Thanks to the success of our previous thread on proposed changes we have decided to do another one. After releasing our previous article we have received much more feedback for this second edition! Thanks to everyone who made the last thread a success showing the pros that we the community really value their opinion. I would also like to thank everyone for contributing to this latest round of opinions. Since we received so much more feedback this time around, we have decided to slightly change the format. All the comments will be separated by the changes themselves as opposed to separated by player.
Proposed Changes
Protoss Mothership Core:
Mothership Core vision radius decreased from 14 to 9
Stalker
Blink cooldown increased from 10 to 15
Tempest:
Tempest ground weapon damage increased from 30 to 30+30-to-structures
Hydralisk delay between attacks decreased from .83 to .75.
Mothership Core vision radius decreased from 14 to 9
"I think this was needed for Terrans against various pesky two base blink builds. Other than that, not sure. It might be quite the nerf in other matchups but not sure."
"Good and bad....It helps Terrans but will make PvP a more difficult matchup. Sending a quick mothership core to your opponents base while poking the front with a stalker was one of the few reliable ways you had to scout. With a vision nerf It will be interesting to see if that is still possible. But again I understand it was needed pvt, I just hope they take a look PVP even though a Protoss always wins :X."
"The mothership Core vision radius is highly debated among players. Some think it will fix blink all-ins, others including myself think the real issue is the way maps are currently designed. Yeonsu, Frost and Heavy Rain are very easy maps to blink all-in/pressure on since the main base is very wide. A map like Habitation Station makes blink opening a lot less viable and would fix the issue. The vision radius would affect the following PvZ and PvP: it would give us less vision to see vipers coming and to scout potential all-ins. In PvP, scouting in the early game is really hard and nerfing the vision range would affect poking around the enemy base with your mothership core."
"I honestly think this change is fine, it gives a lot more risk of blinking in. When the range was 14 we could see almost everything we needed to, this made it so we could always safely blink in."
"This change would have a much bigger impact on the game than most people expect at the moment. The mothership core vision range has been a big crutch Protoss have been leaning on in all matchups and stages of the game (Early game for scouting the enemy base in all matchups, spotting enemy army to take position before an engagement to take proper fights, spotting for/defending against drops, being able to feedback vipers/ghosts, being able to utilize nexus cannon range (vs escaping medivac, f.e.). The effect this change would have one the uses of blink stalkers against Terran seem very minor compared to the overall impact on the Protoss race. PvP has benefited from the Introduction of the mothership core not only because it made defending an expansion easier, but also because being able to scout the opponents tech tree or things like proxy Stargates/Pylons makes the matchup less random/coinflippy. Nerfing the Vision here would also make the matchup a bit more unstable."
"PvZ -> This won't change anything so I don't care about it; msc has always been too strong vs Zerg in other areas ( the abilities ). PvT -> This should help a ton with making blink all ins weaker & making it a little harder for Protoss to scout any aggressive Terran build. Good change in that regard"
"I think this is more of a fix for PvT than anything. I never thought of the unit's vision range as much of a problem in ZvP. Rather, its the spells themselves that make the unit so powerful in ZvP. The time warp energy increase was nice, and I think recall is probably at a good place right now, but I would still prefer something to be done about photon overcharge (nerfing the duration to 50 seconds wouldn't do anything either).
"Good for Zerg. This will make it easier for Zerg to set up flanks during early sentry/zealot based all-ins. Protoss had it a bit easy with scouting thanks to the 14 vision. Skillful players should not be affected too much by this but will have to put in some extra effort (poking to sides to check, moving msc around, using hallucinated phoenix). I think this change is the most important for PvT though.
"I don't think the vision radius decrease will change a lot when it comes blink all-ins in TvP. But it's a good change makes sneaking units around a bit easier and Protoss already has a lot of really good aerial scouting."
"This was probably the first and only change that should've been made initially. The greatest utility of the mothership core is its vision both in terms of enabling the observerless blink play and also in determining where the opponent's army is when doing said play. Assuming the intent here is to reduce the strength of blink play, this change is much more relevant/significant than the others. It would've been better to see how the game played out with said vision change without doing the other ones. That being said, the MSC continues to fill a void in the protoss early/mid game that nothing else can. Even with this change it will continue to be a unit we see in almost every game and to great success."
"Yes I think this is a change that is necessary, not only for the purpose of being able to snipe the MSC in the case of blink all-in, but it also will force Protoss to probe scout as it will be more difficult to scout with just MSC (in maps like habit where there is close air)"
"Pretty ridiculous IMHO. If this goes through I'm gonna be fuming for a little while. If they go through with the MSC nerf why do they need to make this change (in case this is meant for PvT, which I believe it is). Blink Stalkers will just become so much weaker in all matchups and I think that's bad for the game overall."
"As for PvT, the blink nerf makes it so it takes a lot longer to blink out once you've blinked into the Terran base. It seems like it would make it a total gamble to jump in, with the MSC vision being nerfed as well. If your opponent already has troops in place..."
"This blink change is like the Hydralisk 100/25 change from the last test map. Very extreme and will probably not happen. It would make drops harder to defend. Mutalisk would reign supreme and Stalkers wouldn't be able to keep up."
"This change is extreme. I would rather see increased build time for blink instead of cool down. If Blizzard were to change blink it would change quite a few things for Protoss in every match up. PvZ vs mutalisk, stalkers would become less viable than they already are."
"This proposed change seems prompted by the prevalence of Blink openings in PvT, be it 1 base allin, 2 basepressure/allin, or 3 base. Terrans seem to be having trouble with this opening at the moment (Partially due to freshly coming out of an Oracle heavy metagame, and also because of the maps, of which many are good for blink possibly because mapmakers want the reaper to be able to get scouting information). This change would help with that, but it would affect many other situations a lot as well. PvT Drop defense gets harder due to this, also escaping with a blink stalker harass/poke squad from stimmed m&m over longer distances (not too uncommon of a situation actually) becomes impossible. PvP Blink openings get worse, so Stargate gets even stronger than it currently is. Harassment with Blink stalkers also becomes much more risky meaning there will be more defending until Colossus/Tempest. In every blink attack in PvZ there would be less potential to micro. This proposed change sounds a bit like the Hydra gas change from the last testmap, a red herring that most likely won't be implemented. When was the last time a very core unit was changed? Messing with the core units (zealot, stalker, zergling, roach, marine, marauder) seems like a bad, or risky idea, because it messes with the balance in a bigger way than if one was to just adjust later game stage or more niche units."
"PvZ -> This will make early game blink all ins (like we saw in Rain vs Solar @ Heavy Rain) useless; but those have never a common PvZ strategy (NaNiwa tried them for awhile but doesn't anymore). Also it will make the heavy blink/stalker immortal attacks off low saturated 3base a little weaker (a very strong attack; but if this goes through as well as a hydra buff; they might become too weak)
PvT -> I think it will be a good change for making blink all ins weaker but can't say I know much about the matchup. The issue is also partially maps are very good in general for blink all-ins currently. A slight blink nerf would be nice, but I feel this is going way too far. The research time is already very long since the nerf in WoL so it's not really possible to increase that any more; but I would think a nerf to maybe just 11- 12 seconds cooldown would be fairer than the proposed 15. It would still be a huge nerf for early all ins, but wouldn't change nearly as much in the mid-late game."
"Don't really see blink allins in ZvP so blink is pretty much a non-issue, usually stalkers are in big deathball where blink cooldown doesn't impact much"
"Again, this affects PvP and PvT than anything, since blink all ins are not THAT common in ZvP. I guess it will be a little bit easier to hold them off now on maps like Yeonsu, but still I can't comment too much on this change."
"Buff for Zerg obviously, probably too much. I think 11 or 12 would be fine as well. Combined with the Hydra buff for Zerg, blink all-ins based off of Forge FE shouldn't be seen anymore. Gateway expand into Blink all-in would still work but will also be more difficult to pull off. It seems like they want to buff Zerg and Terran defense early mid-game..."
"I don't like this change too much, blink is a super fun ability. One of the best in StarCraft 2, I realize blink all-ins are too strong in TvP but for once I'd like to see a timing based solution to this. Making one of the most iconic micro abilities worse is a bad design decision. The main issue is that Terran has to play so carefully because of the early aggression of MSC and oracles, leading to a less possible greedy start. This makes any semi-early timings by Protoss a whole lot stronger."
"I'm not super sure what the intent of this change is as I don't know much about PvP or ZvP. If it's strictly focused at reducing the strength of TvP blink play then it will do it for sure. The blink cooldown is critical to blink allins as the Protoss player needs to blink once to establish position and then have blink off cooldown to avoid losing stalkers. An extra 5 seconds or 50% increase in cooldown will make it much harder to keep all the stalkers alive and dart around the Terran base."
The blink nerf is imo more of a big deal vs z and p than vs t. Honestly blinkstalker all in is not strong by itself what is strong about it is just the maps that make it almost impossible to defend it.
"I do not think this will go through, simply because this would affect too many situations that aren't blink all-in, if it were to go through then i believe it would have a similar impact to the vision nerf, and would combined with vision nerf would make blink easy to stop"
Meh...I mean part of me goes yay! I can 3 shot a spore instead of 6 shot, but I don't think this was what the community or players wanted in terms of helping PvZ. This is just a band-aid that will make things go slightly faster....
"Some think the Tempest buff could make proxy builds imbalanced but I can probably count on 1 hand the times Proxy Tempest has been used in any matchup. I'm excited to see what comes out of this buff. It will also give us a chance vs spore crawlers, the real anti-air of Zerg in the late game. The source of the Swarmhost problems we're having is the lack of Zerg options in the late game vs a skytoss composition."
"I don't see this altering the game too much. By this stage in the game protoss also usually has enough tempest to 1-2 shot spores to begin with. The ideal strategy vs swarm host is to be patient to begin with. Ultimately killing spore/spines wont change much as they can easily be replaced. I would really like to see protoss air attack the closest unit attack it, regardless of wether its static or mobile. A big problem when engaging into swarm host is protoss air gets very disorganized when fighting spores/corruptors.Void rays will bypass all spores and chase corruptors into a field of spores When trying to regroup your army will generally clump up making fungals/abducting extremely efficient."
"PvZ -> Sure I think it's a decent change. Hate watching the swarmhost vs lategame toss style and never play it myself. The way Zergs have to deal with lategame toss is silly, and hopefully this will make swarmhost turtle less viable...
We may need a buff to corrupter in the future (it's a trash unit) or some way to deal with the late game toss composition in response however (not this patch; just if it becomes issue in future if it becomes viable for protoss to just turtle into it off 3base). Doesn't affect PvP/PvT."
"From a PvZ standpoint there is a small nerf to swarmhost turtle play, and a small (or maybe large when you think about the blink nerf) buff to other zerg styles where hydras and blink use are more common. I think that if the SH style does get nerfed then zerg needs buffs in other areas so these changes seem like the right step.
"This and the hydralisk buff are evidently the 2 attempts that blizzard will make in fixing the turtle swarmhost problem. The first problem I see is that I don't actually think this will make a big difference. I think Zerg will still be able to abduct, fungal, and focus down tempests over static defense just as we have been doing for the past little while. If tempests are allowed to shoot at static defense, then this change will make a huge difference, but I don't think any Zerg that is good with controlling their late game viper/swarmhost-based composition will allow this to happen. The second problem I see is that if this change goes through and does "solve" the swarmhost issue, is that zergs will lack a way to compete with protoss in the lategame and will be forced to try to end the game in the early-midgame, in which the mothership core will prove extremely effective. Even with the hydralisk change, I think it will be necessary that Blizzard implements a change to certain Zerg units (e.g. corruptor, nydus, etc.) so that the game becomes more entertaining and Zerg has a shot in the lategame vs Protoss"
"I think this change is not very necessary since most amounts of Tempest kill spores quite fast as it is. But it will make it more obvious for Protoss players what the purpose of the Tempest actually is. They will hopefully be reminded by this change to target-fire with their Tempests more often and stop shooting Locusts. I will be happy to see 'Camping Zergs' lose faster as well. Quality SH play is supposed to require army movement control and skill, not insane amounts of still-standing spore crawlers. I do however approve of Spore Crawlers un-rooting to burrow below Tempests with overlords dropping the creep, though. I hope this Nerf does not reduce the chance of that tactic working."
"I really don't think that'll change anything. Minerals aren't the bottleneck in the turtle swarmhost situations and you don't get to shoot buildings that often anyway. At bests you'll gain 1000-2000 minerals more in a whole game if Zerg isn't careful. But we'll see I suppose."
"I've only ever seen proxy tempest once, and never since the most recent patch. Maybe it's something that happens at other levels of play? No comment on this."
"Terrans are already starting to mix in mines vs high templar openings, IMO I think they should have waited on this one I want to see if the ghost buffs were enough. However if they were not, this is another interesting way to make pvt a little more exciting in the mid game, numbers can always be changed."
"I fear this widow mine buff will make mech slightly too strong vs Protoss. I've seen great mech players zone out the immortals with widowmine and those were very effective I understand the need for the buff and it is a great change to help bio play be more exciting. Hopefully, Blizzard isn't too slow to review Mech afterwards if my prediction comes to fruition."
"I honestly don't know what to think of this one. Widow mines are already starting to be used more and I thought they were already pretty effective. I would have to play more/see more games with it to make a statement."
"It's very hard to predict the impact this change would have on the current game balance. When used for harass it probably wont make a huge difference since even with the current widowmines the Protoss is either perfectly prepared and shuts down the widowmine drop/harass hard, or the Protoss economy suffers hugely. This would stay pretty much the same. How this would affect main army battles in PvT, I cant really predict without having tested it in real games. Would kind of take the same role hellbats would have vs Chargelot?"
"This is probably an okay change, it only helps Terran in the defense early on. I don't see this making mines viable as part of your army composition. I also generally like changes that only affect 1 matchup and I'd like to see blizzard try changes like that more."
"This change feels really strange. I guess blizzard wants widow mines to be more useful against protoss in general. Right now we see them a fair amount in the early game to deal with oracles and do pressure, but not much more besides that. Maybe they want mass widow mines to work vs zealot/ht kind of like it does vs ling/bling/muta? I guess it can lead to more strategic diversity as players have more options to fight mass zealots, but I don't see it being particularly useful late late game or when the Protoss has made some colossus."
Widow mine hmm well nowadays people only make widow mine when Protoss go oracle into templar play and somehow they lose oracle otherwise you really don't make mines. It might give some more strength to 2 base mine drop but in all honesty you shouldn't lose the oracle and then Terran cant make a mine, or if they open robo as well Terran can't make mines either.
"I think this is even less likely to go through, but also very necessary. Currently zealot/templar with 3 nexus (off oracle or fake blink) is extremely strong and quickly becoming the meta. Protoss being forced to build a robo to counteract the widow mines would slow this build order down by a lot and in general make zealot/templar easier to play against."
Hydralisk delay between attacks decreased from .83 to .75
"I really don't think the top Zergs are struggling vs Protoss right now. There are plenty of good ways to play, and I think this, along with the Stalker nerf, could scew ZvP heavily towards Zerg. However if the Blink change doesn't go through this might be okay. For other matchups I'm not sure. Could be quite strong in ZvT, but I think that's good for the game as long as it's not too strong."
"The hydralisk change, I can't really tell how it's going to feel in game. But I think hydralisks already do their job fine now. If they want to buff hydras, I think lowering the research time for their upgrades would be better."
"It's my understanding this was for tvz and zvz. I can't say im knowledgeable in those matchups, so I will just stick with pvz. I think it's an alright change, I don't think it will get people to suddely go for hydras instead of swarmhosts. I think a different buff is in order for hydras to become effective."
"I understand that they want hydralisk to be an option in TvZ and ZvZ. However, it will make Protoss all-ins a lot weaker. It's probably too early to tell how ineffective all-ins will be after this buff but if they want to help the Zerg anti-air options, they should look at the corruptor."
"I think this was mainly for zvt. I don't really seeing it alter pvz too much. We will have to see. It might be too much to nerf blink and buff hydras. There are other strategies that dont involve blink, but having another strategy be eliminated wouldn't be to fun. (That is if the blink change goes through as it is now.)"
"The idea behind this is to shift ZvZ away from Roach only. As far as I know, Hydra is already playable in certain situations/maps ZvT, and this probably wont change much there. Against Protoss Hydras already see quite a bit of use. Will be slightly better there, change seems uncalled for though. The trend David Kim mentioned about Protoss being stronger than Zerg is news to me."
"TvZ -> I don't see this changing much for bio; other than some rare roach hydra timings will be a little stronger (they aren't very good if scouted anyways). What it will do is hopefully make another style viable vs mech, with aggressive roach/hydra/viper attacks or something like that.
PvZ -> Maybe this will make the silly mass void ray composition a little more vulnerable to timing attacks (right now it's really too easy for Protoss to defend timings in PvZ), but won't be a big deal after storm or collosus is out. I would have rathered a change to either Hydralisk hp or how their upgrades (speed/range) work, but this is alright as well.
This could also finally make immortal sentry not overly hard to defend even when scouted on some maps; which is nice (Savage vs PartinG @ Yeonsu... PartinG did have very good execution but the problem is no matter what the Zerg does, it is up to how well the Protoss executes in whether it works)
ZvZ -> Hopefully muta openings are still viable.
I still think giving Zerg more aggressive options would make a better game than the proposed Zerg buffs (hydra) recently (nydus/drop tech being viable other than obscure all ins~ PLZ)
These suggested changes would probably affect PvT/PvP more than any Zerg matchup; but PvT is the biggest issue atm so that's alright."
"I agree that hydralisks do need a buff, especially vs mech and it should make ZvZ a little more interesting as well as helping Zergs in ZvP. However, I think the problem with the hydralisk has always been that it is a glass cannon - it dies way too quickly. I would prefer to see a buff of armour or health or something along those lines instead of improving what the hydralisk is already good at - dealing good damage in a short period of time. I think letting the hydralisk stay alive longer would be a much more effective buff.
