StarCraft II 5.0.16 PTR Patch Notes may 26th

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!

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.

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.

On May 29 2026 11:34 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Holy SHIT i did NOT expect such amazing changes

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.?

On May 29 2026 18:18 Charoisaur wrote:
So with the warpgate change they are effectively removing Protoss from the game and replacing it with terran 2.0.
I thought the great thing about sc2 was the asymmetrical design, now they want 2 races to work the same way?
Wish blizzard would just lock the key away for making changes before those community balance jesters manage to destroy the game.

On May 29 2026 18:18 Charoisaur wrote:
So with the warpgate change they are effectively removing Protoss from the game and replacing it with terran 2.0.
I thought the great thing about sc2 was the asymmetrical design, now they want 2 races to work the same way?
Wish blizzard would just lock the key away for making changes before those community balance jesters manage to destroy the game.

On May 29 2026 18:55 WSH32 wrote:


Can't agree more with your point bro, the only thing that this shithead community balance team has done is getting fucking Zerg more powerful repeatedly thru anything they can get. Infestor shroud, hydra charge, for those things that is actually damaging this game, the fucking balance team never cared. Mass changelings, very OP vipers, and they still keep nerf Liberator and ghost, now they turn it back and nerf Terran again, but Protoss seems getting hurt more this time. I think the game should be called ZergCraft. Blizzard should never grant anyone else to access the code and modify the game.

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.

On May 30 2026 01:47 Charoisaur wrote:

Yes I think in BW the races are less unique than in sc2 which is one of the reasons I prefersc2

On May 30 2026 04:09 Charoisaur wrote:

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

On May 30 2026 06:03 Hider wrote:


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 00:58 arcane1129 wrote:


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.

On May 30 2026 06:03 Hider wrote:


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

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 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.

On May 30 2026 07:31 WSH32 wrote:




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 11:15 TeamMamba wrote:


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

On May 30 2026 16:22 Charoisaur wrote:

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.

https://youtu.be/FDW8iHtGmvo?is=RqXMK0hjVC9VE1B_

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 17:47 WombaT wrote:

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 30 2026 20:54 ArtyK wrote:
But what if we gave queens the armored tag?

On May 30 2026 06:28 WombaT wrote:

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 31 2026 05:52 Think13 wrote:
I think they killed the ghost with 75 energy "steady targeting". And 100hp means a steep vulnerability for it. I wouldn't mind reverting the attack and range buffs when these 2 stats are reverted too.

On May 31 2026 06:30 WSH32 wrote:


That make sense, ghost as Terran's core unit, is the only thing that could have been used to counter Zerg's spell casters.
Ghosts should not become stronger as basic combat units. Their role should remain spell-based counterplay. The real problem is 75 energy Steady Targeting, because it directly reduces Ghost spell output and makes Terran much weaker in late-game spell trading.

I would much rather keep Ghosts at 2 supply, keep Steady Targeting at 50 energy, install uncancelled steady targeting is necessary, and remove the attack/range buffs if needed.

I just don't make sense why the balance council always buff Zerg systematically, given new ability upgrades to infester and hydra, modify attack speed for Brood, change volume of Ultralisk, decrease evolution upgrades cost. Meanwhile nerf either Terran or Protoss in anything, the Libs, Thor, Tank, Ghost, Raven all get nerfed for not only one time, i think this game will be ZergCraft soon.

If they keep nerf Terran but buff Zerg, I am gonna quit for sure, and I will post comments in everyplace I could have found, tell anyone who I may tell, do not waste a single second in this game if you are not going to select Zerg to play.

On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Revising my first impression of the Gateway change:
You need to pay 50 minerals AND 50 gas for each gateway to be able to switch into warpgate? Holy shit that's a huge nerf
Guys, warping in at any pylon for 3 sec vs 3.6 sec is significant, but it's not as huge as needing to spend say 400 minerals 400 gas to have 8 warpgates on 3 bases where you had those warpgates for free in WoL/HotS.

