Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
You had a lot more viable other options back then. 4 player maps were also somewhat viable too
I used to favour chronoing for some aggression and expanding behind it. You can’t really do the requisite damage anymore unless you’re really committing, so expanding off few units becomes very standard
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Is the creativity so limited so noone can think of any other way to buff 1-base cheese/allins while maintaining 12 workers??
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Is the creativity so limited so noone can think of any other way to buff 1-base cheese/allins while maintaining 12 workers??
There are limits to creativity, this is one. And I don’t think people are necessarily talking just about cheeses or all-ins here. Aggressive but economically focused builds are just outright bad with 12 worker starts. Some tech-centric aggression is also just outright bad too.
If we consider the ETA triangle (economy, tech, army) and tradeoffs I’d argue that LoTV’s existing economy really skews things to eco openers. It’s usually just better to go eco because you’ll also get the army and tech as you go
In previous iterations there was more of a trade between focusing on each area
On May 29 2026 17:57 WSH32 wrote: Title: 5.0.16 PTR Feedback: Mass Changelings Still Create an Unfair Attention Trade, and Ghost Nerfs Go Too Far
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.
So you want to keep ghosts as-is except removing the cancellation of steady targeting upon taking damage? You say you're not arguing that ghosts should be buffed but that's a fairly large buff. Zerg's only counter to ghosts is hoping the terran doesn't control well against banes or to land a fungal (generally losing the infestor) and then committing a sizeable portion of their army into a defensive setup to kill a few ghosts. The shroud change doesn't help against anything that zerg struggles with in lategame TvZ and now you want to make it worse? The ghost is already over-centralized in the TvZ lategame - what counter would zerg even have left? Ghosts counter everything hard enough as it is now - every unit you named and more. According to aligulac TvZ has been terran favored every month except 1 (Nov 2024 which was still 48.9%) for nearly 3 years, and TvZ has been above 55% (peaking at 61.4%) for 10/16 individual months since January 2025. With the proposed changes, steady targeting would actually do more damage to non-psionic zerg units and have more standard damage + range but have fewer spell uses at a time, so I can see the logic. But it really comes down to the core issue of how over-centralizing ghosts are lategame TvZ and trying to focus just on ghost changes always keeps leading to the same issue of if they're broken or not good enough.
Addressing the patch itself: I would have liked to see changes that increase the duration of fights, encourage fighting on multiple fronts, soften hard counters, reduce immediate game-ending consequences from common harassment (helps retain lower level players especially), and increase the variety of unit compositions at various stages of the game. I don't think this patch does much to help with those areas, and I'm not convinced that reducing starting workers will do much more than waste game-time.
Why I Think the Ghost Should Not Be Over-Nerfed
My BattleTag is WSH#1951. I have played SC2 since WoL. I reached Master League six times in all seasons, three times after LotV released. Before 2020, my peak MMR was above 4400. I am still around 3800 MMR on NA today.
I do not play all-ins. I have always preferred macro-oriented Terran. So while I am not a pro player, but I believe I have enough long-term experience to give serious balance feedback.
My main point is simple: every matchup can reach the late game. If a matchup has problems in the early or mid game, then those stages should be adjusted directly. But weakening a race’s late game too much is dangerous, because once the game reaches that stage, the result can become almost predetermined.
In TvZ, late game is largely about spell trading and positional control. Vipers have extremely strong tools: fast energy recovery through Consume, Blinding Cloud, Abduct, and Parasitic Bomb. Abduct in particular is very fast and often decides trades before Terran can respond.
Ghosts are Terran’s main answer to this. Steady Targeting has high damage, but it is not a free spell. It still requires setup, vision, range, energy, and a 1.43-second channel. Against a good Zerg player with fast units, creep, Overseers, Changelings, and multiple angles, landing good Snipes is not easy.
That is why I think making Steady Targeting no longer cancel from damage is a reasonable change. It helps prevent situations where a Viper can instantly Abduct or disrupt a high-value Terran unit before the Ghost can realistically complete its counterplay.