"ZvT: Small buff vs Mech and somewhat bigger vs Bio. Nice to see Roach/Hydra closer to becoming a possible Muta/Ling/Bane alternative vs. Bio but it's difficult for me to judge the efficiency of it right now due to small sample sizes in my head. ZvP: Using 6 gas Hydralisk to secure a 4th vs Phoenix openers is somewhat easier now. This buff is a huge nerf to delayed Immortal and gate-way all-ins. 3rd base breaker strategies from Zerg might become too strong now, especially vs. Stargate and Twilight players. ZvZ: Roach/Hydra is already very bad versus Roach/Speedbane, but it will aid players that use Roach/Hydra/Infestor vs. Roaches, Roach/Infestor and Ultralisk. It also increases the efficiency of 2 base Roach Hydra all-ins vs. 2 base Muta into 3 base Roach."
"Yup this is good, definitely a much more sensible change than the 25 gas. It'll help a bit in ZvP and ZvZ. It won't be enough to make roach hydra viable in ZvT I think but you can't over buff the Hydra without breaking ZvP"
"Do hydralisks need a buff? Based on this and the previous patch blizzard seems to think so. In TvZ hydras could perhaps be a bit stronger and see more use, but it always felt like the hydra was a response to mech while muta/ling/bling was a response to bio. They haven't been trying to make ling/bling better vs mech so why try to make hydras better vs bio (and mech in this case). Might be more ZvZ/PvZ oriented changes so I don't have much else to add."
"To me, this change follows Blizzard's approach of "avoid the problem and apply a band-aid fix". The buff to the hydra is basically saying, Zerg late game is either too strong or too weak, so instead of fixing late game lets just change the mid game so that we can avoid the late game entirely. The problem with this is that no matter what Hydra buff is inserted into the game, in about 3 months from now Protoss will learn how to effectively deal with it and then once again we're left with swarm host only action which in turns results in another bandaid fix. Of course I don't believe SC2 will ever have unit interactions like it's predecessor, I hope for the future of SC2 that blizzard stops making small "dodging the problem" changes like this and open up to bigger changes that actually address the problems in the game. TvZ - most likely Roach hydra will still not be viable due to the inherent flaws (lack of mobility etc) extra damage does not help this problem. Most likely, more all-ins will form with roach hydra, but they wont be different from the ones that are already here."
"I don't believe they would actually implement all of those changes. Each one would have such a huge influence on the game, compared to things like the nexus-cannon duration nerf. I'm not sure why they want to patch so fast after the last one. I think Blizzard should at least wait until after this GSL. Overall it feels like you're shutting down half of the Protoss all-in options."
"I like that Blizzard is being more proactive about balance. Some of these changes are good and some of these changes can wait. If they could take a look at the Nydus and buff it in the late game, that would be great.Like a Hive upgrade that makes the nydus not cost gas afterwards. That way, you would see Zergs double or triple Nydus to counter attack or unload quicker. Also the corruptor needs to be looked at if we want to one day stop seeing swarmhosts every game. Some of these changes are good and some of these changes can wait. I hope they put the same amount of effort into balancing new maps. Brood war was balanced around maps which made it refreshing and exciting and I think Blizzard could go in the same direction with success."
"So far Blizzard has followed and had the policy of small changes in balance to avoid messing with the game too much. If Changes are in fact desperately needed (Mothership Core, blink) Blizzard should rather keep doing small changes at a time. Overall balance of races has been pretty good throughout Heart of the Swarm. In current WCS Korea Terran is struggling, but the very recent patch (EMP/Timewarp) still has not really taken effect, and sometimes the metagame takes more than 3 months (2.0.12) to settle down.
"To me, the biggest story here is the changes they aren't making. Swarmhosts seem to be the elephant in the room for Blizzard. They constantly acknowledge that they are an issue, but always indirectly. They want to buff tempests to deal with swarm hosts, when the issue is the swarm host itself. The problem with swarm host isn't one of balance. We've seen plenty of top level games where SH users lose and where their opponents also lose. The issue is one of fun, watchability, and playability. Swarm hosts have the potential to turn a fun game into a mind numbing endurance marathon. The issue isn't that swarm hosts can't be used well, it's that they have potential to be used in the worst possible way.
The combination of incredibly high range, and constantly spawning free units that soak and deal damage allows players to take an incredibly passive stance in the game where the cost efficiency of static defense can be combined with the cost efficiency of not spending money to make ground units. The ability of the swarm host to drag games out to absurd lengths needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now before any other change.
Disclaimer: In order to maintain the swarm host as a viable unit it may need some buffs to counter balance the reductions in power. That being said, the changes listed below are designed primarily to remove/greatly reduce the swarm host's ability to create a boring/uninteresting game to watch & play
Some proposed changes that actually address the issue - Make each wave of locusts cost money. Something similar to how reavers or carrier function. - Make locusts move faster off creep and slower on creep. This would turn the swarm host into a more aggressively oriented. It would be stronger on the offense, weaker behind static defense and closer to the action in general. - Spawning a wave of locusts deals damage to the swarm host - Increase the amount of time between subsequent locust waves (allowing for greater options of aggression and more decision making on zerg's part of when to actually send the locusts)"
"I've been saying forever that the MSC should have be nerfed T_T. If think if they're not going to change hallucination being free, then they should change the speed of warp prism and oracles back to what they wore. Fin!
Even toss players will say this, but the oracle buff really came out of nowhere"
"In general I don't think they should change how Protoss works vs Swarm hosts, but rather change swarm hosts. The problem currently is that if swarm hosts were removed Z would have no proper answer in the late game to either mech or sky toss. The even bigger problem is that WoL suffered a terrible fate (rip sc2) due to Blizzard not nerfing the infestor because Zerg had no other answer in the late game. If blizzard doesn't put in another answer and instead makes Zerg mid-game stronger, and swarm hosts become the meta (which they already have to a greater extent) then HotS will suffer the same fate as WoL"
Big thanks to everyone who contributed! As always comments/concerns/criticisms I am more than willing to listen to for our next release. PM me if you have a major concern thanks!
Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
Very good feedback, glad to see that most of the pros are not being super negative. I'm also glad you got some more good zerg players to comment this time! :D
So Hasu and Socke officialy morphed together at this pooint :D. There should only be one liquipedia/aligulac page maybe. They even have an almost identical amount of twitter followers haha.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
Oracle heavy metagame, and also because of the maps, of which many are good for blink possibly because mapmakers want the reaper to be able to get scouting information).
Except most maps have double cliffs that prevent reaper jump in but not blink, so it's not really related (Yeonsu etc). Maybe rather than the CD change, they should make it that blink can't jump up double cliffs, like reapers. Great to hear from pros otherwise, as always.
On February 12 2014 04:11 Musicus wrote: So Hasu and Socke officialy morphed together at this pooint :D. There should only be one liquipedia/aligulac page maybe. They even have an almost identical amount of twitter followers haha.
I absolutely love these Pro Opinions and have total respect for those putting their names out there. Hopefully, once the HOTS balancing settles down, we can get a cumulative wishlist for LOTV.
good input. I disagree with qxcs swarmhost suggestion. Instead of having random things like locusts moving faster off creep tha non creep (completely opposite to all other zerg units) just remove enduring locust. Instead replace it with an upgrade that makes the SWARMHOST (not the locust) move much faster and burrow/unborrow much faster. Tweak the locusts spawning time a little (make it faster or longer depending on whats needed) and voila, swarmhosts are fun agian.
I like the idea of a mid/lategame buff to nydus. Ive always wanted to see 3-4 nyduses around the map having swarmhosts shooting locusts from all angles and directions. With a faster swarmhost and a cheaper nydus maybe that can become viable
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
I agree 100% but at the same time I feel like blink is one of the cooler abilities in the game. I rather wish they nerfed 1/2-base blink plays some other way than a global change like this. This game needs more micro, not less.
I'm not sure about the blink change myself, but being a horrible terran (and only slightly worse protoss) I have to defer to the pros. I think the MSC change is probably overdue from how many pros have thought it was a good idea.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
I think even just the MsC vision nerf will create vastly more risk for the Protoss player when trying to blink in. If you only move the MsC close enough to the edge to blink the stalkers in, then you can't see if the Terran has units in position to defend; move it in far enough to see, and it's in danger of being sniped.
The Blink cooldown nerf seems really unneccessary, especially since it will have a massive effect on blink stalkers in macro situations. This coming from a Terran player.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
Dont agree with your thought process at all. NonY pretty much explained how pathetic Stalkers are in general. I did a test to check how Good or Bad Stalkers are. In a straight up fight Stalkers lose to. Roach, Hydra, Marauders (With or Without concussive shells). Bascially early or late game Stalkers are sub-par to Roaches and Marauders. If the Blink cool down is increased from 10-15 it pretty much takes away everything that makes a blink stalker a blink stalker. The whole point of SC2 trying to be exciting and entertaining. If you nerf the blink stalker that much you do exactly what NonY said to them... "It'll force Protoss to be much MORE passive with Stalkers" So your pretty much forcing Toss to stay at home. Scarlett made a good point in saying an increase cooldown to 11 or 12 would be more than enough. I think your Protoss hate avilo clouds your judgement and balance issues
I could care less about Tempest change because i think the issue is Swarm Hosts. Maybe Tempest might help a little but with that but SH is what needs to be closer looked at.
I understand that some of these changes are just projections and nothing official is going to be implemented. But i think it is a horrible idea if blizzard goes through with blink nerf.
On February 12 2014 04:11 Musicus wrote: So Hasu and Socke officialy morphed together at this pooint :D. There should only be one liquipedia/aligulac page maybe. They even have an almost identical amount of twitter followers haha.
Too many options for Protoss vs T atm, the blink nerf is absolutely necessary in my opinion, maybe not the 5 seconds suggested but something has to happen. Everyone keeps bringing up the maps, and I agree, but I don't see the maps getting changed out right now.
I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
scrap the blink CD change, change speed observer upgrade to also give higher vision range (and adjust the cost accordingly), gove corruptors ability to spawn eggs that do air-to-air aoe damage (and change their stats accordingly), remove enduring locust, remake it into an upgrade that buffs SH speed and burrow/unborrow time. There, fixed it for ya :p
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
I disagree. I feel like Protoss blink attacks are already hurt quite a bit by the MsC nerf. Not only that but why do we want to remove mobility of one of the only highly mobile microable units for protoss?
As it stands Stalkers are able to give protoss some map control in PvT not by virtue of simply being stalkers but by virtue of blink. Without blink those stalkers don't have map control once concussive shells is dome and they require active attention to have that map control.
I like seeing styles of protoss play that involve 5 or 6 blink stalkers causing a stim or picking off a stray medivac. It punishes poor terran positioning but relies on good control and attention at the same time. It is purely skilful. Terran likewise can save a stray medivac if its slightly out of position with boost and a small group of stim bio (as opposed to full army stim for those few stalkers- another marker of skill and attention to detail).
As for blink all ins the mama core nerf is more than enough. While David k references perfect positioning for high ground vision and how it might not impact the all in here puCK provides the perfect counterpoint: decision making. With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
The vision nerf ALSO needs time warp during these all ins further than the previous patch. The cast range of timewarp is the same range as its vision now. Meaning that while previously you could see units coming to kill the mama core cast time warp preemptively and run now if the MSc is the only or primary source of forward vision the reaction time for the time warp is shorter. Instead of running through the entire AoE of the time warp a caught off guard mama ship core can only cast timewarp such that any attacking unit starts halfway through the AoE field assuming Immediate reaction the. Something none of the pros above mentioned.
yes desrow, let's have 10 maps like habitation station, where main has 3 meters squared and natural 2forcefield ramp, that will be soooooo fun to watch and blink wont be an issue at all.give me a break
ofcourse msc is issue with blink(vision and timewarp on the ramp mostly) and not the maps.
i also like how they cry about msc vision affecting pvp too much.it's a mirror,same situation for both players,you had enough free scouting for 1 year,i hope we can move to the next step of hots, where u ll waste 100 energy on free scout, called hallucionation..or that other perma scout called observer that gets out in 10 secs.
Its about the position of the Main in relation to the Natural.... if you can Blink into the main in 3-4 locations and the Natural in 2 locations then thats a rough map to fight blink against..... there is no possible way to defend all the locations with bunkers so blink stalkers will always win out on that
On February 12 2014 05:01 frozzz wrote: yes desrow, let's have 10 maps like habitation station, where main has 3 meters squared and natural 2forcefield ramp, that will be soooooo fun to watch and blink wont be an issue at all.give me a break
ofcourse msc is issue with blink(vision and timewarp on the ramp mostly) and not the maps.
i also like how they cry about msc vision affecting pvp too much.it's a mirror,same situation for both players,you had enough free scouting for 1 year,i hope we can move to the next step of hots, where u ll waste 100 energy on free scout, called hallucionation..or that other perma scout called observer that gets out in 10 secs.
uhh hallucination scout is already a core part of pvp... im not a protoss player but i assume when they talk about MSC scouting they're referring to build deviations that happen before your hallucination crosses the map, like 1 base all ins. just because it's a mirror matchup that doesn't mean it doesn't have to be balanced so different playstyles are interesting and effective
The blink nerf was put in with the caveat that they just wanted to try it out to see if it works, in case it should become problematic in the future. I really don't see it making it to live.
QXC should have blog about patches and balance changes imo.
I'd like to see something goofy happen with Swarm Hosts. Maybe double the number of locusts spawned and the cooldown. So you get this weird surging action with a very strong pushed followed by a period of pronounced weakness that could be exploited.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I absolutely love these little interviews that TL has. Please continue this reaction series and perhaps expand it to include tournament result reactions!
I absolutely love these little interviews that TL has. Please continue this reaction series and perhaps expand it to include tournament result reactions!
This is a good idea about the Tournament results we for sure would have some good reactions from ppl like Idra retired or not LOLOOL
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
You do understand zerg static defense is not actually static?
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
I can do Taeja one for you now. Terran too weak. Even just one mistake at the beginning is the end of the game. Better to just gg now and save your energy for the next match.
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
You do understand zerg static defense is not actually static?
Spores and spines have no use while mobile; I think that's enough for them to qualify as "static" - they only fulfill their role when rooted, though the mobility in itself gives the static part an advantage.
As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja, Major and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
I mean Classic should be pretty good with Terran if that counts
Awesome job, it was really fun reading trough their impressions of this patch.
Glad to see that a lot of them agree the blink nerf is too extreme, hydra buff being insufficient and Tempest change not touching the root of the problem.
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
I mean Classic should be pretty good with Terran if that counts
Classic improved by like 4 times when he switched over to Toss last year.
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja, Major and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
Mvp used to beat HuK on ladder with Zerg.
When HuK was in Code S and still winning tournaments, that is.
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
I mean Classic should be pretty good with Terran if that counts
Classic improved by like 4 times when he switched over to Toss last year.
I somehow still think Classic's T would still beat the majority of foreign players given a week of practise
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
I mean Classic should be pretty good with Terran if that counts
Classic improved by like 4 times when he switched over to Toss last year.
I somehow still think Classic's T would still beat the majority of foreign players given a week of practise
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
I also absolutely hate the blink nerf. If blink all ins are still too powerful after the MSC vision nerf, the next thing they should look at is the time warp spell. This also makes blink all ins so much more powerful. Pulled workers are not able to connect with the stalkers, Marines are never able to close the distance, and micro in general is hindered a lot. Especially terrible are time warps on ramps. I do not even see why this spell has to be in the game, especially for toss. It is far to similar to forcefields, while being less interesting, easier to execute and impossible to micro against. Honestly I think the best option might even be to remove the spell entirely and replace it with something else. The Energize spell it had in the beta was far more interesting and unique for example. The MSC could fill up the energy of another unit for a certain energy. This would also help defensive HT play a lot. With the recent EMP change and the possible hydra change in mind this spell could be quite helpful in certain situations. It would also help a lot in PvP early game. A full energy sentry can be quite the game changer!
On February 12 2014 05:29 Smurfett3 wrote: people rely on mothership core so much they forgot about hallucinations and how they are free and dont need an upgrade for that...
A hallucination scout is available much, much later than a msc scout and therefore it's sometimes impossible to react on time. This is the case, for example, with every PvP one base allin.
On February 12 2014 05:37 stuchiu wrote: As for SH, you can play them either aggressively or defensively. But in TvZ or PvZ, if either side just wants to play defensively, it forces both players to play defensive.
*Except in the case of MC. I think he has a kill timing for Zergs that use SH.
To be honest MC probably has a ZvT kill timing involving tanks and swarm hosts
yes you read that correctly
Time to set up offrace showmatches.
I have Minigun, Taeja and MC. Who else is really good with other races?
I mean Classic should be pretty good with Terran if that counts
Classic improved by like 4 times when he switched over to Toss last year.
I somehow still think Classic's T would still beat the majority of foreign players given a week of practise
Couldn't beat Thorzain!!!
Sjow's can only just play PvT in this showmatch! Perfect!
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
You do understand zerg static defense is not actually static?
No shit. It still takes a while to burrow, so if the zerg was constantly moving their sh they would either continually be losing their static d or the toss would just roll past it to the new un-entrenched zerg position..
On February 12 2014 05:49 shivver wrote: If they put that hydra buff through, it will break 2 base immortal style all ins I don't think you will ever see one again.
Not that I'm necessarily advocating that one particular buff, but would it really be so bad to shake up the repertoir of builds and styles (for all races) a bit? If the immortal all-in were to become less effective but be replaced by something else, that's something I wouldn't mind seeing.
On February 12 2014 05:49 shivver wrote: If they put that hydra buff through, it will break 2 base immortal style all ins I don't think you will ever see one again.
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
You do understand zerg static defense is not actually static?
Spores and spines have no use while mobile; I think that's enough for them to qualify as "static" - they only fulfill their role when rooted, though the mobility in itself gives the static part an advantage.
That's simply not true. Swarm host turtle would not be anywhere as powerful as it if zerg static defense could not move. It's the ability to basically erect a Maginot Line wherever there is creep that makes this style so hard to deal with. Swarm hosts move around plenty, and the fact that they can bring their defenses with them is pretty much make or break for SH turtle style.
Oracle heavy metagame, and also because of the maps, of which many are good for blink possibly because mapmakers want the reaper to be able to get scouting information)
They could always make bases be surrounded by areas that require two blinks to get into the base, while reapers can easily still get in.