The switching between Warpgate an Gateway is too clunky and weird too.
Just make it so that you decide whether to invest into upgrading some of your gateways into warpgates. That's already enough isn't it? Once they're warpgates, the only difference is you get to warp in from then on. Don't make it produce units slower or have to manage switching your gates and warpgates back and forth, that just seems so silly and unfun.
If you really want to make it a little cute, then sure maybe Gateways can produce units ~2 seconds faster. But don't NERF warpgate production, wtf? What are you giving in return?

And put the research back on the core.. this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.

On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:

If you really want to make it a little cute, then sure maybe Gateways can produce units ~2 seconds faster. But don't NERF warpgate production, wtf? What are you giving in return?

And put the research back on the core.. this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.

On May 31 2026 10:58 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
this is like if we saw a PTR where they actually moved the immortal to the gateway. Please, just don't.

On May 31 2026 09:31 Balnazza wrote:


So Ghosts should be a pure counter-unit, correct? That means a couple of Cracklings should be able to easily demolish 8-10 Ghosts, yes? Because it is a counter-unit based on their spellcasting-ability. If you don't use their abilities, they should be as useless as HTs, Vipers, Infestors etc.
That's the kind of Ghost you want? Excellent, me too! Lets nerf the Ghost! \ o /

Or to give the none-snippy reply:
You are wondering why Zerg units get upgraded and tweaked so much? Lets just look at them:
So Zerg needs Ultralisks, which get countered by Ghosts, then they need Brood Lords, which get countered by Ghosts, they also need Infestors for which the Terran has to counter with Ghosts and of course Zergs desperately need Vipers to force the Terran into producing Ghosts as a counter.
...huh.

On May 31 2026 06:25 Hider wrote:


What limits to creativity? You do not think it's possible to experiment with build-times/research times/otherstats? Do you have any evidence to suggest this? I suppose most like likely you haven't really thought this through and is limited in scope to only evaluating a single variable - which is exactly what i criticize. Lack of creativity.

There are so many variable that determine whether cheese/allin is strong. And one variable got changed - and IMO this is the fundamentally correct change - it is not fun to do effectively nothing in the early game. However, other variables must be changed to go along with it. Creativity comes into play when being able to identify these variables and thinking of other ways to accomplish the desired goals.

On May 31 2026 22:24 Balnazza wrote:


Literally fucking Serral struggles in TvZ because Ghosts are so oppressive.
Here is the thing you are missing: I'm not saying Ghosts are "imba", I'm saying they are oppressive and need to be reworked. I don't mind if that includes buffing something else for Terran, but it would be nice if Terrans would have atleast remember a second hotkey after a certain timelimit...no, I'm being unfair here, but it is just not good game-design when one unit is the counter to everything. Which also proves that none of the Zerg units you complain about are imbalanced, because, again, their counter is one unit. You have to handle four different units as a Zerg (including to squishy spellcasters and one derby flyer who can't be unattended for 2 seconds) together with everything else to counter the Terran army and the Terran counter is...one unit? One T2.5 unit should not counter four different T3-units, that's just not okay. Especially since the unit is somewhat decent against the one logical counter Zerg has: Zerglings. Who have to get through a shitdown of mines, tanks, liberators, marines and marauders to get to the Ghosts.
This week I shoutcasted an older WC3 match. I had a fucking blast explaining how the two army compositions were supposed to counter each other. Because that's the fun you get with good counter-units instead of going "so all of this counters everything the Terran has and this stealthy boi counters the entire Zerg army - everyone on board or was that too complicated?"

And you do know that you can spin the "mistake"-argument in any matchup, right? Don't you Terran players love to throw away six drops just to kill the entire eco with the seventh?

