EPTStarCraft II 5.0.16 PTR Patch Notes may 26th - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
geokilla
Canada8247 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3131 Posts
I really don't think people are prepared for how annoying Protoss macro is about to get. Nor do I think the Balance Council or whoever is prepared to rebalance literally every Gateway unit for Protoss for all three matchups repeatedly over the next year. Oh well, at least we've now created "trade-offs"! My main consolation is that I veerrrrry much doubt this will go to live; and maybe after seeing how it (doesn't) play out in practice, the people I've been arguing with since 2010 will finally give up on the idea. The 8-worker start is another fan-driven complaint, but I'm pretty whatever about it. I have my doubts it will go through, but the game obviously works either way. Everything else is pretty tame. I guess we should be preparing for some kind of influx of new players when Blizzard announces the new Starcraft shooter this year; but it would be nice for them to arrive to a game that's not really broken. Here's to hoping! | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1104 Posts
On May 29 2026 07:48 Captain Peabody wrote: I have been fighting this terrible fanwank "design" change to Gateway/Warp Gate literally since 2010. I never thought I'd see the day. I really don't think people are prepared for how annoying Protoss macro is about to get. Nor do I think the Balance Council or whoever is prepared to rebalance literally every Gateway unit for Protoss for all three matchups repeatedly over the next year. Oh well, at least we've now created "trade-offs"! My main consolation is that I veerrrrry much doubt this will go to live; and maybe after seeing how it (doesn't) play out in practice, the people I've been arguing with since 2010 will finally give up on the idea. The 8-worker start is another fan-driven complaint, but I'm pretty whatever about it. I have my doubts it will go through, but the game obviously works either way. Everything else is pretty tame. I guess we should be preparing for some kind of influx of new players when Blizzard announces the new Starcraft shooter this year; but it would be nice for them to arrive to a game that's not really broken. Here's to hoping! I’m really curious to see how pros get around the gate changes, at the moment it just seems like a crazy nerf to Protoss? Like you now lose unit production from a gateway in the early game… unless you just heavily delay wg? | ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1922 Posts
That being said, I hope if these changes do go through, they will poll the players or some type of feedback loop to ensure that if players don't like it, they will revert. The game has been with these workers for 10 years now. It will feel like a different game with these changes and that's is sad but also exciting. | ||
|
sidasf
99 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3131 Posts
On May 29 2026 08:08 baldgye wrote: I’m really curious to see how pros get around the gate changes, at the moment it just seems like a crazy nerf to Protoss? Like you now lose unit production from a gateway in the early game… unless you just heavily delay wg? Yes I was radically underrating it when I said you would have to rebalance every Gateway unit. You would also have to completely rebalance all Protoss offense, all Protoss harassment, all Protoss reinforcement, AND all Protoss defense. Oh yeah, and basically just all Protoss macro generally. And yeah, also all of Protoss early-game, mid-game, AND late-game. Am I forgetting something? I'm not saying you couldn't do it given a few years and lots of iteration, but fundamentally there is not and never has been anything broken about the Warp Gate mechanic and it's a fun and interactive mechanic with a lot of flavor that is core to SC2 Protoss identity and every single SC2 Protoss playstyle so I am not in favor! | ||
|
Squirrel
United States1101 Posts
| ||
|
CicadaSC
United States1922 Posts
| ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3131 Posts
On May 29 2026 09:34 CicadaSC wrote: Not sure how people are saying this is a nerf to protoss. How? Don't gateways produce faster now. Just gotta be on your macro like a terran or a sc1 toss. Protoss defense is balanced around being able to reactively Warp In units at home and to far-flung expansions. Protoss offense is balanced around being able to rapidly and reactively reinforce. Protoss harassment is balanced around... You see what I did there? The strength of the Warp Gate mechanic, and hence its relevance for balance, is not in the speed of production, but in the ability to produce 1) reactively, and 2) at a distance from production structures. Yes, of course it is theoretically possible to create a game state where Protoss does not have those abilities but is roughly the same strength or perhaps even stronger, but to do that it is necessary not merely to let Protoss build faster, but to rebalance every part of the game where those strengths are relevant to make up for their absence. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2727 Posts
