching Terran micro but this is way too much.
Storm gets nerf to the ground. Storm was something that toss could rely against bio ball. Now it’s total garbage. If they gonna nerf storm at least buff the col and distributor. Also basically timing attack from Zerg with hydra ling bane will have a 100% win rate
Viper cannot abduct siege tanks? lol clown idea
@wombat. The wombat patch got nerf. What you think ?
This is exactly what I have been hoping for, sort of.
Big exciting changes are what we need. Shake up the game because it feels stale right now. NOT balance tweaks. Radical changes. I wanna see pros play this.
Blizzard may as well not patch when we get barely communicated garbage once a year if we're lucky. Patches need to be every 3-6 months or at least have a revisionary patch instead of sticking us with garbage.
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
Agreed.
Removing Queens would be as difficult to do as removing Warp Gate would be. You'd need to completely retool the race and totally change around their tech tree in order to make up for all of the things Queens currently do for Zerg.
Is it a good idea to change Zerg so they aren't so dependent on this one catch all of a unit? Absolutely. But it's not as easy as just taking the Mothership Core out. The Mothership core was JUST a defensive bandaid, one that they were able to replace with Shield Batteries. Queens are a defensive bandaid, a very important map control tool, and a production enhancer. Zerg would need replacement mechanics for all of those in order to completely replace the Queen.
Good idea? I think so. But it would be difficult to implement.
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
Agreed.
Removing Queens would be as difficult to do as removing Warp Gate would be. You'd need to completely retool the race and totally change around their tech tree in order to make up for all of the things Queens currently do for Zerg.
Is it a good idea to change Zerg so they aren't so dependent on this one catch all of a unit? Absolutely. But it's not as easy as just taking the Mothership Core out. The Mothership core was JUST a defensive bandaid, one that they were able to replace with Shield Batteries. Queens are a defensive bandaid, a very important map control tool, and a production enhancer. Zerg would need replacement mechanics for all of those in order to completely replace the Queen.
Good idea? I think so. But it would be difficult to implement.
All good points. Beyond just the balance implications, we'd also be removing maybe the single most foundational mechanical aspect of the entire race--hell, maybe of all three races. Your basic cycle/rhythm from the moment you start Zerg is based around Queen injects and spreading creep and moving them accordingly. Taking them out would be burning a decade of muscle memory away for players.
In favor of queens being removed but yes you’d have to completely rework Z (and of course same with removing warpgate - or making it slower than gateways - would also be a huge rework)!
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Queens also currently provide the only form of anti-air from a unit available before Lair, they are able to heal units and structures and Creep Tumors are currently one of the most powerful tools that any race has.
Even if you think that Creep should be nerfed, these are all simply MUCH bigger facets of the race than just what the Mothership Core used to provide. The fact that Protoss is still a work in progress for replacing that unit should give you an idea of how difficult it would be to remove Queens.
Like I said, the goal is a worthwhile one, but we couldn't even begin to try without serious consideration for everything involved in doing it.
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Apparently the Storm change specifically we can directly blame on Harstem.
I seriously don't understand what the thought process is on it at all.
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Queens also currently provide the only form of anti-air from a unit available before Lair, they are able to heal units and structures and Creep Tumors are currently one of the most powerful tools that any race has.
Even if you think that Creep should be nerfed, these are all simply MUCH bigger facets of the race than just what the Mothership Core used to provide. The fact that Protoss is still a work in progress for replacing that unit should give you an idea of how difficult it would be to remove Queens.
Like I said, the goal is a worthwhile one, but we couldn't even begin to try without serious consideration for everything involved in doing it.
You do know that Zerg used to have a hatchery tech anti-air unit, right?
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Queens also currently provide the only form of anti-air from a unit available before Lair, they are able to heal units and structures and Creep Tumors are currently one of the most powerful tools that any race has.
Even if you think that Creep should be nerfed, these are all simply MUCH bigger facets of the race than just what the Mothership Core used to provide. The fact that Protoss is still a work in progress for replacing that unit should give you an idea of how difficult it would be to remove Queens.
Like I said, the goal is a worthwhile one, but we couldn't even begin to try without serious consideration for everything involved in doing it.
You do know that Zerg used to have a hatchery tech anti-air unit, right?
Oh I'm aware, but say we move Hydralisks to Tier 1. Would they be balanced at Tier 1? I don't think so, especially vs Protoss, Hydralisk busts are already meta in ZvP in Brood War, and if Hydralisks got moved to Hatch Tech I certainly think they would become an issue in the match up.
That's only one issue I can think of happening if we just swap Hydralisks to tier 1 without any other changes.
This also still wouldn't change anything about Queens' other roles.
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Apparently the Storm change specifically we can directly blame on Harstem.
I seriously don't understand what the thought process is on it at all.
I don’t doubt Harstem had the idea. Of pro players he’s quite reasonable in identifying potential issues with his own race, better than most.
But I would assume Harstem had a minor tweak in mind.
He probably said storm is brutally punishing, especially at lower levels and people maybe should get a little more time to mitigate the damage.
I doubt he advocated for a storm nerf that will basically enable you to just walk through it.
Queens do not need to be removed, they need to get a cost increase or a supply cost increase, the unit fills so many roles for the price/supply it cost.
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Bio ball will literally Stim a move and crush the toss army
Lings and banes literally laugh at it. Now banes will definitely connect no matter what
Basically Terran and Zergs no longer need to bait out storms. They just need to be decisive on the attack and run though it
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Bio ball will literally Stim a move and crush the toss army
Lings and banes literally laugh at it. Now banes will definitely connect no matter what
Basically Terran and Zergs no longer need to bait out storms. They just need to be decisive on the attack and run though it
Yep.
I’m not very good at the game, and even I think I could just engage through the new Storm, what the fuck is a Clem going to do?
I mean I know we’re in the phase of a bunch of ideas, not all will make it into an actual patch. But this, it just can’t make it in, it’s crazy
Love the idea of the patch a lot. After we get some pro games on it numbers may need to be tweaked. Storm may need to be stronger etc, (or leave some sort of status effect like a DoT?) but after number tweaks where need be I think these ideas look solid. I love Zerg is getting dark swarm and really you won't need to abduct siege tanks when you can microbial shroud or blinding cloud engage. Sure ghost snipes can be good, but let's not forget baneling under cloud will help them to get onto ghost. I think it will just make engagements more committed. Can go wrong for Zerg just as much as it can go well. Where as abducts you are sort of playing a positional grindy game as a way of picking them apart. I like this change as it moves closer to Broodwar.
Had to check it's not April 1'st. These changes, especially the larger ones, are awful IMO. Revert all please. In future a paragraph arguing for each change and a poll requiring large majority approval would be appropriate
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Queens also currently provide the only form of anti-air from a unit available before Lair, they are able to heal units and structures and Creep Tumors are currently one of the most powerful tools that any race has.
Even if you think that Creep should be nerfed, these are all simply MUCH bigger facets of the race than just what the Mothership Core used to provide. The fact that Protoss is still a work in progress for replacing that unit should give you an idea of how difficult it would be to remove Queens.
Like I said, the goal is a worthwhile one, but we couldn't even begin to try without serious consideration for everything involved in doing it.
You do know that Zerg used to have a hatchery tech anti-air unit, right?
I like how you try to re-design an entire race with one-liners.
While this has nothing to do with the patch, just a quick rundown (piggybacking a bit of Vindicare here):
1)Early Anti-Air: Queens are the only early-antiair Zerg has next to investing heavily into spores - which Zergs already do most of the times anyway against Protoss for example. But more importantly, Queens are also the only current Anti-Air that isn't shit. You can't build Corruptors against two Banshees or to chase away the (much faster) 2-3 Oracles. Even if they do, you now have Corruptors (and a very expensive Spire) you can't really do anything with. And Hydralisk could be T1, but then they would obviously need to be nerfed in some way, meaning Zerg loses another T2 option. Compared to Marines or Stalkers these are all not great options.
2)Early defense In general, Queens are the most important defensive tool Zerg has. With the need to rapidely expand to 3-4 bases, you can't wall your stuff. And while Zerglings are fast, they are also outgunned in the early game, which is obviously a good thing. Hellions would have a field-day, Reapers aswell, Adepts probably too.
3)Creep-spread Creep-spread is essential for Zerg. So how would you spread it? Creep tumors need to be spawned from Hatcheries? That slows the creep-spread down so massively, it's unbelievable. Especially considering how fast e.g. Terran can remove Tumors.
4)Injects You could Auto-Inject for sure, but why would you remove needed APM from Zerg when your goal is to nerf Zerg? And if the Hatcheries can inject themselves...for one it would be cheaper than with Queens, but it also just feels...lame? Like a lamer version of Chrono-Boost? And yeah, Macro-Hatcheries clearly solve the problem...just invest 300 Minerals more into a base you don't really need, that should help, especially in the early game.
5)Heal Probably the one thing you could give another/new unit, but I always thought the fact that in some cases Queen Energy becomes more valuable than Minerals was quite a cool mechanic.
You cannot throw all of this out. You also can't just give each aspect to a new unit, because Zerg actually kind of needs all of that in the beginning and paying for five units instead of one is way too expensive in all regards (Minerals, Larva, APM). You probably *can* remove the Queen, but the amount of rebalancing you would have to do is insane. Not just for Zerg, but for alle races. Because either you take a lot of early-pressure off of Zerg (aka. nerf the other two) or you give Zerg something to defend, but that something can't be too good at offensive either...
I get the impulse, really. I hate the Medievac with a burning passion, especially the instant-pickup. I think it is lame, a "free-out-of-jail"-card and is way too easy. But I know that just removing the Medievac and giving Terran a Dropship and the Medics back will fix anything. Because these two units together are vastly worse than just a Medievac.
On September 19 2025 10:59 Cyro wrote: Had to check it's not April 1'st. These changes, especially the larger ones, are awful IMO. Revert all please. In future a paragraph arguing for each change and a poll requiring large majority approval would be appropriate
Larger changes are the only thing that will get me to come back to the game in any serious matter. Balanced or not, and for the sake of the argument let's just assume the game is perfectly balanced, it's still stale. If not these I would advocate for some other big sweeping changes.
On September 19 2025 06:43 monitor wrote: There’s balance and there’s game design. Two distinct aspects of the patch.
I like increasing the zoning tools of each race. I don’t like the balance implications.
Game design wise, any attempt to improve SC2 that does not include adding highground advantage and removing warp gates is misguided.
Any game design change that does not delete queens is misguided. The unit violates both basic RTS principles and the fundamental Zerg design principle. It should have been removed in the same patch that removed the Mothership Core.
Removing the Mothership Core was somewhat easy. Removing the Queen would literally mean to entirely re-design the Zerg-race. You might not know this, but Zerg players don't use Queens because they are "lul OP", they use them because there is literally no chance in hell to survive the first 5-7 minutes without them...
That literally described Protoss with the Mothership Core. After they removed it, they had to add Shield Batteries, but those weren't enough, so they added the overcharge ability, but then people complained, so that was removed and Energy Recharge was added, but then people complained, so that is being nerfed and storm gutted.
Larva production could be increased and Zerg players could invest further into macro hatcheries like they do in Brood War.
Queens also currently provide the only form of anti-air from a unit available before Lair, they are able to heal units and structures and Creep Tumors are currently one of the most powerful tools that any race has.
Even if you think that Creep should be nerfed, these are all simply MUCH bigger facets of the race than just what the Mothership Core used to provide. The fact that Protoss is still a work in progress for replacing that unit should give you an idea of how difficult it would be to remove Queens.
Like I said, the goal is a worthwhile one, but we couldn't even begin to try without serious consideration for everything involved in doing it.
You do know that Zerg used to have a hatchery tech anti-air unit, right?
I like how you try to re-design an entire race with one-liners.
While this has nothing to do with the patch, just a quick rundown (piggybacking a bit of Vindicare here):
1)Early Anti-Air: Queens are the only early-antiair Zerg has next to investing heavily into spores - which Zergs already do most of the times anyway against Protoss for example. But more importantly, Queens are also the only current Anti-Air that isn't shit. You can't build Corruptors against two Banshees or to chase away the (much faster) 2-3 Oracles. Even if they do, you now have Corruptors (and a very expensive Spire) you can't really do anything with. And Hydralisk could be T1, but then they would obviously need to be nerfed in some way, meaning Zerg loses another T2 option. Compared to Marines or Stalkers these are all not great options.
2)Early defense In general, Queens are the most important defensive tool Zerg has. With the need to rapidely expand to 3-4 bases, you can't wall your stuff. And while Zerglings are fast, they are also outgunned in the early game, which is obviously a good thing. Hellions would have a field-day, Reapers aswell, Adepts probably too.
3)Creep-spread Creep-spread is essential for Zerg. So how would you spread it? Creep tumors need to be spawned from Hatcheries? That slows the creep-spread down so massively, it's unbelievable. Especially considering how fast e.g. Terran can remove Tumors.
4)Injects You could Auto-Inject for sure, but why would you remove needed APM from Zerg when your goal is to nerf Zerg? And if the Hatcheries can inject themselves...for one it would be cheaper than with Queens, but it also just feels...lame? Like a lamer version of Chrono-Boost? And yeah, Macro-Hatcheries clearly solve the problem...just invest 300 Minerals more into a base you don't really need, that should help, especially in the early game.
5)Heal Probably the one thing you could give another/new unit, but I always thought the fact that in some cases Queen Energy becomes more valuable than Minerals was quite a cool mechanic.
You cannot throw all of this out. You also can't just give each aspect to a new unit, because Zerg actually kind of needs all of that in the beginning and paying for five units instead of one is way too expensive in all regards (Minerals, Larva, APM). You probably *can* remove the Queen, but the amount of rebalancing you would have to do is insane. Not just for Zerg, but for alle races. Because either you take a lot of early-pressure off of Zerg (aka. nerf the other two) or you give Zerg something to defend, but that something can't be too good at offensive either...
I get the impulse, really. I hate the Medievac with a burning passion, especially the instant-pickup. I think it is lame, a "free-out-of-jail"-card and is way too easy. But I know that just removing the Medievac and giving Terran a Dropship and the Medics back will fix anything. Because these two units together are vastly worse than just a Medievac.
If I had my way the removal (or at least the scaling back) of the Queen would come hand in hand with a rework to Warp Gate as a late game tool.
With both tools removed from the early game arsenal for Protoss and Zerg, you could adjust Terran's early game accordingly. Lock Marauders behind an additional tech structure where Stim would also be researched (Academy anyone?) and adjust tech up speeds in other ways also.
There's still my concern that having both Roaches and Hydralisks at Tier 1 would allow Zergs to hit some gnarly ass upgrade timings at Lair tech but those could be adjusted as they emerge.
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Bio ball will literally Stim a move and crush the toss army
Lings and banes literally laugh at it. Now banes will definitely connect no matter what
Basically Terran and Zergs no longer need to bait out storms. They just need to be decisive on the attack and run though it
Yep.
I’m not very good at the game, and even I think I could just engage through the new Storm, what the fuck is a Clem going to do?
I mean I know we’re in the phase of a bunch of ideas, not all will make it into an actual patch. But this, it just can’t make it in, it’s crazy
It’s a dumb idea and it’s even dumber that it actually went through. Feels like the balance council has low IQ.
I can somehow “acknowledge” this storm change IF and only if the casting range is similar to the attack range is siege tank or upgraded lurkers. Cause that’s how “zoning” suppose to work
I really wish there were comments for the justification and reasoning. The one from the original zealot shield change might actually be overtaken.
Approach is just flawed. If you think something needs adjustment then isolate one thing at a time and try to create as much of a vacuum as possible. Fundamentally changing storm and altering energy overcharge at the same time is asinine.
We've had 3T/2P/2Z racial split for the top prize money tournaments this year, with RSL S2 and the Memestro tournament wrapping up soon.
I'm all for experimental changes but going for ones like these instead of say something like limiting Queens to one per Hatchery and increasing energy and health regeneration, Movespeed, and attack speed doesn't seem fruitful. It's just a process of layering bandaids and patching problems instead of going for the foundation.
Then there are things that people just accept as part of the game but have been absurd for the longest time, like Medivac tankiness - and on that note I think the Warp Prism could use 20-30 shields converted into hit points as well.
Viking change serves no purpose. It just makes TvT into a greater fiesta than it already is, and is largely unnecessary TvP. The Viper/tank proposition is just absolutely wild, if anything I would have thought it would disable siege mode just for consistency purposes.
Aside from the bugfixes and baneling HP everything proposed is dogwater.
On September 19 2025 13:38 Agh wrote: I really wish there were comments for the justification and reasoning. The one from the original zealot shield change might actually be overtaken.
Approach is just flawed. If you think something needs adjustment then isolate one thing at a time and try to create as much of a vacuum as possible. Fundamentally changing storm and altering energy overcharge at the same time is asinine.
We've had 3T/2P/2Z racial split for the top prize money tournaments this year, with RSL S2 and the Memestro tournament wrapping up soon.
I'm all for experimental changes but going for ones like these instead of say something like limiting Queens to one per Hatchery and increasing energy and health regeneration, Movespeed, and attack speed doesn't seem fruitful. It's just a process of layering bandaids and patching problems instead of going for the foundation.
Then there are things that people just accept as part of the game but have been absurd for the longest time, like Medivac tankiness - and on that note I think the Warp Prism could use 20-30 shields converted into hit points as well.
Viking change serves no purpose. It just makes TvT into a greater fiesta than it already is, and is largely unnecessary TvP. The Viper/tank proposition is just absolutely wild, if anything I would have thought it would disable siege mode just for consistency purposes.
Aside from the bugfixes and baneling HP everything proposed is dogwater.
On September 19 2025 10:59 Cyro wrote: Had to check it's not April 1'st. These changes, especially the larger ones, are awful IMO. Revert all please. In future a paragraph arguing for each change and a poll requiring large majority approval would be appropriate
Larger changes are the only thing that will get me to come back to the game in any serious matter. Balanced or not, and for the sake of the argument let's just assume the game is perfectly balanced, it's still stale. If not these I would advocate for some other big sweeping changes.
Right so if they’re radical enough, you’ll come back to the game if changes are made. Even if they’re not balanced
Whereas people who’ve played the game non-stop for 15 years in some cases, have to put up with daft changes that make laddering a fucking torture?