On May 31 2026 22:24 Balnazza wrote:


Literally fucking Serral struggles in TvZ because Ghosts are so oppressive.
Here is the thing you are missing: I'm not saying Ghosts are "imba", I'm saying they are oppressive and need to be reworked. I don't mind if that includes buffing something else for Terran, but it would be nice if Terrans would have atleast remember a second hotkey after a certain timelimit...no, I'm being unfair here, but it is just not good game-design when one unit is the counter to everything. Which also proves that none of the Zerg units you complain about are imbalanced, because, again, their counter is one unit. You have to handle four different units as a Zerg (including to squishy spellcasters and one derby flyer who can't be unattended for 2 seconds) together with everything else to counter the Terran army and the Terran counter is...one unit? One T2.5 unit should not counter four different T3-units, that's just not okay. Especially since the unit is somewhat decent against the one logical counter Zerg has: Zerglings. Who have to get through a shitdown of mines, tanks, liberators, marines and marauders to get to the Ghosts.
This week I shoutcasted an older WC3 match. I had a fucking blast explaining how the two army compositions were supposed to counter each other. Because that's the fun you get with good counter-units instead of going "so all of this counters everything the Terran has and this stealthy boi counters the entire Zerg army - everyone on board or was that too complicated?"

And you do know that you can spin the "mistake"-argument in any matchup, right? Don't you Terran players love to throw away six drops just to kill the entire eco with the seventh?

On June 01 2026 13:03 TelecoM wrote:
I can't wait for the economy change to go live, I will be playing SC2 again.

On May 31 2026 22:50 TeamMamba wrote:


Ghost is just a cancer unit that Terrans refuse to admit

On June 01 2026 20:56 HelpMeGetBetter wrote:
any idea of when this is supposed to go live? don't want to grind ladder if all these changes are coming

On May 31 2026 20:30 WSH32 wrote:
You think the Ghost can counter everything only because you are bad at using mass Banelings to damage Terran’s economy. Like I said before, the Ghost is the only solution under the current circumstances, because almost every other important Terran unit has been nerfed in multiple times. If you do not want to see Ghosts anymore, okay, then let’s bring back Raven's PDD and restore Seeker Missile damage. You cannot keep numerically nerfing the entire Terran army. Mech is already gone. And I know you Zerg players just love watching Terran players make one mistake in infantry positioning, so mass Lurkers and Ultralisks can wipe out the entire Terran troops in a blink of eye. Do not fucking forget that Marines and Marauders are basic units. They are not designed to counter your high-value advanced units. In short, the Ghost is not strong enough. You suck at ZvT because you are not Serral.

On June 02 2026 00:02 Wintex wrote:

Bro I do remember HotS TvZ, my favorite player is Bomber, the guy who went a weird ass marine heavy combat shields build to do a specific mostly safe push that could transition into a longer game. Yes, call it an anecdote, but there were people doing mine drops and hellbat drops for the duration. Safe builds exist, but people constantly mix it up. Calling it all a nostalgia trip is so disingenious. People were professionals even back then, not cavemen.

Also Lambo's takes are not necessarily wrong, he just says this is bad because it won't have an effect. The game has been designed to work with the 12 worker start, and by increasing the time people spend with lower economies, a lot more decisions can actually happen in the early stage. The range of maps now is quite a bit more narrow, don't you agree? I'm not gonna defend the really bad maps in WoL, but a lot the maps already in HotS were really friendly for econ builds especially towards the end. I think we can learn from the past and give people both a longer early game, but also make maps that reward good decisions by players in a range of problems.

Sure, given enough time, players are gonna figure out good responses and Lambo and you will tell me that you told me so, but LotV builds have often danced around a knife's edge because of the value proposition of aggression being quite punishing.


top tier luolis moment for sure.



;-
Also ghosts have always been complete demons, a day of reckoning should come similar to the infestors. (nerfs will allow the power budget of the terran army to be reallocated to a better place)

On June 02 2026 00:32 WSH32 wrote:



All you Zerg motherfuckers just complains ghost OP but never admit the fucking viper is even more OP than ghost, how the fuck that spell can abduct everything and it is an instant cast, dont you fuckers think that abduct counters everything?
If you want the ghost get modified, they Terran must reverse Raven's PDD and seeker missile damage as compensate. otherwise, just go to play ZERGCRAFT.

On June 02 2026 05:29 Charoisaur wrote:

I think when they were 3 supply they were fine, massing them was really not viable anymore.
Then they made them 2 supply again but light, which probably would have been fine too. Then they gave them a random +25 hp buff which turned them OP again.