I do like qxc's point 2 and 3 suggestion for SH. Something to try.
I always though the infested terran changes were a bit extreme. At least allow them weapon upgrades.
Maybe give Devourer spores to Corrupters in some form?
Good read, thanks. Quite informative. Good to see general agreement on the Blink nerf. It is one of the more stupid ideas Blizzard have ever come up with. I have to wonder if it is a case of a diversion so that we all engage in a discussion of Blink and Stalkers while Blizzard carry on peacefully with the rest of the patch. A classic case of bait and switch.
Not sure if it is working all that effectively though, given the ongoing discussion on SH.
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
they plant static d AROUND THE MAP so the swarm hosts can be MOVED around the map without support from the rest of the army. do you even watch pro level swarm host games? what you're saying is simply not true of high level play. if you're losing to zergs who never move their swarm hosts, your problem is with your own play, not theirs.
On February 12 2014 05:49 shivver wrote: If they put that hydra buff through, it will break 2 base immortal style all ins I don't think you will ever see one again.
Not that I'm necessarily advocating that one particular buff, but would it really be so bad to shake up the repertoir of builds and styles (for all races) a bit? If the immortal all-in were to become less effective but be replaced by something else, that's something I wouldn't mind seeing.
We have allined zergs with literally every protoss unit except carriers and tempest. At this point it's safe to say there aren't many undiscovered 2base pvz timings out there. Soultrain just so happens to be the most powerful.
On February 12 2014 05:49 shivver wrote: If they put that hydra buff through, it will break 2 base immortal style all ins I don't think you will ever see one again.
Not that I'm necessarily advocating that one particular buff, but would it really be so bad to shake up the repertoir of builds and styles (for all races) a bit? If the immortal all-in were to become less effective but be replaced by something else, that's something I wouldn't mind seeing.
We have allined zergs with literally every protoss unit except carriers and tempest. At this point it's safe to say there aren't many undiscovered 2base pvz timings out there. Soultrain just so happens to be the most powerful.
Hongun used a 2 base carrier allin before. So just tempest.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
The combination of incredibly high range, and constantly spawning free units that soak and deal damage allows players to take an incredibly passive stance in the game where the cost efficiency of static defense can be combined with the cost efficiency of not spending money to make ground units. The ability of the swarm host to drag games out to absurd lengths needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now before any other change.
Totally called this. SH as they currently stand lend themselves towards more passive, defensive play. Might be a meta-game thing that will switch around. But they tend towards passivity and safe play.
Decreasing cooldown on Stalkers makes me sad Blink micro is some of the better sort of micro in SC2.
They're nerfing and buffing too many things at once. If the main problem are blink allins in PvT, they should try to nerf/buff one thing at a time and see if it works, otherwise the game will completely change for Protoss.
And Swarm Hosts have to be nerfed in some way, or make the locusts costs money as qxc said, or maybe giving energy to SH, so they have to use locusts carefully. Or maybe make locusts spawn only if there are enemy units in their vision range. There are many ways to fix that unit, but they don't do anything
Buffs tempests but not carriers and leaves swarm hosts alone. Maybe they feel that the SH are in that weird spot where it'll be too strong/weak if they change it. I think it would be cool if SH were more lurker-esque and had to get fairly close to do damage. But why do that when you can replace them with lurkers? Maybe remove swarm hosts and buff nydus and overlords? I think a cool change would be to make the overlord creep drop generate more creep initially and remove/shorten the range over time mechanic.
I think it's a really sad state of affairs that they want to increase the cooldown on blink. Why not nerf how far stalkers can jump instead?
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
it's probably a polite way of saying that some of the korean terrans' english wasn't strong enough to provide interesting answers. i think this thread is much better with only detailed responses like the one in the OP. if you throw in 10 koreans writing single sentences like "blink so weak too much nerf tt" it would be less readable and less interesting
not saying that to be culturally offensive, it's just a fact that not all kr players have perfect english and readable english content is better suited to an english language website. i'd say the same thing if a NA player didn't have an interesting response
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
they plant static d AROUND THE MAP so the swarm hosts can be MOVED around the map without support from the rest of the army. do you even watch pro level swarm host games? what you're saying is simply not true of high level play. if you're losing to zergs who never move their swarm hosts, your problem is with your own play, not theirs.
I play Terran man, I only know about this style from watching "high level" pro games..
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
I totally respect your guys editorial judgment, but just for the record, I think that the sentiment "nerf Oracle before touching anything else" adds something valuable to the discussion. Even if some of these changes go through, conversations about the Oracle will still probably be warranted. What Dear unfortunately doesn't address is whether he thinks Oracles are the only problem in PvT or one of the biggest or what.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
And yet you asked desrow?
Well, better than Naniwa. And Desrow is pretty honest wih his bias, but still seems as objective as expected.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
I see you have good intentions and overall it's an excellent initiative, but I think you've taken a wrong turn for all the right reasons. I find Dear's response excellent content. Sure, it would be nice if it were more detailed and elaborate, but the idea that these changes as a whole will not lead to a balancing of TvP and the fact that, in his mind, an oracle change will bring about balance, is something I like to know, and I assume that DK would like to know as well.
As for excluding people because they are biased, once again, I don't see the responses, so I don't know exactly, but the idea is that if you have a large number of responses, especially from different races, it balances itself out. As I commented before, I do not think Desrow's comments are as unbiased as, for example, TLO's or Qxc's, but it's still valuable content to see how he thinks in his context. I'd like to see similar content from terrans, if only to counter-balance the comments from the large number of protoss players.
In the end, I would not put too much emphasis on eloquence and rather get feedback from the highest level. This partly comes from my experience in diplomacy, the highest officials in the EU, WTO, UN, etc. are not very eloquent and easy to communicate with, but deciphering their comments is incredibly valuable because they are the ones performing the most important actions.
I fear this widow mine buff will make mech slightly too strong vs Protoss
borders on the ridiculous. If he has a good reason to predict this, he should really elaborate on it, because literally no-one else believes it.
The widowmine damage bypasses the hardened shield of the immortal which is the backbone of the protoss army composition vs Mech. I think it will make it much harder and might make it too strong. Blizzard talks about widowmine with bio but they overlooked what it could do to Mech vs P.
Don't mind any of the Protoss nerfs except the blink one, that seems so silly to me. Stalkers' only utility past the very early game is blink, because their DPS is just so bad. It's such a large overall nerf which seems unnecessary to think about when Blizzard are nerfing Protoss elsewhere. And any nerf that reduces micro potential probably isn't a good one.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
And yet you asked desrow?
He is not very biased in his answers. Just because he explains things from the Protoss perspective does not mean he is biased.
With regards to his mothership core comments he mentions it is debated amongst players (which is true, some players do debate the change -- see Socke and HasuObs who mention that the vision radius change will impact every matchup, scouting early PvP before hallucination and impact positioning before fights in all Protoss matchups).
Desrow also mentions how if it is purely being changed as a deterrent to blink all ins it is not necessarily the correct direction. Maps should also be looked at. He mentions habitation station as an example NOT because of the size of the main (which others have extrapolated) but because of the limited area with which to blink into the base. The power from blink all ins comes from positioning as well as vision (hence why KT.TY uses sensor towers to defend the 2 base variant effectively). If you remove options for where to blink in Terran doesn't need to invest as much into defending as large an area meaning protoss players can't just pressure with an all in infrastructure and expand instead because terran sacrificed any follow up timing through their adequate (then over) preparation.
desRow always seems to have more haters when he is public with his opinions but his comments aren't the most biased (and everyone is a little biased, very few people can be completely objective).
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
I see you have good intentions and overall it's an excellent initiative, but I think you've taken a wrong turn for all the right reasons. I find Dear's response excellent content. Sure, it would be nice if it were more detailed and elaborate, but the idea that these changes as a whole will not lead to a balancing of TvP and the fact that, in his mind, an oracle change will bring about balance, is something I like to know, and I assume that DK would like to know as well.
As for excluding people because they are biased, once again, I don't see the responses, so I don't know exactly, but the idea is that if you have a large number of responses, especially from different races, it balances itself out. As I commented before, I do not think Desrow's comments are as unbiased as, for example, TLO's or Qxc's, but it's still valuable content to see how he thinks in his context. I'd like to see similar content from terrans, if only to counter-balance the comments from the large number of protoss players.
In the end, I would not put too much emphasis on eloquence and rather get feedback from the highest level. This partly comes from my experience in diplomacy, the highest officials in the EU, WTO, UN, etc. are not very eloquent and easy to communicate with, but deciphering their comments is incredibly valuable because they are the ones performing the most important actions.
I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
I see you have good intentions and overall it's an excellent initiative, but I think you've taken a wrong turn for all the right reasons. I find Dear's response excellent content. Sure, it would be nice if it were more detailed and elaborate, but the idea that these changes as a whole will not lead to a balancing of TvP and the fact that, in his mind, an oracle change will bring about balance, is something I like to know, and I assume that DK would like to know as well.
As for excluding people because they are biased, once again, I don't see the responses, so I don't know exactly, but the idea is that if you have a large number of responses, especially from different races, it balances itself out. As I commented before, I do not think Desrow's comments are as unbiased as, for example, TLO's or Qxc's, but it's still valuable content to see how he thinks in his context. I'd like to see similar content from terrans, if only to counter-balance the comments from the large number of protoss players.
In the end, I would not put too much emphasis on eloquence and rather get feedback from the highest level. This partly comes from my experience in diplomacy, the highest officials in the EU, WTO, UN, etc. are not very eloquent and easy to communicate with, but deciphering their comments is incredibly valuable because they are the ones performing the most important actions.
I am of the opposite opinion, I have no intrest in pro bias and them complaining about an upcomming patch. If I want to hear bias balance complaints, I'll just read the forums.
On February 12 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote: Hmm, this was a very interesting read. You should probably also include Khaldor's video of Mana.
On the other hand, Desrow's
I fear this widow mine buff will make mech slightly too strong vs Protoss
borders on the ridiculous. If he has a good reason to predict this, he should really elaborate on it, because literally no-one else believes it.
The widowmine damage bypasses the hardened shield of the immortal which is the backbone of the protoss army composition vs Mech. I think it will make it much harder and might make it too strong. Blizzard talks about widowmine with bio but they overlooked what it could do to Mech vs P.
Thank you for the elaboration!
I'm guessing you mean a mech composition where WM are in front of a tank line such that the WM cannot be picked off for free with the superior range of the immortals.
I have no experience with WM-tank lines, anyone else care to comment?
As long as Protoss can blink stalkers up cliffs they're gonna do blink stalker builds, I suspect. And as long as they can potentially do them they can also keep doing the obnoxious blink-all-in-but-not-really-because-you-scouted-it-I'll-just-make-2-forges-and-get-storm-have-fun-behind-ur-bunkers-hahahahahahah style of play. I wouldn't mind an artificial solution to this style of play, like a kind of cliff that couldn't be blinked up.
This obviously won't happen and I foresee the loss of many, many ladder points (and the brain cells required for sanity) to the blinky little fucks.
Widow mine change is incredible though. Like that one!
On February 12 2014 04:44 Ghanburighan wrote: Hmm, this was a very interesting read. You should probably also include Khaldor's video of Mana.
On the other hand, Desrow's
I fear this widow mine buff will make mech slightly too strong vs Protoss
borders on the ridiculous. If he has a good reason to predict this, he should really elaborate on it, because literally no-one else believes it.
The widowmine damage bypasses the hardened shield of the immortal which is the backbone of the protoss army composition vs Mech. I think it will make it much harder and might make it too strong. Blizzard talks about widowmine with bio but they overlooked what it could do to Mech vs P.
Immortal getting nerfed against mech is a great thing, though. It was brought into the game specifically as a hard counter -- to be OP against mech. Turns out, Protoss deal pretty well with mech in general, so they don't need a unit to shut it down hard. IF this change does as much as you predict, that would be freaking awesome! Mech as standard in PvT could do a lot for the match up.
On February 12 2014 04:53 Survivor61316 wrote: I'm sorry qxc, but those were some terrible proposed changes to the sh..
Why don't they just decrease the time between waves and shorten the timer until the locusts die. Zerg would no longer be able to hit you with free units from 1/3 the way across the map, and would have to keep their sh much closer to the opponents army. Combine this with a reduction to the burrow time for the swarm host, and suddenly Zergs have to continue to reposition them, which doesnt allow for them to just passively keep them next to a great wall of spores and spines. Also, a quicker burrow time would mean that they could be used for hit and run tactics around the map, which should add to the watchability/playability of the MU.
zerg already has to aggressively reposition their SH to succeed in high level play. SH already require good multitasking and map awareness. this is not the issue with SH at all. please stop suggesting this
No they don't. They plant them and thats about the end of it. Thats why they can also plant static d, because the sh aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
they plant static d AROUND THE MAP so the swarm hosts can be MOVED around the map without support from the rest of the army. do you even watch pro level swarm host games? what you're saying is simply not true of high level play. if you're losing to zergs who never move their swarm hosts, your problem is with your own play, not theirs.
I play Terran man, I only know about this style from watching "high level" pro games..
then you are not paying attention. no pro zerg just lets their swarm hosts sit in place until it reaches the phase of the game where creep and static d are literally on every inch of the map, and at that point the game is usually over anyway because zerg just mines the map. did you watch soulkey vs reality?
and playing terran has nothing to do with it, how am i supposed to know if you play mech or not? terran mech vs swarm host is current pro meta, so i don't see your point
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
And yet you asked desrow?
He is not very biased in his answers. Just because he explains things from the Protoss perspective does not mean he is biased.
With regards to his mothership core comments he mentions it is debated amongst players (which is true, some players do debate the change -- see Socke and HasuObs who mention that the vision radius change will impact every matchup, scouting early PvP before hallucination and impact positioning before fights in all Protoss matchups).
Desrow also mentions how if it is purely being changed as a deterrent to blink all ins it is not necessarily the correct direction. Maps should also be looked at. He mentions habitation station as an example NOT because of the size of the main (which others have extrapolated) but because of the limited area with which to blink into the base. The power from blink all ins comes from positioning as well as vision (hence why KT.TY uses sensor towers to defend the 2 base variant effectively). If you remove options for where to blink in Terran doesn't need to invest as much into defending as large an area meaning protoss players can't just pressure with an all in infrastructure and expand instead because terran sacrificed any follow up timing through their adequate (then over) preparation.
desRow always seems to have more haters when he is public with his opinions but his comments aren't the most biased (and everyone is a little biased, very few people can be completely objective).
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
With 9 range vision the MsC cannot provide adequate vision from a safe range of the positioning of all of terran forces. This means protoss players cannot blink into a terran base with full knowledge of the terran army position every time without also gaining extra info from a poke at the front for example to see what is there.
If protoss does want that vision of terran base they must commit the MsC close enough that it is danger of taking damage or being killed.
Why exactly is Protoss entitled to a safe blink into the Terran base? The whole idea is that there should be some risk involved in this kind of play, which is exactly why so many Terran hate (and continue to hate) the Oracle change - an aggressive, potentially high-reward play should come with some degree of risk.
I am specifically mentioning how the MsC nerf is already adding a lot more risk to the blink options vs Terran. I don't see what you are arguing?
If you cant see everything its not a free safe blink. This provides more chances for terran to abuse either the more limited vision of the mama core leading to quick poor blink decisions or for terran to damage or kill the mothership core.
Further the widow mine change means its even more effective vs one base blink all ins if the terran player has a fact coming see Twilight or a lot of stalkers and no natural.
Will it help vs blink expands? Not specifically, I mean, Protoss can still make 6 - 8 stalkers off 2 base with blink and pressure terran while taking a third, but that build doesnt get a lot of gates. If the Protoss player gets a lot of gates and doesnt commit to a big attack instead expanding with 2 gas to a third base terran should have a timing to hurt the protoss player in some way or get ahead in tech/upgrades pretty easily. The reaction from terran will require scouting and reaction to that scouting which is a metagame thing that slowly evolves and grows as the Terrans deal with it more. But thats different from balance, thats an issue of understanding from both sides. Once terran figures out the reaction Protoss will either stop doing it or retool the build to be more safe allowing terran less timing options, but more stable opportunities to expand or not lose much to the small stalker squad assuming good reactions. Thats how the game evolves
On February 12 2014 05:23 Plansix wrote:
On February 12 2014 05:18 TimKim0713 wrote: Why so low terran contributors...
Need korean opinions as well
As always, teamliquid get the answers from people that respond. I am sure they would be happy to publish any pros opinion if they took the time to write it down.
YES! We had a shorter deadline for this one and a few things compound the smaller number of terrans:
- fewer foreign terrans than the other races in general - fewer terrans willing to provide feedback in general (we hope as these releases get more positive answers, people open up to contributing) - some Koreans who were available and willing this time provided either limited comments or ones that were a little off topic or not related to this patch note
So I hope you can understand. If any pro Terrans want to contribute to the next one PM and I will try to include you in the next one, as long as you have a decently level head, as we try to focus on people who can consolidate their race bias and look at the game a little more objectively (pure objectivity is impossible though so we take that with a grain of salt)
Are you saying that some Korean terrans did contribute but you didn't include them in the OP? Why would you do that? Even if it's off topic or ``limited'' (whatever that means), at least we understand what they're thinking about. In the end, those guys did want to give you their feedback.
I think its fair to reserve some editorial judgement. And I have always believed in being very open. When I say limited, I mean the full impact of the potential change was either not expressed well. Keep in mind we do not have access to every single pro player, and Waxangel does not always have the ability to converse with the Koreans in Hangul because he does live a life. We wanted to release this quickly while it is still pertinent and to give the community some additional perspectives to digest, which is a goal I feel we achieved. There are a series of varying opinions from different races and for the most part everyone was quite objective (as much as possible) and provided different perspectives and reasoning.
Jjakji chose not to make a comment. Ryung and Crank were unavailable considering our timeline. MMA provided some comments and they are included as you can see in the article.
