EPTReally hope ppl just make as little fuzz as possible from now on, so that we can keep our game, yes a change here or there is allowed, but it needs to be well argued.
StarCraft II 5.0.17 PTR Patch Notes (Sept 30, 2026) - Page…
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ejozl
Denmark3556 Posts
Really hope ppl just make as little fuzz as possible from now on, so that we can keep our game, yes a change here or there is allowed, but it needs to be well argued. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria894 Posts
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
14 Posts
On October 01 2026 19:44 ProTech wrote: 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
3274 Posts
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 Ireland27464 Posts
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
89 Posts
| ||
|
Drahkn
201 Posts
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
191 Posts
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. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria894 Posts
| ||
|
Spirral
89 Posts
On October 04 2026 19:57 SC-Shield wrote: Hopefully Blizzard implements a confirmation dialog when a game is found or some other way to reduce number of AFK players at the start of game. It's not too frequent, but it happens in team games and it's annoying. I don't understand why Blizzard hasn't done it already. It can be done to team games as 1vs1 usually finds a game quickly. Doesn't sc2 bring the window to focus when matchmaking finds a game? I thought that was always the case! | ||
|
Drahkn
201 Posts
On October 03 2026 22:22 NinjaDuckBob wrote: 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. It's not about balancing around game stages, if Zerg was designed the way i said the game would be even in the late game too, because Protoss and Terran could not afford to just stay passive and go for end game armies because Zergs would take the map while at same time putting huge amounts of pressure, and you have a good constant back and fourth action that is fun to play and fun to watch. a perfect ZvT or ZvP late game match is where P or T wins by limiting Zergs ability to take the entire map and push them back and establish their own econemy and slowly weave in late game units that eventually make them stronger, that means they won because the pressure and fights they won in the early mid game not just because they could turtle to a good army and won 1 big fight and closed the game from there. You don't want what is currently happening : Both players decide okay we are going to late game and the game is super passive with light harass while building ultimate armies. Protoss should have the strongest late game army of any race, and they should never be allowed to reach it. That is the design of the race, it is the most advanced technical and powerful race by core design and by lore for those who careabout that. Zergs strength is what has become a worldwide term for overwhelming someone, and while Zerg can already it should be even better at it while having a much weaker end game high tier army. Terrans belongs in the middle of the three. Thats how you balance a 3 race RTS game with how the core design was the game was on release. They aimed for something similar to SC:BW but b ad balancing decisions and new unit choices haveruined it since WOL was released. | ||
|
SC-Shield
Bulgaria894 Posts
On October 05 2026 20:05 Spirral wrote: Doesn't sc2 bring the window to focus when matchmaking finds a game? I thought that was always the case! It does, but I'm guessing those AFK players go to bathroom or around their house while waiting for a game. Sometimes you really wait a lot like 5-6 minutes for a game but sometimes you find a game quicker than that. I have no other explanation how else they can still be away at the start of game. | ||
|
NinjaDuckBob
191 Posts
On October 05 2026 20:22 Drahkn wrote: It's not about balancing around game stages, if Zerg was designed the way i said the game would be even in the late game too, because Protoss and Terran could not afford to just stay passive and go for end game armies because Zergs would take the map while at same time putting huge amounts of pressure, and you have a good constant back and fourth action that is fun to play and fun to watch. Your whole premise was "Zerg should be very strong in the early and mid game" - that is the definition of balancing around game stages, unless you believe Terran and Protoss should be equally as strong. And balancing around game stages comes with all of the drawbacks I already stated. And that applies to thematic aspects as well. The game's design should not be compromised by balancing around game stages just because of lore. The thematic aspects can be (and already are) supported in ways that don't require imbalances across the game stages that "even out." The problem with both sides passively playing until the endgame is not because Zerg isn't stronger than T & P in the early and midgame. It's because the current state of LotV punishes aggressive early-midgame strategies (such as all-in timing attacks) to a degree where they are often not worth the risk. The economy changes were an attempt to change this, but they were poorly executed. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3556 Posts
What would ve boring would be if all stages are balanced, then the better player would just sit back because why not. | ||
|
Balnazza
Germany1371 Posts