On September 19 2025 13:52 RandomPlayer wrote: If you want to keep the game alive, you may want to bring the changes that make it fun to play, that create new strategies, moments of exploration.
I love the smaller tweaks, but not storm/plague/viking changes.
There's going to be plenty to explore in ZvP if those changes go through. Lair tech Zerg will get much stronger tools and we might see microbial shroud timing attacks or a return of mass baneling runbys. I hated the latter when it was a thing but the change certainly gives the Zerg more options.
On September 19 2025 09:08 WombaT wrote: Protoss will get absolutely fucking butchered if those storm changes go through, what the fuck is that?
Terrans and Zergs will just run through it and kill you.
Luckily Toss can count on the Colossus to fill the AoE role. Wait, Vikings are also cheaper now?
The whole point of surveillance mode is just to stick observers in place, it always was. If that’s an issue, I’d argue nerf its vision range in that mode slightly, be less F2 friendly. Not the opposite. What’s the point in having observers with a bit more vision range that can be killed by anything that can shoot up?
Siege tanks can’t be abducted I also don’t like. Why siege tanks specifically? From my understanding a lot of non-pro players already struggle playing versus mech, so let’s make it harder?
Why not Collosus and Disruptors? Unless you hit a really sharp timing, Vipers render Robo-centric play borderline useless. Indeed, it’s why Toss players go Airtoss in the first place.
Other stuff, I think there’s some interesting tweaks, and other stuff I’m not sure on, but interested to see how it plays out.
The Templar change will completely make Toss unviable at the top level at least, there’s nothing to compensate properly. Templars now suck, so you have to look at another AoE option. Well, if it’s Colossus Terran can squeeze more Vikings out, and Disruptors are already suffering from their last nerf.
In PvZ if Temps now suck, you will just die. Either you play the current meta, and Zergs will just run through your storms and kill you, or you adapt and go Robo, and Zergs will make a few vipers and laugh at you
Apparently the Storm change specifically we can directly blame on Harstem.
I seriously don't understand what the thought process is on it at all.
I don’t doubt Harstem had the idea. Of pro players he’s quite reasonable in identifying potential issues with his own race, better than most.
But I would assume Harstem had a minor tweak in mind.
He probably said storm is brutally punishing, especially at lower levels and people maybe should get a little more time to mitigate the damage.
Storm should scale with MMR imo. Make you earn that damage.
Jokes aside, I don't fundamentally hate this change - I hate that a change this massive, that is a design change more than anything else, is made as part of a patch that otherwise (MS and tank change aside) just tweaks a few numbers for balance and leaves everything else as is. I really enjoy Dota's "here's a completely new game" patches, and I thought SC2 needed those desperately back when it was still a big game. This storm change is of that nature, but the rest will likely just be the same game with slightly different metrics. And after years of intricate balancing around every little number, making something as integral as storm is to Protoss so fundamentally different, that simply blows the entire game's balance apart where Protoss is involved. Because other things in the game were balanced with storm in mind the way it was. You're looking at things like medivac healing, marauder health, even Protoss air in PvP where storm is an important counter to mass void ray strategies.
My view is this - if you're ready to make changes like that, have the courage to make sweeping design changes across the board. Experiment drastically with how different units function, add or remove abilities, experiment with the attack bonuses of different units, etc. and let players go wild trying to figure out new things. That's what a lot of the excitement of earlier SC2 was about. But all I'm seeing here is storm getting hit for being too punishing - which, at most levels, it probably is - but the same not being applied anywhere else.
Unfortunately, that's one of the downsides of having pros more or less self-regulate through the Balance Council. There's always going to be a conflict of interest there which will make them hesitant to propose sweeping changes that would affect their own potential success.
Getting Dark swarm on opponent's side of map is legitimately a win condition in BW. Game is as good as over moment 1 dark swarm gets casted near your natural against a Zerg
IDK how it would be good idea to add it in sc2 where armies move so much faster across map and zerg has multiple mobility tools to make it even faster. Even at 50% it's a ridiculous spell. With how much damage there is in SC2 200 fights, a 50% reduction would single handedly swing fight
On September 19 2025 06:23 CicadaSC wrote: This is exactly what I have been hoping for, sort of.
Big exciting changes are what we need. Shake up the game because it feels stale right now. NOT balance tweaks. Radical changes. I wanna see pros play this.
Removing Protoss from professional play is definitely a radical change.
EDIT:
I'm going to keep saying it until I'm blue in the face.
We need them to revert to a patch that we know is balanced from available data.
Trying to fix the game without the expertise required to do so is only making it more and more broken with every attempt.
Go and look at the data. It gets worse and worse the further we get from Blizzard's last patch.
Let me start by saying I've been playing StarCraft 2 since the first StarCraft1/BW came out, I was playing on LAN at home, so I'm that old. I always thought that when they created SC2 they took the best things from SCBW and made a terrible copy of it. The things that have been introduced instead are either poorly made units or structurally wrong dynamics for an RTS. I always thought the balancing team had hamsters on a wheel in the brain. With this latest Patch I realized that the balance team is made up of drunken monkeys, with hamsters in their brains. I'm so sorry. Bye.
Spire and Baneling buff both seem like good tweaks, although baneling buff + storm changes are odd to stick together.
Microbial shroud seems pretty insane - budget dark swarm. When armor is involved, doesn't this mitigate a metric ton of damage? Even a bad version of dark swam seems pretty OP.
Energy overcharge tweak seems perfect.
Mothership - fine, I guess.
Hard to truly judge the psionic storm change without seeing it in action, but my first impression is that it basically neuters the spell, does it not? Most games I watch, units are not sitting in storms. They are either spread out and don't get hit much, or they get pulled out of it. A large portion also just continue walking through the storm until they get out on the other side naturally. This feels like you are cutting storms damage in half. Also feels like it swings late game PvZ to favor the Zerg as corruptors already just dodge storms. It really feels like if they want to go in this direction the damage should be 7 or 8. One thing I do like about this change is the way the spell would interface with lurkers/mines/tanks - could lead to some repositioning battles.
Its amazing to me to look back and see how nerfed every protoss unit is when compared to the start of LotV. All 3 sources of splash are now weaker than before, zealts don't have charge damage, stalkers/adepts both nerfed.
DT Blink - fine I guess, might bring more of its usage back which will be potentially important with the other changes. Feels like the delay could have simply been reverted instead.
Obs change - Who asked for this? Why would you ever put in surveillance mode? It will just die immediately to whatever shows up - in all 3 matchups.. Now it seems like you should just put the thing on patrol instead - which is gonna drive the F2 peeps (like Hero) absolutely bonkers. This seems like an awful change.
Siege Tank - Vipers have always been a garbage design and abduct far too powerful. This is better from a balance perspective but a flavor fail. Abducting siege tanks was the iconic move from the campaign.
Viking Cost - Is this trying to help out mech or something, have a bunch of walking vikings?? Are Vikings not fine as they are? This seems like another indirect nerf to colossus which is a bad idea given that you are also tweaking storm.
Drilling Claws - obnoxious ability as always, but fine I guess.
Hyperspeed Rotors - good minor buff. Speed banshees are cool.
Overall, most is tolerable to me, but I hate the storm/obs changes. Changing storm while also nerfing/buffing 3 other things adjacent to storm seems terrible. Shroud design change could be far too strong (or end up being rarely seen like the current interation). Also leery on the Viking change - maybe just 25 minerals instead of 25/25. Just make the smaller tweaks and go from there. Don't push too hard too fast. (Or if you are going to do this sort of thing, push WAY harder and WAY faster all over the place.)
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.
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.
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 18:34 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 20:31 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.
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.
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.
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.
Judging from the content of this PTR, I just can't tell whoever proposed these changes were serious about the game or not. The competitive part of SC2 has already dwindled so much that one terrible patch might trigger its collapse (the last one was pretty close to doing so). An even more drastic patch will be the one successfully finishing the job.
On September 19 2025 19:00 MJG wrote: 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.
Two things: 1) The balance of the game is not independent of the map pool.
This is one of my biggest criticisms historically with Blizzard is that they make permanent changes to the game based on things being overly strong on a specific map pool. e.g. 2018 Raven nerf because Backwater let Terran players turtle on 4 bases for free which gave Maru (and only Maru) the gas needed to mass ravens.
2) You'd never get people to agree on when.
I'd go with the Blizzcon game state of 2017 as the last time the game felt balanced in all match ups, but choosing that would entail things like returning the Mothership Core and casting a negative light on the results of a lot of fan favorite players, so even if people agreed it was balanced, it would never be chosen.
On September 19 2025 19:00 MJG wrote: 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.
Two things: 1) The balance of the game is not independent of the map pool.
This is one of my biggest criticisms historically with Blizzard is that they make permanent changes to the game based on things being overly strong on a specific map pool. e.g. 2018 Raven nerf because Backwater let Terran players turtle on 4 bases for free which gave Maru (and only Maru) the gas needed to mass ravens.
2) You'd never get people to agree on when.
I'd go with the Blizzcon game state of 2017 as the last time the game felt balanced in all match ups, but choosing that would entail things like returning the Mothership Core and casting a negative light on the results of a lot of fan favorite players, so even if people agreed it was balanced, it would never be chosen.
Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Just pooping in to say... I like the storm change. Zoning is cool and always welcome. Abduct not hitting sieged tanks is also great. Like a cold towel on my fever, baby. Fuck abduct. I will say as much as zerg may rely on speedbanes, I never liked the design. There's a lot of potential for reworks, to see what units can be used more thoughtfully and rewarded for good positioning instead of mainly as sledge hammers. Maybe we'll see more of that over time. I think it makes the game more fun.
P.S. People need to eat some fucking oatmeal and increase the diameter of their poops. It makes you feel good. Jesus christ do people just sleep on hot coals?? I do Oh my god. Also some people's suggestions...........holy mother of god I'm not even going to quote it, I might summon Candyman.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
On September 19 2025 22:39 RogerChillingworth wrote: I like the storm change. Zoning is cool and always welcome.
Have you seen any of the clips posted on Reddit? Yes, they are not game situations, but marines being healed through storm, mutalisks running through multiple with their health instantly regenerating back to green in a second, and stimmed bio running through 3 storms says that it no longer works to zone.
All of this was predictable and is the reason why I'm not really watching SC2. Every small period of time where protoss wins, not even everything, but some things and possibly a little more than they should, is followed by absolutely insane nerfs, and then those periods last a long time because protoss not winning is the norm.
As much as I enjoyed watching Harstem's Youtube, if you want a game that is remotely good you need people advocating in the balance council that do not hate their own race.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
On September 19 2025 21:30 Olli wrote: 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.
I like this idea - but let's only make it stackable once, otherwise you could mouse roll shenanigans to insta delete an army. Or have a second storm spell that costs double energy but is more similar to the old storm? Perhaps even to be researched at the Templar Archive? This version of storm from the PTR just makes no sense at all.
The thing is that even if protoss looks strong at the pro level atm, that's isn't the worst issue. The worst issue is at sub pro lvl, from regular GM to masters, where protoss is destroying everything on this patch The game isn't very fun to play at the moment, (nor to watch but it's alright) so thankfully they try to shake things up It's still PTR so they'll need to adjust a few things
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
If those were the contents of the patch, people would scream because feelings matter more than stats to the player base.
Some interesting changes, but I hope only a few of these go through, and less extreme. This game is too mature to be making this many big changes. And then we're stuck with them for a year?
Tbh I don't like most of these. I get why they wanted to nerf protoss, but I still think the race would have benefitted more from more micro interactions instead if the problem are the number of mid-level protoss mostly.
Negative standout for me is the obs change and tbh I think the storm change removes HTs from competitive play. It's now a soft version of force field I guess? Both seems extreme to me considering that obs are already the most expensive scout which also ties up your incredibly expensive upgraded production facility. I also think the storm change buffs the top tier players against storm, which I feel is the opposite of what you want to do, you want to make protoss less reliable in mid tier play.
Other than that dark swarm for Zerg seems kinda nuts to me, but guess we'll see (T disappear in TvZ).
I think abduct is a terrible spell (just like snipe btw), but introducing more inconsistencies doesn't make sense to me. Considering that blinding cloud is extremely effective vs siege tanks I assume the point was that Z was fishing tanks in stalemates? Considering that mass ghost is still peak lategame TvZ I don't really see the point.
I really don't get why we're buffing mines again, but what do I know.
Tbf I think the game design points are interesting enough. I just think that balance wise this is gonna destroy Protoss again and it's going to be a rough patch for T in TvZ.
I think the point with the Abduct not allowed on Tanks in Siege mode, is the defensive choke point that Terran create at home. Now Viper cant get rid of those Tanks and Zerg will have to risk moving their army into the Terran defense to take the Tanks down.
On September 20 2025 01:25 tigera6 wrote: I think the point with the Abduct not allowed on Tanks in Siege mode, is the defensive choke point that Terran create at home. Now Viper cant get rid of those Tanks and Zerg will have to risk moving their army into the Terran defense to take the Tanks down.
That's fair, I just feel like that's kinda how Zerg mostly plays anyways. And if we're removing poke and prod spells I would have expected snipe to go much earlier than abduct, especially since snipe outranges pretty much everything from Z while tanks have enough additional range that Vipers can get shot at by AA while the tank protects the AA.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
This is exactly why the current patch cannot be fixed, because nerfing/buffing any area to address one problem will have an unwanted impact on the other two match-ups, which is because people with no game development experience broke everything beyond repair via three years of inane changes.
This is why I keep saying that we should return to a Blizzard patch that we know was relatively balanced.
EDIT:
I know it's not going to happen because the people creating these patches are simply too arrogant to admit that they're wrong, and thus go back to something that worked well before, because that would mean admitting that the past three years were a failed experiment.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
This is exactly why the current patch that cannot be fixed, because nerfing/buffing any area to address one problem will have an unwanted impact on the other two match-ups, which is because people with no game development experience broke everything beyond repair via three years of inane changes.
This is why I keep saying that we should return to a Blizzard patch that we know was relatively balanced.
EDIT:
I know it's not going to happen because the people creating these patches are simply too arrogant to admit that they're wrong, and thus go back to something that worked well before, because that would mean admitting that the past three years were a failed experiment.
It isn't undoing 3 years. It would be undoing 8 years.
2017 Season 3 (July 19, 2017 - October 20, 2017) TvZ 49.6% ZvP 49.4% PvT 49.3%
That's a total difference from absolute perfect balance of 1.7% across all 3 match ups with each race being slightly favored and slightly disfavored in each. Nothing else comes close.
It's crazy how my feelings of when the game last felt balanced lines up with the best period of balance in the history of LotV.
So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
On September 20 2025 02:36 Lexender wrote: So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
Doesn't change the fact that we should revert to a patch designed with Blizzard's full attention, and not some half-assed patch designed based on caster/player YouTube videos, whatever contact the former balance council still have with Blizzard, and Reddit's incessant whining.
On September 19 2025 23:58 MJG wrote: I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
There are only really two or three top-tier players of any race currently. If there was a massive problem with protoss, it is reasonable to think that you would find the non top-tier players of protoss to close that top 10 rather than the non top-tier players of the other races that are there.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
This is exactly why the current patch that cannot be fixed, because nerfing/buffing any area to address one problem will have an unwanted impact on the other two match-ups, which is because people with no game development experience broke everything beyond repair via three years of inane changes.
This is why I keep saying that we should return to a Blizzard patch that we know was relatively balanced.
EDIT:
I know it's not going to happen because the people creating these patches are simply too arrogant to admit that they're wrong, and thus go back to something that worked well before, because that would mean admitting that the past three years were a failed experiment.
It isn't undoing 3 years. It would be undoing 8 years.
2017 Season 3 (July 19, 2017 - October 20, 2017) TvZ 49.6% ZvP 49.4% PvT 49.3%
That's a total difference from absolute perfect balance of 1.7% across all 3 match ups with each race being slightly favored and slightly disfavored in each. Nothing else comes close.
It's crazy how my feelings of when the game last felt balanced lines up with the best period of balance in the history of LotV.
I'm going to go back to 2015 and tell everyone that ten years later David Kim would be looked back on as the golden, unapproachable hero of Starcraft 2 Balance.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
This is exactly why the current patch that cannot be fixed, because nerfing/buffing any area to address one problem will have an unwanted impact on the other two match-ups, which is because people with no game development experience broke everything beyond repair via three years of inane changes.
This is why I keep saying that we should return to a Blizzard patch that we know was relatively balanced.
EDIT:
I know it's not going to happen because the people creating these patches are simply too arrogant to admit that they're wrong, and thus go back to something that worked well before, because that would mean admitting that the past three years were a failed experiment.
It isn't undoing 3 years. It would be undoing 8 years.
2017 Season 3 (July 19, 2017 - October 20, 2017) TvZ 49.6% ZvP 49.4% PvT 49.3%
That's a total difference from absolute perfect balance of 1.7% across all 3 match ups with each race being slightly favored and slightly disfavored in each. Nothing else comes close.
It's crazy how my feelings of when the game last felt balanced lines up with the best period of balance in the history of LotV.
Throw all the stats you want at me, but anyone who watched sc2 in 2017 would tell you Zerg was the best race. Hydra bane in the second half of the year was disgusting and it carried your goat to his first wc. ALSO, it was the patch where SERRAL got his first big finish!
Also num 2: Fundamentally changing an iconic ability like Storm 15 years into the game is disgusting.
On September 19 2025 22:30 MJG wrote: Blizzard don't need people to agree because they never will.
Blizzard just need someone to crunch the numbers, someone to present those numbers to the community, and someone to roll back the game to whatever patch those numbers show would be best.
They can and should ignore what the community wants because we've shown ourselves to be completely and utterly clueless lmao. Three years of community balance patches and the game is more imbalanced than it has been at any other point during Legacy of the Void.
Balance is more feeling than actual numbers. Based on tournament results, the game is more balanced currently than it has been in years, but nobody agrees because TvP isn't fun and because people HATE when Protoss wins.
The game is definitely not balanced right now.
Just look at the win rate statistics.
If how the game "feels" is what the community balance patches have been working off then that approach clearly doesn't work and shouldn't be used going forwards.
The numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for balance at Sacrifice in Starcraft 2.
Which numbers are those? The ones where PvT win rates jump 5.6% 7 months after the patch? The ones where TvZ is almost as bad as PvT? The ones where only two Protoss players are in the top 10 of 2025 earnings?