As for your concerns regarding not including information here is a very good example from Mouz Dear:
"if sc2 need protoss nerf , first of all DK must do oracle roll back if it will be changed , specially blink cool down .. toss will be stupid" (via SeoHyun via Nathanias)
With limited access we only have so much we can do to contact and enter into discussion to clarify things. On its own, this time we didn't get very easily understood or clear feedback. So here we see a recommendation to nerf the oracle (which is outside the scope of our article and not its aim) and we also see no mention of mothership core. We get a mention of "blink cooldown .. toss will be stupid", while the intention is there that its a bad change, it adds very little to overall article and no additional information that isn't already presented more eloquently and with more nuance than the English speaking professional players we asked.
We need to remember that Koreans are not magical creatures from a far away land. They can be just as biased as any one else, and the language barrier doesn't help. We also still need people to be willing to take part and answer. I had as my aim to ask people who are generally not going to be extremely biased and I feel as though I succeeded in that regard.
I see you have good intentions and overall it's an excellent initiative, but I think you've taken a wrong turn for all the right reasons. I find Dear's response excellent content. Sure, it would be nice if it were more detailed and elaborate, but the idea that these changes as a whole will not lead to a balancing of TvP and the fact that, in his mind, an oracle change will bring about balance, is something I like to know, and I assume that DK would like to know as well.
As for excluding people because they are biased, once again, I don't see the responses, so I don't know exactly, but the idea is that if you have a large number of responses, especially from different races, it balances itself out. As I commented before, I do not think Desrow's comments are as unbiased as, for example, TLO's or Qxc's, but it's still valuable content to see how he thinks in his context. I'd like to see similar content from terrans, if only to counter-balance the comments from the large number of protoss players.
In the end, I would not put too much emphasis on eloquence and rather get feedback from the highest level. This partly comes from my experience in diplomacy, the highest officials in the EU, WTO, UN, etc. are not very eloquent and easy to communicate with, but deciphering their comments is incredibly valuable because they are the ones performing the most important actions.
I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
The main contribution, as I see it, of the previous pro feedback thread was that Blizzard finally started looking and Msc vision. By your estimate, when all the pro's commented on Msc range, they were ``off topic'' as it wasn't a comment on the proposed changes themselves, instead it was an alternative, and much more effective, solution that is now being considered, even if grudgingly, for a patch.
On February 12 2014 06:34 ZeromuS wrote:I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
Talking about Swarm Hosts is to the Tempest change as talking about the Oracle is to talking about "viability of wacky Protoss openings in PvT," eg. the MSC/Blink changes. You're fine with one but not the other. Just some food for thought.
On February 12 2014 06:34 ZeromuS wrote:I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
Talking about Swarm Hosts is to the Tempest change as talking about the Oracle is to talking about "viability of wacky Protoss openings in PvT." You're fine with one but not the other. Food for thought.
food for thought: he does his best to use personal judgment in creating the best article he can, it's already been published and is being discussed, and accusing him of not handpicking the right responses (esp. when presumably only he can see them) doesn't really do anything to address the topic at hand, which i think is supposed to be starcraft. it's just forum drama
On February 12 2014 06:34 ZeromuS wrote:I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
Talking about Swarm Hosts is to the Tempest change as talking about the Oracle is to talking about "viability of wacky Protoss openings in PvT." You're fine with one but not the other. Food for thought.
food for thought: he does his best to use personal judgment in creating the best article he can, it's already been published and is being discussed, and accusing him of not handpicking the right responses (esp. when presumably only he can see them) doesn't really do anything to address the topic at hand, which i think is supposed to be starcraft. it's just forum drama
He spent an insane amount of time on this contacting the right people to get all of these responses to get this out as fast as possible, and we can only get so many pro's opinions on this
On February 12 2014 06:34 ZeromuS wrote:I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
Talking about Swarm Hosts is to the Tempest change as talking about the Oracle is to talking about "viability of wacky Protoss openings in PvT." You're fine with one but not the other. Food for thought.
food for thought: he does his best to use personal judgment in creating the best article he can, it's already been published and is being discussed, and accusing him of not handpicking the right responses (esp. when presumably only he can see them) doesn't really do anything to address the topic at hand, which i think is supposed to be starcraft. it's just forum drama
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I already said in my earlier post on the subject that I have the utmost respect for what these guys are doing. I'm just giving another perspective on a decision they made, which they're welcome to do with as they please when they compile the next such batch, of which I hope there will be many more to come!
To my mind, what Dear said isn't so off-topic that it has no place in a discussion about changes to PvT early game. I'm not even clear on whether Dear was one of the pros contacted for this compilation, or if he voiced his opinions separately and ZeromuS is simply pointing out that "this is the kind of response we sometimes get," I'm just saying that a response of that sort seems relevant to me. That's all!
On February 12 2014 06:34 ZeromuS wrote:I'll add once more, the comment didnt add anything to the conversation and is outside the scope. Wanting an oracle change or different changes completely is a seperate concern for perhaps another day and another time, but really I am looking at these changes.
Talking about Swarm Hosts is to the Tempest change as talking about the Oracle is to talking about "viability of wacky Protoss openings in PvT." You're fine with one but not the other. Food for thought.
My perspective is that all the recommendations made here and in the previous article (regarding MsC vision radius) were made within the context of considering the proposed changes and offering alternatives.
Dear's comment was one which disregarded the other changes (basically writing them off) and recommending a change that had no consensus from anyone else at all.
Looking at the Swarmhost comments they are in direct response to the proposed reasoning behind the Tempest change: to make Swarmhost turtle less effective behind Static Defense in the PvZ matchup. Many people say the proposed change is not addressing the main issue but can still be good/bad/no impact. Similar to how the time warp change was seen as good but not necessarily enough and also missing the point.
So for me, to be clear, I felt that Dear's comment was very different in terms of an "out of scope comment" compared to the other "out of scope" comments made regarding the swarm host. One has no relation to the existing positions of Blizzard regarding their proposed changes while ignoring the changes overall that are proposed (Dear's comment) while the other group look at the reasoning behind the proposed changes and express how a different change (to the core concern) would likely be more effective.
The core concern this article was the swarmhost, and a proposed change intends to impact it. The core concern previously of blink all ins and the mothership core power was addressed through a timewarp nerf but the core concern was the mothership core and vision range is more impactful.
The core concern here is not "protoss overpowered" rather "blink all ins PvT are perhaps too strong" with regards to protoss strength. I feel that and Oracle comment is best suited to address concerns of the power of the Protoss race overall and not related to the core concerns expressed by Blizz which is why I felt it wasn't necessarily related. Furthermore, the fact that oracles are falling more and more out of favour and doing less and less damage at a high level of play also shows some adaptation to the builds through openings and scouting patterns so I didnt include it this time.
But I take the criticism with thought and will consider this point of view in the future releases, however, don't believe I will be revising the existing article to include it.
I hope thats cool with you guys :D
If you would like to continue discussing this I would be more than happy to take it to PMs so we don't bog down the thread with any drama and it can get back on topic.
Well I think they want to test the increased Blink duration and just overdo it to see the outcome. But if they weaken Blink we might end up getting stronger Stalkers!
On February 12 2014 06:39 ROOTiaguz wrote: As long as Protoss can blink stalkers up cliffs they're gonna do blink stalker builds, I suspect. And as long as they can potentially do them they can also keep doing the obnoxious blink-all-in-but-not-really-because-you-scouted-it-I'll-just-make-2-forges-and-get-storm-have-fun-behind-ur-bunkers-hahahahahahah style of play. I wouldn't mind an artificial solution to this style of play, like a kind of cliff that couldn't be blinked up.
This obviously won't happen and I foresee the loss of many, many ladder points (and the brain cells required for sanity) to the blinky little fucks.
Widow mine change is incredible though. Like that one!
Yes, thank you! I don't get all the whining about blink.... implying it's going to suddenly be out of the game..
The last time I checked nearly every map in the pool currently favors blink. It's like we want to give Protoss every possible chance to survive, force field, mass recall, hallucinated scouting, time warp, but god for-fucking-bid we increase the cool down on Blink, oh god no.
On February 12 2014 06:39 ROOTiaguz wrote: As long as Protoss can blink stalkers up cliffs they're gonna do blink stalker builds, I suspect. And as long as they can potentially do them they can also keep doing the obnoxious blink-all-in-but-not-really-because-you-scouted-it-I'll-just-make-2-forges-and-get-storm-have-fun-behind-ur-bunkers-hahahahahahah style of play. I wouldn't mind an artificial solution to this style of play, like a kind of cliff that couldn't be blinked up.
This obviously won't happen and I foresee the loss of many, many ladder points (and the brain cells required for sanity) to the blinky little fucks.
Widow mine change is incredible though. Like that one!
Yes, thank you! I don't get all the whining about blink.... implying it's going to suddenly be out of the game..
The last time I checked nearly every map in the pool currently favors blink. It's like we want to give Protoss every possible chance to survive, force field, mass recall, hallucinated scouting, time warp, but god for-fucking-bid we increase the cool down on Blink, oh god no.
It's a fun ability, and one of the few ways in the game for a Protoss with excellent mechanical skill to really distinguish himself. Is that really what you want to cut down, when there are so many other options still on the table? Blink height nerf and Time Warp nerf immediately come to mind as superior options.
When was the last time a very core unit was changed? Messing with the core units (zealot, stalker, zergling, roach, marine, marauder) seems like a bad, or risky idea, because it messes with the balance in a bigger way than if one was to just adjust later game stage or more niche units." XMG Socke and Mousesports HasuObs
It is true, if you think about it, the MSC vision nerf is a general nerf for Protoss and pretty heavy. If they nerf the Vision, then Photon Overcharge (the Vision Range), Blink (in TvP), Tempest attacks (15 Attack range, but smaller vision), defending and spotting drops and the scouting overall is being nerfed with it.
Still confused about MMA though. He's quite radical with his requests :D
Amazing response from them all. They all make a lot of sense and although each of them by themselves is lacking in the whole picture for each change for all the races, by combining them all you can formulate a very good idea of the consequences of all the change in all match ups. A lot of these idea's are good, some of them are to extreme but overall positive response for blizz other than anything to do with SH lol. Keep doing these, reading the pro's opinions is very interesting indeed. Scarletts answers were some of my favourite. She gave some pretty good responses
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
The risk is that you've invested heavily into a whole bunch of stalkers which are pretty weak vs bio in the mid to late game, no?
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
On February 12 2014 03:53 NonY wrote: Big thing about the blink cooldown change is mobility. Blink stalkers are typically pretty safe to explore the map, even when marauders or ling/roach could also be on the field. However, it's the second blink that really gets you to safety when running from those things. If the second blink is delayed 5 seconds, I think it'll force protoss to be much more passive with stalkers. It crosses a threshold where you run a risk of the stalkers getting caught and they all die.
In my opinion, Blizzard clearly isn't just targeting the PvT blink all-ins with the blink change. But why they would want to nerf blink in general is beyond me. Stalkers kinda suck in general. They're a niche unit that becomes viable in a decent number of situations only because of blink.
The problem is right now there's no risk at all to really using blink stalkers in PvT. You can virtually always escape every single time either from the Terran's base after offensive blinks, or you can do the fake blink macro builds and never lose any stalkers but still heavily pressure Terran at no risk whatsoever to yourself.
Making blink require more thought to use and have more risk associated to it will go a long way to help TvP balance because right now the balance of TvP is quite abysmal. There are too, too many PvT openings that have low risks associated with them, blink probably being the one that almost always puts the Protoss player ahead, or at the very worst even which is pretty lame.
The risk is that you've invested heavily into a whole bunch of stalkers which are pretty weak vs bio in the mid to late game, no?
No, because having some Stalkers in the late game is fine, and Photon Overcharge shuts down most Terran pressure until then.
Mapmaking is one thing, and it does seem like a lot of the maps we currently have are large cliff maps, probably too many out of the total of maps. But I also don't think it should be nigh impossible to win on a map for a certain race just because it has large cliffs. Map diversity ("we should have less maps with large cliffs") is good, map restriction ("it's impossible to have maps with large cliffs") isn't.
On February 12 2014 05:53 Pontius Pirate wrote: The pros are saying it. I think we should have a "pros offer suggestions on how to fix Swarm Hosts" thread, at least to send Blizzard a message.
On February 12 2014 07:49 Nebuchad wrote: Mapmaking is one thing, and it does seem like a lot of the maps we currently have are large cliff maps, probably too many out of the total of maps. But I also don't think it should be nigh impossible to win on a map for a certain race just because it has large cliffs. Map diversity ("we should have less maps with large cliffs") is good, map restriction ("it's impossible to have maps with large cliffs") isn't.
Depends. Some conditions for map making always need to be there: need a wallable nat for PvZ, a one ff ramp for PvP, not much surface area for blink allins, reasonable space to defend muta harass, etc etc.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
So hydralisk out of the gate DPS jumps 14.5 to 16? And final upgrade DPS 18.1 to 20. That seems like a lot of damage, surprised people in this thread don't seem to be talking about it more.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
I don't like the Tempest change. I think a better idea for it would be 30+15-25 to Cloaked/Burrowed units.
MSC nerf: Whatever. Vision has never really been a protoss weakness. It will expose the MSC to more damage and thus force some micro. Nothing wrong with that
Hydra buff: No one makes Hydralisks if they can help it. Probably because they suck and need a buff.
On February 12 2014 08:03 Deletrious wrote: So hydralisk out of the gate DPS jumps 14.5 to 16? And final upgrade DPS 18.1 to 20. That seems like a lot of damage, surprised people in this thread don't seem to be talking about it more.
10% increase in dps is really subtle though. The tank got a similar increase and I'm not sure if people really appreciated the difference.
On February 12 2014 08:03 Deletrious wrote: So hydralisk out of the gate DPS jumps 14.5 to 16? And final upgrade DPS 18.1 to 20. That seems like a lot of damage, surprised people in this thread don't seem to be talking about it more.
10% increase in dps is really subtle though. The tank got a similar increase and I'm not sure if people really appreciated the difference.
Its actually better than the current +1. Its basically a free +1 upgrade right out of the gate, so its better for ZvP Hydra pressure into transition builds.
On February 12 2014 05:49 shivver wrote: If they put that hydra buff through, it will break 2 base immortal style all ins I don't think you will ever see one again.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Sorry, but if you posted your solutions in the other thread I might have missed it. I agree with your point, but if they are intent on nerfing MsC & Blink those were just my suggestions.
BTW I don't expect Terrans to SimCity their entire cliff but if High Ground Blink Range was reduced from 8 to 6, then wouldn't Stalkers have to take more damage before Blinking in or out? What if your Depot Wall was near the cliff and just far enough inside that Stalkers couldn't pick away at it from the bottom, and forces them to Blink in and target either the Bunker(s), Depots, and repairing SCVs if they want to break through? What if you have 2+ WMs prepared because you knew that Stalkers could only Blink into a certain area without Detection?
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
I am of the opinion that Swarm Host is a horrendous mistake as it is completely not-fun to play against. So I guess it's good that they're looking into a solution... but what they come up with is totally off the mark.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
Well, that escalated quickly.
I'm just saying one of the worst things people do when it comes to SC2 is say things like "You can't do this"
"Imbalanced" maps are fine in certain contexts - namely, minor leagues and/or team leagues, especially if they have a proelague-style format. Proleague is in fact the perfect testing ground for imbalanced and extreme maps, because if it turns out broken in a specific matchup, that can be easily avoided altogether until the map itself is figured out.
If Daedalus had been introduced in Proleague it would still be unchanged, and maybe it could even have helped in evolving the game further imo. Similar things have happened before (Arkanoid anyone?).
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
idk, I kind of feel like they should make maps that break these "restrictions" you listed and tell everyone "have fun, go figure out new strats"
I really think people would come up with interesting ways to deal with maps that don't adhere to the "SC2 standard"
Yeah and if it takes Protoss six months, a year, two years to figure out a way to deal with a map with wider ramps than Daedalus, who cares if shitty Zerg "pros" end up winning real life money while mechanically skilled players fall out of tournaments over and over, right?
Well, that escalated quickly.
I'm just saying one of the worst things people do when it comes to SC2 is say things like "You can't do this"
I might agree with you if you brought this up elsewhere, but Teoita's got the right of it. As far as premier competitions go -- this is one of those things you just can't do.
Is it good that it's one of those things? Probably not, so fingers crossed for LOTV.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Oh, we're still around. It's just not much motivation to create maps because the likely hood of them ever getting used is slim to none. So many of us just sit around doing jack shit until TL has a mapping contest.
On February 12 2014 09:05 Bumalate wrote: Qxc had some great analysis. Interesting to think about.
Yeah I agree, I think this:
Make locusts move faster off creep and slower on creep. This would turn the swarm host into a more aggressively oriented. It would be stronger on the offense, weaker behind static defense and closer to the action in general.
is probably one of the best ideas about removing swarmhosts turtle strength while still keeping them viable
I agreed with the majority of Scarlett's comments. If you want to nerf the swarmhost, you gotta show the corruptor some love or give them more viable mid game openings that aren't easily defended with MSC.
Make locusts move faster off creep and slower on creep. This would turn the swarm host into a more aggressively oriented. It would be stronger on the offense, weaker behind static defense and closer to the action in general.
is probably one of the best ideas about removing swarmhosts turtle strength while still keeping them viable
I've thought that too, but it seems to go against the overall race mechanic. That said, it is worth a shot (if a SH change is really required - I still think a period of wait and see may be best; even if the SH is a unit that is difficult to love).
I've also thought that the SH needs to be more aesthetically pleasing. It is not a big change in the grand scheme of things. But the SH and locusts looks so damn ugly and boring. The only pleasing aspect of the locusts are those little claws at the front and when they spit at you. But these can be improved. You want something that screams terror. It will help.
When are we going to nerf hosts, and that joke of a unit that is the voidray?
Void Rays are so strong the only way to beat them is mass static + viper + anti air, and the only way to get that is turtling on hosts, which is boring as fuck to play.
lol @ the blink reactions from the Ts and Zs. Zs: "Uh, this probably impacts PvT more than PvZ, we don't really see this." Ts: "Don't know about the other match-ups but sure as hell don't impact PvT."