On October 05 2026 20:22 Drahkn wrote: It's not about balancing around game stages, if Zerg was designed the way i said the game would be even in the late game too, because Protoss and Terran could not afford to just stay passive and go for end game armies because Zergs would take the map while at same time putting huge amounts of pressure, and you have a good constant back and fourth action that is fun to play and fun to watch. a perfect ZvT or ZvP late game match is where P or T wins by limiting Zergs ability to take the entire map and push them back and establish their own econemy and slowly weave in late game units that eventually make them stronger, that means they won because the pressure and fights they won in the early mid game not just because they could turtle to a good army and won 1 big fight and closed the game from there. You don't want what is currently happening : Both players decide okay we are going to late game and the game is super passive with light harass while building ultimate armies. Protoss should have the strongest late game army of any race, and they should never be allowed to reach it. That is the design of the race, it is the most advanced technical and powerful race by core design and by lore for those who careabout that. Zergs strength is what has become a worldwide term for overwhelming someone, and while Zerg can already it should be even better at it while having a much weaker end game high tier army. Terrans belongs in the middle of the three. Thats how you balance a 3 race RTS game with how the core design was the game was on release. They aimed for something similar to SC:BW but b ad balancing decisions and new unit choices haveruined it since WOL was released. You are really just describing balancing around game-stages. Essentially, every race is on a timer - be that timer good or bad. That is the philosophy behind cardgames like Hearthstone. You have Aggro-Decks, you run eventually out of steam, you have Midrange-Decks that aim to kill in the 7-8 Mana section and you have Control Decks, that will outlast the aggression and win through lategame cards (there are of course a lot of stages between these three archtypes, but generally, they fit). League of Legends also has a variation of this, though I think it got much more fluid over the years. Basically, there are team-composition that for example aim to win the lanes, while others are lategame focused. But for RTS, that would be a terrible concept, to have one "Aggro-Race", one "Midrange-Race" and one "Lategame-Race". Because for one, you would always know how each game would go: "Oh wow, Zerg is pushing hard and Protoss is defending! Oh no, we reached the 10min marker, Zerg is dead while we enter a 10min death animation! GG WP!!!" ChatGPT could shoutcast every single SC2 match from there on out, because it would always be the same. There is also the fact that generally, atleast in Multiplayer, people like to be aggressive instead of defensive. It take less time (so more games), is usually more fun and you can actively decide what to do. Would you enjoy queuing and knowing that as Protoss, your next 15min will be turtling? And that would be your world in EVERY GAME, every time you queue up? You would probably pray to get a mirror after the second game. And actually, even the Zergs would get bored. Why have a full race when everything you build after Roaches or Hydras is useless anyway? Instead of balancing around Game-Stages, for a game like SC2 it is much more fitting to balance around timings. Each race hits certain powerspikes or rather can plan to reach certain powerspikes. And one big part is to hide what powerspike you are currently aiming for. And if neither player can finish it with their respective powerspikes, they will enter lategame and duke it out with everything their race has to offer. | ||
|
faTEmOosie
Russian Federation16 Posts
| ||
|
Ravomat
Germany426 Posts
| ||
|
Archeon
3274 Posts
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'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. Am I crazy? I thought lib+ghost (+vikings) beats pretty much every composition in the game cost effectively and Zerg needs to hit a good fungal to even fight effectively? Like the whole premise of turtle Terran is that they trade well per cost until Zerg runs out of resources and Zerg needs to find good engagements to get MC and get more resources out of the map because they trade evenly at best. Also I agree with other posters here, map control depending on compositions is fine, but it needs to shift to keep the game dynamic, else you get stuff like 2-base-turtle deathball Protoss or Marine Tank TvT. | ||
|
Harris1st
Germany7427 Posts
On October 07 2026 17:44 Archeon wrote: Am I crazy? I thought lib+ghost (+vikings) beats pretty much every composition in the game cost effectively and Zerg needs to hit a good fungal to even fight effectively? Like the whole premise of turtle Terran is that they trade well per cost until Zerg runs out of resources and Zerg needs to find good engagements to get MC and get more resources out of the map because they trade evenly at best. Also I agree with other posters here, map control depending on compositions is fine, but it needs to shift to keep the game dynamic, else you get stuff like 2-base-turtle deathball Protoss or Marine Tank TvT. You are not crazy. Zerg has the worst 200/200 endgame army of all races and there is only one guy who has a decent chance to make magic happen. I mean Drakhn even has contradictory opinions in their own post saying on one hand zerg has the best end game army and in the next sentence says Zerg has to stop other races from reaching 200/200 or else... | ||
|
Moonerz
United States469 Posts
If anything the vast majority (besides the weird last patch) of turtle terran has literally been one guy doing it well. | ||
| ||