Both Liquipedia and Aligulac have two match-ups with a >55% winrate.
Aligulac has two match-ups with >60% winrate and that has never happened before.
I've been very vocal about how Aligulac exaggerates winrates due to the data it does and doesn't collect, but if both Liquipedia and Aligulac are both displaying a problem, then there's a damn problem.
I don't know what the earnings statistics are supposed to prove. There are only really three top-tier Protoss players right now (Classic/herO/MaxPax) and one of those excludes himself from offline tournaments with the biggest prize pools lmao.
If you're basing nerfs on numbers, then: Terran needs a massive TvP buff. Terran needs a massive TvZ nerf.
Energy recharge and storm CANNOT be changed because PvZ is "even".
This is exactly why the current patch that cannot be fixed, because nerfing/buffing any area to address one problem will have an unwanted impact on the other two match-ups, which is because people with no game development experience broke everything beyond repair via three years of inane changes.
This is why I keep saying that we should return to a Blizzard patch that we know was relatively balanced.
EDIT:
I know it's not going to happen because the people creating these patches are simply too arrogant to admit that they're wrong, and thus go back to something that worked well before, because that would mean admitting that the past three years were a failed experiment.
It isn't undoing 3 years. It would be undoing 8 years.
2017 Season 3 (July 19, 2017 - October 20, 2017) TvZ 49.6% ZvP 49.4% PvT 49.3%
That's a total difference from absolute perfect balance of 1.7% across all 3 match ups with each race being slightly favored and slightly disfavored in each. Nothing else comes close.
It's crazy how my feelings of when the game last felt balanced lines up with the best period of balance in the history of LotV.
Throw all the stats you want at me, but anyone who watched sc2 in 2017 would tell you Zerg was the best race. Hydra bane in the second half of the year was disgusting and it carried your goat to his first wc. ALSO, it was the patch where SERRAL got his first big finish!
Also num 2: Fundamentally changing an iconic ability like Storm 15 years into the game is disgusting.
I’m not going to lie though, I’ve been waiting for storm to be more like Brood War since the very beginning lol. I always thought it ended too fast to be fun to watch.
On September 20 2025 02:36 Lexender wrote: So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
Where is that confirmation? Could it still not be the same as before where the Blizzard rep consults with pros for patch ideas and implementation just the balance council doesn't formally exist anymore? But they still have their hand in the basket?
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
If you have Zealots they will run through your own storms if you ever decide to engage the enemy or drop behind their army with a prism like u used to. Completely nonsensical, and also so wack for changing one of the most iconic and badass abilities IMO. Just nerf the energy charger instead of going the other way around jfc.
On September 19 2025 02:28 Charoisaur wrote: Other than that I dislike the abduct change mostly for design/lore reasons. Why wouldn't a Viper be able to abduct a tank, when it can even pull a Lurker from under the ground?
Tyrador Armaments redesigned how the Siege Tank digs into the ground. Its now dug so hard into the ground it grips the surface even harder than a burrowed lurker. Rory Swann was part of the initial testing teams that got the new design approved.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
lol zoning? You need to go look at some ptr testing clips.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Toss rely on the storm to do dps. Without it their splash damage is literally garbage. If they wanted to nerf storm to the ground, they needed to buff gateway units and Robo
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
lol zoning? You need to go look at some ptr testing clips.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Toss rely on the storm to do dps. Without it their splash damage is literally garbage. If they wanted to nerf storm to the ground, they needed to buff gateway units and Robo
But there's probably something wrong in the PTR currently, right? Like when you go through storms with lings some of them don't get damaged at all, there's nothing in the change that says this. Think this is just bugged.
The purpose of choosing HT is to provide nuke damage, not to create an impassable area.
Even if you're trying to decrease the damage rate of storm to give Terran and Zerg more flexibility, you should ensure that the first three ticks of storm have the same damage as before(10 damage per tick), and then only 5 damage per tick.
Otherwise, storm becomes a completely useless trash.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
Actually I quite like that idea, if you wanted to give Templars a zoning tool why not just give Templars a zoning tool? Add it to what they already have.
I guarantee you though that nobody would use this version of the spell if given the choice because it is straight up worse than regular Psi Storm.
There is no tactical benefit to this change, it is a straight up nerf, and there's no compensation for it anywhere in the notes for Protoss.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
Actually I quite like that idea, if you wanted to give Templars a zoning tool why not just give Templars a zoning tool? Add it to what they already have.
I guarantee you though that nobody would use this version of the spell if given the choice because it is straight up worse than regular Psi Storm.
There is no tactical benefit to this change, it is a straight up nerf, and there's no compensation for it anywhere in the notes for Protoss.
On September 20 2025 02:36 Lexender wrote: So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
"pretty much confirmed"? After searching several times i haven't found any evidence of this on TL or other forums like reddit.
If it's Blizzard's sole doing you'd expect people to come out and say that this crazy patch has nothing to do with them.
If that is the case, Blizz should not screw with the game like this either.
We as a community can and should use our own design/balance (such as using all of the numbers from X prior patch) in the event of Blizz making wildly inappropriate changes to the game, but it would be a shame for them to ruin the ladder as we can't really replace that.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
lol zoning? You need to go look at some ptr testing clips.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Toss rely on the storm to do dps. Without it their splash damage is literally garbage. If they wanted to nerf storm to the ground, they needed to buff gateway units and Robo
But there's probably something wrong in the PTR currently, right? Like when you go through storms with lings some of them don't get damaged at all, there's nothing in the change that says this. Think this is just bugged.
Yeah it's bugged, they fucked up the damage zones so if you move through the storm even if the animations looks like it should be dealing damage it isnt.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
He's saying everyone will just ignore the storm damage regardless if their units are supposed to kite, hold position or advance in given situation. It's not a real zoning tool like liberator fields or the older, wider disruptor nova balls. The storm damage is too low to matter.
Speaking purely as a spectator, I like a lot of these changes. Storm currently comes across as much too strong and easy-to-use compared to the splash damage available to T and Z, particularly after energy battery made it much more ubiquitous.
Similarly, I've always thought of ling-bane-muta as one of the most aesthetically pleasing and entertaining playstyles, and seeing it get some love is great.
On my admittedly limited knowledge, this might tilt the balance in favor of Z, which I guess is either badly needed or ridiculous, depending on whether you like to see the game balanced around a certain Finnish player or the struggling field below him.
On September 20 2025 02:36 Lexender wrote: So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
"pretty much confirmed"? After searching several times i haven't found any evidence of this on TL or other forums like reddit.
If it's Blizzard's sole doing you'd expect people to come out and say that this crazy patch has nothing to do with them.
If that is the case, Blizz should not screw with the game like this either.
We as a community can and should use our own design/balance (such as using all of the numbers from X prior patch) in the event of Blizz making wildly inappropriate changes to the game, but it would be a shame for them to ruin the ladder as we can't really replace that.
On the flipside of the medal we also don't have any indication this patch was conjured up by externals, so maybe we should refrain from presenting our assumptions as facts?
On September 20 2025 02:36 Lexender wrote: So its pretty much confirmed that the council no longer exists and this is a Blizzard patch, so you guys got to find a new target to bitch about (maybe whatever interns made this patch will become the new David Kims?).
"pretty much confirmed"? After searching several times i haven't found any evidence of this on TL or other forums like reddit.
If it's Blizzard's sole doing you'd expect people to come out and say that this crazy patch has nothing to do with them.
If that is the case, Blizz should not screw with the game like this either.
We as a community can and should use our own design/balance (such as using all of the numbers from X prior patch) in the event of Blizz making wildly inappropriate changes to the game, but it would be a shame for them to ruin the ladder as we can't really replace that.
On the flipside of the medal we also don't have any indication this patch was conjured up by externals, so maybe we should refrain from presenting our assumptions as facts?
I think it's fair to assume status quo until evidence to the contrary exists. This has been the way that things have worked for quite some time, and it's fairly trivial for somebody involved (or not involved) to post and say "yo guys not us".
On September 20 2025 18:39 Admiral Yang wrote: Speaking purely as a spectator, I like a lot of these changes. Storm currently comes across as much too strong and easy-to-use compared to the splash damage available to T and Z, particularly after energy battery made it much more ubiquitous.
The race that relies on tier 3 splash damage to deal with tier 1 units from Terran and Zerg has better splash damage than the other races that don't rely on that? Gee Willikers, Batman!
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
I’m reminded of that scene in the Phantom Menace where Obi-Wan keeps getting trapped behind forcefields, as Darth Maul stares menacingly at him. Yes, Darth Maul can’t get at him in those periods, but equally he’s not going anywhere.
Similarly here, Toss have a zoning tool, but they still have to eventually deal with Darth Maul, and Blizz have taken away their lightsaber to boot.
Terran has potent healing and a ton of damage output. And are ranged. So a higher duration, lower tick storm isn’t gonna do all that much. You can’t force them to eat the storm for an extended set of ticks in the way you can force Zergs to, or force a disengage if say they’re attacking a base.
Past a point, Toss needs a way to shave units off quickly with AoE, as bio outscales the gateway core. One of those options being storm, the others in Colossus and Disruptors have been tweaked and nerfed over time.
Situationally, yeah there’s utility for this tweaked storm, but it’s replacing the existing storm which is a pretty core ability.
So either in a defensive or offensive posture, locking down an area, splitting a path off to manoeuvre around, yeah pretty good in theory.
In others? Especially an open field engagement out on the map? Where you don’t have time or position to set traps up, I suspect you’ll just see Terran kiting Toss to death, or enveloping them and surrounding them depending on the scenario and comp.
Storm also becomes quite bad as a reactive defensive tool. Those ‘oh shit there’s a red blip on my minimap’ and a panicked storm or two. It simply won’t kill much of anything if the opponent is paying attention to their force.
Indeed, more generally this version of storm lends itself to kind of pre-planned engagements, or ones where at least you know roughly how you want to exploit the map architecture. I can see its potency there.
That’s not every engagement in SC2, plenty of times you’ll either completely lose track of your opponent’s force, or have a rough idea of where it is, but not its full composition, nor where it’s coming from. And boom there it is, maybe from the side you weren’t expecting, or maybe they’ve set up a surround
In those kind of scenarios, you’ll throw down your storms, sub-optimally in most times, so not perfectly zoning out the big threats, and your opponent’s army will just run through them and crush you. Or around.
Most fundamentally, there’s a real problem with this change with synergy IMO, and indeed, the ‘why?’ it was made.
What is the core combat unit in PvT? The Manlot. What do they like to do? Charge uncontrollably into combat and smack things with their mind swords. How does storm intersect with that? Be the T attacking into you, or you chasing, stick storms down and pump out that damage as Zealots close, thinning the numbers down considerably, or softening them up so Zealots can do their thing. Zealots may take some friendly fire from storm, but generally not too much as it dissipates pretty well, and good players tend to place them well. With this proposed change? You’ve a storm that doesn’t burst down bio quickly unless either forced or unforced your opponent just stands in the storm. More, healthier bio to gun down the manly Manlots of Aiur. I also highly suspect, especially in a scenario where you’re chasing a retreating/kiting Terran that it’s going to be hard to cast effective storms on your opponent and not have your Zealots actually eat more damage.
Finally, the ‘why?’. Cool, let’s give Toss a zoning tool, that’s a neat change. Except, Toss already have some of the best zoning tools in the game! Forcefields, stasis traps, Tempests, Disruptors, the ability to those units to exploit their range when combined with observers and revelation. They’re not lacking there at all
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
You do know the Terrans can literally just sit in the storm and still steam though the toss army. With the nerf dps on storm and heal from medivac. As long as Terrans commits to the attack they don’t need to split or do anything. Just literally Stim a move and roll over the toss army. Without the storm dps the toss cannot kill the terran ball fast enough. You seem to underestimate how much dps and fast a terran bio ball do.
They literally can destroy a toss army within 5 sec. Even if they sit in storm the whole time it’s like what 25damage? With medivac support healing maybe only 10damage?
This new storm doesn’t force shit. In your “hypothetical situation” the only way to force situations is to give storm a casting range of a siege tank or tempest
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
I’m reminded of that scene in the Phantom Menace where Obi-Wan keeps getting trapped behind forcefields, as Darth Maul stares menacingly at him. Yes, Darth Maul can’t get at him in those periods, but equally he’s not going anywhere.
Similarly here, Toss have a zoning tool, but they still have to eventually deal with Darth Maul, and Blizz have taken away their lightsaber to boot.
Terran has potent healing and a ton of damage output. And are ranged. So a higher duration, lower tick storm isn’t gonna do all that much. You can’t force them to eat the storm for an extended set of ticks in the way you can force Zergs to, or force a disengage if say they’re attacking a base.
Past a point, Toss needs a way to shave units off quickly with AoE, as bio outscales the gateway core. One of those options being storm, the others in Colossus and Disruptors have been tweaked and nerfed over time.
Situationally, yeah there’s utility for this tweaked storm, but it’s replacing the existing storm which is a pretty core ability.
So either in a defensive or offensive posture, locking down an area, splitting a path off to manoeuvre around, yeah pretty good in theory.
In others? Especially an open field engagement out on the map? Where you don’t have time or position to set traps up, I suspect you’ll just see Terran kiting Toss to death, or enveloping them and surrounding them depending on the scenario and comp.
Storm also becomes quite bad as a reactive defensive tool. Those ‘oh shit there’s a red blip on my minimap’ and a panicked storm or two. It simply won’t kill much of anything if the opponent is paying attention to their force.
Indeed, more generally this version of storm lends itself to kind of pre-planned engagements, or ones where at least you know roughly how you want to exploit the map architecture. I can see its potency there.
That’s not every engagement in SC2, plenty of times you’ll either completely lose track of your opponent’s force, or have a rough idea of where it is, but not its full composition, nor where it’s coming from. And boom there it is, maybe from the side you weren’t expecting, or maybe they’ve set up a surround
In those kind of scenarios, you’ll throw down your storms, sub-optimally in most times, so not perfectly zoning out the big threats, and your opponent’s army will just run through them and crush you. Or around.
Most fundamentally, there’s a real problem with this change with synergy IMO, and indeed, the ‘why?’ it was made.
What is the core combat unit in PvT? The Manlot. What do they like to do? Charge uncontrollably into combat and smack things with their mind swords. How does storm intersect with that? Be the T attacking into you, or you chasing, stick storms down and pump out that damage as Zealots close, thinning the numbers down considerably, or softening them up so Zealots can do their thing. Zealots may take some friendly fire from storm, but generally not too much as it dissipates pretty well, and good players tend to place them well. With this proposed change? You’ve a storm that doesn’t burst down bio quickly unless either forced or unforced your opponent just stands in the storm. More, healthier bio to gun down the manly Manlots of Aiur. I also highly suspect, especially in a scenario where you’re chasing a retreating/kiting Terran that it’s going to be hard to cast effective storms on your opponent and not have your Zealots actually eat more damage.
Finally, the ‘why?’. Cool, let’s give Toss a zoning tool, that’s a neat change. Except, Toss already have some of the best zoning tools in the game! Forcefields, stasis traps, Tempests, Disruptors, the ability to those units to exploit their range when combined with observers and revelation. They’re not lacking there at all
Totally agreed to this, a zoning tool isn't something that P lacks and it's arguably worse in that than a lot of other options that just make an area impassable.
It also makes no sense vs T at all. T has the range advantage in all situations except colossus against 0 tanks, 0 vikings and 0 libs, so it's usually T that prods and then kites back. If you wanted to do a storm drop behind the army and force them to run through storm while kiting to present two loosing scenarios you already could do that and lower damage is just going to make this a lot less effective because the bio ball runs through the storm in seconds anyways. No T is going to not run through half-damage storms to stand and fight the P ball, unless they're already through the zealots and dissolving the P ball. And if they're dissolving the P ball you can't zone them away cause medivacs are outhealing whatever damage is coming for you.
I just don't really see what the new storm does that FF doesn't already do much better and FF comes from a cheaper, lower tech and lower priced unit that already only sees very little play. If they wanted it to be a pre-cast zoning tool it would have either needed significant buffs in other aspects (range, AoE, energy cost) or a positive interaction with anything (no damage on allied units, damage on units in stasis). And that disregards that a tickling zone isn't going to dissuade anybody to run over your gateway ball cause gateway ball sucks at fighting, so gateway ball probably would have needed a buff in exchange.
This is a question that should have been asked back during development of Wings of Liberty, but is worth asking now: What is the Protoss identity and how does it manifest itself in the game?
I would say the faction identity is of a few, elite warriors supported by advanced technology. They should be expensive, comparably slower, and terrifying en masse.
In game? They are expensive. They are comparably slower, but all seem to have some gimmick to make up for that. They were terrifying en masse (mainly due to Robo units because Warp Gate has rendered their Gateway units useless), but they've spent 15 years systematically deleting any power to the army except for Psionic Storm because players refused to learn that to play around an army you can't really engage. Now they are coming for Storm because it is the only tool Protoss has left.
Protoss did have an identity in WoL, that's why the Protoss deathball became a meme.
Blizzard decided in HotS to make harassment more of a priority, and added a bunch of faster harassment units to the game (or buffed those that were already present), which meant Protoss immobility became a problem. The first Protoss gimmick, the Mothership Core, was introduced to deal with this.
Blizzard decided in LotV to again make harassment more of a priority, but also decided to make expanding quickly a requirement by reducing the number of resources in each base, which meant Protoss spreading itself thinner against better harassment at an earlier point in the game. Cue even more bandaids and gimmicks aimed at making Protoss viable in such an environment, all of which have been heavily modified/removed since being introduced.
And this is why WoL (with the notable exception of BL/Infestor which Protoss could at least avoid using two-base timing-attacks) is a better designed game (for Protoss) than HotS and LotV.
On September 21 2025 00:14 RogueTheGOAT wrote: This is a question that should have been asked back during development of Wings of Liberty, but is worth asking now: What is the Protoss identity and how does it manifest itself in the game?
I would say the faction identity is of a few, elite warriors supported by advanced technology. They should be expensive, comparably slower, and terrifying en masse.
In game? They are expensive. They are comparably slower, but all seem to have some gimmick to make up for that. They were terrifying en masse (mainly due to Robo units because Warp Gate has rendered their Gateway units useless), but they've spent 15 years systematically deleting any power to the army except for Psionic Storm because players refused to learn that to play around an army you can't really engage. Now they are coming for Storm because it is the only tool Protoss has left.
