EPTHow would you feel about frequent/monthly balance patches…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
TL.net Bot
TL.net138 Posts
| ||
|
TelecoM
United States10847 Posts
| ||
|
bela.mervado
Hungary415 Posts
could work or should i say, would like to see with one, two at most, small changes. i can imagine pairing this with monthly ~5k events. after each event the intern would take a hard unforgiving look at the results, and do some random shit with the aim of changing the balance for the better. i hope the intern can arrange the funding for these events. but first, please, revert this 8 worker bullshit (i think most of the other changes should stay for a while, we do not have anything better to do, we can as well test these ideas). | ||
|
Slydie
2005 Posts
Strive to make all matchups (including mirrors) s fair and enjoyable as possible, then let the map pool do the rest. Unfortunately, it seems like the game is quite far away from that goal right now, and might not hit it for at least a year. | ||
|
jameswiilliamms00
1 Post
| ||
|
victorkhalachi
1 Post
| ||
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19384 Posts
| ||
|
TequilaMockingbird
Germany68 Posts
| ||
|
Creager
Germany1962 Posts
What I think they should've done with the current situation is making sure to iron out issues with the starting worker change first and foremost by internally checking the change history of the game and which adjustments happened in correlation to the 12 worker start and THEN proceed with more profound "meta shake up" changes. Constant balance patches are just a way to ensure that whatever is left of the pro scene will collapse in the shortest amount of time. Blizzard from the ground up designed SC2 to be an esport, you don't change the environment of any (e)sport that constantly, but they clearly don't really give a flying f**k at this point and don't really seem to have any concept of what to do with this game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
I’m always banging on about more varied maps and I think you could rotate at least a few more experimental maps in/out of the pool at that kind of pace But the game is hard enough to play as it is without having to constantly relearn things | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria874 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
I lost interest in dota as an off-game, I used to know all of the item costs and facts, the same with wc3. This dota-esque patching is a way to keep the nerds engaged, while destroying it for everyone else. Change for change's sake means, you welcome bad changes, just because. So it's a supposed short-term gain, but a long term loss. I hate to see what sc2 will be like in 5 years of this. Dkim used to say, the smallest change with the biggest output. | ||
|
Glorfindelio
229 Posts
| ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2832 Posts
On July 21 2026 02:31 ejozl wrote: I was still finding ways to do builds with 12 worker start, thinking on how it differs from 6 worker start, and this was 10 years after the fact. I don't believe in changes, mass shake up is a crutch for games that lack depth, yet we have one of the deepest games out there. I lost interest in dota as an off-game, I used to know all of the item costs and facts, the same with wc3. This dota-esque patching is a way to keep the nerds engaged, while destroying it for everyone else. Change for change's sake means, you welcome bad changes, just because. So it's a supposed short-term gain, but a long term loss. I hate to see what sc2 will be like in 5 years of this. Dkim used to say, the smallest change with the biggest output. I think I agree generally that it doesn't/shouldn't work for SC2 in large part because the game is about refined builds and execution per-map, then strategy per-series. You kind of put that structure in the blender with monthly patches, because how your strategy interacts with other strategies, at least intuitively, would change patch-per-patch. Consider how tight BW TvP Terran holding a bunker against goons is, if you do much of anything to mess with those timings it ripples throughout the whole matchup. Then compare Dota where they do wild shit like invent entirely new mechanics for the game some patches, make the map 20% bigger other patches, decide to just fully obsolete parts of the meta (trilanes and jungles, looking at you) and are fully content to just 100% backtrack on their choices and undo any of them in later patches. I think both the game is better suited for it, AND dota has had 20 years or whatever of us all culturally accepting that Dota is kind of a shit game (its also the best) and Dota patches are made by the chemically enhanced. Fundamentally if a dev was to come and ask me "We're thinking about doing monthly patches to SC2. What do you think about that idea?" I'd respond with "What do you hope to achieve?" and unless the answer to my question is refining balance towards a specific game design and game state, I'd be deeply skeptical. I think "patches to shake things up" is antithetical to the design of 'blizzard RTS', at least in the context of competitive 1v1. I'd tell them to put their design energy into coop commander, as its a better fit for patches to shake things up, and would probably meet a more receptive audience. | ||