Blink Stalker all ins are so hard to deal with. I think changing blink timing is kind of ridiculous. However, the widow mine upgrade will do heaps against all-ins from Protoss early game. I like the idea of the Mothership core nerf, It truly gives Protoss a risk factor in going for an all-in. I hope this change goes through!
qxc's fix is good, but it's weird to give a Zerg unit less movement on creep. You can just give Locust the standard 2.25 movespeed with no creep modifier. This is precisely the median between it's movespeed on and off speed also, makes perfect sense.
On February 12 2014 10:55 ejozl wrote: qxc's fix is good, but it's weird to give a Zerg unit less movement on creep. You can just give Locust the standard 2.25 movespeed with no creep modifier. This is precisely the median between it's movespeed on and off speed also, makes perfect sense.
Well if you think of the locust as an attack and not a unit, it's not too weird. That is the swarm host itself moves fast on creep slow off creep making it easier to reposition, but it's attack works better off creep. So creep works as lines of reinforcements, to move back and forth to reposition the same as always, but faster locust off creep incentivizes players to push out beyond creep for best attacking results. It might not fix SH, but it is a rather intriguing idea.
On February 12 2014 10:55 ejozl wrote: qxc's fix is good, but it's weird to give a Zerg unit less movement on creep. You can just give Locust the standard 2.25 movespeed with no creep modifier. This is precisely the median between it's movespeed on and off speed also, makes perfect sense.
Well if you think of the locust as an attack and not a unit, it's not too weird. That is the swarm host itself moves fast on creep slow off creep making it easier to reposition, but it's attack works better off creep. So creep works as lines of reinforcements, to move back and forth to reposition the same as always, but faster locust off creep incentivizes players to push out beyond creep for best attacking results. It might not fix SH, but it is a rather intriguing idea.
isnt it better to just remove enduring locust, remove creep benefits to locusts and make the swarmhost faster overall (burrow/unborrow and movementwise)? I dont really mind qxcs ideas I think theyre solid, but the locusts being faster off creep seems a bit counterintuitive to me.
I've always believed that the Swarm Host should operate more like Queens with larva injects. To capitalize on larva, you have to be on top of your injects. If you have an offensively-placed SH, then you should have to activate it after a cooldown.
While some players will still be able to use it effectively, that number reduces significantly across skill, and time during the game and what is going on simultaneously. It won't be like the current "set it and forget it" attitude.
Just wanted to say that I like the revised format. Pro players are naturally biased towards their own race, so it's useful to see their responses grouped by race to each change.
The biggest things I took from this is that blizz should buff corruptors, and Snute speaking justice about target firing with tempest instead of a moving at locusts. I remember when he played a swarm host style vs alicia in wcs am season one. It was a damn good game! Also the video from socke and hasu was priceless
On February 12 2014 11:38 divito wrote: I've always believed that the Swarm Host should operate more like Queens with larva injects. To capitalize on larva, you have to be on top of your injects. If you have an offensively-placed SH, then you should have to activate it after a cooldown.
While some players will still be able to use it effectively, that number reduces significantly across skill, and time during the game and what is going on simultaneously. It won't be like the current "set it and forget it" attitude.
Ya, maybe even make them so that they only can shoot once when burrowed. The player would have to unburrow and then re burrow for them to be able to shoot again.
I have a question to anyone who will read. What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but 1. remove the warpgate technologie. (no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
On February 12 2014 12:20 NiXX88 wrote: I have a question to anyone who will read. What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but 1. remove the warpgate technologie. (no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
What would you think about this changes?
I think you are a genius, why did nobody before consider that?
On February 12 2014 12:20 NiXX88 wrote: I have a question to anyone who will read. What about this nerf option?
Don't nerf any of the protoss unit but 1. remove the warpgate technologie. (no more warp in within 10 secondes of walk near a base / or create like 10 drop ship full of unit with the Warp Prism / don't make unit for 5min and bank 600 minerals with 7 gates and just warp in units when you see an attack coming.)
2. bring back the old shuttle (like an overload drop or dropship), instead of warpgate.
What would you think about this changes?
Terrible and would totally break the game. Warpgate isn't going anywhere, even though the hive mind have all decided its it worse than drowning puppies.
Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3.
On February 12 2014 12:27 Falling wrote: Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3.
Yeah, its weird how they won't fulfill the request to "redesign 1/3 of all multiplayer matches," because a bunch of people assume it would make the game better.
Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
On February 12 2014 12:27 Falling wrote: Blizzard won't budge on warp-gate- even changing to gateway faster, but warpgate longer due to rapid reinforcement anywhere on the map. That's a ship that sailed until a hypothetical SC3.
Yeah, its weird how they won't fulfill the request to "redesign 1/3 of all multiplayer matches," because a bunch of people assume it would make the game better.
For $60 per copy of WOL, they came up with three entire races. Asking for less than 1/3 of that content for 2/3 of that price doesn't really seem all that unreasonable. Unless you're the head of accounting and you're looking at the PS3/Xbox DLC pricing model with eyes filled with dollar signs. Then, doing work when you could not be doing work but making roughly the same amount of money does, in fact, start to sound very unreasonable.
On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote: Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi)
On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote: Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi)
You've got that backwards. Proxy Zealots would take the same amount of time to make (or longer). It's non-proxy Zealots that would take less time to make (or the same as they do now).
On February 12 2014 12:41 Falling wrote: Well back in Heart of the Swarm beta, not knowing to what extent they would change things up, it seemed reasonable that playing with the timing of warp-gate and gateway cooldowns where it would be an actual decision could be one of those changes. Seemed like an interesting dynamic that still keep their original idea. Hindsight of course, that was never going to fly.
It would probably have to be its own 50/50 research ala warpgate because buffing proxy zealots by 5-10 seconds would actually be semi annoying (take out word semi)
You've got that backwards. Proxy Zealots would take the same amount of time to make (or longer). It's non-proxy Zealots that would take less time to make (or the same as they do now).
I am assuming that the time on the warp gates themselves would be unchanged but if you nerfed them then yes it could work I was just assuming you were buffing the standard gateway to below that.
Yeah, take same timings on gateway, but make warp-gates take longer to produce from. Sacrifice time because you have such a huge advantage by proxy placing units wherever you have a pylon or a warp-prism. It would make all those warp timings weaker, but give a slight edge to defending when you switch over. Or whatever would be balanced- the numbers would have to be tweaked. But Blizzard never bit on that one.
Starting to love the Pro feed back after a balance change hits the test maps. Though a few of the answers on certain NA pros are a bit biased and have to disagree with. Keep these coming. Wonder if one of the English content creators over in Korea could ask some of those pros on how they feel, since the main issue is in Korea at the highest level, not as much it seems in EU and NA since WCS seems to have a good racial balance.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
But the BW win rates continued to fluctuate. I don't believe balancing through maps means neutering all strategies. I think it means having a variety of maps built on some fundamentals that allow for races to explore their arsenal in the context that map provides. The key issue is that no single type of map dominates in terms of the numbers of that map in the map pool and for too long. Therefore, having 2 - 3 blink favoured maps in the map pool may be a problem in TvP. However, having one blink favoured map may not be (and the imbalance on that map therefore may not affect overall race balance).
I think map restrictions in SC2 tend to be over-stated. There are really, as far as I can see, only two real requirements for a map in SC2. That there be a small ramp into the main, and that there be a reasonable choke or ramp into the natural. The third may be the requirement for a third that is reasonably close to the main and natural (this was especially the case for P in WOL, however given the MSC and PO and faster P tech in HOTS it may not be as hard a requirement as it was).
Everything else is open to exploration. Consider, for example, Whirlwhind which was a huge map with a lot of wide open space and large ramps into every expansion bar the main. But, we had some great pro games on that map (and, I personally, played some real fun ladder games on that map). Safe uniform maps are boring maps and will lead to stale gameplay.
Meh, do people still think Blizzard will ever fix Starcraft 2 balance? The game is not even that fun. Only boring units. I have give up on Starcraft 2 ladder ever being good. Starbow fighting!
On February 12 2014 14:08 BronzeKnee wrote: I really get the feeling that is TeamLiquid's passive aggressive way to say to Blizzard, hey some of your ideas are really, really dumb.
I'd prefer if they came out and just said that, but I understand. I have to sugarcoat things and play politics at my job too.
I'd feel it's more team liquid's way of making more content so people will click it and comment and such. After all this is a Starcraft 2 website.
On February 12 2014 15:28 Rockmonsterdude wrote: Meh, do people still think Blizzard will ever fix Starcraft 2 balance? The game is not even that fun. Only boring units. I have give up on Starcraft 2 ladder ever being good. Starbow fighting!
SC2 Marine is probably the most exciting unit across both games. High risk, high reward, high mechanical skill ceiling, great versatility, very responsive. On the mechanical side alone, there's focus fire, kiting, stutter step, Stimming, Medivac harass, Storm dodging, Bane dodging, Medivac vs. Muta retreat micro, Bunker pressure micro.
So... no. There are fun units in SC2.
Though given the extinction of the Terran race, you might be excused for thinking it's no longer in the game...
lol so yeah, proxy tempest might actually be really stupid annoying. Just faced a toss on ladder who failed miserably, but if they weren't completely bad, it could have gotten messy.
build they were trying for was something like proxy stargate and oracle(s) while fleet bacon goes up. and 3-4 gate mamacore, building stalkers in-between tempest queues. Use mama vision for tempest spotting to snipe any bunkers/marines/maruaders and stalkers kill marines / keep marines away from tempests.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
I think map restrictions in SC2 tend to be over-stated. There are really, as far as I can see, only two real requirements for a map in SC2. That there be a small ramp into the main, and that there be a reasonable choke or ramp into the natural. The third may be the requirement for a third that is reasonably close to the main and natural (this was especially the case for P in WOL, however given the MSC and PO and faster P tech in HOTS it may not be as hard a requirement as it was).
Everything else is open to exploration. Consider, for example, Whirlwhind which was a huge map with a lot of wide open space and large ramps into every expansion bar the main. But, we had some great pro games on that map (and, I personally, played some real fun ladder games on that map). Safe uniform maps are boring maps and will lead to stale gameplay.
StarCraft 2 maps are quite cookie cutter and very few so far have been really good. There are certain ideas that were explored at release that were good ideas executed poorly and much of that had to do with map size and not map design. We've had very few 3 start maps which cause an interesting dynamic. We've had very few outer path maps. We've had very 4 ladder maps with back pocket expos, those could be explored more.
Basic design seems to revolve around easy natural, hard third or easy natural, easy third. Combo that with number of starting positions and number of attack paths.
I'd love to see the resources varied more. Naturals with only 6 minerals and 1 gas would be interesting on a map. It could be so similar to something we've already done, but just have a different mineral layout and everything plays out different. Or 4 start maps where the 2 starts that don't get a player end up having gold minerals. Ninja expos like crazy?
But more than anything a faster flowing game with slower battles would be preferred. I don't think maps can do this.
I agree with everything, except the blink nerf. Simply overkill, like the pros said, blink is not only used as an all-in against T. Cooldown to 15 second will have so many side-effects in PvZ, and even PvP. Sad thing is, people are so frustrated by current P relative dominance that they agree with this absurd nerf.
I mostly like proposed changes. I am not so sure about Hydralisk change and blink cooldown increased to 15. Maybe to 12?
But what bothers me, is no changes to Swarm Hosts and Oracles. I still believe that buffing Oracles was one of the biggest mistakes made by Blizzard balancing team. It was a good unit to harass, it became a scary imbalanced unit messing with build orders just by the possibility of happening. And Swarm Hosts? In my opinion it is very poorly designed unit. Almost ruining e-sport, seriously. We have more and more absolutely boring and ridiculous games involving Swarm Hosts. Examples? Recent Proleague, almost all Stephano games on his stream.
Also, I like that pro gamers are talking about problem with map pool, about how maps are a big factor when it comes to discussion about Blink all-ins. I think that giving us maps which are non-blink friendly plus nerfing MSC vision is better solution than messing up with Blink cooldown.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Ossan wrote: Re: MsC & Blink
Is there any reason why they couldn't test MsC Sight: 11, and increase Blink Cost to 200/200 with a separate High Ground Range: 6? Wouldn't that allow T to do some damage before Stalkers could blink onto cliff, and perhaps allow for Depot Wall + Bunker(s) with Marauders on cliff? Similar to a TvZ Wall-off except on the ridge? IMO the MsC Sight seems to only be a problem with Blink and other spellcasting units seem to have Sight: 11.
You can't cover your entire main cliff with buildings, as I stated the Blink problem mostly lies in maps not balance itself. Add dead space below the main would simply fix the problem without breaking anything, leaving a part of the main blink-able or leave several maps blink-able to allow strategy diversity is the best way to do it and everyone will be happy. Remember they removed the low ground between main and 3rd on Tal'darim to avoid blinking into the main? Why can't they do that again?
Cause all the mapmakers quit?
Well we hit a deadend here.
We can blame the maps all we want, but in the end we're getting faster balance patches than map updates.
Everybody keeps saying BW was balanced trough maps and that we should do the same in SC2, but that isn't entirely possible, the issues with DPS density, critical mass and certain spells/units makes map making in SC2 already very restrictive.
Maps can't have be too open because zerg would dominate to hard and protoss would suck, maps can't have too many chokes or narrow corridors or splash units and FF dominate and zergs suck, maps can't have too much air space or mutas are too good. To this list of restrictions we now need to add, maps can't have too mains with too much surface area to blink into. At this rate we'll run out of possible permutations on how to build SC2 maps, its already restrictive as it is.
I think map restrictions in SC2 tend to be over-stated. There are really, as far as I can see, only two real requirements for a map in SC2. That there be a small ramp into the main, and that there be a reasonable choke or ramp into the natural. The third may be the requirement for a third that is reasonably close to the main and natural (this was especially the case for P in WOL, however given the MSC and PO and faster P tech in HOTS it may not be as hard a requirement as it was).
Everything else is open to exploration. Consider, for example, Whirlwhind which was a huge map with a lot of wide open space and large ramps into every expansion bar the main. But, we had some great pro games on that map (and, I personally, played some real fun ladder games on that map). Safe uniform maps are boring maps and will lead to stale gameplay.
StarCraft 2 maps are quite cookie cutter and very few so far have been really good. There are certain ideas that were explored at release that were good ideas executed poorly and much of that had to do with map size and not map design. We've had very few 3 start maps which cause an interesting dynamic. We've had very few outer path maps. We've had very 4 ladder maps with back pocket expos, those could be explored more.
Basic design seems to revolve around easy natural, hard third or easy natural, easy third. Combo that with number of starting positions and number of attack paths.
I'd love to see the resources varied more. Naturals with only 6 minerals and 1 gas would be interesting on a map. It could be so similar to something we've already done, but just have a different mineral layout and everything plays out different. Or 4 start maps where the 2 starts that don't get a player end up having gold minerals. Ninja expos like crazy?
I agree. I think once we got a certain set of maps in WOL then the development of new maps became, in a sense, path dependent from the template of all existing maps. But, as Artosis said in a recent Meta, what was appropriate for early/mid WOL may not be right for HOTS as the game is more mature. There is scope to explore the game in new ways.
The thing is we can't have too many crazy maps all at once. That will create as many problems as having a large number of uniform maps. This is because it will be too much to figure out all at once. I think we as players tend to be quite resistant to change. So, while respecting the standard play we have all gotten used to we could slowly start to experiment with a wider variety of map. Sure, sometimes we may get it wrong, but that is fine. There is no pressure or expectation to get it right all the time. I read that DK made a point for a more diverse map pool a while ago. If so, this is a great path for Blizzard to pursue.
I just wanted to make the point that the so-called perfect balanced map (which does not, for example, allow for abusive blink play, or abusive drop play, or abusive muta play) would be boring as fuck to play. You'd do little other than repeat your build for the 54658 time and march out and fight and gg or not. There would be little challenge in a map (or a game) like that.
Sure you don't want too many crazy maps season after season. But, neither do you want the same maps season after season. Hopefully, in 2014 we get to a good place somewhere between these extremes. I think the game would be better for it.
As to your suggestions, I agree. A map with less resources at the natural and third, but say more at the fourth would be quite an interesting map to play. Even a 3 player layout was something TLO mentioned as worth looking at in the recent Meta.
then you are not paying attention. no pro zerg just lets their swarm hosts sit in place until it reaches the phase of the game where creep and static d are literally on every inch of the map, and at that point the game is usually over anyway because zerg just mines the map. did you watch soulkey vs reality?
Have you seen Roro - Rain game? Once Roro put his SH on a high ground, he barely moved them. Also moving them once every 2 minutes seems not to be that hard.
It is just SH design.
Anyway, community wants to change SH, pros want to change them, but still Blizzard refuses to at least try to change them.
Everybody hates WOL because of Broodlord Infestor. Currently, HOTS meta is switching more and more into SH turtling play. If Blizzard doesn't redesign them now, in several months everyone's gonna hate HOTS because of SH.
If nerf to SH will put Z in disadvantage then buff something else to keep game more interesting. This is the time, it will be too late very soon.
On February 12 2014 15:28 Rockmonsterdude wrote: Meh, do people still think Blizzard will ever fix Starcraft 2 balance? The game is not even that fun. Only boring units. I have give up on Starcraft 2 ladder ever being good. Starbow fighting!
Balance? Sure it will. Whenever a strategy is too strong, just give the opposing units bonus damage against the units in the strategy. But is this really how we want balance to be?
any nerf to swarmhost will see zerg win-rates drop alot, even if u address the swarmhost, u still need to address the fact that turtle protoss and terran mech are equally absurd vs zerg.
any nerf to swarmhost will see zerg win-rates drop alot, even if u address the swarmhost, u still need to address the fact that turtle protoss and terran mech are equally absurd vs zerg.
Not really, because of how races are designed. If you sit and turtle against Zerg, Zerg economy will beat you. Also T and P would rather play offensive against Z, it is just they cannot because of SHs. So again, the problem starts with SHs and SHs themselve should be fixed.
I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
any nerf to swarmhost will see zerg win-rates drop alot, even if u address the swarmhost, u still need to address the fact that turtle protoss and terran mech are equally absurd vs zerg.
Not really, because of how races are designed. If you sit and turtle against Zerg, Zerg economy will beat you. Also T and P would rather play offensive against Z, it is just they cannot because of SHs. So again, the problem starts with SHs and SHs themselve should be fixed.