Somehow this is something every balance team does, creating a problem out of nothing and then fixing it with a redesign, instead of just reverting the patch that made it problematic. The most famous example of this was what they did with infested terrans.

On June 02 2026 06:38 WSH32 wrote:
Let me restate my point more patiently.

I admit that the Ghost is a strong unit. My issue is that, in late-game TvZ, the Ghost is currently the only reliable spell-based answer Terran has. The Raven is not very useful in this matchup right now.

I have seen people say that the power budget of the Terran army should be reallocated. I am not against that idea in principle. But if that is the direction, then Terran needs real compensation elsewhere, such as bringing back Raven PDD or restoring Seeker Missile damage. You cannot leave Terran with no effective spellcaster in a matchup where Zerg can use both Vipers and Infestors as a late-game spellcaster combination.

Another suggestion I have seen is to nerf the Ghost’s basic combat capability. I do not think that is reasonable in the current situation. Ghosts are already mainly effective against light units. Armored units can kill them very quickly if they are caught out of position.

So my preferred Ghost change is to make it more of a glass cannon. Keep the Ghost as a Light unit, and let its HP go back from 125 to 100, making it easier to kill if mispositioned. But keep the other core values unchanged: 2 supply and 50 energy Steady Targeting. Also keep the change that Steady Targeting is not cancelled by taking damage while channeling.

I think this is a more acceptable compromise. It makes Ghosts more punishable, but still keeps their core role as Terran’s late-game spell-based counterplay.

On June 02 2026 15:21 BaiZhuZhu wrote:
it's stupid to make all these changes in a basically 'dead game'

broodwar has survived without balance patches for HISTORY

this doesn't make shit feel like more like BW at all

On June 02 2026 15:46 Cyro wrote:


WC3 has had fairly recent balance and design patches and seen massive improvement for it from new player to the pro scene. It's 8 years older than SC2.

On June 02 2026 12:52 Turbovolver wrote:

Ghosts don't function like spellcasters in TvZ, though. You might as well call the Cyclone a "spellcaster".

If they were built in small to moderate numbers and used with finesse, then they would feel a lot more like they are supposed to, i.e. specialists.

Mass ghosts is not only a gameplay fail (like broodwar TvZ mech inevitability but worse), it's a flavour fail.

On June 02 2026 19:48 tigera6 wrote:

If you replace Snipe with an AoE spell that also cause oponent unit to be stunned then Terrans dont need mass Ghost. Snipe has becomed an essential tool in TvZ lategame because they have the best chance at punishing retreating Zerg army. Otherwise Zerg can just hit , run back and drop a Fungal to keep Terran from chasing.

On June 02 2026 20:55 Acrofales wrote:

Snipe should be a tool in the anti-Zerg arsenal. Particularly against Ultralisks, but just generally decent vs large bio units. As a counter to vipers and infestors, EMP should be the weapon of choice, not snipe, but snipe should be a decent backup. And then vs the rest of the Zerg army, ghosts should be good, but not the best. It's like how Storm is mostly useless against a mech army. Or fungal alone is kinda pointless, without an army (preferably with lots of banelings or ultras) to back it up. The problem isn't that ghost is a useful unit. It's that endgame TvZ is basically ghosts countering absolutely everything. Why build vikings against broodlords when ghosts do the trick. And why liberators vs lurkers when ghosts do the trick? And in fact, why MMM/hellbats vs small strikeforce of ling/bane when ghosts do the trick. I think the only unit in the Zerg arsenal that ghosts are truly a subpar option against is roaches. And literally everything else in a lategame Terran arsenal destroys roaches without even trying.

On June 03 2026 02:20 Captain Peabody wrote:

What do you think of the idea of making Snipe unable to target air units? Feels like it would leave the Ghost a powerful unit against Ultras and Lurkers while giving it more of a genuine vulnerability to Broods, Mutas, etc.