|
baldgye
United Kingdom1110 Posts
| ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7390 Posts
| ||
|
BlackEyed
38 Posts
And to the conservative old-timers who DON'T WANT TO LEARN NEW STRATEGIES IN A GAME WHOSE ENTIRE GENRE IS STRATEGY, I'd like to say this: it's not 2003 anymore, when there were only a handful of games and people could play the same one for years without any changes.Today, players have far more choice and variety. If the developers keep releasing five lines of balance changes every couple of years, the game will be left with only a few hundred a couple hundred smoothbrains. Everyone else - the people WHO ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF ADAPTING TO CHANGE - will move on to games like Dota, LoL, and others where patches are released regularly and the meta changes at least a couple of times a year. The most important thing for any game to have a long life is a regular shake-up of the meta. For some reason, the StarCraft II developers decided that reaching some kind of mystical balance was all that mattered. No, it is not enough. And if that was not obvious before, then by now any sane person really should have no doubts left. So patches need to be not just frequent, but also bold, with major changes. Like replacing Medivacs with Medics, for example *winks*. | ||
|
Moonerz
United States467 Posts
The other thing is you have to know your player base. The people playing sc2 for the most part at this point have been playing it forever and we enjoy the game we left. I don't mind balance changes etc but to change the starting worker count when the build order resources at this stage of sc2 are so minimal seems so out of touch. There's a reason even when blizz had people working on this game they waited for a full expansion to make a worker count change, not just in a random patch. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
On July 23 2026 03:14 BlackEyed wrote: I don't know if this will save the game or if it's already too late, but frequent patches are absolutely necessary. The lack of them is exactly why the game is in such a terrible state. And to the conservative old-timers who DON'T WANT TO LEARN NEW STRATEGIES IN A GAME WHOSE ENTIRE GENRE IS STRATEGY, I'd like to say this: it's not 2003 anymore, when there were only a handful of games and people could play the same one for years without any changes.Today, players have far more choice and variety. If the developers keep releasing five lines of balance changes every couple of years, the game will be left with only a few hundred a couple hundred smoothbrains. Everyone else - the people WHO ARE ACTUALLY CAPABLE OF ADAPTING TO CHANGE - will move on to games like Dota, LoL, and others where patches are released regularly and the meta changes at least a couple of times a year. The most important thing for any game to have a long life is a regular shake-up of the meta. For some reason, the StarCraft II developers decided that reaching some kind of mystical balance was all that mattered. No, it is not enough. And if that was not obvious before, then by now any sane person really should have no doubts left. So patches need to be not just frequent, but also bold, with major changes. Like replacing Medivacs with Medics, for example *winks*. Brood War. I’d wager a lot of SC2’s playerbase are people in their 30s+ who simply don’t have the time to keep relearning a game on the regular Sure shake it up sometimes, but it has to be at a reasonable cadence | ||
|
BlackEyed
38 Posts
On July 23 2026 03:40 Moonerz wrote: The people playing sc2 for the most part at this point have been playing it forever and we enjoy the game we left. Most players have already left SC2. The game has seen a massive drop-off over the last few years. So let us not pretend this is about “what people like.” Look at Dota 2: everyone’s happy there, and it still has 700k players online every day. So what is better — catering to 500 old-timers who are perfectly content while the game slowly dies, or actually trying to keep the game alive? | ||
|
BlackEyed
38 Posts
On July 23 2026 03:55 WombaT wrote: Brood War. Brood War. What is Brood War? Did you decide to remind people about the existence of a dead game that has no new players and never will? Yeah, I remember. Or do you want StarCraft 2 to turn into another Brood War? Isn’t one enough? Let there be two empty games for a couple hundred old-timers? | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
On July 23 2026 05:38 BlackEyed wrote: Brood War. What is Brood War? Did you decide to remind people about the existence of a dead game that has no new players and never will? Yeah, I remember. Or do you want StarCraft 2 to turn into another Brood War? Isn’t one enough? Let there be two empty games for a couple hundred old-timers? Brood War is an example of a game that hasn’t been changed constantly, and still has a healthy player base. Other games change all the time and that works too, it’s really a matter of the game itself and the player base. Stop being an arse | ||
|
BlackEyed
38 Posts