The faction identity is twofold. It's the classical high templar society supported by heavy robotic technology on the one side. Basically the golden armada, zealots, HTs, elite super warriors that are slow and few in numbers, but pack overwhelming punch. On the other side there's the dark templar society that relies on stealth, mobility, indirect warfare. Units like the blinkstalker and the DT, who excel at harassing without getting caught but are much less potent in a direct confrontation. During the development of WoL David Kim thought that having an all-purpose backbone without micro gimmick wasn't what they were looking for, so they created the stalker. I believe Protoss is meant to be dance around some confrontations with gimmicks like mobility and stealth.
The problem is that due to the marine buffs in WoL and the lack of a scaling gateway backbone of the army P doesn't really feel elite. There are certain units in both matchups that can make your ball really deadly, but they also have hardcounters, so they're always on a timer. I believe the idea is that P counteracts that with mobility and harassment, but stalkers struggle with that against Z where lings and the vision provided by creep kinda counter them for backstabbing and against T you're always one bad fight away from loosing the game, so it's pretty difficult to spend large amounts of resources on harass.
I think the oracle is as close to a solution as we're gonna get, but yeah, it's pretty mandatory against Z as a result and against T you still don't really have the resources.
On September 19 2025 04:01 [PkF] Wire wrote: Alright, I was a HUGE advocate of Protoss nerfs, but I'm pretty sure that is going way overboard (especially the storm one). I like the general trend and the underlying ideas, but man will a P ever win something again ?
(HM is jokingly saying in his stream "Ah, Harstem is now in charge", but notice a lot of those changes actually were in a Harstem balance change ideas : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dP_tqLY6ss. Harstem = balance council confirmed )
- Asians for Affirmative Action - Gays for Palestine - Chickens for KFC - Harstem for Protoss balance
I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I don't disagree, but that's extremely unrealistic. I think some level of balance with the occasional overhaul of things that are useless/broken is the best we realistically get.
Generally I think every meta refines itself into 2-3 builds depending on the matchup without changes. I don't think that's based on poor balance or design, some builds are just safer and more sturdy and allow you to do certain things more effectively. Sc2 has a long history of standard openers or spammed all-ins (1-1-1 and MKP come to mind). Obviously with lower starting economy we had more cheeses and maps generally developed into the direction where they're larger and have longer rush distances, but tbh I'd rather see the same macro builds battle it out for the third time than the third cheese in a row.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I don't disagree, but that's extremely unrealistic. I think some level of balance with the occasional overhaul of things that are useless/broken is the best we realistically get.
Generally I think every meta refines itself into 2-3 builds depending on the matchup without changes. I don't think that's based on poor balance or design, some builds are just safer and more sturdy and allow you to do certain things more effectively. Sc2 has a long history of standard openers or spammed all-ins (1-1-1 and MKP come to mind). Obviously with lower starting economy we had more cheeses and maps generally developed into the direction where they're larger and have longer rush distances, but tbh I'd rather see the same macro builds battle it out for the third time than the third cheese in a row.
maybe he isn't talking about opening build orders or the early-game. of course the early game should be a lot more standardized. he seemed to be pointing more towards the lack of strategy in the mid-game and late-game of sc2
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
Also the pro circuit is essentially dead. Excluding EWC and Homestory Cup, I can't think of any other major LAN tournaments that occurred in 2025 outside of the Weekly Cups.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
ok armchair protoss player
You could be in a persistent vegetative state, unable to respond to your family, having never played an RTS game and still jump out of your hospital bed if someone showed you these patch notes. They’re insane
They’re actually not too bad overall, I think some of the proposals are either outright good or at least ‘interesting’, minus maybe the Viking change. Which not just in PvT, but I think will make TvT pretty wonky. Then you get to the storm change.
It’s like having a first date that’s going pretty damn well actually, but then you shit yourself, really obviously.
In terms of PvT epochs in the last few years we had: 1. Overcharge too strong. Peak Trap, when Parting was having some runs. You could reliably hold your third while being crazy greedy, and if you held a committed push you could just mass expand and end up in late games with like a 3 base advantage and Zealots and blink DTs everywhere. 2. Overcharge gets nerfed. But not crazily. Felt like quite a balanced meta overall. Toss couldn’t be as absurdly greedy as before, but they weren’t hugely vulnerable either if they were diligent. 3. Overcharge of the battery gets removed, Toss get energy overcharge. Turns out to be too strong. 4. Rather than just tone down energy overcharge, storm itself gets nerfed. With no reversions of previous nerfs to other options. And Vikings get buffed, and banelings get buffed. Zergs get baby dark swarm as well.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out how this goes, far from it. There’s probably a trained rat in some lab who’s capable of understanding this and providing negative feedback by pressing some button.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
ok armchair protoss player
I don't play Protoss. Nice try.
Zerg right? I see your TL Zerg icon, it’s a Devourer right?
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
Also the pro circuit is essentially dead. Excluding EWC and Homestory Cup, I can't think of any other major LAN tournaments that occurred in 2025 outside of the Weekly Cups.
Bro... Homestory cup and EWC are not on the same level. What are these labels? Those are what you consider a major? Id say EWC is world championship, homestory cup, meistros, GSL, RSL, are majors.
Anyone remember when way back in WoL, fungal growth was changed to do the same amount of damage but over 4 seconds instead of 8, and infestors pretty quickly went from being a niche unit (though one that people were starting to find more success with compared to before) to being a unit that any zerg would be a fool not to use?
I guess this time we're gonna see what happens to protoss, but this time with the big aoe's dps being halved instead of doubled 🙃.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
ok armchair protoss player
You could be in a persistent vegetative state, unable to respond to your family, having never played an RTS game and still jump out of your hospital bed if someone showed you these patch notes. They’re insane
They’re actually not too bad overall, I think some of the proposals are either outright good or at least ‘interesting’, minus maybe the Viking change. Which not just in PvT, but I think will make TvT pretty wonky. Then you get to the storm change.
It’s like having a first date that’s going pretty damn well actually, but then you shit yourself, really obviously.
In terms of PvT epochs in the last few years we had: 1. Overcharge too strong. Peak Trap, when Parting was having some runs. You could reliably hold your third while being crazy greedy, and if you held a committed push you could just mass expand and end up in late games with like a 3 base advantage and Zealots and blink DTs everywhere. 2. Overcharge gets nerfed. But not crazily. Felt like quite a balanced meta overall. Toss couldn’t be as absurdly greedy as before, but they weren’t hugely vulnerable either if they were diligent. 3. Overcharge of the battery gets removed, Toss get energy overcharge. Turns out to be too strong. 4. Rather than just tone down energy overcharge, storm itself gets nerfed. With no reversions of previous nerfs to other options. And Vikings get buffed, and banelings get buffed. Zergs get baby dark swarm as well.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out how this goes, far from it. There’s probably a trained rat in some lab who’s capable of understanding this and providing negative feedback by pressing some button.
the difference between energy overcharge and psi storm is that one is a multi-faceted racial boon with several critical applications, while the other is just an AOE damage spell.
under-tuning energy overcharge will break the early game for Protoss. it'll fuck your scouting and your ability to harass, defend and regen. these are some of the real issues that have held Protoss back in the past.
I don't want to go back to Protoss being super vulnerable to abusive early-game shit and being pigeon-holed in such a way that they are forced to all-in every game.
psi storm is easier to tune than energy overcharge. it's application is way more specific than energy overcharge. psi storm does not affect deeper elements of gameplay the way energy overcharge does.
undertuning energy overcharge by a small margin is potentially game-breaking. undertuning psi storm by a similar margin is not game-breaking.
clearly there is someone with influence who wants energy overcharge to be a defining part of Protoss play, and I agree with them. I think Harstem has it right. tuning energy overcharge correctly is as important as tuning MULEs or injects.
let's say energy overcharge is busted in the mid-late game (as it is currently), but in exactly the right spot to make the early game as stable as possible for Protoss. you would rather nerf overcharge from this state, creating an even bigger problem? you'd rather break the early game for the sake of a cool spell?
I'm sentimental about seeker missile, archon toilet and infested terrans - but tough shit, those feelings are all secondary to the wider balance. psi storm wouldn't be the first "iconic" unit or ability to be nerfed into the ground, or removed from the game entirely.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
ok armchair protoss player
I don't play Protoss. Nice try.
Zerg right? I see your TL Zerg icon, it’s a Devourer right?
Isn't it a Seige Tank? Anyways I used to play Terran. I think I had about 4,500 ladder games and best I could get was Diamond 1 or 4000 MMR on NA at my peak...
TvZ hard to tell, might be balanced after the changes. I dont like the abduct nerf, siege tank pushes are already tricky to hold. Zerg would get also buffs. The MU feels quite balanced atm
TvP So many buffs to terran that is grazy. Protoss might have very slight edge in MU, but come on. Lets nerf indirectly colossus and very directly storm(the most critical aspects in the protoss army). Also surveillance mode cant be used anymore (even in overlord spots)because terran will always have medivacs. Well surveillance mode wont be used in any MU. Also protoss Air would be weaker (viking buff, storm nerf) so definitely endgame would be much harder also, dt change is a joke in comparation. Did balance team/person forgot that shield overcharge was removed and energy overcharge was a thing to compensate for that. Im not sure if the new energyovercharge would be better than just chronoboosting.
TvT viking buff will definitely make the MU worse, vikings are already strong.
PvP not a lot would change
PvZ protoss already struggle vs zerg in many games. Those nerfs would hit hard, storm nerf is a game changer for example vs corruptors and vs ling/bane/hydra attacks. Microbial shroud is also better. Blink dts werent never too strong vs zerg
ZvZ muta vs muta is one of the stupidiest things ever and this patch will increase the possibility of it.
So protoss would be totally butchered. Other changes are harder to predict. I dont like the idea of changing core abilities like storm in the game. The energy overcharge nerf alone would probably make us miss protoss champions. These changes would make us miss a protoss quarter finalist. I think these are the most unbalances suggestions I have ever seen.
On September 21 2025 06:32 BlackEyed wrote: I’ll put it this way: this game doesn’t just need radical changes, they’re absolutely necessary. The list of things to fix could go on and on: the lack of AA units for Zerg on tier 1; the overly versatile Oracle; the awful and unnecessary Disruptor; the highly questionable Tempest; the overly versatile Ghost, which literally counters every Zerg unit except maybe Banelings; the dreadful TvT because of tanks being so strong that the matchup is unplayable without them (some players even learned another race just to avoid playing TvT); the almost completely destroyed strategic diversity (most games play out in exactly the same way—how often do you see a PvZ opener that isn’t Stargate?). And these are only the most pressing issues—if you dig deeper, it gets even worse.
So the problem isn’t that the proposed changes are too radical, but that patches are far too rare and far too minor. The game needs frequent and large-scale updates to keep the meta fresh and prevent it from stagnating into just two viable builds, which is exactly what’s happening lately.
I completely agree with this sentiment.
9 out of 10 redditors and TL users complaining about the patch don't even play sc2 anymore. their only excuse for whining is that they are overly concerned about prize money, trophies, and an even distribution of races in the ro4 of major tournaments.
sure, that plays a factor - but what really breaths life into a game is making it fun and interesting enough for regular players to enjoy on ladder.
you gave some very strong examples of tedious unit interactions, tedious match-ups, stale meta and the almost complete removal of strategy from sc2. if the people around here actually played sc2, they would understand what you mean.
the only time that strategy ever mattered in sc2 was when we were playing a major new patch or expansion, when stuff was still being figured out. that's the biggest problem for the long-term survival of this game.
it's a very tall task, but I would love to see sc2 discover its "final form" no matter how many tumultuous balance patches that might take. I hope this PTR is just a starting point for another set of radical changes further down the road
We don't need to play the game to know the proposed changes on the PTR suck.
ok armchair protoss player
You could be in a persistent vegetative state, unable to respond to your family, having never played an RTS game and still jump out of your hospital bed if someone showed you these patch notes. They’re insane
They’re actually not too bad overall, I think some of the proposals are either outright good or at least ‘interesting’, minus maybe the Viking change. Which not just in PvT, but I think will make TvT pretty wonky. Then you get to the storm change.
It’s like having a first date that’s going pretty damn well actually, but then you shit yourself, really obviously.
In terms of PvT epochs in the last few years we had: 1. Overcharge too strong. Peak Trap, when Parting was having some runs. You could reliably hold your third while being crazy greedy, and if you held a committed push you could just mass expand and end up in late games with like a 3 base advantage and Zealots and blink DTs everywhere. 2. Overcharge gets nerfed. But not crazily. Felt like quite a balanced meta overall. Toss couldn’t be as absurdly greedy as before, but they weren’t hugely vulnerable either if they were diligent. 3. Overcharge of the battery gets removed, Toss get energy overcharge. Turns out to be too strong. 4. Rather than just tone down energy overcharge, storm itself gets nerfed. With no reversions of previous nerfs to other options. And Vikings get buffed, and banelings get buffed. Zergs get baby dark swarm as well.
It doesn’t take a genius to work out how this goes, far from it. There’s probably a trained rat in some lab who’s capable of understanding this and providing negative feedback by pressing some button.
the difference between energy overcharge and psi storm is that one is a multi-faceted racial boon with several critical applications, while the other is just an AOE damage spell.
under-tuning energy overcharge will break the early game for Protoss. it'll fuck your scouting and your ability to harass, defend and regen. these are some of the real issues that have held Protoss back in the past.
I don't want to go back to Protoss being super vulnerable to abusive early-game shit and being pigeon-holed in such a way that they are forced to all-in every game.
psi storm is easier to tune than energy overcharge. it's application is way more specific than energy overcharge. psi storm does not affect deeper elements of gameplay the way energy overcharge does.
undertuning energy overcharge by a small margin is potentially game-breaking. undertuning psi storm by a similar margin is not game-breaking.
clearly there is someone with influence who wants energy overcharge to be a defining part of Protoss play, and I agree with them. I think Harstem has it right. tuning energy overcharge correctly is as important as tuning MULEs or injects.
let's say energy overcharge is busted in the mid-late game (as it is currently), but in exactly the right spot to make the early game as stable as possible for Protoss. you would rather nerf overcharge from this state, creating an even bigger problem? you'd rather break the early game for the sake of a cool spell?
I'm sentimental about seeker missile, archon toilet and infested terrans - but tough shit, those feelings are all secondary to the wider balance. psi storm wouldn't be the first "iconic" unit or ability to be nerfed into the ground, or removed from the game entirely.
AoE has been the primary way to deal damage for Protoss in the late game since WoL. The other ways to deal AoE damage were already nerfed. Halving the damage of storm without providing any alternative is absolutely game breaking.
Anyone advocating for massive gameplay overhauls is deluding themselves because Blizzard are dedicating a fraction of a fraction of the resources that they used to. It won't be done properly, it will be haphazard, it will be based on the opinions of casters/players generating low-effort clickbait videos on YouTube, and it will fail.
On September 21 2025 22:25 MJG wrote: Anyone advocating for massive gameplay overhauls is deluding themselves because Blizzard are dedicating a fraction of a fraction of the resources that they used to. It won't be done properly, it will be haphazard, it will be based on the opinions of casters/players generating low-effort clickbait videos on YouTube, and it will fail.
Which is why if they are not gonna overhaul the game to actually fix the mechanics that don't work they need to be focusing around finding the most stable and balanced version of the existing game they can find.
This shit isn't doing either of those. It's implementing huge changes to existing spells that will take years of additional updates to eventually get perfectly balanced and meanwhile they'll keep making adjustments to other shit that will destabilize the matches even further.
If their goal is to make the game more fun then they need to do serious overhauls to fix the problems the game has in its core design, problems that have been there since Wings of Liberty. If they aren't going to do that, then just focus on getting the balance right.
On September 21 2025 22:25 MJG wrote: Anyone advocating for massive gameplay overhauls is deluding themselves because Blizzard are dedicating a fraction of a fraction of the resources that they used to. It won't be done properly, it will be haphazard, it will be based on the opinions of casters/players generating low-effort clickbait videos on YouTube, and it will fail.
If their goal is to make the game more fun then they need to do serious overhauls to fix the problems the game has in its core design, problems that have been there since Wings of Liberty. If they aren't going to do that, then just focus on getting the balance right.
This. The balance is actually quite close to being fine, and the things that currently make TvP unfair - everyone probably agrees on that - are subtler than it looks. Keep the overcharge change, the spire change, maybe the bane change. Nerf storm a bit if you absolutely need to (slightly reduce the damage per tick or have the first two ticks do 5 and then get to the usual 10, a lot of things could be tried), but then I think you're good to go.
On September 21 2025 22:25 MJG wrote: Anyone advocating for massive gameplay overhauls is deluding themselves because Blizzard are dedicating a fraction of a fraction of the resources that they used to. It won't be done properly, it will be haphazard, it will be based on the opinions of casters/players generating low-effort clickbait videos on YouTube, and it will fail.
If their goal is to make the game more fun then they need to do serious overhauls to fix the problems the game has in its core design, problems that have been there since Wings of Liberty. If they aren't going to do that, then just focus on getting the balance right.
This. The balance is actually quite close to being fine, and the things that currently make TvP unfair - everyone probably agrees on that - are subtler than it looks. Keep the overcharge change, the spire change, maybe the bane change. Nerf storm a bit if you absolutely need to (slightly reduce the damage per tick or have the first two ticks do 5 and then get to the usual 10, a lot of things could be tried), but then I think you're good to go.
Yeah. Here is my view: Drop the ridiculous storm nerf; the nerf to energy overcharge is more important and already substantial, and it can be further adjusted as necessary. Drop the non-abductability of siege-tanks. Drop the viking buff; the unit is perfectly fine and being built all the time. Drop the observer change. Now we have a reasonable point of departure. Probably the effectiveness of microbial shroud needs to be reduced somewhat.
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.
Edit: If Blizz are indeed back in the drivers seat I still can't comprehend how they ended up with this.
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........
On September 21 2025 22:25 MJG wrote: Anyone advocating for massive gameplay overhauls is deluding themselves because Blizzard are dedicating a fraction of a fraction of the resources that they used to. It won't be done properly, it will be haphazard, it will be based on the opinions of casters/players generating low-effort clickbait videos on YouTube, and it will fail.
If their goal is to make the game more fun then they need to do serious overhauls to fix the problems the game has in its core design, problems that have been there since Wings of Liberty. If they aren't going to do that, then just focus on getting the balance right.