On June 03 2026 03:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Don't forget part of the reason Ghost ended up becoming so strong TvZ is because they gutted the Raven as a spellcaster especially in TvZ. Other than having 1-3 for detection or AA missile, you don't use it as a lategame spellcaster the way you do with any of the other race's spellcasters.

Matrix being a powerful single target spell made it potent in TvP and TvT but basically never see it in TvZ.

On June 03 2026 03:40 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
Don't forget part of the reason Ghost ended up becoming so strong TvZ is because they gutted the Raven as a spellcaster especially in TvZ. Other than having 1-3 for detection or AA missile, you don't use it as a lategame spellcaster the way you do with any of the other race's spellcasters.

Matrix being a powerful single target spell made it potent in TvP and TvT but basically never see it in TvZ.

On June 03 2026 04:18 WombaT wrote:

Mass Raven did somewhat suck though

The current is very niche, partly with tech lab requirements that cut into medivac and Viking production, hence you only tend to see ravens as part of openers in general and it simply becomes to awkward to integrate them

I dunno how you fix that. But I think it would be great if Terrans could more flexibly use ravens, without buffing them all that much.

If you could build them from a regular starport (unreactored) provided you have say, an armoury also they probably become way easier to fit in. Not a concrete recommendation, a suggestions

They feel a good unit, but awkward. They’ve a lot of theoretical utility but unless you actively open for a few and hope they don’t die, or go super late (and basically only in TvT) they’re an awkward unit to fit in

Ravens could be super useful to throughout a game, but you need ravens, and the ability to make them. Almost every other unit in the game if you’ve unlocked it on the tech tree and your buildings don’t get blown up, you can make them. Wanna make ravens you have to actively sac reactors on Starports and in all likelihood you will just die cutting those corners

On June 03 2026 08:53 ETisME wrote:

wasn't mass ghost /snipe a thing since WoL? Only reason why raven took over is it did an even better job, easier to land key spells, maneuver and more uses like worker harass etc.

On June 03 2026 02:20 Captain Peabody wrote:

What do you think of the idea of making Snipe unable to target air units? Feels like it would leave the Ghost a powerful unit against Ultras and Lurkers while giving it more of a genuine vulnerability to Broods, Mutas, etc.

On June 03 2026 23:12 seopthi wrote:


One more suggestion I'd like to propose -- I just watched Tasteless' take on the patch and he mentioned that he thinks that the game should be balanced for pros, which I agree with. The natural problem is that if we get 50% winrate in the GSL, it may be greatly different in GM or Silver on ladder.

Historically it has been like this many times, e.g., Protoss favored in GM while Terran in Bronze. The thing I would love Blizzard to consider, is for ladder MMR to be per matchup and the overall being the average of the three.

There would be no such worry about balance per skill level; for example, if Protoss is easier to play with low apm compare to Zerg, PvZ could be matched against a player that would currently be considered stronger.

The purpose of MMR is to have 50% winrate, which overall players have, but they clearly do not have per matchup; I have had 70% winrate in one and 30% in another, for example. Of course, I can focus on improving on the lowest winrate, but it being uneven is unavoidable.

On June 04 2026 06:14 BisuDagger wrote:
Anyone else ever dream of a patch that lets you choose the campaign style tech trees prior to starting the game? Both the campaign and Co-Op offer such a variety of play that could exist if there were pre-game tech trees.

On June 03 2026 23:22 WombaT wrote:

Giving me a magic wand, the game is balanced for the pros, but fun for us plebs.

I think SC2 can often suffer on the latter, where interactions that are ultimately balanced, just suck to play against at lower levels. Like Serral can dismantle an Airtoss fleet with Templar support, but at lower levels a Zerg is just getting A-moved to death because they lack the ability to pick it apart

I’ve played other games where they’re actively more fun when you suck, and all sorts of things are viable, get good and it’s play meta and skip about 80% of other options

I’ve got zero idea how to actually do that, but just as a general concept.

On June 04 2026 06:14 BisuDagger wrote:
Anyone else ever dream of a patch that lets you choose the campaign style tech trees prior to starting the game? Both the campaign and Co-Op offer such a variety of play that could exist if there were pre-game tech trees.