However, I do not think Ghosts need extra attack range or higher basic attack damage. Ghosts should not become stronger as normal combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay, not frontline DPS.
The real reason Terran makes so many Ghosts is that other late-game Terran tools have become too limited. Liberators, Siege Tanks, Thors, Ravens, and other mechanical units have all been nerfed in different ways over time. Meanwhile, Zerg has received meaningful late-game tools such as stronger Microbial Shroud utility, Hydralisk Lunge mobility, improved Infestor utility, and strong Viper interactions.
So if the goal is to reduce mass Ghost reliance, Terran needs other reliable late-game tools. Simply stacking nerfs on Ghosts does not solve the design problem. It just removes the unit Terran currently depends on.
My preferred solution:
1. Keep Steady Targeting non-interruptible. 2. Do not increase Ghost attack range or basic attack damage. 3. Ghost HP can return to 100 because Ghosts already gained the Light tag. 4. Keep Ghosts at 2 supply. 5. Keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy.
If Ghosts must be nerfed harder than that, then Terran needs compensation elsewhere: for example, Siege Tanks staying immune to Abduct, better Liberator range/vision, or meaningful Raven utility.
TvZ late game should be about fair spell trading, positioning, and efficient control from both sides. Terran should not be forced into a position where Vipers and Infestors dominate the late game while Ghosts become too supply-inefficient and energy-limited to answer them.
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Is the creativity so limited so noone can think of any other way to buff 1-base cheese/allins while maintaining 12 workers??
What limits 1-base allin is that they are simple. If something is simple and can be done in a viable way at pro level for a long time, then it's going to be too strong.
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind.
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
What are you talking about? Maru recently defeated the best zerg player of all time with proxy 3 rax marine. Two base all ins and cheese are EXTREMELY powerful, it's way easier to get GM with those than playing macro. Macro games are not pretentious and there is no superficial glorification. Macro games involve the most strategy, decision making, map awareness, fighting multiprong, etc.
Has retired three years ago, his scrappy games were all in LOTV. You clearly do not play the game or really watch much, if you did you would realize there are tons of extremely cheesy innovative zergs like Lorimbo and slammer. Loss of diversity is because less people are playing the game, not because more workers.
To pretend the greater diversity in broodwar has anything to do with the worker change is disingenuous. BW and SC2 are fundamentally very different games, and changing the worker start in sc2 will not fix any of those problems. We'll get an extra minute or so of waiting and then everything will go back to being figured out and the largely same build orders as lambo points out in his video.
You had a lot more viable other options back then. 4 player maps were also somewhat viable too
I used to favour chronoing for some aggression and expanding behind it. You can’t really do the requisite damage anymore unless you’re really committing, so expanding off few units becomes very standard
That was during the 12 worker start....and we are literally getting 4 player maps in the next map pool.
Complete utter nonsense to claim macro is too powerful in LOTV. Cheese and all ins are way more prevalent and stronger on ladder (and pro scene doesn't exist anymore), and there are tons of cheeses that are viable. The worker change, as lambo said, doesn't increase any diversity really-we just get a small delay then arrive to the same figured build orders. There are better, fun changes to be made like energy overcharge, hydra dash-new abilities, new units, etc.
I also get the feeling not a single one of you advocating for this change have played PTR, or even touched the game in the past five years.
He was always right: "Contracting time = less control = more “time-based” mistakes = increased randomness." But now we want to backtrack? I guess better late than ever, but time is the one thing we can't get back...
Legacy of the Void was no revolution for Starcraft II. And this patch, thankfully, is a big step in the right direction.
On May 30 2026 08:24 sidasf wrote:
Complete utter nonsense to claim macro is too powerful in LOTV. Cheese and all ins are way more prevalent and stronger on ladder (and pro scene doesn't exist anymore), and there are tons of cheeses that are viable.
There are blind cheeses that will always be "strong" like a cannon rush, two rax, and X pool (X = the starting number of workers). Those take no skill strategically to develop (there is micro skill to execute them of course) because they are blind, and they should only be used in when you believe someone will be extremely greedy in the early game or to throw someone off mentally in a series.