On July 23 2026 05:45 WombaT wrote: Brood War is an example of a game that hasn’t been changed constantly, and still has a healthy player base. Other games change all the time and that works too, it’s really a matter of the game itself and the player base. Stop being an arse No one was evaluating the quality of the game. It can be wonderful three times over, but that will not make it any more alive, and new players will not come to it. If a game does not change, it dies. And I do not want that fate for StarCraft 2, at least until StarCraft 3 comes out. And you can keep frothing at the mouth in your ignorance; it will not change the objective reality that the lack of patches has had a bad effect on the game. | ||
|
doktordingerdonger
132 Posts
It is after all objective reality that a lack of change has a bad effect on a game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
On July 23 2026 05:59 BlackEyed wrote: No one was evaluating the quality of the game. It can be wonderful three times over, but that will not make it any more alive, and new players will not come to it. If a game does not change, it dies. And I do not want that fate for StarCraft 2, at least until StarCraft 3 comes out. And you can keep frothing at the mouth in your ignorance; it will not change the objective reality that the lack of patches has had a bad effect on the game. What ignorance, having a different opinion on a patch cadence than you? Fuck off with that nonsense | ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2449 Posts
| ||
|
BisuDagger
Bisutopia19384 Posts
On July 23 2026 08:21 doktordingerdonger wrote: damn dude, better beg the intern that works for the creator of chess to better come up with a patch that revives the scene, or else it will die! Last patch was 1880 with the addition of en passant. It is after all objective reality that a lack of change has a bad effect on a game. What if the intern is just an AI agent making routine changes? | ||
|
lestye
United States4238 Posts
Monthly seems waaaaay too much for a strategy game. Part of the coolness of a strategy game is how the meta changes over time in response to trends. And even then, if we need to shake up the meta, the remedy we have to change things up is the map pool. | ||
|
BlackEyed
38 Posts
| ||
|
Turbovolver
Australia2449 Posts
On July 23 2026 12:30 BlackEyed wrote: Ugh, there are really people who just want to argue. They are not interested in objective reality or facts. They just live in their own little fantasy world. It is a shame there is no official online player count like on Steam, so you could shove it in those old-timers’ faces. But there are other factors pointing to the game’s declining popularity that are also impossible to argue with: the number of independent tournaments, sponsors, teams, leagues, and players. Anyway, why am I even going on about this - any healthy person already knows that StarCraft II is not going through its best times.If everything was so good, Blizzard wouldn't have stopped supporting the game... You made the specific claim that Brood War is more dead than SC2, and now you say your objective measure with which you derived this "fact" is "the number of independent tournaments, sponsors, teams, leagues, and players". Brood War is literally having a resurgence thanks to the university scene. SC2 tournaments have shut down, then barely came back, while BW tournaments are going strong. The only one denying facts here is you. And I'm not here to try to kick SC2 while it's down, but if you're going to lie about it then people like me may pipe up, not sure what you're expecting. Now, I will give you that I am coming from this from the "pro scene" perspective, because this is teamliquid.net and that's what I'm interested in. From a casual player count perspective, it might be the case that SC2 has more. Probably especially in the west. | ||
|
Creager
Germany1962 Posts
On July 23 2026 08:21 doktordingerdonger wrote: damn dude, better beg the intern that works for the creator of chess to better come up with a patch that revives the scene, or else it will die! Last patch was 1880 with the addition of en passant. It is after all objective reality that a lack of change has a bad effect on a game. If only we had daily active player numbers as a way to assess the objective alive-ness of the game! | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7390 Posts
On July 23 2026 12:30 BlackEyed wrote: Ugh, there are really people who just want to argue. They are not interested in objective reality or facts. They just live in their own little fantasy world. It is a shame there is no official online player count like on Steam, so you could shove it in those old-timers’ faces. But there are other factors pointing to the game’s declining popularity that are also impossible to argue with: the number of independent tournaments, sponsors, teams, leagues, and players. Anyway, why am I even going on about this - any healthy person already knows that StarCraft II is not going through its best times.If everything was so good, Blizzard wouldn't have stopped supporting the game... Really the problem is you are making up "facts" as you go. Saying stuff like objectively when it's very much your subjective opinion... It's fine. You want patches, good for you. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27339 Posts