This. The balance is actually quite close to being fine, and the things that currently make TvP unfair - everyone probably agrees on that - are subtler than it looks. Keep the overcharge change, the spire change, maybe the bane change. Nerf storm a bit if you absolutely need to (slightly reduce the damage per tick or have the first two ticks do 5 and then get to the usual 10, a lot of things could be tried), but then I think you're good to go.
Yeah. Here is my view: Drop the ridiculous storm nerf; the nerf to energy overcharge is more important and already substantial, and it can be further adjusted as necessary. Drop the non-abductability of siege-tanks. Drop the viking buff; the unit is perfectly fine and being built all the time. Drop the observer change. Now we have a reasonable point of departure. Probably the effectiveness of microbial shroud needs to be reduced somewhat.
What is the problem and what is the tweak?
Ideally, you’re told. Even more ideally, you aren’t but you can figure it out.
This one, I’m confused, minus the Toss changes. I mean I think they’re way too far, but I get the problem/solution pretty intuitively.
What problems are some of the other things meant to solve?
It feels like budget dark swarm microbial shroud is meant to (I would guess) make it a bit easier to attack into a an entrenched Terran position.
OK, I don’t mind that, especially for us ladder plebs, let’s see how it goes. But then vipers can’t abduct tanks? Ok, presumably that’s meant to be a counter-balancing tweak?
Ok, but why are Vikings cheaper now? Toss has had no buffs that would require a tweak there, is it for TvZ or TvT? And what problems is that meant to fix?
If you had say, an unchanged viper, plus microbial shroud as a Zerg buff, then say, it might make sense to be able to pump out cheaper Vikings to better zone out vipers, as you’ve now got microbial shroud to also worry about.
But you’ve nerfed vipers against mech or bio/tank already right? So why do Vikings have to be cheaper?
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
Finally, the ‘why?’. Cool, let’s give Toss a zoning tool, that’s a neat change. Except, Toss already have some of the best zoning tools in the game! Forcefields, stasis traps, Tempests, Disruptors, the ability to those units to exploit their range when combined with observers and revelation. They’re not lacking there at all
Why? Initially I wondered about that as well. But I think it should be the race/army with the weakest econ that has the most "forgiveable" micro.
Many years ago when the meta was different, terran had more bases than the protoss. Today we see the opposite - and often too an extreme degree. I don't think it's healthy game-design that the protoss can wipe out out the terran army in 1-2 seconds.
I think it's more healthy gameplay if the protoss can poke a bit. Snipe some units, bases/econ. And then force the terran to retreat.
So I think a redesign is justified - atleast when we evaluate this on TvP. But as I said before, for PvZ I am not so sure. I hope we get too see some tournaments on the path. But obviously the certainty around the exact balance implications is high. I think everyone here is way too confident in their assessment that it's a clear nerf in PvT. It may be, but tbh it may also be a buff.
IF it turns out protoss becomes too weak. I would be happy for buffs to it's core units. Immortals and Colossus should imo move faster. The latter could definitely be buffed in response to the Viking buff.
I really look forward to Protoss players trying to hold hydra/bane timings (e. g. game 7 in the EWC finals, or Rogue multiple times in the GSL final) on a patch where the Zerg player has to go AFK to lose even 1 baneling to storm.
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........
Nobody really knows where the changes came from. While the balance council officially doesn't exist anymore, I still think it's likely that a small group of pro gamers/community members with a link to blizzard told them to implement the changes. I think it's rather unlikely blizzard would put the resources into the game to carefully monitor sc2 balance and gameplay, speak to community members and analyze different solutions, to come up with a reasonable patch.
On September 22 2025 02:48 Harris1st wrote: I think this could be cool. Some numbers have to get tweaked but this introduces completely different playing style
That playstyle is all-inning because Protoss can't win beyond ~120 supply without strong AoE damage.
That's fine for me and my Cannon rushing friends, but not for most people.
On September 22 2025 02:48 Harris1st wrote: I think this could be cool. Some numbers have to get tweaked but this introduces completely different playing style
That playstyle is all-inning because Protoss can't win beyond ~120 supply without strong AoE damage.
That's fine for me and my Cannon rushing friends, but not for most people.
And if they WERE gonna nerf Protoss splash damage and try and balance out their roster in other ways, why on Earth would they want to nerf Psionic Storm the one that actually takes some modicum of skill to use properly?
No this nerf was specific, it was to nerf Skytoss deathballs against Zerg, and now with Skytoss nerfed and Lurkers even stronger thanks to the new Microbrial Shroud I genuinely don't know how Protoss is supposed to win against Zerg anymore without all inning them.
We can already see that Protoss late game vs Zerg isn't unbeatable as Rogue and especially Serral have shown on multiple occasions and now they just hit it with huge nerfs with nothing to compensate it.
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.
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
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.
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
Nah the Observer change needs to go away too. I don't know why the hell they keep nerfing Observers, what dev is playing against Protoss and has such a hard time dealing with them?
Especially with energy recharge getting its deserved nerf, Protoss will need Observers to keep up in the information game, and with both nerfs hitting in the same patch Protoss scouting and map awareness is gonna drop off big time also.
It's a totally unnecessary change that literally nobody asked for.
Revert, the Psi Storm and Observer changes and I'm happy with the patch. I'm not thrilled at the idea of Zerg getting such significant buffs but I don't feel strongly enough about those to cry foul on the patch.
Finally after years of losing 200/200 armies of Zerg units storm gets nerfed. Long time overdue there was very little Zerg players left on ladder. Templar was way to strong vs Zerg with feedback vs caster and storm. I will consider playing some zerg again if it gets on live.
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.
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
Nah the Observer change needs to go away too. I don't know why the hell they keep nerfing Observers, what dev is playing against Protoss and has such a hard time dealing with them?
Especially with energy recharge getting its deserved nerf, Protoss will need Observers to keep up in the information game, and with both nerfs hitting in the same patch Protoss scouting and map awareness is gonna drop off big time also.
It's a totally unnecessary change that literally nobody asked for.
Revert, the Psi Storm and Observer changes and I'm happy with the patch. I'm not thrilled at the idea of Zerg getting such significant buffs but I don't feel strongly enough about those to cry foul on the patch.
Fuck. The storm change was so bad I temporarily forgot about that! It consumed my brain.
I mean have any of the recent observer nerfs been at all necessary?
This one, what? Look if you wanna go ‘let’s nerf F2 play’ there’s a clear answer to that. Nerf the observer in surveillance mode, cut its vision or something. Players who F2 and rely on locking them in placeget nerfed, players who don’t, do not.
Or, if you wanna buff the sight range, make it an upgrade.
I’m sure there’s some situations where +2 sight range outweighs the ‘Literally anything that shoots up can see and kill my observer’, but it can’t be all that many
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.
The Zerg changes I think are worth seeing how it plays out. If Microbial Shroud ends up too strong the percentages can be changed, but I'm always a fan of buffs over nerfs.
The Terran changes, I would not bother with the Siege tank or Viking changes. There's no reason to buff Vikings and the siege tank change, while not terrible, is so lore breaking I really don't like it. Drilling Claws and Hyperflight rotors being changed is fine. Mines and cloak Banshees can certainly be annoying, but it opens up some game play options and mines have been suitably nerfed to not just kill everything where a buff seems appropriate.
I hate pretty much everything about the Protoss changes. At bare minimum the observer should have it's model size nerfs reverted and it should be visible but still "cloaked" so you still need detection to kill it, but everyone can see it when it's in Surveillance Mode.
Now, if talking changes to try and address what it seems like they're trying to address I'd suggest the following:
Spoilered just so it doesn't take up space for people who don't care. + Show Spoiler +
Now, for Terran needing some kind of help against a stronger Zerg via the Microbial shroud buff, rather than pushing for more Viking wars, which also impacts Colossus play, how about helping out a niche Terran unit to be relevant later into the game? I would propose a change to the Raven and/or the Reaper along with a tweak to Hellions.
Raven - Interference Matrix removed - New ability: Sensor scrambler added - Sensor scrambler: Raven fires a pulse of energy that causes all affected units to have their attack, vision, spell cast range reduced by 4 to a minimum of 1 for 8 seconds. All numbers subject to change for balance.
TvT: this should hopefully help with siege lines, viking battles, and engaging any fortified location TvP: gives another tool to counter Protoss splash. The disruptor is going to be the only unit that can still threaten range after eating a scrambler TvZ: Basically if you can't really hurt them at range, they can't hurt you either and the next time they want to cast anything they need to get a lot closer if you pull back. Enemy melee units are of course still a factor
Reaper - New upgrade: Spatial charges - Spatial charges enhance the knockback effect of Reaper KD8 charges giving them +20 damage vs structures and a larger AOE (2?, 3?) of knockback. Again, all numbers subject to change for balance
The goal here is simple, make reapers more relevant in late game and give them the ability to forcibly move enemy units out of the effects of static spells
Hellion/Hellbat Their attacks are treated as melee for the purpose of Guardian shield, Blinding cloud and Microbial shroud.
As to Protoss, I get the need to nerf Energy Recharge and the frustrating asymmetry of not knowing if an Observer saw your move out, but leave storm alone.
Energy Recharge Basically copy Tranfusion. Restores 50 energy and 50 shields to a target instantly and provides an additional 10 energy and 15 shields over the next 5 seconds. This will also make it far more readable with the little effect that triggers when a unit is recharged persisting, you know when the ability has been used. The shield restoration also helps make it support Robo units better too as an indirect buff to them.
Observer Revert model size nerfs. When an observer is in Surveillance Mode it's vision stays the same as currently (25% increase) but it also gains a radar range of 17. Now, you will know there is an observer out there and whether you were seen or not and the Protoss player, if paying attention, can always start moving their observer in response to your movements to keep it alive as it's always going to be obvious where a Surveillance Mode observer is sitting.
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?
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?
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?
The balance council was an ESL endeavour and ESL no longer have any involvement.
It's likely that Blizzard are basing their changes on opinions collected from professional casters/players, especially since some of the changes are direct copies of clickbait generated by professional casters/players, but collecting opinions is not the same as the formal balance council structure that previously existed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
Psionic Storm duration increased from 0.39956 to 0.53312. Psionic Storm radius increased from 1.5 to 2.25. Psionic Storm period reduced from 0.7994 to 0.39956. Psionic Storm period count increased from 6 to 12.
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!
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?
Psionic Storm duration increased from 0.39956 to 0.53312. Psionic Storm radius increased from 1.5 to 2.25. Psionic Storm period reduced from 0.7994 to 0.39956. Psionic Storm period count increased from 6 to 12.
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?
Well, storm seems interesting now. Maybe it's fine at 2 radius though, 2.25 is so much bigger than 1.5.
More total damage if you sit in it, but slower damage than before. This means it's harder to mass HTs and expend all your energy fast, since Storms are also bigger than before. This is a good concept to prevent mass spellcasters being able to destroy an army, though this was not a problem before for Protoss anyways. But it is a small change in a good direction that will be noticeable.
I'm afraid new storm will make it better vs Mech than old storm, but oh well.
Bigger disruptor radius is cool, but idk if it's necessary. But for the 4 supply, I think it might be fine. However Tempest supply might need to be reverted then to 5.
Also, I wish Vikings cost would be 150/50 instead of 125/75. The former makes it help mech more than bio if they're trying to decide on a middleground. 125/75 helps bio more than mech.
Storm is now massive, but Protoss needs to be able to do more than tickle opponents in actual fights. Maybe if you can force your opponent to run through the entire thing to engage it will be enough, but if you can't set that up, I'm pretty sure you'll just melt.
Wow. Not looking at the details right now, but the fact that whoever proposes these changes is willing to make quick adjustments and is willing to consider big changes is actually a reason to be mildly hopeful.
On September 23 2025 09:44 RogueTheGOAT wrote: Storm is now massive, but Protoss needs to be able to do more than tickle opponents in actual fights. Maybe if you can force your opponent to run through the entire thing to engage it will be enough, but if you can't set that up, I'm pretty sure you'll just melt.
Agree
These quick changes still doesn’t fix the issues. Protoss army will still get melt in big engagements. Also in the late game they will be unable to defend multiple bases at the same time. Storm was a huge factor to defending and buying time when defending against those small bio balls.
Distributor buff is complete non factor at the pro level. It’s literally trash since the pros are just too good at splitting and avoiding it.
If anything it’s the colossal that needs some love
On September 23 2025 09:44 RogueTheGOAT wrote: Storm is now massive, but Protoss needs to be able to do more than tickle opponents in actual fights. Maybe if you can force your opponent to run through the entire thing to engage it will be enough, but if you can't set that up, I'm pretty sure you'll just melt.
Agree
These quick changes still doesn’t fix the issues. Protoss army will still get melt in big engagements. Also in the late game they will be unable to defend multiple bases at the same time. Storm was a huge factor to defending and buying time when defending against those small bio balls.
Distributor buff is complete non factor at the pro level. It’s literally trash since the pros are just too good at splitting and avoiding it.
If anything it’s the colossal that needs some love
Disruptor with bigger splash and smaller cooldown look pretty significant to me, it will play a better role as "zoning tool" than Storm in most cases. Colossus damage needed to be change from anti-light to more well-rounded, but its hard to make any more radical change than that.
Maybe the extra spire changes + baneling HP are enough to significantly help Muta Ling Bane become a thing? I still worry that it won't be enough and it'll just make mutas too good in ZvZ, considering how tight anti-roach defenses are with mutas 5 seconds is a lot.
I still worry that Protoss will just melt against banelings, but the new-new storm could actually be better than old storm against queen roach all-ins, since those units often sit in storm for a while and have lots of HP to lose. At least new-new storm doesn't seem obviously worse than old storm in every situation which is a plus. New-new storm is also worse against corruptors in late game fights, but non-Serral zerg struggle so much there that it might be warranted. I don't mind the disruptor changes since disruptors were seeing basically no play before. I'd prefer reverting the damage nerf to increasing the splash radius.
On September 23 2025 10:52 dysenterymd wrote: Maybe the extra spire changes + baneling HP are enough to significantly help Muta Ling Bane become a thing? I still worry that it won't be enough and it'll just make mutas too good in ZvZ, considering how tight anti-roach defenses are with mutas 5 seconds is a lot.
I still worry that Protoss will just melt against banelings, but the new-new storm could actually be better than old storm against queen roach all-ins, since those units often sit in storm for a while and have lots of HP to lose. At least new-new storm doesn't seem obviously worse than old storm in every situation which is a plus. New-new storm is also worse against corruptors in late game fights, but non-Serral zerg struggle so much there that it might be warranted. I don't mind the disruptor changes since disruptors were seeing basically no play before. I'd prefer reverting the damage nerf to increasing the splash radius.
Ehh I don't know ... The spire change only really helps you get the mutas online slightly earlier. And by slightly probably like 20 seconds? Kind of pulling that out of my ass. Which is a good buff I guess because your opponent has less time to scout it and be ready but if they are prepared it still runs into the same hard counter issue as before. Still feels like a gimmick to me, and I don't know how well they will synergize with Microbial Shroud. I think lurker plays will probably be meta for a while or ling bane ultra.
On September 23 2025 07:53 Intelligence13 wrote: I don't understand why the Liberator must have 1 less sight then the Viking and only 1 more than the SCV right now?
Probably to limit the Libs with range upgrade sieging on top of dead zone and shooting down the entire mining base.
Nice adjustments. I like storm being bigger in exchange for doing less individual damage. Seems a much better trade off than longer storms that don't even hit any units. What's the math on the total damage of it now? If its doing half the damage and ticking nearly twice as quickly, isn't it still doing almost as much damage as the original storm, or am I interpreting that wrong? I must be, otherwise it seems like a buff over the original. I've heard its like 20-25% less dps if you get out of the storm, but up to 50% more if you stay in it.
Disruptor buff seems...big, maybe too big? I'm sure PiG will have a field day with his giant ball commentary.
Stasis Ward change was needed, those things last way too long.
Didn't revert observer change - lame.
Zerg/Terran tweaks look good too. Viking changed to a mineral only buff instead of mineral/gas.
What are Zerg thoughts on the new shroud? It seemed to be quite good from what I'd observed on the other side of the matchup.
Psionic Storm duration increased from 0.39956 to 0.53312. Psionic Storm radius increased from 1.5 to 2.25. Psionic Storm period reduced from 0.7994 to 0.39956. Psionic Storm period count increased from 6 to 12.
I'm pleasantly surprised that they decided to adjust, rather than just commit.
I'm sad that we don't get any explanations. They would help shape the narrative a little, and make the changes easier to discuss.
I still don't think Storm needs to be changed because it's never been a problem before. Energy Overcharge is the problem and that's where the adjustments need to be made. Disruptors getting a compensatory buff is nice, but I don't know if it matters when Disruptors are a flawed all-or-nothing unit. But I'm willing to admit that my personal bias against Disruptors existing clouds my judgement lmao.
I guess we'll see what happens on the PTR. It can't be any worse than the previous attempt because that truly was a shitshow.
EDIT:
And don't get me wrong, I still think these changes are bad.
And these changes are still much worse than reverting to an old patch that we know was statistically balanced.
On September 20 2025 08:08 Hider wrote: The more I think about the more I like the patch.
This is a redesign of Psi Storm. Should it be redesigned? My initial reaction was why? But the more I think about the more it probably makes sense to make it a zoning tool. If the TvP Meta is protoss having many more bases than the terran then it means the terran can never afford to be hit by a huge psi storm. Thus the game must be balanced with the terran almost being capable of EMP'ing beforehand and it's just not that fun.
Making it a zoning tool could work. And I think most people are getting this wrong. Yes it's not gonna deal a large amount of instant damage. However, terrans can't take fights in it. And terrans really can't afford to just stim past it (that's not how bio works).
2 Psi storm should generally result in a huge positional advantage for the protoss player. The difference is that TvP won't be as one-sided with one fight potentially ended the game. But rather more back and forth and tactical plays.
TvZ is interesting as well because the counter to the Shroud is Psi Storm. The change to both abilities will make fights longer as well.
Zone them to do, what? Toss eventually have to kill their opponent’s army. Forcefields are already a potent zoning option, but are very situationally deployed in TvP and kinda get phased out. Disruptors were extremely potent zoning tools and got nerfed to be less effective in that capacity.