In WOL, you could scout, identify a weakness, and execute a unique 1 base timing that took skill to strategically develop, and could punish early greed. In LOTV, those basically do not exist. The 12 worker start gives a huge influx of economy that makes it much easier to expand and defend, and compresses the amount of time people spend in low economy situations, which also means less time to scout and react.
Expanding isn't a strategic choice anymore that takes skill to execute while you fend off the 1 base timings, it became a risk-free requirement. Greed became the order of the day, so we lost a huge part of the game strategically, which resulted in the game requiring less skill.
SC2 should be a real time strategy game, LOTV moved it to more of a real time requirements game with a lack of true strategic choice compared to the past.
On May 29 2026 17:57 WSH32 wrote: Title: 5.0.16 PTR Feedback: Mass Changelings Still Create an Unfair Attention Trade, and Ghost Nerfs Go Too Far
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.
So you want to keep ghosts as-is except removing the cancellation of steady targeting upon taking damage? You say you're not arguing that ghosts should be buffed but that's a fairly large buff. Zerg's only counter to ghosts is hoping the terran doesn't control well against banes or to land a fungal (generally losing the infestor) and then committing a sizeable portion of their army into a defensive setup to kill a few ghosts. The shroud change doesn't help against anything that zerg struggles with in lategame TvZ and now you want to make it worse? The ghost is already over-centralized in the TvZ lategame - what counter would zerg even have left? Ghosts counter everything hard enough as it is now - every unit you named and more. According to aligulac TvZ has been terran favored every month except 1 (Nov 2024 which was still 48.9%) for nearly 3 years, and TvZ has been above 55% (peaking at 61.4%) for 10/16 individual months since January 2025. With the proposed changes, steady targeting would actually do more damage to non-psionic zerg units and have more standard damage + range but have fewer spell uses at a time, so I can see the logic. But it really comes down to the core issue of how over-centralizing ghosts are lategame TvZ and trying to focus just on ghost changes always keeps leading to the same issue of if they're broken or not good enough.
Addressing the patch itself: I would have liked to see changes that increase the duration of fights, encourage fighting on multiple fronts, soften hard counters, reduce immediate game-ending consequences from common harassment (helps retain lower level players especially), and increase the variety of unit compositions at various stages of the game. I don't think this patch does much to help with those areas, and I'm not convinced that reducing starting workers will do much more than waste game-time.
Why I Think the Ghost Should Not Be Over-Nerfed
My BattleTag is WSH#1951. I have played SC2 since WoL. I reached Master League six times in all seasons, three times after LotV released. Before 2020, my peak MMR was above 4400. I am still around 3800 MMR on NA today.
I do not play all-ins. I have always preferred macro-oriented Terran. So while I am not a pro player, but I believe I have enough long-term experience to give serious balance feedback.
My main point is simple: every matchup can reach the late game. If a matchup has problems in the early or mid game, then those stages should be adjusted directly. But weakening a race’s late game too much is dangerous, because once the game reaches that stage, the result can become almost predetermined.
In TvZ, late game is largely about spell trading and positional control. Vipers have extremely strong tools: fast energy recovery through Consume, Blinding Cloud, Abduct, and Parasitic Bomb. Abduct in particular is very fast and often decides trades before Terran can respond.
Ghosts are Terran’s main answer to this. Steady Targeting has high damage, but it is not a free spell. It still requires setup, vision, range, energy, and a 1.43-second channel. Against a good Zerg player with fast units, creep, Overseers, Changelings, and multiple angles, landing good Snipes is not easy.
That is why I think making Steady Targeting no longer cancel from damage is a reasonable change. It helps prevent situations where a Viper can instantly Abduct or disrupt a high-value Terran unit before the Ghost can realistically complete its counterplay.
However, I do not think Ghosts need extra attack range or higher basic attack damage. Ghosts should not become stronger as normal combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay, not frontline DPS.