On May 29 2026 09:48 Captain Peabody wrote: Protoss defense is balanced around being able to reactively Warp In units at home and to far-flung expansions. Protoss offense is balanced around being able to rapidly and reactively reinforce. Protoss harassment is balanced around... You see what I did there? The strength of the Warp Gate mechanic, and hence its relevance for balance, is not in the speed of production, but in the ability to produce 1) reactively, and 2) at a distance from production structures. Yes, of course it is theoretically possible to create a game state where Protoss does not have those abilities but is roughly the same strength or perhaps even stronger, but to do that it is necessary not merely to let Protoss build faster, but to rebalance every part of the game where those strengths are relevant to make up for their absence. I did understand the core of the "remove warp gate mechanic" argument being that warp-in narrows the design space and potential of gateway units, causing issues in P race design because gateway units kind of -have to- suck by design. It seems insane to lean away from warp-in but not also rebalance the units? Time will tell, I guess. | ||
|
tigera6
3489 Posts
And I do feel this change to make Terran turtle even harder than before to get a huge Ghost count for Snipe, moving out on the map just not worth it anymore in TvZ with the buff on the Shroud. | ||
|
Squirrel
United States1101 Posts
On May 29 2026 09:34 CicadaSC wrote: Not sure how people are saying this is a nerf to protoss. How? Don't gateways produce faster now. Just gotta be on your macro like a terran or a sc1 toss. Warpgates *do* cost 50/50 more for each one now, but also units warp in faster when abroad too. I don't know if it comes out to a nerf or a buff, but it's absolutely going to change things. You could just keep a few warpgates around for when you need to quickly reinforce/defend, or turn them back to Gateways for production and Warps for reinforcing.(Once you pay, you don't have to pay again for that building if you go back and forth) | ||
|
Creager
Germany1932 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26903 Posts
Good? Well I’m not sure, but it’s fucking bold, and I like some ideas I’m just not sure how they all work. The gateway production boost, very interesting. I’ve long advocated for something like it as a tradeoff. Make more stuff versus the mobility advantage of warping in. Not that my theorycrafting is worth anything but I’ve felt basically since SC2 launched that gateways should > warpgates in production potential, and warpgates should compensate with ease of deployment. Change of starting workers is fucking gigantic, and we’ve never seen it before in the base game. I’m interested to see how that works. I think many are sick of the current worker start effectively leading to no rush 3 base games, but 6 worker starts are maybe a little slow so it feels they’ve tried to settle on something in the middle. We of course need to see how the PTR phase goes. I’m a bit biased because I haven’t played in ages and a reset is going to naturally advantage me relative to others, but I think this is an exciting as fuck patch. Even if the patch itself is bad, its radical stuff, and Blizz still having people in the building who are willing to be radical is itself a good thing in my book. If certain ideas turn out to be a complete disaster in PTR testing, don’t do those | ||
|
redloser
Korea (South)1750 Posts
The warp gate change is not bad imo, but just plain weird. There were complaints about warp gates since the beginning of wotl, but why now? | ||
|
jettMzf
Brazil4 Posts
| ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10367 Posts
Worker start to 8 or 9 This is PERFECT. Speeds up the very early game a little without overly favoring economy over tech/production. Less economy explosion, less zerg snowballing out of control, less protoss swarming with gateway units and blink stalkers before mech can secure a 3rd base. TONS of opening builds will be brought back. When we had 6 worker start we had so many different gas timings. For example with Terran, you could do 12 rax 13 gas, or 12 rax 13 gas, or 12 rax 15 gas, etc. And you had to decide whether to make 1 2 or 3 marines before making a reactor, or whether to make 1 2 3 reapers before making a reactor in order to defend various Protoss openers (Zealot? Zealot + Stalker? 2 Stalkers? Etc.). You had to decide whether to bunker at your natural or hold your main ramp. Whether to CC low ground or in your base. You could even skip walling at your ramp and just making your depots and rax near your mineral line. SO many decisions brought back with 8 worker start. MECH will be back into a much more comfortable spot. Without economy exploding, Mech builds have time to get their factory production and tech up so they can get a 3rd base before the opponent starts warming with gateway pushes or blink stalkers. This also means MORE map variety, the 3rd base doesn't necessarily need to be so close and easy to defend. As Terran for example it will probably bring back 1/1/1 openers. WM drops, Hellion drops, Cloak Banshee, etc. into Expand. Which all helped give Mech more openers. 