A maxed out Toss army with 4-5 colossi and 6 voidrays will win against a non-SHish army in a way that being 2 or 3 bases ahead won`t get you very far.
any nerf to swarmhost will see zerg win-rates drop alot, even if u address the swarmhost, u still need to address the fact that turtle protoss and terran mech are equally absurd vs zerg.
Not really, because of how races are designed. If you sit and turtle against Zerg, Zerg economy will beat you. Also T and P would rather play offensive against Z, it is just they cannot because of SHs. So again, the problem starts with SHs and SHs themselve should be fixed.
Imo, if you turtle on three bases, there is no way the zerg's economy will be significantly higher than yours.
any nerf to swarmhost will see zerg win-rates drop alot, even if u address the swarmhost, u still need to address the fact that turtle protoss and terran mech are equally absurd vs zerg.
Not really, because of how races are designed. If you sit and turtle against Zerg, Zerg economy will beat you. Also T and P would rather play offensive against Z, it is just they cannot because of SHs. So again, the problem starts with SHs and SHs themselve should be fixed.
That's not how SC2 works, BW yes, SC2 no. If a terran or toss can reach their ideal compositions, which by the way, is becoming more and more common, then it doesn't matter how many bases you have as zerg, without SH you won't trade cost efficiently, you could remax as many times as you want and burn all your bank and larva and you'll still lose because of how insanely powerful the sky terran and toss deathball become when they reach their critical mass.
So yes zerg has to get SH. Also, unlike BW, zerg economy doesn't actually get a whole lot better with more bases, yes you get more bases to mine from, but that also means less supply in your army, and thus less raw power to punch trough their already formidable compositions.
In BW having more bases meant that, even if you had an equal amount of workers compared to your opponent, you could spread them out more and thus harvest more resources in total while still maintaining a equally sized army, and that made a huge difference.
SH on its own isn't the problem, toss and mech on their own aren't the problem either. The problem is just the general game design, its the economy being to efficient on too small a base count, and its armies with aoe becoming exponentially more powerful due to DPS density and a lack of diminishing returns mechanics.
So the game has 3 problems overall, economy, DPS density and, lack of diminishing returns mechanics for AOE units. Fixing just one of those isn't enough, you need to fix all of them.
A maxed out Toss army with 4-5 colossi and 6 voidrays will win against a non-SHish army in a way that being 2 or 3 bases ahead won`t get you very far.
I agree. If they nerf SH they should buff something else, it's their job to figure out what, new spells, better hydras?
Nobody says Z can fight without SH, but everybody says they are just so painful to watch!!! They absolutely kill the dynamics of game and multitasking.
On February 12 2014 14:08 BronzeKnee wrote: I really get the feeling that is TeamLiquid's passive aggressive way to say to Blizzard, hey some of your ideas are really, really dumb.
I'd prefer if they came out and just said that, but I understand. I have to sugarcoat things and play politics at my job too.
They do the exact same thing with Dota 2 and Hearthstone patches. It is just providing value for the people who come to the site.
On February 12 2014 14:08 BronzeKnee wrote: I really get the feeling that is TeamLiquid's passive aggressive way to say to Blizzard, hey some of your ideas are really, really dumb.
I'd prefer if they came out and just said that, but I understand. I have to sugarcoat things and play politics at my job too.
They do the exact same thing with Dota 2 and Hearthstone patches. It is just providing value for the people who come to the site.
And thank goodness they do it, its not only entertaining to get players feedback and understand how they see the game, but it also provides valuable data and ideas to Blizzard.
Love the pro opinions on Swarmhosts. I think everyone understands that zerg needs them to win vs mech or skytoss, at least generally speaking...I just wish that zerg had a more interesting way of dealing with them. This unit will seriously hurt the games popularity the exact same way that BL/Infestor did, although even worse.
On February 12 2014 20:11 Jj_82 wrote: I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
When Protoss complain about scouting in PvP it has to deal with a specific timing in the game: The time between the Cyber Core finishing and the first tech building being thrown down. This was one of the biggest issues in what made PvP such a coinflip matchup in WoL. The MSC has been the most effective and possibly only tool for scouting during this time period. Probes will never see the tech, Observers are obviously too late and sentries take time to build up energy for the first hallucination. I doubt the vision change is so severe that we'll go back to the awful WoL PvP days, but there will be a potential increase in games lost because you couldn't scout your opponent's tech and auto-lose due to build order.
On February 12 2014 20:11 Jj_82 wrote: I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
When Protoss complain about scouting in PvP it has to deal with a specific timing in the game: The time between the Cyber Core finishing and the first tech building being thrown down. This was one of the biggest issues in what made PvP such a coinflip matchup in WoL. The MSC has been the most effective and possibly only tool for scouting during this time period. Probes will never see the tech, Observers are obviously too late and sentries take time to build up energy for the first hallucination. I doubt the vision change is so severe that we'll go back to the awful WoL PvP days, but there will be a potential increase in games lost because you couldn't scout your opponent's tech and auto-lose due to build order.
Err, do you want to say that the msc will get to the base faster than a sentry halluc nix despite the 25 second additional build time and slowest possible movement speed?
MsC before the recent (proposed) nerfs was easily the strongest unit in the game since the pre-nerf infestor though. I can't imagine what Blizzard was thinking when they decided on its stats.
On February 12 2014 20:11 Jj_82 wrote: I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
No because you either can't scout quickly enough with any of those in time to react to your opponent, or can't reliably get scouting information to react.
Err, do you want to say that the msc will get to the base faster than a sentry halluc nix despite the 25 second additional build time and slowest possible movement speed?
Yes because the msc doesnt have to sit there building energy to scout across the map. Hallu scouts can get done in time to see a one base all-in if and only if you chronoboost the sentry out as your first unit, and even then it's too late to react usually (you get a full scout off at around 7 minutes this way).
edit: for what it's worth, PvP is as coinflippy as ever, if not more, in HotS.
A maxed out Toss army with 4-5 colossi and 6 voidrays will win against a non-SHish army in a way that being 2 or 3 bases ahead won`t get you very far.
I agree. If they nerf SH they should buff something else, it's their job to figure out what, new spells, better hydras?
Nobody says Z can fight without SH, but everybody says they are just so painful to watch!!! They absolutely kill the dynamics of game and multitasking.
Zerglings profit from the ultralisk armor upgrade. ULTRALINGS BAM, solved. Seriously though, I think promoting a guerilla warfare style for Zerg is fitting the theme and would be really fun to watch.
It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
They were bemused that anyone would be afraid of proxy tempest cheese. qxc basically said that must happen at another [much lower] level than where he plays. Xenocider basically LOL'd.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
They were bemused that anyone would be afraid of proxy tempest cheese. qxc basically said that must happen at another [much lower] level than where he plays. Xenocider basically LOL'd.
One of them said that Rotterdam would be sad... I don't know why his favorite strategy getting buffed would make him sad. Unless, you know, Major actually was completely clueless about what the change actually was.
On February 12 2014 20:11 Jj_82 wrote: I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
No because you either can't scout quickly enough with any of those in time to react to your opponent, or can't reliably get scouting information to react.
Err, do you want to say that the msc will get to the base faster than a sentry halluc nix despite the 25 second additional build time and slowest possible movement speed?
Yes because the msc doesnt have to sit there building energy to scout across the map. Hallu scouts can get done in time to see a one base all-in if and only if you chronoboost the sentry out as your first unit, and even then it's too late to react usually (you get a full scout off at around 7 minutes this way).
edit: for what it's worth, PvP is as coinflippy as ever, if not more, in HotS.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
They were bemused that anyone would be afraid of proxy tempest cheese. qxc basically said that must happen at another [much lower] level than where he plays. Xenocider basically LOL'd.
One of them said that Rotterdam would be sad... I don't know why his favorite strategy getting buffed would make him sad. Unless, you know, Major actually was completely clueless about what the change actually was.
I think it was more a "private joke" regarding this...
Surprisingly, we’ve gotten a lot of feedback that proxy Tempest rushes are too strong right now, and this change would make that strategy even stronger, but we’ve been watching all of the major tournament games, and we still don’t think it’s being used enough (or being used at all). If you can identify some games where the best of the best pro players have successfully used this strategy against a formidable opponent, please let us know. We’d like to check out such games and analyze them.
... implying Rotterdam was too low or something.
Edit: Or maybe it meant his strategy would no longer be unique. I don't know.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
Err... How do you deduce this from their answers?
Major thinking that Rotterdam would be a sad panda ----> Tempest rushing receiving a nerf. That one's blatant. There were some tweets from players after the changes were announced about how David Kim was stupid for buffing Tempests if he really thought proxy Tempests were a problem (hint: he doesn't), and some that outright missed that it was a buff and not a nerf. This just seems like a continuation of that cluelessness. Why would they be commenting on proxy Tempest rushes and how they haven't seen them if they thought that this change was a.) a buff to Tempests, and b.) specifically intended to help combat Z static defense in the lategame?
The other races' players all give some decent feedback on the change, and then the Terrans come derping through with LOL PROXY TEMPESTS. Don't get it.
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
Err... How do you deduce this from their answers?
Major thinking that Rotterdam would be a sad panda ----> Tempest rushing receiving a nerf. That one's blatant. There were some tweets from players after the changes were announced about how David Kim was stupid for buffing Tempests if he really thought proxy Tempests were a problem (hint: he doesn't), and some that outright missed that it was a buff and not a nerf. This just seems like a continuation of that cluelessness. Why would they be commenting on proxy Tempest rushes and how they haven't seen them if they thought that this change was a.) a buff to Tempests, and b.) specifically intended to help combat Z static defense in the lategame?
The other races' players all give some decent feedback on the change, and then the Terrans come derping through with LOL PROXY TEMPESTS. Don't get it.
What I don't get is the vehemence of your reaction for something rather insignificant... ?
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
Err... How do you deduce this from their answers?
Major thinking that Rotterdam would be a sad panda ----> Tempest rushing receiving a nerf. That one's blatant. There were some tweets from players after the changes were announced about how David Kim was stupid for buffing Tempests if he really thought proxy Tempests were a problem (hint: he doesn't), and some that outright missed that it was a buff and not a nerf. This just seems like a continuation of that cluelessness. Why would they be commenting on proxy Tempest rushes and how they haven't seen them if they thought that this change was a.) a buff to Tempests, and b.) specifically intended to help combat Z static defense in the lategame?
The other races' players all give some decent feedback on the change, and then the Terrans come derping through with LOL PROXY TEMPESTS. Don't get it.
What I don't get is the vehemence of your reaction for something rather insignificant... ?
I think vehemence might be overstating it a bit there, champ. But I do find it irritating that while all of the other players/questions provided some good feedback and insight into the minds of the players, their responses to that question all seemed so misinformed/missing the point. I found it jarring and, well, unprofessional, for lack of a better word.
On February 12 2014 20:11 Jj_82 wrote: I don't understand people moaning about no scouting in PvP without the MSC range. There's probes, MSC, hallucination, observer and air later on. Isn't that enough scouting resources? (Yes, i don't play toss. And yes, i'm gold )
No because you either can't scout quickly enough with any of those in time to react to your opponent, or can't reliably get scouting information to react.
Err, do you want to say that the msc will get to the base faster than a sentry halluc nix despite the 25 second additional build time and slowest possible movement speed?
Yes because the msc doesnt have to sit there building energy to scout across the map. Hallu scouts can get done in time to see a one base all-in if and only if you chronoboost the sentry out as your first unit, and even then it's too late to react usually (you get a full scout off at around 7 minutes this way).
edit: for what it's worth, PvP is as coinflippy as ever, if not more, in HotS.
I'm afraid I do not understand the timing, you can get a sentry after your first stalker (around 4.30) and it will be out before the 5 minute mark. It doesn't need two minutes for that energy to accrue, surely.
I feel like the biggest problem is with the high range units and free units. The siege tank used to be the, by far highest range unit. It has severe drawbacks (no melee attack, siege time as well self splash), this let the unit be fine in SC2.
Along comes the broodlord (its fine that its strong, the pathing block is just silly) and becomes the most game breaking unit vs P and to some extent terran. ZvZ never really got to that stage of the game.
To fix the broodlord, we needed to get the Tempest, a unit thats super uninteresting, deals low damage and outranges everything and has no severe drawbacks like the tank.
We also got the swarmhost "forcing engagements" with stupid range.
Jesus christ, if you want to remove deathballs from the game, add some low range core units to the game for terran and protoss and zerg.
On February 13 2014 00:23 monsta wrote: hydra buff is kinda useless cause tanks counter roach hydra just waaaaaaaaaay to hard :/
And still, Roaches/hydras timings regularly stomp defensive bunks/Tanks positions because it takes a lot of time for Terran to have enough Tanks to comfortably massacre Roaches/hydras. The problem of the Hydralisk is called larva inject; due to how fast Zerg can max on cheap or moderately expensive units by midgame, it is difficult to adjust the strength of the unit so it does not overperform in midgame (hence why the initial 100/25 proposal was completely insane) because it needs some help in lategame (in which Terran and Protoss can have enough AoE out to deal with mass hydras).
On February 12 2014 22:54 RampancyTW wrote: It's really frustrating how ignorant all of the T players were with regards to the Tempest change. They all seemed to think that the Tempest was getting a NERF of some sort related to proxy Tempest rushes, when in reality, they're getting buffed despite objections that it will make proxies too strong, with David Kim asking for any shred of evidence that this was actually a problem.
Seriously, how can all three of them miss the mark so completely on that one?
Proxy Oracle into proxy Tempests happens so rarely at high/pro level, you cannot blame them. I have faced this only 2 times out of hundreds of games, and it was probably 2 times the same player.
But why are they commenting on proxy Tempests? That has nothing to do with the buff, and they clearly thought that Tempests were receiving a nerf due to proxy Tempests.
Maybe I misread it but it felt to me that major was scoffing at the change and that while excited now, Rotterdam will be disappointed when it doesn't happen.
I love that so many pros are saying SH needs to be changed. I was saying that back in HotS beta and I refused to buy HotS as a result although I am a Zerg player. In the meantime I also lost the interest to watch tournaments, I hate that Blizzard made the game worse and SH is one of the main problems (and Mines second).
Since we know Blizzard does not make meaningful changes without expansions I guess I will be waiting until LotV and hope Blizzard listens to the outcry from the players and fans and fixes this bullshit but seeing how they "fixed" stuff for HotS I am not that hopeful. Sad that SC2 is only decent RTS game out and only one with noticeable esport scene.
Someone said something about buffing the observer for protoss (its vision range at least). I think this could be brilliant to accompagny the msc nerf. Also, I feel like nerfing from 14 to 9 is a lot. Why not test it with 12, 11, 10 ? then adjust accordingly ?
Anyway, the hydra buff seemed too much to me in the beginning, but someone else mentionned the latest tank buff. And regarding TvZ, it might make roach/hydra a little more potent against T. Don't know about PvZ...
Overall, to me, only blink all ins and voidrays are somewhat unbalanced (blink vT, and voids vZ). Msc also gives too much defensive power to protoss. Nerfing its vision range is a good thing I think.
Thanks a lot for the post people. Thanks to the pros for their hindsights.
Also, proof that this game is extraordinary, when you "play" a race, you become part of it. I thought for so long this game was a RTS, when it's really just a roleplaying one.
I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that
BUT - his "reduce speed on creep and increase off-creep" propose wasn't as bad though
==========================================
Still - think I have a good change/idea in mind:
1 - reduce the cost of the SwarmHost - i.e. - instead of 200/100/3 - make it be 150/75/3, or at least 175/75/3 2 - remove - yes - completely remove the EL upgrade.. If any upgrade proves to be "needed" - then make a Hive-one that will give the Locusts +10 life instead of +10 sec lifetime.. Though the cost reduction of the unit should suffice even without that IMO 3 - Increase Viper's abduct casting range, but make it delayed, or "channeling" for like 1.5 sec
That way you achieve the effect of SHs being a "Roach 2.0" hit&run unit instead of the "You shall not pass one".. The cost reduction also goes into that direction.. BUT - I also believe that Zerg would need a bit more of a "safer" Viper to counteract the "positional stability" lack - i.e. - what the SH used to do now it's the Viper's duty to "engage" first
==========================================
THAT, and the proposed WM change should do It all.. The MSC vision range wouldn't be bad if it wasn't as hard
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
So what's gonna happen with the next patch? each race gets 2 new units and yeah job done.
i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
So what's gonna happen with the next patch? each race gets 2 new units and yeah job done.
I know there is protoss players out there that will flame you for this comment or ignore you because you only have 40 posts BUT this is actually a Highly intelligent and amazing way / Fix for this problem... though I don't know how they would easily implement this Code wise to teh game... seeing how this game has been out for a couple years they aren't looking to put in major time to reworking things like that even though its pure genius ^^ and quite simple might i add
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote: I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans)..
Qxc is one of the least biased terrans out there, and he took time to explain his views in a very thorough way (one of the few who did that in this batch). I'm fairly certain you should be capable of disagreeing with him without opening your post in this agressive way.
If they want to buff Hydra vs T they should buff health.
Health buff = good vs Terran Attack buff = good vs Protoss.
On the same line of thoughts, they should slightly decrease Swarm Host attack and Increase swarms' health if they want to make the unit useful vs Terran.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote: I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that
Are you being serious? He is one of the few pros who tends to offer the least biased insights and also comes up with different ways to balance/change units. Mineral-cost on locusts should be an option to consider, it wouldn't be anything new, interceptors on Carriers already cost minerals but I guess just even suggesting that somehow makes him bias. QXC was for the most part, in these "interviews", the only pro who went into any detail on the proposed changes and he also only talked about the matches up he knew(TvX). Like Nebuchad said above me, you can disagree with him but don't go around blindly calling him biased for no reason other than he made a suggestion you don't agree with.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Better idea - warping lasts longer when you warping at the edge of pylon radius. The closer to pylon you warp - the faster warping lasts
I like to know what Zerg is doing with locusts costs minerals if you have no income but 10+ swarmhosts. Stephano stream showed several times this scenario
"I've been saying forever that the MSC should have be nerfed T_T. If think if they're not going to change hallucination being free, then they should change the speed of warp prism and oracles back to what they wore. Fin!