The real reason Terran makes so many Ghosts is that other late-game Terran tools have become too limited. Liberators, Siege Tanks, Thors, Ravens, and other mechanical units have all been nerfed in different ways over time. Meanwhile, Zerg has received meaningful late-game tools such as stronger Microbial Shroud utility, Hydralisk Lunge mobility, improved Infestor utility, and strong Viper interactions.
So if the goal is to reduce mass Ghost reliance, Terran needs other reliable late-game tools. Simply stacking nerfs on Ghosts does not solve the design problem. It just removes the unit Terran currently depends on.
My preferred solution:
1. Keep Steady Targeting non-interruptible. 2. Do not increase Ghost attack range or basic attack damage. 3. Ghost HP can return to 100 because Ghosts already gained the Light tag. 4. Keep Ghosts at 2 supply. 5. Keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy.
If Ghosts must be nerfed harder than that, then Terran needs compensation elsewhere: for example, Siege Tanks staying immune to Abduct, better Liberator range/vision, or meaningful Raven utility.
TvZ late game should be about fair spell trading, positioning, and efficient control from both sides. Terran should not be forced into a position where Vipers and Infestors dominate the late game while Ghosts become too supply-inefficient and energy-limited to answer them.
This may be true for lower levels
But at the pro level, ghost literally owns everything Zerg throws at them
There is a reason why Zerg and toss refuse / hate playing late game against Terran. Once Terran gets mass libs / ghost. The game is literally unwinnable
Well boys I thought this day would never come. I've been saying (on forums) since 2018 that Gateways should be reworked to make them a viable choice vs Warpgates, with the basic premise being faster build time should trade off against warp ins. And that the auto transform patch was stupid hand-holding bullshit, but that's beside the point.
All these years waving a flag for a lost cause. Well, now we get to put it to the test and find out whether I'm completely full of shit! So here I am re-declaring these claims I've been making, so that if this turns out to be an absolute dumpster fire of a change, I give everyone full permission to mock me for this take for as long as this glorious site and these glorious games exist.
It is fun to play with 8 worker start and the start of the game doesnt feel too slow, big difference to 6 worker start. (Why we went from 6->12 in the first place?)
Very worried about protoss. Why warpgate upg moved to gateway? Makes the unit production even slower at the start of the game. Suggestion: move back to cc and rename it. Removing early game warps also makes most(or all?) of protoss aggression builds like blink stalkers totally useless. Also defending is much harder. I think that the unit build times should be even faster with the gateway upgrade or some other allround buff is very likely needed. Maybe make same of kind upg for robo? Warped colo etc would be cool
I Like the idea of the gateway change though.
Why zerg carapace upg cost is reduced? Totally unnecessary, it is better than melee or range upgs because affects all ground units. 8 worker start will great unpredicted changes to balance and I think changes like these should be avoided. Undo it or 125/125
Remove reaper granade indicator, it just makes aiming harder and is stupid for a granade that lame.
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind.
You're wrong, you just have nostalgia for early WoL which won't come back. Lambo explained it here very well why you're wrong.
This change does nothing except wasting 1 minute of everyones time every game.
If you don't remember HotS TvZ anymore, Inno literally played reaper expand into fast 3CC every single TvZ and it was safe against everything
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind.
You're wrong, you just have nostalgia for early WoL which won't come back. Lambo explained it here very well why you're wrong.
On May 29 2026 17:57 WSH32 wrote: Title: 5.0.16 PTR Feedback: Mass Changelings Still Create an Unfair Attention Trade, and Ghost Nerfs Go Too Far
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.
So you want to keep ghosts as-is except removing the cancellation of steady targeting upon taking damage? You say you're not arguing that ghosts should be buffed but that's a fairly large buff. Zerg's only counter to ghosts is hoping the terran doesn't control well against banes or to land a fungal (generally losing the infestor) and then committing a sizeable portion of their army into a defensive setup to kill a few ghosts. The shroud change doesn't help against anything that zerg struggles with in lategame TvZ and now you want to make it worse? The ghost is already over-centralized in the TvZ lategame - what counter would zerg even have left? Ghosts counter everything hard enough as it is now - every unit you named and more. According to aligulac TvZ has been terran favored every month except 1 (Nov 2024 which was still 48.9%) for nearly 3 years, and TvZ has been above 55% (peaking at 61.4%) for 10/16 individual months since January 2025. With the proposed changes, steady targeting would actually do more damage to non-psionic zerg units and have more standard damage + range but have fewer spell uses at a time, so I can see the logic. But it really comes down to the core issue of how over-centralizing ghosts are lategame TvZ and trying to focus just on ghost changes always keeps leading to the same issue of if they're broken or not good enough.