On July 23 2026 17:14 Harris1st wrote: Really the problem is you are making up "facts" as you go. Saying stuff like objectively when it's very much your subjective opinion... It's fine. You want patches, good for you. Didn’t you know personal opinions = objective truth? | ||
|
Creager
Germany1962 Posts
On July 23 2026 18:26 WombaT wrote: Didn’t you know personal opinions = objective truth? To be fair he just sounds like he's not a millenial boomer like the majority of us, vibing with the Zeitgeist of social media and on top of that doesn't know about the 'SC2 dead game' meme. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria874 Posts
On July 23 2026 12:30 BlackEyed wrote: Ugh, there are really people who just want to argue. They are not interested in objective reality or facts. They just live in their own little fantasy world. It is a shame there is no official online player count like on Steam, so you could shove it in those old-timers’ faces. But there are other factors pointing to the game’s declining popularity that are also impossible to argue with: the number of independent tournaments, sponsors, teams, leagues, and players. Anyway, why am I even going on about this - any healthy person already knows that StarCraft II is not going through its best times.If everything was so good, Blizzard wouldn't have stopped supporting the game... First of all, there is no Blizzard anymore. Microsoft bought them a long time ago. Microsoft is almost a 3 trillion market cap company. I doubt very much Blizzard games have high enough revenue for Microsoft to be interested even if you somehow add 200K more players to StarCraft. The only case I see Microsoft interested in active development is if they make a subscription model, not one-off purchases for StarCraft 2 and StarCraft 2 became freemium a long time ago. They just sell skins and co-op commanders now. Summarised by AI, so you can see how little part gaming segment is for revenue and this segment already includes Windows/Bing/Xbox, so what is left for Blizzard games is actually less. ![[image loading]](https://i.postimg.cc/tZqVC1jR/Screenshot-2026-07-23-140314.png) Source: Microsoft FY26 Q3 earnings (Apr 29, 2026) https://news.microsoft.com/source/2026/04/29/microsoft-cloud-and-ai-strength-fuels-third-quarter-results/ So overall, I don't really care about the statement you made: "Blizzard wouldn't have stopped supporting the game..." What matters is we have good StarCraft experience as gamers. If there is no game support, it should not be made worse at least. | ||
|
Fleetfeet
Canada2832 Posts
On July 23 2026 12:30 BlackEyed wrote: Ugh, there are really people who just want to argue. They are not interested in objective reality or facts. They just live in their own little fantasy world. It is a shame there is no official online player count like on Steam, so you could shove it in those old-timers’ faces. Yeah real shame the data you think probably exists doesn't actually exist to provide objective reality or facts for the thing you've already stated is objective reality or fact. ????????????? I mean I wouldn't even be surprised if BW has a lower active player count than SC2, but even if we had that it wouldn't be that robust of data for proving your point (That mass patches are vital for survival of games in the modern era). You COULD get useful data out of it, but 'sc2 has higher player count than BW in 2026' isn't that useful a data point, if it were even true. I think being a good game is vital for survival of games in the modern era. Patch frequency can play in to that if the game is good and the patches make it better, but if the game is shit and the patches are shit, it won't be saved by patching the game every 24 hours. I think BW and SC2 are also not good games for frequent patching - I don't think volatility supports what is fun in the games, especially when compared to Fortnite or Dota or PoE or whatever. | ||
|
tigera6
3514 Posts
| ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5541 Posts
| ||
|
Kitai
United States885 Posts
| ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States717 Posts
I don't know, it's an old game. It's either balance by patch by 1 or few dev if we are lucky to have any, or update balance map by community..... which sounds easier? But who knows.... really. | ||
|
redloser
Korea (South)1751 Posts
Nobody asked for larvae buff, and they buff larvae, so zerg goes OP, so they go CC cheap, next what? Nexus 300 minerals? then they go for another larvae buff because no one wants it, and zerg goes OP, then CC 200 in next patch? mmhm | ||
|
ETisME
12866 Posts
Potentially frequent patches in the first 3 months and then quarterly for letting the meta plays out and fine adjustments. | ||
|
Duplicity85
15 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
| ||
|
matju
Poland6 Posts
 ). | ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States717 Posts
| ||
|
sidasf
108 Posts