And Toss in this meta go pretty Zealot heavy too, so I mean eventually you have to engage. With units that kinda go where they want when they charge.
I could see it being situationally useful, absolutely. But it’s also an absolutely core ability in killing things in direct engagements. So nerfing it in that capacity is gigantic.
If you wanted to experiment, give Temps two different flavours of Storm, or buff something that would synergise with these changes.
In a crude sense, Zerg want to get on top of you at all times, provided it’s not suicidal. Toss want to keep the bugs away from them most times, and jump on top of Terran. Terran are the race that want to engage at a distance across the board.
Giving Toss a potent zoning tool, but neutering its ability to quickly kill things, might be somewhat potent in PvZ. But in PvT, where you want to get up close and personal, I don’t see how it works, in general. It would obviously be strong in delaying pushes and buying time to reinforce to crush it, but more generally it’s not something that feels synergises with how the faction plays in that matchup
I share your concerns for PvZ as the zerg is happy to rush through the zones into melee range. However, storm is also bugged now so a bit hard to evaluate exactly how it plays out.
Vs ranged units it's different and that's all terran have. Protoss can use to gain control of certain positions. Move forward, to attack a base. Protoss storms the area preventing the terran from defending the base. It could be used almost like a Siege Tank where you gradually gain control of a new area.
In some ways it's better because Protoss can storm before the battle occurs preventing any type of EMP impact. I am very curious how it plays out. There is a scenario where it's broken vs terran after protoss have adjusted their playstyle.
Bio ball and lings literally can rush past 3 storms and still have half hp
Are you thinking through the implications of what you are saying? Terran stimming throug to get into melee range vs protoss? That's how you imagine terrans will react to that and terrans will win?
But your comment is the perfect example with why are think ppl are getting this wrong. You all think of the storm as being balanced around the guaranteed damage impact. But new storm is about forcing the opponent into a situation where he has no good options. Stim through and to zealots/archon? Try and split which results in suboptimal concave for an extended period? Move back to fight later?
I’m reminded of that scene in the Phantom Menace where Obi-Wan keeps getting trapped behind forcefields, as Darth Maul stares menacingly at him. Yes, Darth Maul can’t get at him in those periods, but equally he’s not going anywhere.
Similarly here, Toss have a zoning tool, but they still have to eventually deal with Darth Maul, and Blizz have taken away their lightsaber to boot.
Terran has potent healing and a ton of damage output. And are ranged. So a higher duration, lower tick storm isn’t gonna do all that much. You can’t force them to eat the storm for an extended set of ticks in the way you can force Zergs to, or force a disengage if say they’re attacking a base.
Past a point, Toss needs a way to shave units off quickly with AoE, as bio outscales the gateway core. One of those options being storm, the others in Colossus and Disruptors have been tweaked and nerfed over time.
Situationally, yeah there’s utility for this tweaked storm, but it’s replacing the existing storm which is a pretty core ability.
So either in a defensive or offensive posture, locking down an area, splitting a path off to manoeuvre around, yeah pretty good in theory.
In others? Especially an open field engagement out on the map? Where you don’t have time or position to set traps up, I suspect you’ll just see Terran kiting Toss to death, or enveloping them and surrounding them depending on the scenario and comp.
Storm also becomes quite bad as a reactive defensive tool. Those ‘oh shit there’s a red blip on my minimap’ and a panicked storm or two. It simply won’t kill much of anything if the opponent is paying attention to their force.
Indeed, more generally this version of storm lends itself to kind of pre-planned engagements, or ones where at least you know roughly how you want to exploit the map architecture. I can see its potency there.
That’s not every engagement in SC2, plenty of times you’ll either completely lose track of your opponent’s force, or have a rough idea of where it is, but not its full composition, nor where it’s coming from. And boom there it is, maybe from the side you weren’t expecting, or maybe they’ve set up a surround
In those kind of scenarios, you’ll throw down your storms, sub-optimally in most times, so not perfectly zoning out the big threats, and your opponent’s army will just run through them and crush you. Or around.
Most fundamentally, there’s a real problem with this change with synergy IMO, and indeed, the ‘why?’ it was made.
What is the core combat unit in PvT? The Manlot. What do they like to do? Charge uncontrollably into combat and smack things with their mind swords. How does storm intersect with that? Be the T attacking into you, or you chasing, stick storms down and pump out that damage as Zealots close, thinning the numbers down considerably, or softening them up so Zealots can do their thing. Zealots may take some friendly fire from storm, but generally not too much as it dissipates pretty well, and good players tend to place them well. With this proposed change? You’ve a storm that doesn’t burst down bio quickly unless either forced or unforced your opponent just stands in the storm. More, healthier bio to gun down the manly Manlots of Aiur. I also highly suspect, especially in a scenario where you’re chasing a retreating/kiting Terran that it’s going to be hard to cast effective storms on your opponent and not have your Zealots actually eat more damage.
Finally, the ‘why?’. Cool, let’s give Toss a zoning tool, that’s a neat change. Except, Toss already have some of the best zoning tools in the game! Forcefields, stasis traps, Tempests, Disruptors, the ability to those units to exploit their range when combined with observers and revelation. They’re not lacking there at all
And in later star wars darth maul even returns, probably because of MULEs or something.. No, that is rly well put. I want to add that the fear of storm is half its power. With the lame new one terrans needn't fret they just pull back when they see the lightning on the screen, whereas with the chad one we have now, terrans fear to go forward in case of storm that they alrdy need to pre split and weaken their death ball before retreating back.
And also, if storm doesn't even prevent lings, banes and marines from walking into it, what is it meant to accomplish? Killing sieged units? When actually that is what is meant to counter storm? - that os apart from emp and other such tools.
Anybody tested the new ptr changes with the storm ? Against like Marauder or like mutas like it no longer tickles them and actually punishes idiocy again if people just amove with no thought ?
On September 23 2025 16:09 goody153 wrote: Anybody tested the new ptr changes with the storm ? Against like Marauder or like mutas like it no longer tickles them and actually punishes idiocy again if people just amove with no thought ?
Quoting from Reddit. I'm going to assume the numbers are correct:
New storm does 130 damage over 5.72 seconds (22.7dps), with a 50% bigger radius (125% bigger area). Old storm does 80 damage over 2.86 seconds (28.0dps)
The DPS change and the radius change balance each other out, so a unit in the very middle of a Storm will take approximately the same damage as before when it tries to exit the Storm. Units further from the middle will take less damage as they exit the Storm due to the lower DPS.
If someone tries to run through the Storm, from one end to the other, then any unit that takes longer than 3.52 seconds to cross the Storm will take more damage than before, and any unit that takes less than 3.52 seconds to cross the Storm will take less damage than before. I imagine most units with their speed upgrades (Stim, Metabolic Boost, Muscular Augments, Glial Reconstitution, Centrifugal Hooks, etc.) will get through the Storm faster than 3.52 seconds, so they'll take less damage than before.
Ignore this, I had a brain fart lmao.
EDIT:
On September 23 2025 16:24 Harris1st wrote: Is Shroud only for autoattacks or does it work vs abilities (storm) as well? Does the disruptor ball count as the first or the latter?
It doesn't work on spells, and Purification Nova is a spell.
Disruptors aren't commonly used against Zerg because Vipers can cancel the Purification Nova by yoinking them, so I don't know how frequently that interaction would actually occur.
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........
You're right they came from the cabal. Blizz wrote absolutely nothing, just a cryptic new lame patch that fits with many of the views of the council that we're used to, buff zerg and terran, and a lot of protoss hate. No consideration for how protoss players want protoss to feel and all about how non-protoss want protoss to feel to go up against. There isn't even a fix to the assimilator bug notated.
So it's the same stupid show, but shifting the blame to faceless blizzard, meanwhile their cold tendrils are still felt, they're now truly the cabal..
something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
I think with these changes (better thought out) it seems clear that whoever is behind this patch was not in fact thinking of the Storm changes as simply a nerf, but indeed as at least in some ways a potential buff which might need to be balanced out with other things. If people are to be believed, the new Storm on the PTR seems at least somewhat effective at achieving the goal of making Storm slightly more forgiving if you micro out of it while also being a somewhat more effective zoning tool. I'm not really sure that either change was necessary, but I can see the point.
I agree with Scarlett that the Spire change is potentially a really big deal. If I recall correctly, the Spire was nerfed repeatedly and massively in terms of build time, cost, etc all the way back in the WoL Beta when Mutas were arguably OP; they haven't been for a long time. Just in general, tech-switching used to be a huge part of Zerg identity (and still is to a degree), so just making it easier to tech-switch into Mutas, Corruptors, BLs, etc is potentially a big change and a big buff to Zerg: besides, of course, making initial Muta strats hit faster, which is also potentially a big deal. Ideally, we would get Mutas back into TvZ in a bigger way, since everyone seems to agree that was the most fun iteration of the matchup.
They still need to change the Observer thing, though. That's just nuts.
This seems like a nice compromise, that I'm willing to at least test. I'm still not happy about the Observer changes at all, and I'm concerned that we might be going a tad overboard with the Zerg buffs but my biggest grievance that Protoss is just being objectively nerfed with no compensation has been settled.
Assuming the Observer really needs to be changed, why isn't the Overseer also being changed?
Here is a change that could be applied equally to both Oversight and Surveillance modes:
Unit no longer acts as a Detector.
If only want map vision, you can put the unit into Oversight/Surveillance mode.
If you need a detector, you can put the unit into Overseer/Observer mode.
This is probably a terrible suggestion for reasons I haven't thought about because I've only really thought about it for a few minutes, but if the Observer is being nerfed to punish F2 abusers, then the Overseer should be nerfed for the same reason.
I don’t really understand why they keep buffing the Disruptor. It’s a unit with very poor game design – it brings unnecessary randomness into the game (all or nothing). It would be better if it were made more consistent in dealing damage, but more specialized. For example, Psionic Storm counters regular units, while the Disruptor could counter siege units (tanks, lurkers).
On September 23 2025 22:52 MJG wrote: Assuming the Observer really needs to be changed, why isn't the Overseer also being changed?
Here is a change that could be applied equally to both Oversight and Surveillance modes:
Unit no longer acts as a Detector.
If only want map vision, you can put the unit into Oversight/Surveillance mode.
If you need a detector, you can put the unit into Overseer/Observer mode.
This is probably a terrible suggestion for reasons I haven't thought about because I've only really thought about it for a few minutes, but if the Observer is being nerfed to punish F2 abusers, then the Overseer should be nerfed for the same reason.
Observer mode can be changed to reduce movement speed by 70-80% instead. Then observers have the same attention tax as like hold position lings.
On September 23 2025 22:17 Vindicare605 wrote: This seems like a nice compromise, that I'm willing to at least test. I'm still not happy about the Observer changes at all, and I'm concerned that we might be going a tad overboard with the Zerg buffs but my biggest grievance that Protoss is just being objectively nerfed with no compensation has been settled.
Yeah it has moved into a territory of, potentially interesting/I really don’t bloody know how this shakes up from ‘my god poor Protoss!’
I’m not convinced the spire changes will do what (many) hope which is see mut-muts be stock in TvZ again. For me just the fundamental eco shifts in Legacy, and just having more stuff earlier kinda naturally closes the traditional Muta window where they can roam and pin you and generally be pains. More viable, and perhaps more common, indeed they’re viable even now, but stock? Idk about that, feels that core problem of a Terran just killing you while you’re trying to get out sufficient numbers of banes after opening Mutas is still there. Maybe bane buff will help a bit too, but then why not just go ling/bling?
Obviously you’re gonna see a lot of them in ZvZ, I’m not sure in a good way. It feels ZvZ isn’t in too bad a spot, with how the techs and timings intersect
More generally, I wonder if what we’ll most see from the change is actually just making brood transitions smoother, or for getting your double spire ups when facing something like Skytoss.
I can see situational muta switches where a Toss is still on one Stargate being really annoying, especially as Storm isn’t going to be as good against well-babysat Mutas bouncing around your bases. Low key one of the most frustrating interactions in the game, either Toss sniffs out the switch and gets out sufficient Phoenix and the mutas do jack shit, or they don’t and the Toss is playing Keystone Cops for like 2 minutes.
Me predictions are often wrong, and I’m also talking about high level play specifically here. And I really dunno if these are good/bad changes overall.
Lower level play, mostly feels quite good. When timings aren’t tight and folks don’t have crazy multitasking, general turtling styles can be really potent and frustrating to play against. Zergs have a new tool to play with, and their counters to things like Skytoss in a turtle game are coming online earlier, and are cheaper to boot.
Viper/tank change I can live without. It feels contrary to the direction of some other changes, that seem intent on, either through speeding tech timings or a new spell, allowing Zergs to easier attack into defensive players. I assume it’s meant to counterbalance microbial shroud’s new features to some degree, but I think it’s premature. Let’s see if those new features are any good first!
I just realized roach wars in zvz with microbial on both sides are going to look very stupid. I'm aware corrosive biles shouldn't be affected but roach and ravager basic attacks will do very little damage so some fights might take ages to finish.
On September 23 2025 22:17 Vindicare605 wrote: This seems like a nice compromise, that I'm willing to at least test. I'm still not happy about the Observer changes at all, and I'm concerned that we might be going a tad overboard with the Zerg buffs but my biggest grievance that Protoss is just being objectively nerfed with no compensation has been settled.
Yeah it has moved into a territory of, potentially interesting/I really don’t bloody know how this shakes up from ‘my god poor Protoss!’
I’m not convinced the spire changes will do what (many) hope which is see mut-muts be stock in TvZ again. For me just the fundamental eco shifts in Legacy, and just having more stuff earlier kinda naturally closes the traditional Muta window where they can roam and pin you and generally be pains. More viable, and perhaps more common, indeed they’re viable even now, but stock? Idk about that, feels that core problem of a Terran just killing you while you’re trying to get out sufficient numbers of banes after opening Mutas is still there. Maybe bane buff will help a bit too, but then why not just go ling/bling?
Obviously you’re gonna see a lot of them in ZvZ, I’m not sure in a good way. It feels ZvZ isn’t in too bad a spot, with how the techs and timings intersect
More generally, I wonder if what we’ll most see from the change is actually just making brood transitions smoother, or for getting your double spire ups when facing something like Skytoss.
I can see situational muta switches where a Toss is still on one Stargate being really annoying, especially as Storm isn’t going to be as good against well-babysat Mutas bouncing around your bases. Low key one of the most frustrating interactions in the game, either Toss sniffs out the switch and gets out sufficient Phoenix and the mutas do jack shit, or they don’t and the Toss is playing Keystone Cops for like 2 minutes.
Me predictions are often wrong, and I’m also talking about high level play specifically here. And I really dunno if these are good/bad changes overall.
Lower level play, mostly feels quite good. When timings aren’t tight and folks don’t have crazy multitasking, general turtling styles can be really potent and frustrating to play against. Zergs have a new tool to play with, and their counters to things like Skytoss in a turtle game are coming online earlier, and are cheaper to boot.
Viper/tank change I can live without. It feels contrary to the direction of some other changes, that seem intent on, either through speeding tech timings or a new spell, allowing Zergs to easier attack into defensive players. I assume it’s meant to counterbalance microbial shroud’s new features to some degree, but I think it’s premature. Let’s see if those new features are any good first!
As I said originally about this one, I'm fine with the Abduct change from a balance perspective since Microbrial Shroud now directly counters Siege Tanks and I don't like the idea of Zerg having 3 entire spells that completely counter Siege Tanks, 2 is plenty. As long as the winrate is not completely ruined by this change then I'm fine keeping it.
As far as a design perspective I fucking hate the spell Abduct in the first place and this is exactly why I hate it. If the only way to keep it fair is to limit the kinds of targets you can use it on then it's a completely busted spell that needs to be removed and replaced.
What I'm most worried about with Zerg in this new patch is how exactly Protoss is supposed to beat them when the only way they have been winning (late game air dominance) has been now directly or indirectly nerfed in like 5 different ways?
None of these are ideal solutions to any of the game's problems but it's not helpful for me to keep pointing that out.
I think with the energy recharge basically removed, it's not like unit energy is stronger than nexus energy, you'd have to balance protoss around stronger aoe, which is what we see in the update. But I actually welcome that, storm the size of fungal and disruptor the size of old widow mine splash, now we're talking. Then as protoss fall behind to zerg and terran due to having to play über safe (no battery overcharge, no good energy overcharge) then at least protoss can start to mount comebacks instead of just falling over and dying. It also doesn't matter if stinky zerg cloud is OP when we have powerful spells, for fairness sake widow mine should have 1.75 splash again and banes should do its oldschool dmg and can start at 35hp alrdy from hatch tech.
The cheap viking can honestly be interesting 125\50,is pretty good for ground viking, it's just incredibly busted for flight viking, even with the 25 mineral decrease I think it should lose 1 range, and also the +10 hp it received in hots, I think it was. Ground attack could be changed to 14+4vs. Light or something so it 3 shots workers and can do well vs. some units, the +vs mechanical never made sense, it's a gatlin gun.
There're still a lot of dumb dumbs, why did we remove the cyclone bug? We've tried to make mech vs. protoss work since hots with warhounds, why are we now removing what seems to actually work somewhat.. because it wasn't meant to happen?, most of these patches weren't meant to happen, but here we are.
Abductape should work on siege tanks as intended anything else is dumb, let it abduct mship as well and keep the menacing mship as is.
Why aren't we reverting the hatch+queen cost, is anyone happy with this change?
I forgot energy overcharge could be changed to also reset cooldowns then it could be used on immo barrier, disruptor and void ray to great effect and help build order variety. I also like suggestion to add 100 shields, then adept could shade in and tank tankfire!
Watching some games in Wardi's PTR open makes it very obvious how important splash damage is for Protoss against Terran who can and will just pull the boys and overwhelm in the mid game. That's not to say that the current build is a problem because herO has seemingly decided he's going to play without splash which we cannot say is the correct decision based on less than a day of play.
On September 23 2025 22:52 MJG wrote: Assuming the Observer really needs to be changed, why isn't the Overseer also being changed?
Here is a change that could be applied equally to both Oversight and Surveillance modes:
Unit no longer acts as a Detector.
If only want map vision, you can put the unit into Oversight/Surveillance mode.
If you need a detector, you can put the unit into Overseer/Observer mode.
This is probably a terrible suggestion for reasons I haven't thought about because I've only really thought about it for a few minutes, but if the Observer is being nerfed to punish F2 abusers, then the Overseer should be nerfed for the same reason.