Even toss players will say this, but the oracle buff really came out of nowhere" [image loading] Acer MMA
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Better idea - warping lasts longer when you warping at the edge of pylon radius. The closer to pylon you warp - the faster warping lasts
What's the point? Nobody complains about warp-ins at the edge of the pylon being overpowered and it's already impossible to warp up ramps.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes. You don't want a mess of a game with a million special cases and different rules.
I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes.
I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game.
Xenocider: "In general I don't think they should change how Protoss works vs Swarm hosts, but rather change swarm hosts. The problem currently is that if swarm hosts were removed Z would have no proper answer in the late game to either mech or sky toss. The even bigger problem is that WoL suffered a terrible fate (rip sc2) due to Blizzard not nerfing the infestor because Zerg had no other answer in the late game. If blizzard doesn't put in another answer and instead makes Zerg mid-game stronger, and swarm hosts become the meta (which they already have to a greater extent) then HotS will suffer the same fate as WoL"
This is very true. Zerg has no way to battle the super late game compositions of the other races efficiently, especially vs. air-based compositions there's not much zerg can do. (except turtling hard with spores/queens/infestors and swarm hosts) Swarm host games are terrible to watch. Zerg needs something to maintain positions while being able to battle expensive armies efficiently. Right now, there's no other way than mass transfuse / fungal or the war of attrition.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes.
I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game.
They are adding more complexity to the game.
-Widow mines bonus damage to shields. -Tempest bonus damage to structures. -Spore crawler bonus damage to bio units. -Hellbats have various odd rules.
I don't think this improves the game, although maybe it fixes balance issues.
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote: I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that
Are you being serious? He is one of the few pros who tends to offer the least biased insights and also comes up with different ways to balance/change units. Mineral-cost on locusts should be an option to consider, it wouldn't be anything new, interceptors on Carriers already cost minerals but I guess just even suggesting that somehow makes him bias. QXC was for the most part, in these "interviews", the only pro who went into any detail on the proposed changes and he also only talked about the matches up he knew(TvX). Like Nebuchad said above me, you can disagree with him but don't go around blindly calling him biased for no reason other than he made a suggestion you don't agree with.
Except that there's NO WAY that is working.. You can't "mute" swarm-hosts.. Like really bad approach overall..
Too much biased, too uncaring.. It's like - I don't care Zergy - your problem.. Can't believe you also agree too to that
If I was to think a way to fix them would be the following: 1 - Reduce the unit cost - down to 175/75, or even 150/75 2 - remove the EL upgrade 3 - if any upgrades required for the unit ? - make one on the Hive tech that will increase Locust Max HP by 10 instead of increasing their lifetime by 10 sec
That way the SH will be better at engagements, but will have their downtime.. And by reducing the cost of the unit - you can afford to go forward and lose some of them to snipe some things off fast.. Without necessarily relying on their performance for your whole army instead
On February 13 2014 02:27 VArsovskiSC wrote: I can't believe that Qxc ACTUALLY SAID that the mineral-cost to locusts would be a "worth to consider" option.. WTF
By far the most biased person in the pro-scene (at least from the Terrans).. Ofc. - won't matter much cause now in the current position the META is against the Terrans.. But his "solutions" really are annoying at the very least.. Not even thinking before saying it --> like - I bet you on that
BUT - his "reduce speed on creep and increase off-creep" propose wasn't as bad though
==========================================
Still - think I have a good change/idea in mind:
1 - reduce the cost of the SwarmHost - i.e. - instead of 200/100/3 - make it be 150/75/3, or at least 175/75/3 2 - remove - yes - completely remove the EL upgrade.. If any upgrade proves to be "needed" - then make a Hive-one that will give the Locusts +10 life instead of +10 sec lifetime.. Though the cost reduction of the unit should suffice even without that IMO 3 - Increase Viper's abduct casting range, but make it delayed, or "channeling" for like 1.5 sec
That way you achieve the effect of SHs being a "Roach 2.0" hit&run unit instead of the "You shall not pass one".. The cost reduction also goes into that direction.. BUT - I also believe that Zerg would need a bit more of a "safer" Viper to counteract the "positional stability" lack - i.e. - what the SH used to do now it's the Viper's duty to "engage" first
==========================================
THAT, and the proposed WM change should do It all.. The MSC vision range wouldn't be bad if it wasn't as hard
Could you please state your opinion in a less "emotional" way; I'd like pros to continue to give their opinions on these patch changes.
On February 13 2014 03:19 Harreh wrote: i've been thinking for a while now that warp-in time should increase based on a function of the path distance from the warp-in point to the warpgate. Maintains defender's advantage of being able to warp-in quickly anywhere at your base and reduces effectiveness of proxy warpgate attacks.
Bad idea, too weird & confusing. You'd have no way of estimating it. And it'd be confusing when it would be different depending on the warpgate you're warping from.
Many of these ideas, though well-intentioned add unnecessary complexity to the game. For example, in this case, does it not incentivise Protoss to turtle on large maps (due to the distance)? What if Protoss proxy warpgate and diminish the distance between the warp-in point and the warping gateway? Would that be imba if build times are really low? This is not even getting to the point of working out the optimum ratio between warp-in time, build time and distance. And so on.
Yes, this is why Blizzard's job is so difficult. Anyone can devise a fix for warpgate's contribution to protoss all-ins, but it's not a given that the game will end up in a better state than before. Blizzard will have design goals such as simplicity, intuitiveness and consistency, and to be honest they typically clash with proposed warpgate changes.
I do like the Starbow implementation though: dragoons can only be built from gateways, not warpgates. It makes sense because dragoons are overweight (haha).
Or you know, Blizzard could stop treating its user base like idiots and actually add more complexity to the game, as long as it also adds depth to the game.
They are adding more complexity to the game.
-Widow mines bonus damage to shields. -Tempest bonus damage to structures. -Spore crawler bonus damage to bio units. -Hellbats have various odd rules.
I don't think this improves the game, although maybe it fixes balance issues.
Yeah, I concur. It's just ugly. Although, if it leads to a better game it may be an acceptable trade-off. That remains to be seen though. But, yes, when it comes to WG so many suggestions add little to the game. In fact, they would likely detract.
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote: I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
I think so, because that also means you could stack them, and you'd need to introduce a whole new regeneration rate.
I do however like the Idea of acquiring one locust per 15 secs with a max of 4 and it spawning automatically if you have autocast turned on. Makes for some more decision making IMO, but might also be OP.
I love these compilation posts! Thanks for doing this!
qxc is right about the elephant in the room...
I imagine a sort of weird scenario where the Blizz offices are besieged by swarm host. They're so busy looking for ways to not deal with swarm host directly that they lose half their staff of interns. Eventually they end up down to a handful of designers/balance devs barricaded in a room with a sign that says, "Do Not Disturb: Swarm Host Design Session in Progress" while little critters spit dutifully at the door.
Actually, come to think of it, that's probably the dev teams feelings about the SC2 general forums. :D
What'll happen if Swarm Hosts get structure status when burrowed (like hellbat bio status)? It's still risky to move detection close enough to see them but the tempest change would benefit from this.
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote: I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
Then you could feedback them, which would probably be OP.
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote: I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
Then you could feedback them, which would probably be OP.
What if it had an HP version of Consume? I could see that working depending on how the the spawn locust ability functioned.
Regarding Swarm Hosts, there was an interesting idea that I saw in another thread:
On February 11 2014 02:28 BronzeKnee wrote: Instead of having Swarmhosts spawn 2 ranged Locusts every 25 seconds, have a Swarmhost spawn 6-8 melee Broodlings (the same ones that come out of a kill Zerg building with the rough the same stats including fast movespeed) every 10 seconds. However the Broodlings have a timer of ~5 seconds (upgradable to ~8 seconds).
This means that Swarmhosts are much more powerful in small numbers and allow Zerg to tech to late game. But it also means that mass Swarmhosts don't work since Broodling can't walk through each other, and the low life timer means that most of the Broodlings from a mass of Swarmhosts just die off before they do any damage. Thus, once they reach a certain number they reach maximum efficiency and additional Swarmhosts would do literally nothing.
Finally, it means that Swarmhosts aren't really a siege unit anymore, because their range would be reduced. But they'd be really good for splitting up the attention of your opponent and as a harassment unit to harass expansions, and a few Swarmhosts could replace Zerglings for armies.
Proposed numbers may need to be tweaked, but the general idea looks like something worthy of consideration and testing.
Personally, I dislike the very idea of units that spawn other units for free. But if we have to keep SH in the game (at least until LotV), then I would rather see something like this.
Widow mines are lame. I don't think they will be usefull in TvP expect maybe early game. Why do Terran always get useless buffs? First they buff Siege Tanks and now Widow mines...Somebody should tell DK: Mech doesn't work in TvP!
The game is impossible to fix with one patch, sadly it will take an expansion pack to fix it, and maybe this time they will listen to ppl a little more carefully.
Seriously, they wanted to fix blord infestor spine turtle.. and make games more action packed.
They made protoss have ultimate defense where its always better to macro home and hit a mid game timing or late game ultimate army against them.
They gave protoss and terran ultimate tools against broodlords, making broodlord the worst gaz unit in the game right now. Never cost efficient unless you infinity ahead, swarm host always better( Unless fightning max siege tank or max colo,, but yea..no1 does that).
They also made protoss turtle and terran mech turtle insane good - especially with the now useless broodlord that was previously zergs only option to break a fortified toss and terran.
So, the fix those issues, they created a huge ass long range siege unit with the potential to be more cost efficient than anything before the more you drag the game. The longer the game is with swarm host, the better chances you have of winning, since other players will lose money all game long vs free locust.
Couple the fact that swarm hosts are the only solution to passive turtle players and races such as protoss and terran have excellent harass that abuse swarm host immobility alot. Seriously, if you move with your swarm host army too early, you get pulled appart by mass zlot warp in and pylon warp ins. Maybe even a counter attack/recall move.
Why did they even give other races so strong counters to broodlords and then make a unit that fill the same role but is even stronger at it and creates even longer games!.
It makes no sense and totally destroyed the game. Zerg needs another strong support unit for their armies before swarm host gets nerfed. A unit kind of like the colosus or siege tank.
On February 11 2014 02:28 BronzeKnee wrote: Instead of having Swarmhosts spawn 2 ranged Locusts every 25 seconds, have a Swarmhost spawn 6-8 melee Broodlings (the same ones that come out of a kill Zerg building with the rough the same stats including fast movespeed) every 10 seconds. However the Broodlings have a timer of ~5 seconds (upgradable to ~8 seconds).
This means that Swarmhosts are much more powerful in small numbers and allow Zerg to tech to late game. But it also means that mass Swarmhosts don't work since Broodling can't walk through each other, and the low life timer means that most of the Broodlings from a mass of Swarmhosts just die off before they do any damage. Thus, once they reach a certain number they reach maximum efficiency and additional Swarmhosts would do literally nothing.
Finally, it means that Swarmhosts aren't really a siege unit anymore, because their range would be reduced. But they'd be really good for splitting up the attention of your opponent and as a harassment unit to harass expansions, and a few Swarmhosts could replace Zerglings for armies.
Proposed numbers may need to be tweaked, but the general idea looks like something worthy of consideration and testing.
Personally, I dislike the very idea of units that spawn other units for free. But if we have to keep SH in the game (at least until LotV), then I would rather see something like this.
At first I thought that that was what SH was supposed to be.. But I think that Blizz wants/wanted for the SH to be the "siege-breaker" unit, if you know what I mean.. You know - a very ranged unit
I personally find an error in the unit's high-cost, and the way how the unit itself works.. 5 SHs won't do a thing.. 20 are almost unapproachable.. SHs without the EL upgrade are totally incapable of denfending themselves.. SHs with the EL upgrade are nearly untouchable..
I mean IDK - IMO the EL upgrade is by far the most ridiculous thing within the game.. But the mere fact that Zergs are using static D in order to defend them - says something about how expensive they really actually are.. And the unit itself ATM is a Lair-Tech Hive unit.. I personally don't like that TBH, add the EL upgrade that always is required for another 200/200, and that means you're in a complete all-in if you do it on Lair tech
So yah - I think make the unit cheaper and remove the upgrade - see how it goes.. The problem then remains to be fixed is siege-breaking - then I say the following make abduct have more casting range - i.e. - Vipers being the stalemate-initiator instead.. SHs without the EL upgrade will surely HAVE TO be hit&run unit.. Cause they have a huge downtime in their locust waves
OR - what you just said with the SHs being the "Broodling-Houses" would work well, but then buff the Abduct range of the Vipers.. I actually think that the "Corruptor" change everyone talks about is actually a problem of Viper having a relatively small abduct range (9 isn't that big TBH), or maybe abduct should still be 9 range, but it's casting range to be from further away - i.e. - Viper casts it from 12 range, but brings the "victim" 3 range in front of him or sth like that
==================================================== EDIT: I also find an error with the Tempest vs Massive Air bonus as well.. If it was 30 + 30 instead of 30 + 50 = then we'd probably see some Broodlords in PvZ as well.. The other matchups would benefit massively from that change IMO too, with only one downside: That being it will require one more shot to kill a Colossus..
But yah:
1 - Broodlords 5-shot instead of 4 (shooting at 275HP with 60 damage instead of with 80), or was it that BL has 225HP ? - that means that it will get 4-shot instead of 3 - even better.. 2 - BCs 10-shot instead of 7 (shooting at 500hp, or was it 550 ?) 3 - Carriers 8 - shot, instead of 6 (450HP) 4 - Tempests themselves - same as Carrier - 8 shot instead of 6 (same = 450HP total as Carrier)
The downside: Colossus 6-shot instead of 5-shot (350HP - i.e. - 150SP 200HP).. Think I'd take that any day in the weak TBH
EDIT again: almost forgot: Mothership itself: 800hp total (400 + 400) - would be 14 shot instead of 10
On February 12 2014 04:19 DinoMight wrote: I love how a lot of the pro players and Artosis on his show Meta mention the maps as one of the biggest reasons blink allins are so good right now.
It's such an obvious issue.. every single map is REALLY good for Blink right now except Habitation Station.
Yes this is true but do we really want to limit the map makers in a way they always need to be careful about not making map too good for blink? It is better to address the blink directly.
In general I think Blizzard should always target the unit or ability that is actually the problem. The biggest example is SH. They are trying to go around the issue instead of doing some changes to SH.
I think SH would be much more fun if they were made more like a siege unit (deal more damage, have less range and HP and move faster off creep so they can't stay long on one location and be protected by static defense like they can now.) They should be in terran or protoss face, off creep, so they can deal damage and then retreat.
Right now they are passive-defensive boring unit that requires 0 APM to make work. You can (with the help of creep and enduring locust) spawn locusts from afar and also protect them by "static" defense like spines and spores.
For example, nydus doesn't need creep to be spawned so imagine locusts going through nydus, doing damage on one side of the map and then evacuating before they get destroyed. It would be much more entertaining to watch than what we have now.
So basically: 1. more damage 2. limited range 3. less HP 4. faster movement off creep
On February 12 2014 04:19 DinoMight wrote: I love how a lot of the pro players and Artosis on his show Meta mention the maps as one of the biggest reasons blink allins are so good right now.
It's such an obvious issue.. every single map is REALLY good for Blink right now except Habitation Station.
Yes this is true but do we really want to limit the map makers in a way they always need to be careful about not making map too good for blink? It is better to address the blink directly.
In general I think Blizzard should always target the unit or ability that is actually the problem. The biggest example is SH. They are trying to go around the issue instead of doing some changes to SH.
I think SH would be much more fun if they were made more like a siege unit (deal more damage, have less range and HP and move faster off creep so they can't stay long on one location and be protected by static defense like they can now.) They should be in terran or protoss face, off creep, so they can deal damage and then retreat.
Right now they are passive-defensive boring unit that requires 0 APM to make work. You can (with the help of creep and enduring locust) spawn locusts from afar and also protect them by "static" defense like spines and spores.
For example, nydus doesn't need creep to be spawned so imagine locusts going through nydus, doing damage on one side of the map and then evacuating before they get destroyed. It would be much more entertaining to watch than what we have now.
So basically: 1. more damage 2. limited range 3. less HP 4. faster movement off creep
True that SHs are a "very easy" to use unit.. Unless you really want to be really effective with them - spreading, spreading locusts, using better rallies (i.e. - rally far behind your target so you'd preserve the parallel movement of locusts as far as possible) of locust waves, e.t.c..
BUT - everyone overlooks the Problem of the unit itself.. It's a Lair-unit which requires a massive investment, thus making it a Lair-unit on Hive-tech..
Both issues can actually be solved very easy by removing the EL upgrade and making the unit cheaper IMO.. The problem is - I suspect that that would be enough for late-game TBH.. So Zerg should get a buff somewhere else (I suggest Viper abduct range as best)
On February 13 2014 10:48 Forestwind1 wrote: What'll happen if Swarm Hosts get structure status when burrowed (like hellbat bio status)? It's still risky to move detection close enough to see them but the tempest change would benefit from this.
I like this, actually. Would make them vulnerable to banelings as well, which could give Z another option for breaking the SHvsSH line.
What about making the locusts into mini-banelings rather than mini-roaches? That way you can use them to assault an area, but they wouldn't be as good for defending space, since after a small engagement you wouldn't have any locusts left. Splash damage + some high HP units split to tank could then be used to destroy a wave quickly, before you counter attack?
Or just buff SH by making the locusts flying and able to attack flying, like in the campaign. That way you won't get 2 hour long games anymore since rather than just slowly pushing the SH will just win rapidly! (Note this isn't a serious suggestion, but it does prevent long drawn-out draws!)
A slightly more radical solution would be to make the SwarmHost fire out eggs at a large range, which then hatch into AoE damaging mini-locust swarms, doing constant low-level damage to anything inside for a duration. This would let them siege a ranged target, but wouldn't make them powerful when massed.
On February 12 2014 14:08 BronzeKnee wrote: I really get the feeling that is TeamLiquid's passive aggressive way to say to Blizzard, hey some of your ideas are really, really dumb.