On July 24 2026 12:36 jimminy_kriket wrote: Very fuckin positive. This is super fun. They are changing and observing. It should have been like this the entire time. Are things perfect? Fuckin not close but I wont lie I havent played on this patch because my pc died. The colossus change gets me hard though. And the gateway change makes me really want to experiment with it. Average patch supporter, can't make this shit up. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria874 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
It's just a testament to why epic change is bad. Half of all players on forums were against 12 worker, much like ca. half is against 8 worker start now, though I do not have the numbers. The only difference is that with lotv there was a forward going momentum as well as with the downwinding one, and f2p was a big thing. 12 worker start was probably a bad call, and so is the 8 worker start, even if one would be objectively better than another. | ||
|
WGT-Baal
France3541 Posts
On August 26 2026 02:48 SC-Shield wrote: I wonder where were all those people who were so sure that people quit StarCraft 2 because of LotV economy and the patch with 8 workers is going to make the game fun again. I don't see more people in ladder compared to time before patch. For me personally, the lotv beta was fun then they went 12 worker and it was the last straw. Before that my time was 70% bw - 30% sc2 (ignoring non rts games), then it was bw 100%. That remastered came out hot on the heels of lotv also contributed. Finally the death of the sc2 ecosystem (clan leagues etc for non pro) around the same period contributed too. What would I even play for? Now i like the 8 worker (not sold on 300min cc and the larva buff though) and played a few 2v2/3v3 for fun with friends since then but sc2 solo is forever dead to me, there is no coming back to 1v1, even if they made it back to 6 or even 4 workers. It s too late. Also for a lot of people, life happened (kids, work, you name it) | ||
|
Slydie
2005 Posts
As mentioned, most SC2 ladder players left a long time ago, and I would assume the average player now is over 35 years old. Clem and Serral are anomalies of their generation. Many have kids they could introduce the game to, but RTS with complex mechanics is not what kids play anymore. I just saw a video about "optimizing the fun out of strategy games". I think he had a great point! These games are the strongest when you can explore new units, and find your very own ways to win. The old SC2 ladder, with an actual bronze league with players you could destroy with a homebrew BC-rush was magical! About patches, it is a question of pleasing invested players vs. returning players. I dislike changes because of Heroes of the Storm, where the lack of new heroes turned out to be an advantage for many players. There are patches, but you knew what each hero could do! There were still way more heroes available than even pros could truly master anyway. | ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States717 Posts
On August 27 2026 05:16 Slydie wrote: One big problem with SC2 is keeping up with the meta. Learning new builds and units of a new expansion takes a lot of time and effort to get into the system, and so does major patches. Even without changes to units, maps and trends at different levels of the ladder keep changing. As mentioned, most SC2 ladder players left a long time ago, and I would assume the average player now is over 35 years old. Clem and Serral are anomalies of their generation. Many have kids they could introduce the game to, but RTS with complex mechanics is not what kids play anymore. I just saw a video about "optimizing the fun out of strategy games". I think he had a great point! These games are the strongest when you can explore new units, and find your very own ways to win. The old SC2 ladder, with an actual bronze league with players you could destroy with a homebrew BC-rush was magical! About patches, it is a question of pleasing invested players vs. returning players. I dislike changes because of Heroes of the Storm, where the lack of new heroes turned out to be an advantage for many players. There are patches, but you knew what each hero could do! There were still way more heroes available than even pros could truly master anyway. Unfortunately that's the problem for every single competitive game out there , this includes rocket league, CS, Apex Legends, League of Legends, Dota 2 . The commonly shared issue is ...... meta, timing , strats become fully analyzed, it comes down to who executes better. It's quite boring after sometime. | ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States717 Posts
| ||
|
PurE)Rabbit-SF
United States717 Posts
Nowadays, people be like Get these Chinese out of my server :D | ||
|
TheMax
2 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
2005 Posts
On August 28 2026 12:14 PurE)Rabbit-SF wrote: One other strange observation I'd like to add is in 1998~2002 , you meet someone on bnet from another country, you all speak broken English except like American etc. And you go cool, buddy buddy now. Nowadays, people be like Get these Chinese out of my server :D This was years before Social Media. I just checked the "active players" data, and this August is worse than last year. Players votes with they time, they did not seem to enjoy this patch. Lowko made a video about this as well. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3544 Posts
| ||
| ||