Why is using F2 so frowned upon anyway? If you’re using it all the time, you’re pulling all sorts of units that aren’t observers out of position too, which is generally bad anyway. There are times when it’s the best option, such as ‘uh oh a push I didn’t see and set up for has arrived, I need to pull all my army’. In which scenario, you ended up pulling all your observers too, and locking them in place was an OK solution IMO.
For all its flaws I think Stormgate did a pretty damn good job with control groups, and letting you customise how they worked or the equivalent of an all army hotkey in that game.
But yeah as a tradeoff, I like this! If one needs a tradeoff.
The tradeoff should be a nerf though, if required. Maybe you could drop the vision range by 1, as an alternative. It shouldn’t be a situational buff, accompanied with a gigantic nerf that makes it useless to use the ability in other scenarios.
Speaking of the buff component, and it being situational, isn’t it going to be really annoying in those specific situations? Surveillance mode obs in dead spaces, well they’re going to cover things like drop avenues a good bit better, with less effort in terms of placement. Surveillance mode obs are also going to give deathballs more vision range, and be less exposed as they can sit further back.
Aside from anything else, why does the observer keep getting these bloomin weird nerfs anyway?
And I mean weird because I frequent many an SC space, and there’s a lot of balance whine about all sorts.
Some don’t like observers being invisible and doing their thing. Then someone counters with ‘lategame Terran has infinite scans’ or ‘a good Zerg can see half the map with creep’. Standard stuff!
Rarely did I see ‘observers are slightly too fast’ or ‘observer’s model is too small’ or ‘observers are OP in surveillance mode in conjunction with F2’
The sequence of changes, they’re by no means outrageous, but where are they coming from?
They really smack of the frustrations of like, a singular pro player, almost certainly a Terran. Especially given one of the stated reasons for the speed change was that it was ‘frustrating’ that an obs could escape after a scan. Which I mean, if the Toss player is paying sufficient attention to do that, isn’t that a good thing?
Either herO and MaxPax think that Storm is still worthless to use despite the latest change, or they purposely not using any Storm and lose to Clem so that it wont be nerfed any further.
The only explanation I could think off to nerf Observers like this might be for lower levels? You can't really park an observer in your enemies base in pro-play, bu lower-level players might not spot the Observer or have detection for that, so essentially Protoss have essentially a "legal maphack" for the entire game if they just put their Observers into Surveillance Mode. You can't do that with Overseers, since they are not invisible.
Not saying it is a good reason to this ofc, but for me it is the only explanation that makes sense and that isn't just "we throw Protoss-nerfs at the wall and see what sticks"
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
Storm is buffed alongside disruptor
yes, correct. storm is buffed and disruptors are insanely buffed after this update.
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
Storm is buffed alongside disruptor
yes, correct. storm is buffed and disruptors are insanely buffed after this update.
It’s definitely a buff to Disruptors, I think the storm change remains to be seeen. Or it’s a buff in some scenarios and a nerf in others
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
Storm is buffed alongside disruptor
yes, correct. storm is buffed and disruptors are insanely buffed after this update.
It’s definitely a buff to Disruptors, I think the storm change remains to be seeen. Or it’s a buff in some scenarios and a nerf in others
The biggest buff imo is the size of the storm. The damage can be argued it is a "change" and not a buff, but the size I think tilts it to be overall a buff to storm.
On September 23 2025 22:52 MJG wrote: Assuming the Observer really needs to be changed, why isn't the Overseer also being changed?
Here is a change that could be applied equally to both Oversight and Surveillance modes:
Unit no longer acts as a Detector.
If only want map vision, you can put the unit into Oversight/Surveillance mode.
If you need a detector, you can put the unit into Overseer/Observer mode.
This is probably a terrible suggestion for reasons I haven't thought about because I've only really thought about it for a few minutes, but if the Observer is being nerfed to punish F2 abusers, then the Overseer should be nerfed for the same reason.
Why is using F2 so frowned upon anyway? If you’re using it all the time, you’re pulling all sorts of units that aren’t observers out of position too, which is generally bad anyway. There are times when it’s the best option, such as ‘uh oh a push I didn’t see and set up for has arrived, I need to pull all my army’. In which scenario, you ended up pulling all your observers too, and locking them in place was an OK solution IMO.
For all its flaws I think Stormgate did a pretty damn good job with control groups, and letting you customise how they worked or the equivalent of an all army hotkey in that game.
But yeah as a tradeoff, I like this! If one needs a tradeoff.
The tradeoff should be a nerf though, if required. Maybe you could drop the vision range by 1, as an alternative. It shouldn’t be a situational buff, accompanied with a gigantic nerf that makes it useless to use the ability in other scenarios.
Speaking of the buff component, and it being situational, isn’t it going to be really annoying in those specific situations? Surveillance mode obs in dead spaces, well they’re going to cover things like drop avenues a good bit better, with less effort in terms of placement. Surveillance mode obs are also going to give deathballs more vision range, and be less exposed as they can sit further back.
Aside from anything else, why does the observer keep getting these bloomin weird nerfs anyway?
And I mean weird because I frequent many an SC space, and there’s a lot of balance whine about all sorts.
Some don’t like observers being invisible and doing their thing. Then someone counters with ‘lategame Terran has infinite scans’ or ‘a good Zerg can see half the map with creep’. Standard stuff!
Rarely did I see ‘observers are slightly too fast’ or ‘observer’s model is too small’ or ‘observers are OP in surveillance mode in conjunction with F2’
The sequence of changes, they’re by no means outrageous, but where are they coming from?
They really smack of the frustrations of like, a singular pro player, almost certainly a Terran. Especially given one of the stated reasons for the speed change was that it was ‘frustrating’ that an obs could escape after a scan. Which I mean, if the Toss player is paying sufficient attention to do that, isn’t that a good thing?
I actually don't mind Observers being "visible" in surveillance mode but they should still require detection to kill as otherwise they just become too vulnerable. I also don't get the F2 hate directed at the Obs as Protoss also suffers from leaving a hole in their defense when using F2 since you are usually leaving a hold position unit in your wall. That risk stays regardless of any Obs change and run bys are a risk for most of the game.
My alternative suggestion is to leave surveillance mode as currently implemented in the live game, or potentially even remove the sight range buff, and add a radar range. Obs is now "visible" without actually being visible and gives ample warning to the opponent of your army being scouted or not.
( I play all three races, I do not hate P at all, but I feel some nerf to P is acceptable especially in T bio vs P )
* obs I don't think it's about F2, I simply do not like the idea of an army being watched or even detected unknowingly. Overseer, scan, raven, even the changeling is visible. I love to watch high level P games, the way competent P bros get vision around their bases. Parking sieged observers near bases in dead air space seems a bit silly and too punishing for the opponent (T doing drops). Alternatively, I could imagine observers being invisible while moving only (patrolling as well). Targetable without detection while stopped, on hold position, or sieged. Could be slightly cheaper at 25/50 and maybe even faster to produce.
* storm I won't try to make it about pro level balance. On my level it's a bit too easy to get 5-6-7 templar bros and storm the shit out of T marine dudes. Current iteration with the radius increase, however, is a clear buff, as Riddler showed. I actually would not mind a storm that is weaker against light units, and stronger against heavier units (roaches). I could see the following make sense: old radius (1.5), slightly (+25%) increased duration, 60 base damage, +60 (=120) against armored, in first ~0.2s it plays the animation but does no damage (handling overlapping storms requires a careful implementation).
On September 24 2025 15:48 bela.mervado wrote: ( I play all three races, I do not hate P at all, but I feel some nerf to P is acceptable especially in T bio vs P )
* obs I don't think it's about F2, I simply do not like the idea of an army being watched or even detected unknowingly. Overseer, scan, raven, even the changeling is visible. I love to watch high level P games, the way competent P bros get vision around their bases. Parking sieged observers near bases in dead air space seems a bit silly and too punishing for the opponent (T doing drops). Alternatively, I could imagine observers being invisible while moving only (patrolling as well). Targetable without detection while stopped, on hold position, or sieged. Could be slightly cheaper at 25/50 and maybe even faster to produce.
* storm I won't try to make it about pro level balance. On my level it's a bit too easy to get 5-6-7 templar bros and storm the shit out of T marine dudes. Current iteration with the radius increase, however, is a clear buff, as Riddler showed. I actually would not mind a storm that is weaker against light units, and stronger against heavier units (roaches). I could see the following make sense: old radius (1.5), slightly (+25%) increased duration, 60 base damage, +60 (=120) against armored, in first ~0.2s it plays the animation but does no damage (handling overlapping storms requires a careful implementation).
Observers have always been neat because of how specialized they are as dedicated detection units. Every other race, their detection has utility other than just straight detection. Overseers in SC2 can also cast changelings for extra map vision and Contaminate on structures to block production. Ravens are caster units that can drop turrets or support armies or disable mechanical units. This even goes back to Brood War where Overlords provided supply and could be used as Transports while Science Vessels were also caster units like Ravens are.
Observers are just detectors, that's all they do, that's all they've ever done. That's why it makes sense that they get to have that permanent cloaking feature, that's why it makes sense they are small and hard to see. They are dedicated scouting and detection units that have absolutely 0 use in combat for any other purpose.
So it makes complete sense to me that they are more powerful in that dedicated role because they are a specialized unit.
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
Storm is buffed alongside disruptor
yes, correct. storm is buffed and disruptors are insanely buffed after this update.
Yeah I don't know why people aren't more vocal on that one. Disruptors were insanely oppressive in PvT before the nerfs and now they will be stronger than ever
On September 23 2025 20:09 angry_maia wrote: something i feel very frustrated by is this pattern of
1. nerf disruptor because disruptor is rng/annoying/oppressive. 2. toss uses storm now 3. nerf strom and buff disruptor?!?!
like what are we going to do, just keep going in circles? as everyone keeps pointing out, storm was never the reason P ever got imbalanced, and it's been around forever.
Storm is buffed alongside disruptor
yes, correct. storm is buffed and disruptors are insanely buffed after this update.
Yeah I don't know why people aren't more vocal on that one. Disruptors were insanely oppressive in PvT before the nerfs and now they will be stronger than ever
They're not going to be stronger than ever because they didn't revert the damage nerf.
I am opposed to Disruptors being buffed though.
Storm doesn't need to be changed.
Just nerf Energy Recharge.
EDIT:
I would even get rid of the Energy Recharge cooldown buff:
"Energy Overcharge cooldown reduced from 60 to 45 seconds."
Just give it the straight-up 50% energy restoration nerf.
These patch notes have undergone a weird turn. I would scrap the obs nerf, just nerf energy overcharge a bit, and buff colossi instead of disrupters tbh, then see how the buffs to the other races affect the metagame. Microbial shroud seems stupid strong rn, but i am willing to wait and see.
On September 24 2025 15:48 bela.mervado wrote: ( I play all three races, I do not hate P at all, but I feel some nerf to P is acceptable especially in T bio vs P )
* obs I don't think it's about F2, I simply do not like the idea of an army being watched or even detected unknowingly. Overseer, scan, raven, even the changeling is visible. I love to watch high level P games, the way competent P bros get vision around their bases. Parking sieged observers near bases in dead air space seems a bit silly and too punishing for the opponent (T doing drops). Alternatively, I could imagine observers being invisible while moving only (patrolling as well). Targetable without detection while stopped, on hold position, or sieged. Could be slightly cheaper at 25/50 and maybe even faster to produce.
I kinda agree with this, but I do think that this change is functionally the same as removing the seige ability entirely. At least at higher level games. Like, I can't really think of a point in a game where you could safely uncloak it and have it seiged up, be useful, and not lose it?
Also you can straight up see the observer even when its invisible, much easier when it's moving ofc. I bound my camera up and down keys as well to help find stationary ones.
Parking obs in dead space to catch drops is tough though lol, I will say that's the only thing that kinda makes sense with the uncloak change. Now you can know there was one watching your drop, but even that rationale seems lame because you have to specifically produce an observer while an overlord can do the exact job better (spotting drops while chilling in dead air space) and provide supply.
Edit: it's a little funny to me this obs thing gets changed while we still have overlord pillars littering the map
On September 24 2025 21:48 baldgye wrote: Like, I can't really think of a point in a game where you could safely uncloak it and have it seiged up, be useful, and not lose it?
It's still useful to siege one obs in the dead airspace, but the terran drop would see it now (but can't kill it). The buffed vision would cover a large area.
They might as well just rip the hotkey settings and ideas directly from Stormgate. Would be huge for QoL long term and a reduced barrier to entry for new players. Would make for better games from the micro and multi pronged attacks.
Watched Wardi's ptr tournament. Disruptors still seem as bad as ever against anyone with a pulse, glad they were at least attempted though.
Ignoring the fodder the PvT's looked pretty skewed, and the Viking count was noticeable. Could have easily made it to the lib suffocation phase next but wasn't necessary.
Clem was already somehow managing to win the 'impossible' matchup before, now we just get walkover status vs the 2nd/3rd best protoss.
Observer nerf is when the observer stops being an observer, it's pretty dumb, but I have an idea let's make it so the overseer siege mode makes that one invisible, but also blind, lol.
The aoe buffs are needed because energy overcharge now isn't a buff from battery overcharge and back then protoss was bad and storm + disruptors weren't used. They elected the aoe buff over increasing disruptor dmg and reducing supply, so it's perhaps not OP, but a real 4 supply unit.
Libs should have vision of its circle without range upg, imo, and this nerf only makes sense if we're buffing back to 3 range + with the range upg, or changing to the +2 circle increase they were on about in the previous patch. But they could also make it so that while its circle is op it has guaranteed vision of that circle, however the unit itself due to tunneling its vision gets lowered down to 4. This way a +3 range lib has full power, but it's unaware of attacks from behind, that could be interesting.
On September 25 2025 03:26 Minase wrote: Wish they'd remove the disruptor.
I salute the terrans who are still planning to play ranked on the next patch. you're made of stronger stuff than me
I don't enjoy smurfing in ranked. one way to do it is to grind a hundred games until you hit your realistic best MMR, then play unranked for the rest of a season. that way you can just insta-leave TvP without griefing people in the other match-ups
at that point, keep the overcharge nerf, scrap all the storm changes, leave disruptors as they were and pray this is enough to make TvP playable again.
I don't understand how there isn't more talks about how strong shroud would be, and feedback is "just fight away from it" or "back off"
People complain about Skytoss or mech on the power on direct fights. People complained about PDD because it nulled a lot of projectile damage coming in. This is just as powerful and a lot more general.
In BW, getting a dark swarm on opponent's side of map is huge pressure and win condition on itself. It's straight up a win if dark swarm gets up near opponent natural. And this is on a game where there's incredibly powerful spellcasters and maps are lot larger and armies move lot, lot slower.
SC2 units move much faster and maps are way more compact. There isn't always a case where you can just back off or play perfectly with perfect vision. Sometimes, army can just maneuver into places where you have to take a fight and this nearly guarantees a win
This screams that +1 hydra range buff that lasted less than a week before it got reverted. All this does is let it run wild for short time before revert which achieves nothing for balance patch, which ultimately resolves nothing. It's a waste of time for everyone
On September 25 2025 08:27 jinjin5000 wrote: I don't understand how there isn't more talks about how strong shroud would be, and feedback is "just fight away from it" or "back off"
People complain about Skytoss or mech on the power on direct fights. People complained about PDD because it nulled a lot of projectile damage coming in. This is just as powerful and a lot more general.
In BW, getting a dark swarm on opponent's side of map is huge pressure and win condition on itself. It's straight up a win if dark swarm gets up near opponent natural. And this is on a game where there's incredibly powerful spellcasters and maps are lot larger and armies move lot, lot slower.
SC2 units move much faster and maps are way more compact. There isn't always a case where you can just back off or play perfectly with perfect vision. Sometimes, army can just maneuver into places where you have to take a fight and this nearly guarantees a win
This screams that +1 hydra range buff that lasted less than a week before it got reverted. All this does is let it run wild for short time before revert which achieves nothing for balance patch, which ultimately resolves nothing. It's a waste of time for everyone
Seems these days Zerg never plays in anything with a prize pool under 1000$ so their changes will fly under the radar!
More seriously, I have no idea who felt Zerg needed such a big change. PvZ and TvZ could both obviously be improved on from a player/viewer perspective, but seem relatively balanced. Also, the worst part of PvZ is how toss has to go skytoss because lurkers at a critical mass wins on the ground, and buffed shroud makes lurkers an even bigger problem.
I really wish the patch buffed ground toss against lurkers while nerfing skytoss. Something like a late-game upgrade for immortals (maybe enhanced armor against splash?) paired with reverting tempest buffs.
On September 25 2025 08:27 jinjin5000 wrote: I don't understand how there isn't more talks about how strong shroud would be, and feedback is "just fight away from it" or "back off"
People complain about Skytoss or mech on the power on direct fights. People complained about PDD because it nulled a lot of projectile damage coming in. This is just as powerful and a lot more general.
In BW, getting a dark swarm on opponent's side of map is huge pressure and win condition on itself. It's straight up a win if dark swarm gets up near opponent natural. And this is on a game where there's incredibly powerful spellcasters and maps are lot larger and armies move lot, lot slower.
SC2 units move much faster and maps are way more compact. There isn't always a case where you can just back off or play perfectly with perfect vision. Sometimes, army can just maneuver into places where you have to take a fight and this nearly guarantees a win
This screams that +1 hydra range buff that lasted less than a week before it got reverted. All this does is let it run wild for short time before revert which achieves nothing for balance patch, which ultimately resolves nothing. It's a waste of time for everyone
Have you seen the pro games where zergs play with it or tried it yourself? I know you might not main Zerg but I can tell you the spell isn't all that great. It's actually really hard to stay in it and also have your units attack. When I played around with it vs other gms it was hurting me more than it was helping. The best use case for it imo is when you have lurkers vs Terran and they try and stim on top and overwhelm the position. Any other times they can either as you say kite back or if you try and combine them with other unit comps like roaches or hydras in order to stay in the microbial shroud 90% of your units aren't going to be firing. And vs protoss it really felt horrible. Mana showed this in his video lurker hydra won vs his army when no microbial shroud was cast, and lost when it was cast. This is because zealots and archons fighting into the cloud were also taking the 50% reduced damage. The spell completely backfired.