Addressing the patch itself: I would have liked to see changes that increase the duration of fights, encourage fighting on multiple fronts, soften hard counters, reduce immediate game-ending consequences from common harassment (helps retain lower level players especially), and increase the variety of unit compositions at various stages of the game. I don't think this patch does much to help with those areas, and I'm not convinced that reducing starting workers will do much more than waste game-time.
Why I Think the Ghost Should Not Be Over-Nerfed
My BattleTag is WSH#1951. I have played SC2 since WoL. I reached Master League six times in all seasons, three times after LotV released. Before 2020, my peak MMR was above 4400. I am still around 3800 MMR on NA today.
I do not play all-ins. I have always preferred macro-oriented Terran. So while I am not a pro player, but I believe I have enough long-term experience to give serious balance feedback.
My main point is simple: every matchup can reach the late game. If a matchup has problems in the early or mid game, then those stages should be adjusted directly. But weakening a race’s late game too much is dangerous, because once the game reaches that stage, the result can become almost predetermined.
In TvZ, late game is largely about spell trading and positional control. Vipers have extremely strong tools: fast energy recovery through Consume, Blinding Cloud, Abduct, and Parasitic Bomb. Abduct in particular is very fast and often decides trades before Terran can respond.
Ghosts are Terran’s main answer to this. Steady Targeting has high damage, but it is not a free spell. It still requires setup, vision, range, energy, and a 1.43-second channel. Against a good Zerg player with fast units, creep, Overseers, Changelings, and multiple angles, landing good Snipes is not easy.
That is why I think making Steady Targeting no longer cancel from damage is a reasonable change. It helps prevent situations where a Viper can instantly Abduct or disrupt a high-value Terran unit before the Ghost can realistically complete its counterplay.
However, I do not think Ghosts need extra attack range or higher basic attack damage. Ghosts should not become stronger as normal combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay, not frontline DPS.
The real reason Terran makes so many Ghosts is that other late-game Terran tools have become too limited. Liberators, Siege Tanks, Thors, Ravens, and other mechanical units have all been nerfed in different ways over time. Meanwhile, Zerg has received meaningful late-game tools such as stronger Microbial Shroud utility, Hydralisk Lunge mobility, improved Infestor utility, and strong Viper interactions.
So if the goal is to reduce mass Ghost reliance, Terran needs other reliable late-game tools. Simply stacking nerfs on Ghosts does not solve the design problem. It just removes the unit Terran currently depends on.
My preferred solution:
1. Keep Steady Targeting non-interruptible. 2. Do not increase Ghost attack range or basic attack damage. 3. Ghost HP can return to 100 because Ghosts already gained the Light tag. 4. Keep Ghosts at 2 supply. 5. Keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy.
If Ghosts must be nerfed harder than that, then Terran needs compensation elsewhere: for example, Siege Tanks staying immune to Abduct, better Liberator range/vision, or meaningful Raven utility.
TvZ late game should be about fair spell trading, positioning, and efficient control from both sides. Terran should not be forced into a position where Vipers and Infestors dominate the late game while Ghosts become too supply-inefficient and energy-limited to answer them.
This may be true for lower levels
But at the pro level, ghost literally owns everything Zerg throws at them
There is a reason why Zerg and toss refuse / hate playing late game against Terran. Once Terran gets mass libs / ghost. The game is literally unwinnable
You are wrong, the scenario you just mentioned is at the low level. In fact, Viper plus infestor are massively produced and applied aganist lib/ghost combo in the late game of TVZ above 3600MMR. You are suffered to counterplay Terran if you do not have a good micro of controlling the spellcasters, but that is not the reason why Zery is always the patch winner, but Terran get nerfed in multiple times.