On June 04 2026 18:27 Besfren wrote:
They should really remove all the council members for the patches as it is apparent that all of them are Zerg and Terran lovers. In today's patch, Zerg is still the most OP race then closely behind it is Terran while Protoss is still kicked to the curb and made it even more shitty. More free units (broodlings, locusts, changelings) for Zerg + more vision (overlords, tumors, changelings) compared to protoss where the only free unit is the adept shade and it only gives you vision and doesn't even attack, illusions from a sentry aren't free as they cost energy as well as oracle attacks and revelations in which none deal damage and only for mild vision, carriers cost 25 minerals per interceptors which can be shot down making it inept one the interceptors are dead and also destroys the interceptors once the carrier is also dead (IMO, make the interceptors free as well as make the interceptors auto attack in the area or have a timed life once the carrier drops dead to make it even with the zerg's free attack, as well as let the adepts do the original attacks even without the shade debuffs just like in the campaign to be worth it to use. For the observer, would be best to have a unit limit count to make like say 10-15 and have them cost no supply at all and should be moved to a Nexus to make instead of a robotics and have it a tech structure as a requirement like cybernetics core). Now Terran is like a jack of all trades but their EMP would automatically wipe out protoss' shields immediately dropping protoss half their effectivity while marines are effectively the best unit in the game as they cost only 50 minerals and 1 supply. They can also have a better run by with hellions on the mineral fields doing splash damage or fast reapers jumping up and down a cliff or have marines drop, Zerg has very quick and super many zerglings like 2 per 1 supply so you'd have 10 supply = 20 zerglings on a run by that can easily kill a lot or roaches tunneling towards their worker lines, now compare that to a 10 supply protoss of run by zealots which is only like 5 zealots and no splash and has a charge cooldown or an adept shade that you need upgrades to get it to attack faster and in contrast to the drop you need to upgrade to warpgate then buy a prism and have them slow warp in to the battle field or mineral fields wherein enemies can already have their workers run away. For an advanced race compared to Terran and Zerg, the Protoss is one massively overpriced, underpopulated and heavily nerfed race, it's like Elves vs Humans and Undead (NOT in WC3) lore that they'll be ultimately get wiped out first even if they have magic and long lives.

Now if you have read all of this rant, I salute you for actually understanding and not being bias like most players or viewers are that they only love Zerg and Terran along with their matchups TvZ. Hope they will actually kick off those bias council members in the patches and make Protoss a good and balanced race versus the others again.

On June 13 2026 00:23 Dinwiddi wrote:
I must admit I really like changes as a low diamond Terran. I am playing PTR a lot, at times do question the point as the economy takes a lot more care to build up but it does feel like the game was more designed around this slower build up. Some units are just more viable as an opening like the banshee.

What I also like it doesn't feel like a rush to the late game anymore. There is time to react if the opponent rushes late game instead of just 'BOOM ultra's!'. The early game has more openers, a bit more rock paper scissors but it does put a larger emphasis on scouting and early scouting also have a cost which makes it more of choice and an investment which in its turn gives it strategic depth.

Anyway my 2 cents as an old school ladder pleb.

On June 03 2026 11:01 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:


I'm not saying to bring mass Ravens back as a go-to strategy, but that the Raven's redesign was an overreaction and went way too much into a niche unit you only get 1-3 of in TvZ. It's the only spellcaster Blizzard decided to design into being a unit you only get 1-2 of (in their words).

Making it into such a niche unit means that the Ghost has to fulfill all the "lategame spellcaster" roles in the TvZ matchup. Making it less interesting because instead of having to choose Ghosts or Ravens, or having to get tech to get both or switch between both in the lategame, you simply mass one of them.

Maybe if they make Matrix 10 range instead of 9 range, it might see some niche use against Vipers, but since it's only 9 range Vipers can abduct if they come up. And ultimately it's still stronger to just EMP them instead.