On September 25 2025 08:27 jinjin5000 wrote: I don't understand how there isn't more talks about how strong shroud would be, and feedback is "just fight away from it" or "back off"
People complain about Skytoss or mech on the power on direct fights. People complained about PDD because it nulled a lot of projectile damage coming in. This is just as powerful and a lot more general.
In BW, getting a dark swarm on opponent's side of map is huge pressure and win condition on itself. It's straight up a win if dark swarm gets up near opponent natural. And this is on a game where there's incredibly powerful spellcasters and maps are lot larger and armies move lot, lot slower.
SC2 units move much faster and maps are way more compact. There isn't always a case where you can just back off or play perfectly with perfect vision. Sometimes, army can just maneuver into places where you have to take a fight and this nearly guarantees a win
This screams that +1 hydra range buff that lasted less than a week before it got reverted. All this does is let it run wild for short time before revert which achieves nothing for balance patch, which ultimately resolves nothing. It's a waste of time for everyone
Have you seen the pro games where zergs play with it or tried it yourself? I know you might not main Zerg but I can tell you the spell isn't all that great. It's actually really hard to stay in it and also have your units attack. When I played around with it vs other gms it was hurting me more than it was helping. The best use case for it imo is when you have lurkers vs Terran and they try and stim on top and overwhelm the position. Any other times they can either as you say kite back or if you try and combine them with other unit comps like roaches or hydras in order to stay in the microbial shroud 90% of your units aren't going to be firing. And vs protoss it really felt horrible. Mana showed this in his video lurker hydra won vs his army when no microbial shroud was cast, and lost when it was cast. This is because zealots and archons fighting into the cloud were also taking the 50% reduced damage. The spell completely backfired.
I guess I am seeing this in terran perspective then. PDD was similar as well, fairly meh vs Protoss and broken vs zerg
Shin had some concerns regarding the tvz balance post patch.
On September 25 2025 08:27 jinjin5000 wrote: I don't understand how there isn't more talks about how strong shroud would be, and feedback is "just fight away from it" or "back off"
People complain about Skytoss or mech on the power on direct fights. People complained about PDD because it nulled a lot of projectile damage coming in. This is just as powerful and a lot more general.
In BW, getting a dark swarm on opponent's side of map is huge pressure and win condition on itself. It's straight up a win if dark swarm gets up near opponent natural. And this is on a game where there's incredibly powerful spellcasters and maps are lot larger and armies move lot, lot slower.
SC2 units move much faster and maps are way more compact. There isn't always a case where you can just back off or play perfectly with perfect vision. Sometimes, army can just maneuver into places where you have to take a fight and this nearly guarantees a win
This screams that +1 hydra range buff that lasted less than a week before it got reverted. All this does is let it run wild for short time before revert which achieves nothing for balance patch, which ultimately resolves nothing. It's a waste of time for everyone
Have you seen the pro games where zergs play with it or tried it yourself? I know you might not main Zerg but I can tell you the spell isn't all that great. It's actually really hard to stay in it and also have your units attack. When I played around with it vs other gms it was hurting me more than it was helping. The best use case for it imo is when you have lurkers vs Terran and they try and stim on top and overwhelm the position. Any other times they can either as you say kite back or if you try and combine them with other unit comps like roaches or hydras in order to stay in the microbial shroud 90% of your units aren't going to be firing. And vs protoss it really felt horrible. Mana showed this in his video lurker hydra won vs his army when no microbial shroud was cast, and lost when it was cast. This is because zealots and archons fighting into the cloud were also taking the 50% reduced damage. The spell completely backfired.
I guess I am seeing this in terran perspective then. PDD was similar as well, fairly meh vs Protoss and broken vs zerg
Shin had some concerns regarding the tvz balance post patch.
Ah, this is really interesting. I wish we got more balance input from the koreans it's really tough because of the language barrier I feel they often get left out of the conversation. But maybe blizzard does communicate with them still and take their feedback into account? I'm not sure.
Zerg - Crazy buff cross-wide, Spire is big buff, Baneling is huge buff, Shroud is crazy buff. The nerf to Mana and upgrade is there but not that significant. Zerg only has buffs at this point, and should help all non-serral zergs.
Protoss - 1st patch may have felt overdone, but Protoss players may feel satisfied with this interation
Terran - This patch's biggest loser. TvP's problem was that Zealot-Stalker was very strong. Collosi isn't bad, and Storm is OP on current patch. But PTR leaves Zealot-Stalker, Collosi alone, while Storm isn't bad. TvZ gets shroud buff + spire buff + baneling buff. TvZ is Zerg favored in my opinion at high level, but Cyclone gets nerfed on top, which I think TvZ will get ruined and Z heavily favored.
Goal of this patch should be getting TvP to 5:5 since it's heavily P favored right now. But doesn't seem to do that. Feels like it changed from 7:3 > 6:4 to Protoss favored.
As for TvZ, think it's 5:5 overall (No Serral), but Zerg favored when Zerg is good. W/ this PTR, it's at least 6:4 Zerg favored. But better Zergs may have 7:3 on their favor.
Patch has some very surprising things, but they will change a lot more later, right?
----
Zerg
Spire - Blizzard may be encouraging Spire play since LBM is rarely used. Spire is double-edged sword currently. If it works, it's amazing, but game is over if it doesn't. Muta is too polarizing right now but this encourages variety in unit comp. It's not bad, but honestly only good for Zerg
Baneling - LBM currently honestly is strong vs Terran. If you manage to get to 20+ mutas, LBM is plenty strong currently. But buff to baneling and Spire may make LBM comp a viable comp and welcome change to people who enjoy LBM-style vs Terran. It's not autowin comp but viable after this.
Shroud - Mana increased from 75 to 100. Felt really strong at 75. Addition of upgrade but should be really strong even with those.
Protoss
Energy Overcharge- Nerf makes sentry only cast once, and only 1 storm instead of 2 on HTs. Defensive/scouting nerf. But there was buff to make up for it on reuse.
Mothership - Nerfed on Zergs having hard time abducting. For Zergs, it's very good patch and I'm thankful.
Storm- hard to say if it's buff or nerf, but I think it's a buff for beginners, nerf for progamers.
Observer - Nerf to siege mode to have it not invisible, but also increased vision allows Protoss to save them if seen.
Disruptor - Make-up buff for nerf to Storm. Very big buff
Oracle - Stasis ward nerf. I like this a lot because length previously was to point Protoss forgot they even casted it.
Terran
Siege tank - I understand the buff to this, since ghost supply is 3 and terran will have hard time holding position. And there's microbial shroud, so there's another way to mitigate damage. But this is all under ideal condition.
Viking - The gas reduction may have felt huge, but don't know how it will feel anymore after revert
Liberator - I don't quite know why the sight reduction from 10 to 9 happened, but my best guess is because Liberator had some abusable spots where they could fire w/o taking damage from Stalkers. But was that really needed? But I don't think Terrans will take this as a huge nerf anyways because liberator is giga OP at worker harass in first place! You need to nerf that. And late game usage will be similar. The early game impact on mineral siege at around 4-5min where Stalkers can't hit back should be nerfed.
On September 25 2025 03:19 Vision_ wrote: Disruptor still the worst design of the game...
It would have been more funny to have a big energy ball rolling straight over the battlefield dealing damage against armored units
Disruptor is at worst the third worst designed unit in the game.
The Swarm Host is the worst designed by several miles. I'd vote the Cyclone after them, could make an argument for the Disruptor after that.
If i were able to discuss if the owner of the disruptor idea i would ask him if he was drunk during the conception of this units... could he have created a more complex unit ? ... guess not
and for which result ? damage type is even not different from storm but now at least the storm is less deadly (but longer and bigger from what i read)
Zerg - Crazy buff cross-wide, Spire is big buff, Baneling is huge buff, Shroud is crazy buff. The nerf to Mana and upgrade is there but not that significant. Zerg only has buffs at this point, and should help all non-serral zergs.
Protoss - 1st patch may have felt overdone, but Protoss players may feel satisfied with this interation
Terran - This patch's biggest loser. TvP's problem was that Zealot-Stalker was very strong. Collosi isn't bad, and Storm is OP on current patch. But PTR leaves Zealot-Stalker, Collosi alone, while Storm isn't bad. TvZ gets shroud buff + spire buff + baneling buff. TvZ is Zerg favored in my opinion at high level, but Cyclone gets nerfed on top, which I think TvZ will get ruined and Z heavily favored.
Goal of this patch should be getting TvP to 5:5 since it's heavily P favored right now. But doesn't seem to do that. Feels like it changed from 7:3 > 6:4 to Protoss favored.
As for TvZ, think it's 5:5 overall (No Serral), but Zerg favored when Zerg is good. W/ this PTR, it's at least 6:4 Zerg favored. But better Zergs may have 7:3 on their favor.
Patch has some very surprising things, but they will change a lot more later, right?
Spire - Blizzard may be encouraging Spire play since LBM is rarely used. Spire is double-edged sword currently. If it works, it's amazing, but game is over if it doesn't. Muta is too polarizing right now but this encourages variety in unit comp. It's not bad, but honestly only good for Zerg
Baneling - LBM currently honestly is strong vs Terran. If you manage to get to 20+ mutas, LBM is plenty strong currently. But buff to baneling and Spire may make LBM comp a viable comp and welcome change to people who enjoy LBM-style vs Terran. It's not autowin comp but viable after this.
Shroud - Mana increased from 75 to 100. Felt really strong at 75. Addition of upgrade but should be really strong even with those.
Energy Overcharge- Nerf makes sentry only cast once, and only 1 storm instead of 2 on HTs. Defensive/scouting nerf. But there was buff to make up for it on reuse.
Mothership - Nerfed on Zergs having hard time abducting. For Zergs, it's very good patch and I'm thankful.
Storm- hard to say if it's buff or nerf, but I think it's a buff for beginners, nerf for progamers.
Observer - Nerf to siege mode to have it not invisible, but also increased vision allows Protoss to save them if seen.
Disruptor - Make-up buff for nerf to Storm. Very big buff
Oracle - Stasis ward nerf. I like this a lot because length previously was to point Protoss forgot they even casted it.
Siege tank - I understand the buff to this, since ghost supply is 3 and terran will have hard time holding position. And there's microbial shroud, so there's another way to mitigate damage. But this is all under ideal condition.
Viking - The gas reduction may have felt huge, but don't know how it will feel anymore after revert
Liberator - I don't quite know why the sight reduction from 10 to 9 happened, but my best guess is because Liberator had some abusable spots where they could fire w/o taking damage from Stalkers. But was that really needed? But I don't think Terrans will take this as a huge nerf anyways because liberator is giga OP at worker harass in first place! You need to nerf that. And late game usage will be similar. The early game impact on mineral siege at around 4-5min where Stalkers can't hit back should be nerfed.
On September 25 2025 03:19 Vision_ wrote: Disruptor still the worst design of the game...
It would have been more funny to have a big energy ball rolling straight over the battlefield dealing damage against armored units
Disruptor is at worst the third worst designed unit in the game.
The Swarm Host is the worst designed by several miles. I'd vote the Cyclone after them, could make an argument for the Disruptor after that.
If i were able to discuss if the owner of the disruptor idea i would ask him if he was drunk during the conception of this units... could he have created a more complex unit ? ... guess not
and for which result ? damage type is even not different from storm but now at least the storm is less deadly (but longer and bigger from what i read)
Both Swarm Hosts and Disruptors are units that I consider "unbalanceable".
If they're viable then they're completely oppressive and un-fun.
If they're not viable then (almost) nobody makes them.
I think lings from the campaign had a real locust-like feel, so I wonder if locusts that are melee bur able to jump cliffs and on top of units would be cool, also, spawning these should cost 5 minerals.
Disruptors should deal 100+100 vs. armored, 60+60 vs. armoured and 30+30 vs armoured in 3 splash radi. The 100+100 should basically be 0 radius so the nova unit itself needs to be on top, this then won't be able to hit buildings and hitting 2x thors with 200 dmg is neigh impossible.
On September 25 2025 03:19 Vision_ wrote: Disruptor still the worst design of the game...
It would have been more funny to have a big energy ball rolling straight over the battlefield dealing damage against armored units
Disruptor is at worst the third worst designed unit in the game.
The Swarm Host is the worst designed by several miles. I'd vote the Cyclone after them, could make an argument for the Disruptor after that.
If i were able to discuss if the owner of the disruptor idea i would ask him if he was drunk during the conception of this units... could he have created a more complex unit ? ... guess not
and for which result ? damage type is even not different from storm but now at least the storm is less deadly (but longer and bigger from what i read)
Both Swarm Hosts and Disruptors are units that I consider "unbalanceable".
If they're viable then they're completely oppressive and un-fun.
If they're not viable then (almost) nobody makes them.
Are swarm hosts really in such a bad spot right now design-wise, especially in PvZ? They can be snowbally, but we don't see them that often. Swarm host games are often fun to watch too - lots of action with toss running around trying to put out nyduses, pressure on the Zerg to transition past a certain point, etc. They add a tiny bit of variety, especially on maps whose architecture favors them, but are not too common and are very beatable.
Swarm hosts absolutely shouldn't be buffed further though, the swarm host era might be the worst meta in SC2 history.
For fun I just pulled up 2024's and 2023's S-tier results 2024: 4 Terran, 4 Zerg, 0 Protoss (~$171,500 prize pool averaged across the 8) 2023: 6 Zerg, 4 Terran, 0 Protoss (~$141,800 prize pool averages across the 10)
Game is pretty much as balanced as it's ever been for the top players. Without deeper more functional or experimental changes we're probably heading back to previous years' (lack of) representation.
For fun I just pulled up 2024's and 2023's S-tier results 2024: 4 Terran, 4 Zerg, 0 Protoss (~$171,500 prize pool averaged across the 8) 2023: 6 Zerg, 4 Terran, 0 Protoss (~$141,800 prize pool averages across the 10)
Game is pretty much as balanced as it's ever been for the top players. Without deeper more functional or experimental changes we're probably heading back to previous years' (lack of) representation.
I love how this apologist randomly pick a random set of Tier S and Tier A tournaments while omitting others like the one Zoun won this year. Protoss players are really something else.
For fun I just pulled up 2024's and 2023's S-tier results 2024: 4 Terran, 4 Zerg, 0 Protoss (~$171,500 prize pool averaged across the 8) 2023: 6 Zerg, 4 Terran, 0 Protoss (~$141,800 prize pool averages across the 10)
Game is pretty much as balanced as it's ever been for the top players. Without deeper more functional or experimental changes we're probably heading back to previous years' (lack of) representation.
I love how this apologist randomly pick a random set of Tier S and Tier A tournaments while omitting others like the one Zoun won this year. Protoss players are really something else.
Weak bait. Randomly pick? It's literally every tournament on liquidpedia. S-Tier Tournaments
Since there was only 4 tournaments for S tier this year I chose to include every top prize money one (hence the best players are most likely to be participating). You can find those at the bottom: Statistics/2025
Also, thinking I currently play protoss (or sc2 for that matter)
Siege tank - I understand the buff to this, since ghost supply is 3 and terran will have hard time holding position. And there's microbial shroud, so there's another way to mitigate damage. But this is all under ideal condition.
Abduct isn t enought versatile
A simple way to balance this spell is to allow abduct on massive with 66% (abduct spell range 9, missile turret range 7 (+1) ...) of the distance when the unit is grabbed.
In this case, Zerg could consider tanks being a massive unit when the tank is sieged...
Note : After casting Abduct the Viper can not move or use abilities for 0.57 seconds (removed)
Abduct is a strong spell and yes, it shouldn't be able to lick at two units at the same time. It can do that now btw, so that silly 0.56s nerf didn't even fix this.. but why are we nerfing it when we never saw less vipers than we do now. Blinding cloud should get its 3 seconds back even, this was never warranted, terran just needs to learn to siege their tanks with a bigger spread.
I'm personally not rdy for a patch, live game is the most exciting it's been since parting played. I find powerful energy recharge rly cool and it feels so like protoss.
Changes such as the abduct change just isn't starcraft, I liked catz video explaining what's obvious to many who played blizz games their entire life, but needs to be said to the modern player base.
I'll mention some inconsistencies that needs to be fixed:
Baneling gaining +2 pr. Upg despite dealing 15+20vs light dmg, these should be giving +2(+2).
Ultras dealing 35 should be getting +4 pr. Upg, not +3.
Thor javelins dealing 6+6vs. Light should be getting +1, not +1(+1).
Baneling 80 dmg vs. structures shouldn't be getting +5 pr. Upg, but if they do, then armour must reduce its dmg.
Tempest should be getting +1 vs. structures on ground attack and +2 vs. structures on air attack pr. Upg, there could be a reason to skip this, say if a unit can be both a structure and massive, but that is not the case. (Upgs musn't exceed +5.
Hellbats should be getting +1 vs. light pr. Upg.
Stasis should probably be and would be cooler with priority 19 like the widow mine.
the final version looks reasonable, but then again, the previous one didn't look too bad either until it became Protoss pandemonium. Still, can't wait to play it (not live on EU yet).
On October 01 2025 07:09 scoo2r wrote: Wow Ghost supply reduced from 3 to 2
I think returning ghosts to 2 supply but having them be light is a good idea. Ghosts always struck me as a little too bulky for such a powerful spellcaster, and this way they'll die to banes easier. Will still be a net buff to Terran late game but fighting high ghost counts will feel fairer.
wow ghost to 2 but being light is a big bye bye BLs but a good buff to ling bane ultra infestor - i like it.
storm now almost doing same dps (23 DPS instead of 26 DPS) but with double the time....like how did they get from nerfing storm to doing a huge buff to it? almost same dmg but you only need half the templar now AND toss will just get same amount of templar and just can do WAY more storm damage? in fact just let storm stay as is maybe tweak small things like cast range like they do etc. but why hypernerf it into hyperbuff it? dont get it...
nice. I really am looking forward to see how these changes will pan out. Love the ghost change. I always felt the ghost had too much of an ultimate-unit-feel to it. I believe the light attribute will change that.
Ghost supply reduced from 3 to 2. Ghost now has light attribute.
A good starting point, because of banelings connection (i advocate for this solution since some years) Except no more abduct sieged tank, the patch looks nice (which would asked a specific solution). Community could be able to program for example something to suggest an alternative to this shallow/unconsistent change
EPT
)
S-Tier Tournaments