On May 30 2026 03:07 seopthi wrote: Compare the GSL and ASL finals. It is saddening that virtually every SC2 game is 3+bases automatically, that there is this superficial pretentious glorification of macro games, which all really look quite alike. There used to be exciting openings and exciting early games with Has' cheeses or Life's scrappy zergling games. That's all gone.
In the ASL finals we had at least 2 games with workers fighting in the beginning and crazy diversified openings; it is much more colorful
Not sure where this misconception comes from that the number of starting workers affects this, maybe everyone thinks of early WoL when they think of 6 worker start? For most of Hots 3+ bases was just as standard as it is today, just watch any INnoVation games from back then. The only difference this change makes is wasting everyones time for the first 2 minutes of the game
This is probably just a vibes based take you're having, Charoisaur, but SC2 in general has been friendly to eco games ever since map making wasn't a complete fiesta. There was a ton more diversity in the early parts of the game back then. I don't want to discuss how the efforts of trying to adjust the economy so 3 bases didn't economically cap you kinda shifted the balance of the three ways of playing, but it clearly changed the win conditions significantly. Reducing the early game literally narrows the time actions are possible. Additionally, leaving yourself on fewer bases even for a slight moment puts you so far behind.
You're wrong, you just have nostalgia for early WoL which won't come back. Lambo explained it here very well why you're wrong.
This change does nothing except wasting 1 minute of everyones time every game.
If you don't remember HotS TvZ anymore, Inno literally played reaper expand into fast 3CC every single TvZ and it was safe against everything
I like both you and Lambo, but you’re both wrong :p
Part of what made SoS such a great player was his ability to do wonky things off of levels of mind games and tech choices
LoTV just accelerated the game to be more eco focused, and less strategically diverse and more about raw mechanics.
Blizz basically abandoned 4 player maps in this expansion, that worked previously for this exact reason. One can’t actually do anything with scouting information if you pick the wrong starting location to scout with the faster eco. If it’s eco heavy, you can’t punish it, if they’re cheesing you, you’re already dead
On May 29 2026 17:57 WSH32 wrote: Title: 5.0.16 PTR Feedback: Mass Changelings Still Create an Unfair Attention Trade, and Ghost Nerfs Go Too Far
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.
So you want to keep ghosts as-is except removing the cancellation of steady targeting upon taking damage? You say you're not arguing that ghosts should be buffed but that's a fairly large buff. Zerg's only counter to ghosts is hoping the terran doesn't control well against banes or to land a fungal (generally losing the infestor) and then committing a sizeable portion of their army into a defensive setup to kill a few ghosts. The shroud change doesn't help against anything that zerg struggles with in lategame TvZ and now you want to make it worse? The ghost is already over-centralized in the TvZ lategame - what counter would zerg even have left? Ghosts counter everything hard enough as it is now - every unit you named and more. According to aligulac TvZ has been terran favored every month except 1 (Nov 2024 which was still 48.9%) for nearly 3 years, and TvZ has been above 55% (peaking at 61.4%) for 10/16 individual months since January 2025. With the proposed changes, steady targeting would actually do more damage to non-psionic zerg units and have more standard damage + range but have fewer spell uses at a time, so I can see the logic. But it really comes down to the core issue of how over-centralizing ghosts are lategame TvZ and trying to focus just on ghost changes always keeps leading to the same issue of if they're broken or not good enough.
Addressing the patch itself: I would have liked to see changes that increase the duration of fights, encourage fighting on multiple fronts, soften hard counters, reduce immediate game-ending consequences from common harassment (helps retain lower level players especially), and increase the variety of unit compositions at various stages of the game. I don't think this patch does much to help with those areas, and I'm not convinced that reducing starting workers will do much more than waste game-time.
