Warp-in protoss became an identity in 2010. It has stayed for 16 years, so yes - it is absolutely protoss identity in StarCraft 2. You are only right about Brood War, but 16 years is a long time for warp-in to be core such that it shouldn't be touched.

If Blizzard wants to redesign it, it should be done as part of a new expansion to StarCraft 2 or even in StarCraft 3.
A lot of things have been balanced around warp-in, so you will have to remove some things from game like nydus worm if you truly want to make protoss feel like Brood War.

Hefty-Leopard-5240

7 Posts

October 02 2026 20:28 GMT

#62

On October 01 2026 19:44 ProTech wrote:

Show nested quote +

The mess was created because there were not enough people testing the PTR so they pushed it to the ladder. The playerbase was at an all time low at the time of changes so there's no real way to get feedback from players unless they actually force it on the ladder, which is a terrible idea for obvious reasons, but due to the overall lack of a player base it wasn't a choice.

Blizzard is trying to bring players back to the game, but the ship has sailed, high eco destroyed any chance of that, so now they're stuck with the high-eco player base that remains.

The reason the majority of the players left back when they made the original changes to the game was because the skill of the game dropped from the ceiling to the floor, StarCraft in a high-eco settings is a super low expression of skill. So high-eco was the absolute #1 killer of the game. Skirmishes are lame, positioning is lame, and overall strategies are one-dimensional and boring.

Not enough time was given to this current state of the game, and the developers are just freaking out because they don't have that player base buffer that they used to have.

The other collosal mistake that happened with this transition is that the map pool never changed from high-eco concept. Players all feel like they're playing a watered-down high eco setting because the maps really didnt adjust for the eco settings. IMO this is one of the main reasons it was met with negative feedback.

You say the mess was created because not enough people were testing the PTR, however, you didn't test it either and were quite vocal about not playing it until it was released on the ladder. They are in a no-win situation when after the fact people change their tune on how things should be handled. I wouldn't be surprised if they just give up entirely on feedback and never patch it again.

Archeon

3273 Posts

October 02 2026 23:57 GMT

#63

I kinda liked that they were introducing drastic changes and wish they had kept some of them in. I liked the direction of the warp gate change f.e. and think with a bit more polish this could have been good. I liked FF needing two biles and phantom weapon for disruptors and infestors, more damage on spores vs mutas and the muta changes. I also thought there were a bunch of other ideas that were decent.

I get that people felt like the patch actually didn't play well and I certainly don't think all of the changes were good (8 worker start f.e.), but I wish we would have kept some of them.

WombaT

Northern Ireland27455 Posts

October 03 2026 00:05 GMT

#64

On October 03 2026 08:57 Archeon wrote:
I kinda liked that they were introducing drastic changes and wish they had kept some of them in. I liked the direction of the warp gate change f.e. and think with a bit more polish this could have been good. I liked FF needing two biles and phantom weapon for disruptors and infestors, more damage on spores vs mutas and the muta changes. I also thought there were a bunch of other ideas that were decent.

I get that people felt like the patch actually didn't play well and I certainly don't think all of the changes were good (8 worker start f.e.), but I wish we would have kept some of them.

Yeah I think that’s the problem with introducing so many changes at once, it’s hard to determine what ones are good or bad

Spirral

87 Posts

October 03 2026 00:13 GMT

#65

that will be the second time 12 workers are released in sc2. lotv getting a reboot lol.

Drahkn

200 Posts

13 hours ago

#66

One of the biggest design flaws in SC2 that has been since HOTS is that Zerg should have been designed to be very strong in early mid game so they can dominate and take the map and use superior econemy and instant remaxes to break the enemy. Some parts of the race is designed that way while still having the best end game 200/200 army. Zerg is ment to constantly attack, trade , expand at an extreme rate, have very cheap efficient units in the early mid game and use that strength to make Terran and Protoss never reach those full end game armies.

I've always said Viber Abduct is to strong , siege tanks should have a buff that says when sieged immune to crowdcontrolling effects, and viper abduct should not work vs massive units. This is the only and best change. You gotta nerf Zerg late game hard and you have to buff their ability to be aggressive in early mid game without taking major hits to their economic developement, as in not making aggression feel like they are all inn. Zerg strength is designed to use remax to counter enemy unit comps and ability to deliver so much pressure Terran and Protoss can't reach the expensive 200 supply armies. People don't understand SC2 was designed with many many elements from SC:BW but then they started trying to make all 3 races capable of the same things , which runs into conflict with parts of the core design of the races and you end up with a game that makes no sense at all. There is a reason this game historically has been impossible to balance fairly.

NinjaDuckBob

188 Posts

11 hours ago

#67

On October 03 2026 20:14 Drahkn wrote:
One of the biggest design flaws in SC2 that has been since HOTS is that Zerg should have been designed to be very strong in early mid game so they can dominate and take the map and use superior econemy and instant remaxes to break the enemy. Some parts of the race is designed that way while still having the best end game 200/200 army. Zerg is ment to constantly attack, trade , expand at an extreme rate, have very cheap efficient units in the early mid game and use that strength to make Terran and Protoss never reach those full end game armies.

I disagree. Balancing around game stages leads to a stale meta with largely linear, predictable games, and little room to explore strategies with different strengths in different game stages. "Don't let them get there" used as a balance principle is a poor design approach, IMO.

Zerg does still have the best remax ability (with lategame composition switching as well) of all the races, and while their lategame can be as potent as, say, lategame Protoss, that often requires a significant effort in good spellcaster control and superior map awareness and army positioning (which they spend time during the early and midgame building up with creep spread).

I do believe lategame stalemates are bad. Some way to discourage or punish massing of a single generally supply-efficient unit in a deathball if the opponent reaches that stage is helpful for that. I do think LotV has done a better job of that (not perfect) than the other SC2 releases, with more numerous and spread out expansions to discourage an army being all in one place (some things do soften this, though, such as Recall and Warp Gate for Protoss). Not allowing Vipers to yoink massive units encourages such massing of supply-efficient units, since that is one of the few counters to massed supply-efficient units, as tedious as it is. At least they force some compositional diversity and decent army control from the opponent.