That said, I don't think disabling units is the best design (even if it is Starcraft-y), and I don't really like anti armor missile either (not very Starcraft-y, overly favors low damage fast firing units, and messed with TvP balance). I much preferred the old Raven and PDD, which was such a Terran-y ability with its positional and defensive capabilities. I always believed they overlooked the true reason why PDD was broken design wise. PDD allowed you to put down just 1 PDD to block 20 projectiles at once. This means that you could put 1 PDD at a time and even if you chase them down across the map or if you try to run away, the Ravens can just drop 1-2 PDD at a time with no commitment.
If it was redesigned so that each PDD can only block 2-3 projectiles per second for example, you'd need to put down 10 PDDs if you want to block 20 Corruptors' shots at once, which is a huge energy drain and allows the counterplay of simply backing off until the PDDs expire in 15-20 secs, or re-engage somewhere else.

In smaller numbers or in the early to mid game, 1 PDD being able to still block 20 projectiles over 7-10 secs (if able to block only 2-3 projectiles per second) is still significant. If your opponent's army has 20 Stalkers for example, you'd still be reducing their dps by ~15-20% over 7-10 seconds, and the amount of dps reduction decreases as the opponent's army out scales your Raven count unless you commit to massing Ravens which you then drain their energy by being interactive and forcing them to burn PDDs in one place then go attack elsewhere.

I always felt what they did to Seeker Missile is silly too. It was an ability that, similar to PDD, you could avoid by backing off or engaging elsewhere. Like a bio army poking a protoss making them burn storms until you commit to a real fight. Then the community said the ability was too useless, so they kept buffing it to the point that it became reasonably realistic to land mass AOE nukes on your opponent (to be fair, progamers always underestimated the damage and often tanked them instead of retreating even if they'd lose some units while being chased down). Then, instead of just realizing they messed up turning it from a zoning ability into a high damage aoe nuke and reverting the buffs, they decided the damage was the issue and changed it to the early versions of AA missile where it still did like 5 damage. Which of course, still got massed because any aoe damage nuke that can be used reliably is incredibly strong in a game like SC2. And then, as if they still didn't realize the issue was the reliable damage and not the amount of damage, they got rid of the damage entirely making it simply reduce your armor..

I feel like this happened to the auto turret too, and many other SC2 changes. Understandably, as the dev/balance team changed over the years, they wouldn't have the full context of how things reached the point it did. But it's still disappointing feeling that patches seem to forget why certain things became broken, and instead of reverting those changes and trying to keep the original concept which worked, they keep straying further from the original vision.



Yes, mass snipe was OP early WoL until MVP showcased it against Nestea in a high visibility Blizzcon match where he evaporated Nestea's ultra/BL army. It got nerfed but was always potent, and as a high damage energy ability that does massive damage we know from history they probably still didn't abuse ghosts enough post-nerfs (probably because they found the Raven to be even more OP).
LotV was interesting where snipe had more of a delay, and could be cancelled if they take damage. But ended up doing a lot of damage again, so it became volatile and thus very potent if you can get snipes off. Getting the energy refunded on cancel was a big buff too, it made having the spell cancelable a small downside to doing a lot of damage again after the WoL nerfs.

On June 19 2026 18:34 BlackEyed wrote:
Man, I was already hoping they’d actually fix the game instead of just slapping on band-aids. I figured that if the developers were experimenting with worker counts, they might finally pay attention to some of the other critical issues as well. Maybe they'd rework Queens, or give Zerg a proper T1 anti-air unit.

But nope. It took them three weeks just to move an upgrade back from the Gateway to the Cybernetics Core. And now they’re once again suggesting that players mass Queens. Well, I guess my expectations are my own problem.

On June 19 2026 21:55 Necr0KAM wrote:
Good point, macro mechanics aka queen/mule/chrono should be optional choices rather than must have in every game.

Queens ~175-200m 50g and orbitals ~75-100m 75-100g with 75m 75g techractors sound rational.

As for Zerks; Hydras should just back to T1 with more expensive HDen costs as intended.

On June 20 2026 07:11 CicadaSC wrote:

So... We're bringing back auto injects just without the queen? I don't know chief...