3-4 PLAYER MAPS CAN COME BACK!!! This one is HUGE!!! Being able to take other base's main and naturals, along with their ramps/chokes, means MORE SPREAD OUT GAMEPLAY and skirmishes around the map. You can choose to spread out your production to reinforce certain corners of the map easier or have different paths of reinforcement so your opponent can't cut your reinforcement line so easily. Instead of armies just moving from 1 side to the other side of the map, the battlefield is more chaotic. You can choose to take a main/natural base in a different corner as your 4th/5th, if the opponent comes up the ramp you can defend it more cost efficiently than the attack, and if they get around it with drops and such you can also prepare counter measures for that too, leading to more back and forth gameplay and the "putting out fires across the map" feel that BW has and LotV aimed for. Also base trades are less 1 dimensional and less game ending! Remember games on Tal'Darim Altar for example? Since your bases and production can be spread across 2 corners of the map, if a base trade starts to occur the game doesn't immediately spiral out of control and end 99% of the time. Both players can destroy 1 corner and they can stabilize with their remaining corner. As a player, it really feels like most games on ladder it's the most important to just focus on expanding, getting rich, upgrading like every research and getting every production/tech you need, and racing to a max'd out 200/200 army with all your tech AND a bank before you commit to a big attack so you can reinforce without immediately losing the game if you lose the battle. And this is REALLY, REALLY boring! A lot of pro games feel like this too! Expanding to tons of bases + getting all your tech AND building a bank should only happen very occasionally if games go to the very late-game or endgame. It should occur in say 10-20% of games, not 50-75%. You should be able to make meaningful decisions on what tech and production to make, and the focus of the gameplay should be on interacting with your opponent like harassing, map control, attacking/defending. I remember before SC2 came out, it was so thrilling as a noob getting into BW by looking up a build that opened with some harass like lurker drop, 2 base muta, etc. NOT trying to rush to 4-5 hatches for example. And the worker change will bring these back. Regarding Warpgates and Gateways having more of a role in early/mid game, I think that's cool! But I'm not sure about making it so that Gateway production is faster than WG production. Being able to warp in say 10 units to defend a base is quite necessary for Protoss isn't it? And it's just very fun to use WG too. I think they can allow delaying upgrading to WG to be a thing in the early to early-mid game, opting not to spend 50 minerals upgrading to WG, and instead rely on Gateway production and good army positioning to defend bases. And perhaps good players instead of having 12 warp gates mid-late game will have half and half to save 300 minerals. (Then in late game when money is not a problem, upgrade them all to warp gates). BUT Warpgate should just have the same production time as Gateway. You can keep the warp in time at 3.6 second or even 4 seconds, 3 seconds is too fast. Make it so the 50 to upgrade to WG is purely just to be able to warp in far. Those who want WG to be able to warp in around the map, or to do aggressive warpgate pushes again, can do so too without a Warp Prism. A 4 gate push costs 200 more minerals as if building a WP. Regarding ghost changes: Uh, these are really whack lol. Why are they buffing the auto attack and range to 7? Is it because increasing the supply to 3 (and rebalancing the snipe to 75 energy) is too much a nerf so they want to increase its power, while keeping them Light 100 HP units so you can still soft counter them with banelings, colossus, adepts, phoenix, etc.? | ||
|
arwinter
1 Post
Protoss already struggled holding some of the allins like roach queen walks or even low drone count hydra allins and scv pulls, these will likely become very problematic now with the units having to walk into battle from the gateways from the main base. Also, I like the 8 worker change I do believe it will make some cheeses more commited which I really like, you shouldn't be able to easily macro out of a failed pool first or cannon rush. However the problem with the 8 worker change is that the players will need to completely relearn the game and I don't believe many casual players will want to do that and will get put off by the idea. In BW once you learn something about the game it will be handy forever and I like that. Day9's Starcraft 1 Youtube series is still to this day is relevant, while any SC2 guides from a month ago will be irrelevant. | ||
|
ETisME
12722 Posts
Why not make unwrap gate spawn units faster as well, that would make it more consistent and easier to manage. | ||
|
WSH32
3 Posts