Why I Think the Ghost Should Not Be Over-Nerfed
My BattleTag is WSH#1951. I have played SC2 since WoL. I reached Master League six times in all seasons, three times after LotV released. Before 2020, my peak MMR was above 4400. I am still around 3800 MMR on NA today.
I do not play all-ins. I have always preferred macro-oriented Terran. So while I am not a pro player, but I believe I have enough long-term experience to give serious balance feedback.
My main point is simple: every matchup can reach the late game. If a matchup has problems in the early or mid game, then those stages should be adjusted directly. But weakening a race’s late game too much is dangerous, because once the game reaches that stage, the result can become almost predetermined.
In TvZ, late game is largely about spell trading and positional control. Vipers have extremely strong tools: fast energy recovery through Consume, Blinding Cloud, Abduct, and Parasitic Bomb. Abduct in particular is very fast and often decides trades before Terran can respond.
Ghosts are Terran’s main answer to this. Steady Targeting has high damage, but it is not a free spell. It still requires setup, vision, range, energy, and a 1.43-second channel. Against a good Zerg player with fast units, creep, Overseers, Changelings, and multiple angles, landing good Snipes is not easy.
That is why I think making Steady Targeting no longer cancel from damage is a reasonable change. It helps prevent situations where a Viper can instantly Abduct or disrupt a high-value Terran unit before the Ghost can realistically complete its counterplay.
However, I do not think Ghosts need extra attack range or higher basic attack damage. Ghosts should not become stronger as normal combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay, not frontline DPS.
The real reason Terran makes so many Ghosts is that other late-game Terran tools have become too limited. Liberators, Siege Tanks, Thors, Ravens, and other mechanical units have all been nerfed in different ways over time. Meanwhile, Zerg has received meaningful late-game tools such as stronger Microbial Shroud utility, Hydralisk Lunge mobility, improved Infestor utility, and strong Viper interactions.
So if the goal is to reduce mass Ghost reliance, Terran needs other reliable late-game tools. Simply stacking nerfs on Ghosts does not solve the design problem. It just removes the unit Terran currently depends on.
My preferred solution:
1. Keep Steady Targeting non-interruptible. 2. Do not increase Ghost attack range or basic attack damage. 3. Ghost HP can return to 100 because Ghosts already gained the Light tag. 4. Keep Ghosts at 2 supply. 5. Keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy.
If Ghosts must be nerfed harder than that, then Terran needs compensation elsewhere: for example, Siege Tanks staying immune to Abduct, better Liberator range/vision, or meaningful Raven utility.
TvZ late game should be about fair spell trading, positioning, and efficient control from both sides. Terran should not be forced into a position where Vipers and Infestors dominate the late game while Ghosts become too supply-inefficient and energy-limited to answer them.
This may be true for lower levels
But at the pro level, ghost literally owns everything Zerg throws at them
There is a reason why Zerg and toss refuse / hate playing late game against Terran. Once Terran gets mass libs / ghost. The game is literally unwinnable
You are wrong, the scenario you just mentioned is at the low level. In fact, Viper plus infestor are massively produced and applied aganist lib/ghost combo in the late game of TVZ above 3600MMR. You are suffered to counterplay Terran if you do not have a good micro of controlling the spellcasters, but that is not the reason why Zery is always the patch winner, but Terran get nerfed in multiple times.
Shocking news: Zergs produce units in the lategame instead of just giving up to the superior terran player...
This patch feels a bit like the big WC3 Reforged Patches we got that clearly were meant to shake up the game with some crazier ideas, like new items, new abilities, moving units around and what not. Did those patches help WC3? In the long run, I would definetly say yes. But there were a lot of growing pains. So while I personally are not too keen about the idea of changing so much, I can see the appeal for SC2. This is the first year basically since the release of the game we will not have any big Championship-level event, so this is definetly the time and the place to experiment a bit (can you imagine this kind of patch hitting the floor before EWC '25 for example?). But even then it will need to be monitered.
I'm wondering: How active is the PTR actually? I would assume that only a small portion of players are playing on it, in an already small-ish community. Or is RTS/SC2 different in that regard and 'everyone' jumps onto the PTR?
EPT