After reading the 5.0.16 PTR patch notes, I still believe two major late-game balance issues are not being properly addressed: mass Changeling abuse and the over-nerfing of Ghosts. The new Changeling change is a step, but it does not solve the core issue. Making Changelings inherit Overseer orders and causing nearby Changelings to die together may reduce some extreme cases, but Zerg can still generate large numbers of Changelings with very little extra attention. The opponent, especially Terran or Protoss, must manually identify and clear them while also defending expansions, watching for Nydus, controlling the main army, and preparing for a decisive late-game fight. This creates an unfair attention and APM trade. The Zerg player spends very little attention to create the problem, while the opponent must spend much more attention to clean it up. In late-game SC2, where one missed Nydus, one blocked army movement, or one distracted camera movement can decide the game, this mechanic becomes disproportionately powerful. My proposed solution is simple: active Changelings should cost 1 supply, or there should be a strict active Changeling limit. I prefer the 1-supply solution because it does not nerf the Overseer’s intended roles: scouting, detection, and anti-invisibility. It only limits mass battlefield pollution and unfair attention trading. The second issue is the Ghost. The 5.0.16 PTR change increases Ghost supply from 2 to 3, reduces HP from 125 to 100, and increases Steady Targeting energy cost from 50 to 75. A full-energy Ghost used to cast Steady Targeting four times. With 75 energy cost, it can only cast twice. That is a 50% reduction in immediate spell output. This is especially problematic because late-game Terran depends heavily on Ghosts to survive against Vipers, Infestors, Ultralisks, Brood Lords, and other high-value Zerg units. Zerg spellcasters, especially Vipers, can also replenish energy much more efficiently through Consume, while Ghosts must wait for energy to regenerate over time. Increasing Steady Targeting to 75 energy makes Terran’s ability to answer repeated Viper pressure much weaker. This problem becomes even more serious when we remember that Ghosts are not the only Terran late-game tool that has been repeatedly targeted. Siege Tanks and Liberators have also been limited across recent balance directions. The Liberator in particular has been repeatedly pressured in the areas that matter most to its late-game role: range, zone control, and vision. Siege Tanks are also now being opened again to Abduct interaction in the PTR. If Ghosts are heavily nerfed at the same time, Terran will lose multiple layers of its late-game defensive and positional structure at once. Meanwhile, Zerg has received several mechanical improvements to its late-game tools. Microbial Shroud has become a much more relevant anti-air protection tool, Hydralisks received Lunge/Dash-style mobility, Infestors continue to gain more practical utility, and now Vipers are again being given stronger interaction against Siege Tanks. These are not just small numerical changes; many of them are mechanical improvements that expand what Zerg units can do. Terran players are not asking for a major new mechanic or a large buff. The request is much more modest: do not keep stacking targeted numerical nerfs onto the few units Terran still relies on to fight late-game Zerg. Keeping Ghosts at 2 supply and keeping Steady Targeting at 50 energy is not an unreasonable demand. It is necessary for Terran to retain a fair late-game fighting chance. I believe Ghosts should remain 2 supply, and Steady Targeting should remain 50 energy. If Ghosts remain Light units, the 125 HP change should also remain. The damage does not need to be increased; the old 130 + 40 vs Psionic profile is acceptable. The one good change is that Steady Targeting no longer being cancelled by damage should stay, because that interaction should have been fixed long ago. In short, my proposed changes are: 1. Limit mass Changeling abuse by making active Changelings cost 1 supply, or by adding a strict active Changeling cap. 2. Keep Ghosts at 2 supply. 3. Keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy. 4. If Ghosts remain Light, keep them at 125 HP. These changes would address real late-game interaction problems without removing Terran’s already fragile late-game control tools. Possible replies to common counterarguments: If someone says, “Changelings were already nerfed in this PTR,” my response is: The PTR change reduces some Changeling clumping abuse, but it does not solve the fundamental issue. Zerg can still create the problem with very little attention, while the opponent must spend much more attention to clean it up during late-game multitasking. The issue is not only the Changeling itself; the issue is the unequal attention trade it creates. For the Ghost nerf argument: I am not arguing that Ghosts should be buffed. I am arguing that stacking 3 supply, 100 HP, Light tag, and 75-energy Steady Targeting at the same time is too much. Terran late game is not carried by Ghosts alone. It relies on a fragile combination of Ghosts, Liberators, Siege Tanks, Vikings, Planetaries, Sensor Towers, and careful positioning. Liberators and Siege Tanks have already been repeatedly pressured by previous and current balance directions. If Ghosts are also heavily nerfed, Terran no longer has a fair late-game answer to Vipers, Infestors, Brood Lords, Ultralisks, and repeated Zerg remaxes. Zerg has received several mechanical improvements, from Microbial Shroud becoming more practical, to Hydralisks gaining Lunge/Dash mobility, to Infestors and Vipers gaining more late-game utility. In comparison, Terran players are simply asking that their core late-game control unit not be hit by several major numerical nerfs at the same time. That is a fair and reasonable request. | ||
| ||