I'd prefer if they came out and just said that, but I understand. I have to sugarcoat things and play politics at my job too.
I'd feel it's more team liquid's way of making more content so people will click it and comment and such. After all this is a Starcraft 2 website.
You may be forgetting that TL typically doesn't allow or encourage balance discussions. This definitely goes against that grain, in way is in Blizzard's face.
On February 11 2014 02:28 BronzeKnee wrote: Instead of having Swarmhosts spawn 2 ranged Locusts every 25 seconds, have a Swarmhost spawn 6-8 melee Broodlings (the same ones that come out of a kill Zerg building with the rough the same stats including fast movespeed) every 10 seconds. However the Broodlings have a timer of ~5 seconds (upgradable to ~8 seconds).
This means that Swarmhosts are much more powerful in small numbers and allow Zerg to tech to late game. But it also means that mass Swarmhosts don't work since Broodling can't walk through each other, and the low life timer means that most of the Broodlings from a mass of Swarmhosts just die off before they do any damage. Thus, once they reach a certain number they reach maximum efficiency and additional Swarmhosts would do literally nothing.
Finally, it means that Swarmhosts aren't really a siege unit anymore, because their range would be reduced. But they'd be really good for splitting up the attention of your opponent and as a harassment unit to harass expansions, and a few Swarmhosts could replace Zerglings for armies.
Proposed numbers may need to be tweaked, but the general idea looks like something worthy of consideration and testing.
Personally, I dislike the very idea of units that spawn other units for free. But if we have to keep SH in the game (at least until LotV), then I would rather see something like this.
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote: I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
Then you could feedback them, which would probably be OP.
What if it had an HP version of Consume? I could see that working depending on how the the spawn locust ability functioned.
I dont even think itd be a bad thing if they would be vulnerable to emp or feedback, tough to get in range (and ghosts could use a come back late game tvz, fun unit).
Having each wave of locust drain mana or having a constant drain a la cloak seems like a cool idea tbh. If its too big a nerf you could add something like a self cannibalizing consume where you trade hp for mana (like you said I think).
It would make whether to send a wave at least somewhat of a decision. Hitting the right mana cost will be tricky but doable.
Could also add some additional ability to them so zergs can have some fun (say what you want about old infestors but Ithey were a ton of fun to use... same as defilers, utility is fun). Maybe some kind of overload ability that temporarily increases amoint or strength of locusts but at the price of ... big mana drain, hp, super long cooldown... stuff like this. Like basically an option to burst an area down but then your sh are out of the fight for a while.
It's been 4 years, and they still haven't got the balance of the game yet. Terran are still under powered to a point where they are handicapped at IEM right now. No question, Blizzard is working hard, but they just need to make minor adjustments. Limiting MC vision almost 40% is a big deal in gameplay. As well terran need other units to actually become more functional like making thors useful again. they have stop nerfing so severely to units that make the gameplay interesting. Slight nerfs are probably 5-10% NERFS. Severe nerfs are downgrades up to 30-50%. Remember how they limited the blue flame hellion damage so severely, it the unit became a liability on the field of battle. I just hope they get the balance of this game right eventually and make more units useful.
On February 12 2014 04:19 DinoMight wrote: I love how a lot of the pro players and Artosis on his show Meta mention the maps as one of the biggest reasons blink allins are so good right now.
It's such an obvious issue.. every single map is REALLY good for Blink right now except Habitation Station.
Yes this is true but do we really want to limit the map makers in a way they always need to be careful about not making map too good for blink? It is better to address the blink directly.
In general I think Blizzard should always target the unit or ability that is actually the problem. The biggest example is SH. They are trying to go around the issue instead of doing some changes to SH.
I think SH would be much more fun if they were made more like a siege unit (deal more damage, have less range and HP and move faster off creep so they can't stay long on one location and be protected by static defense like they can now.) They should be in terran or protoss face, off creep, so they can deal damage and then retreat.
Right now they are passive-defensive boring unit that requires 0 APM to make work. You can (with the help of creep and enduring locust) spawn locusts from afar and also protect them by "static" defense like spines and spores.
For example, nydus doesn't need creep to be spawned so imagine locusts going through nydus, doing damage on one side of the map and then evacuating before they get destroyed. It would be much more entertaining to watch than what we have now.
So basically: 1. more damage 2. limited range 3. less HP 4. faster movement off creep
True that SHs are a "very easy" to use unit.. Unless you really want to be really effective with them - spreading, spreading locusts, using better rallies (i.e. - rally far behind your target so you'd preserve the parallel movement of locusts as far as possible) of locust waves, e.t.c..
BUT - everyone overlooks the Problem of the unit itself.. It's a Lair-unit which requires a massive investment, thus making it a Lair-unit on Hive-tech..
Both issues can actually be solved very easy by removing the EL upgrade and making the unit cheaper IMO.. The problem is - I suspect that that would be enough for late-game TBH.. So Zerg should get a buff somewhere else (I suggest Viper abduct range as best)
Me and many other have complained about this back in the beta. we were expecting a unit that can apply pressure, I was expecting a unit that would kinda feel like a marine tank composition, with hit and trade and transition out eventually. but SH is too weak in low number, this means we either have to just skip SH entirely or get a brunch of them and babysit them.
This is the biggest problem I have with it and still is.
On February 13 2014 08:02 Ctone23 wrote: I haven't seen anyone mention it, and quite frankly i'm struggling to think of a proper way to introduce it, but..
What if the swarm host was an energy unit? Meaning, it would cost energy to spawn locusts?
Terrible idea?
Then you could feedback them, which would probably be OP.
What if it had an HP version of Consume? I could see that working depending on how the the spawn locust ability functioned.
I dont even think itd be a bad thing if they would be vulnerable to emp or feedback, tough to get in range (and ghosts could use a come back late game tvz, fun unit).
Having each wave of locust drain mana or having a constant drain a la cloak seems like a cool idea tbh. If its too big a nerf you could add something like a self cannibalizing consume where you trade hp for mana (like you said I think).
It would make whether to send a wave at least somewhat of a decision. Hitting the right mana cost will be tricky but doable.
Could also add some additional ability to them so zergs can have some fun (say what you want about old infestors but Ithey were a ton of fun to use... same as defilers, utility is fun). Maybe some kind of overload ability that temporarily increases amoint or strength of locusts but at the price of ... big mana drain, hp, super long cooldown... stuff like this. Like basically an option to burst an area down but then your sh are out of the fight for a while.
sorry off topic but omg its jinro its been forever since ive seen this name, miss you bro you were the first stream i ever watched and got me into terran. dang ever thought of streaming again? doesnt even have to be HOTS it could be BW hearthstone, starbow, w.e. hots would be cool but it would just be sick to see you stream again
For the first time ever, I turned off GSL after watching Soulkey SH turtling style. I don't know how the game ended but I don't care. In fact, I am not gonna watch any PvZ until they fix SH.
This is how SC2 is losing viewership. Just look at the chat, I am not alone.
BOTH SH and WM are very good units at a level of design..
Problem is that they were released in the game as they came from the day1 in beta - i.e. - nothing was tweaked or experimented.. - Blizz never tried to do a better execution/implementation regarding those two
The last change (or couple of changes) to WM making it versatile unit instead of just vs Zerg only - is just one proof of that fact
In general as a whole - think it's a bad design "idea" to make units specialized vs only one race.. Such as the case of WM being only vs Zerg
On February 15 2014 00:25 VArsovskiSC wrote: BOTH SH and WM are very good units at a level of design..
Problem is that they were released in the game as they came from the day1 in beta - i.e. - nothing was tweaked or experimented.. - Blizz never tried to do a better execution/implementation regarding those two
The last change (or couple of changes) to WM making it versatile unit instead of just vs Zerg only - is just one proof of that fact
In general as a whole - think it's a bad design "idea" to make units specialized vs only one race.. Such as the case of WM being only vs Zerg
You're a bit off. The WM was changed more than any other unit in the last 1-2 years.
Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
Just wanted to give props to LiquidHero for highlighting one of main issues making TvP a rofl-fest. As disappointed as I am to see Innovation get 3-0'd - this is exactly what Blizzard needs to see. Let's examine exactly what happened / happens (over and over again on the NA masters + ladder).
1 base aggressive options for Terran: - Gas first opener - (Widowmine drops / Helion Drops / Cloak Banshee) Protoss scouting / reaction: Probe scout gas first - (Forge / cannon at both mineral into robo/macro up counters all 3)
1 base aggressive options for Protoss (Just fully ignoring old school 4 gates) - Double gas 3 on each. Proxy Oracle / Proxy Twilight into Blink / Proxy Twilight into DT / Proxy Robo into 3 gate immortal bust.
Terran scouting / reaction: To counter DT / Oracle - Ebay needed (if you call letting 2 oracles keep you in your base while the protoss gets a fast third a counter) To counter Blink/Immo bunkers in the main / CC inside (if you can call being contained on 1 base a counter - only reason it's the "counter" is because it's the only way not to die)
So you have a 50/50 chance of living and being behind vs. 1 base aggression assuming you can't find the proxy soon enough (good luck on most of the large maps) and let's be honest - even if you scout blink coming you still have a 50/50 chance of dying to it with EQUAL mechanics. If the protoss has as good or better micro you will certainly lose.
Now let's forget about proxy or 1 base - assume you open reaper and you find the Twilight with an expo... what does this really mean? Well - could be 2 base blink.. could be DT /Warp Prism...could be fast HT with double forge into a 2 base all in...even an 8 gate with fast 2/2..or if the protoss is smart (LiquidHero) could be a fake into macroing up.
So let's recap - all above being considered - what exactly does the protoss have to worry about in terms of aggression that MSC / 1 gate can't hold? Absolutely nothing that can't be scouted by the initial probe scout (11/11 etc). Yet the Terran has to examine a ridiculous sum of potential threats - guess correctly and micro perfectly just to get into the mid to late game.. I'm sorry but this is really just ridiculous and I think even protoss players would agree that there is absolutely nothing "impressive" or to marvel at watching games like this.. who really wants to see a 3-0 - 30 minute series where each game was decided (the last game I will say was not related to this) not by impressive multitask - micro - macro / decision making / strategy and tactics but by absolute nonsense. The fact that a NA player with platinum mechanics can get to GM as protoss says nothing about "balance" per say but be totally honest with yourself, what Hero did in game 1 happens on ladder every day by platinum level players.. really look at the game and outside of the "genius move" that made him go blink vs DT when he saw the Ebay drop.. what else went on there that was even remotely impressive? I'm sorry but you can change MSC spells / fiddle around with whatever else you want until you fix this issue the match-up is going to be this way. Not a pro here by any means (casual mid masters player) but this doesn't take a pro to realize.
On February 15 2014 16:13 ArTiFaKs wrote: Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
The ironic thing is, when you describe Protoss as a complete race and Blizzard should strive that for other races. They had that for Terran, but one unit basically changed that, MSC. You can't just look at a race in a vacuum, it is the counters that determine how good tech trees and builds are.
Let say they give bio a buff that makes it so bio can take out a Nexus even through Nexus cannon. Sure, that would give Terrans more options to be aggressive, but then you are back to strong one where the Protoss has tough time defending.
There is also another absurd about this matchup and generally about Terrans. Terran is supposed to show their multitasking, droping on every side, pushing with their main army at the same time etc.
But if they just for a second dont look at their army, few storms land, and the game is lost. This happend during Rain vs Polt. It is also true while playing vs Zerg, P can recall, T cant.
On February 15 2014 16:13 ArTiFaKs wrote: Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
The ironic thing is, when you describe Protoss as a complete race and Blizzard should strive that for other races. They had that for Terran, but one unit basically changed that, MSC. You can't just look at a race in a vacuum, it is the counters that determine how good tech trees and builds are.
Let say they give bio a buff that makes it so bio can take out a Nexus even through Nexus cannon. Sure, that would give Terrans more options to be aggressive, but then you are back to strong one where the Protoss has tough time defending.
Really just goes to show that saying one race is "more complete" is complete hogwash. A race is only complete if it's harmonizes with all 3 races with maximal strategies from both sides, otherwise it is far from complete. A dominant relationship is not a more wholesome relationship.
On February 15 2014 16:13 ArTiFaKs wrote: Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
The ironic thing is, when you describe Protoss as a complete race and Blizzard should strive that for other races. They had that for Terran, but one unit basically changed that, MSC. You can't just look at a race in a vacuum, it is the counters that determine how good tech trees and builds are.
Let say they give bio a buff that makes it so bio can take out a Nexus even through Nexus cannon. Sure, that would give Terrans more options to be aggressive, but then you are back to strong one where the Protoss has tough time defending.
Really just goes to show that saying one race is "more complete" is complete hogwash. A race is only complete if it's harmonizes with all 3 races with maximal strategies from both sides, otherwise it is far from complete. A dominant relationship is not a more wholesome relationship.
People always call the strongest race at the moment the "most complete" race. Then you change, say, marine damage by 2% and all of a sudden terran becomes the "best designed" race, and so on.
On February 17 2014 02:52 DomeGetta wrote: Just wanted to give props to LiquidHero for highlighting one of main issues making TvP a rofl-fest. As disappointed as I am to see Innovation get 3-0'd - this is exactly what Blizzard needs to see. Let's examine exactly what happened / happens (over and over again on the NA masters + ladder).
1 base aggressive options for Terran: - Gas first opener - (Widowmine drops / Helion Drops / Cloak Banshee) Protoss scouting / reaction: Probe scout gas first - (Forge / cannon at both mineral into robo/macro up counters all 3)
1 base aggressive options for Protoss (Just fully ignoring old school 4 gates) - Double gas 3 on each. Proxy Oracle / Proxy Twilight into Blink / Proxy Twilight into DT / Proxy Robo into 3 gate immortal bust.
Terran scouting / reaction: To counter DT / Oracle - Ebay needed (if you call letting 2 oracles keep you in your base while the protoss gets a fast third a counter) To counter Blink/Immo bunkers in the main / CC inside (if you can call being contained on 1 base a counter - only reason it's the "counter" is because it's the only way not to die)
So you have a 50/50 chance of living and being behind vs. 1 base aggression assuming you can't find the proxy soon enough (good luck on most of the large maps) and let's be honest - even if you scout blink coming you still have a 50/50 chance of dying to it with EQUAL mechanics. If the protoss has as good or better micro you will certainly lose.
Now let's forget about proxy or 1 base - assume you open reaper and you find the Twilight with an expo... what does this really mean? Well - could be 2 base blink.. could be DT /Warp Prism...could be fast HT with double forge into a 2 base all in...even an 8 gate with fast 2/2..or if the protoss is smart (LiquidHero) could be a fake into macroing up.
So let's recap - all above being considered - what exactly does the protoss have to worry about in terms of aggression that MSC / 1 gate can't hold? Absolutely nothing that can't be scouted by the initial probe scout (11/11 etc). Yet the Terran has to examine a ridiculous sum of potential threats - guess correctly and micro perfectly just to get into the mid to late game.. I'm sorry but this is really just ridiculous and I think even protoss players would agree that there is absolutely nothing "impressive" or to marvel at watching games like this.. who really wants to see a 3-0 - 30 minute series where each game was decided (the last game I will say was not related to this) not by impressive multitask - micro - macro / decision making / strategy and tactics but by absolute nonsense. The fact that a NA player with platinum mechanics can get to GM as protoss says nothing about "balance" per say but be totally honest with yourself, what Hero did in game 1 happens on ladder every day by platinum level players.. really look at the game and outside of the "genius move" that made him go blink vs DT when he saw the Ebay drop.. what else went on there that was even remotely impressive? I'm sorry but you can change MSC spells / fiddle around with whatever else you want until you fix this issue the match-up is going to be this way. Not a pro here by any means (casual mid masters player) but this doesn't take a pro to realize.
And just to be clear - my opinion this is strictly related to early / early-mid meta game - I'm not talking about mid / late game once both players have established econ/military. I actually feel that that part of the game is in the best place that it has ever been. Both players have an = chance to win in my opinion at that point. I'm also not saying that there is a very obvious answer to fix this - but I think blizzard had to start with the problem and really define what the problem is (which I think I have gotten pretty close above) - I also don't like the idea of modifying core unit abilities because that has greater implications than strictly balancing this equation above - I think the right answer involves lengthening the timings of at least a couple of the above early aggressive options for protoss. The root of the problem is that Terran cannot prepare for all possible combinations of cheese without crippling themselves going into the late game.. changing two or more of the timings so that they hit a minute or two later probably would solve that without messing with late game engagements etc.
On February 15 2014 16:13 ArTiFaKs wrote: Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
Like you said, we should be focusing on Terran buffs rather than Protoss nerfs in this scenario given the selective nature of the imba, the early-mid transition of PvT allowing too much greed. There should be a way to directly cancel or negate PO given to Terran but not given for free. What if EMP could negate PO? Too out of the way to realistically integrate into builds? Then maybe the Reaper.
On February 15 2014 16:13 ArTiFaKs wrote: Even Terran players commenting on the absurdity of SwarmHosts, makes me happy and much more respect for them in general. MMA is kindof dissapointing, still complaining about Oracle speed? Really? I think there are other issues with Terran that should be addressed, because the Protoss race actually functioning like a complete race, with multiple viable strategies for each matchup is not a problem, but something that Blizzard should be striving for with each race.
Like you said, we should be focusing on Terran buffs rather than Protoss nerfs in this scenario given the selective nature of the imba, the early-mid transition of PvT allowing too much greed. There should be a way to directly cancel or negate PO given to Terran but not given for free. What if EMP could negate PO? Too out of the way to realistically integrate into builds? Then maybe the Reaper.
It can, just EMP the MSC before the cast gets off.
On February 15 2014 00:25 VArsovskiSC wrote: BOTH SH and WM are very good units at a level of design..
Problem is that they were released in the game as they came from the day1 in beta - i.e. - nothing was tweaked or experimented.. - Blizz never tried to do a better execution/implementation regarding those two
The last change (or couple of changes) to WM making it versatile unit instead of just vs Zerg only - is just one proof of that fact
In general as a whole - think it's a bad design "idea" to make units specialized vs only one race.. Such as the case of WM being only vs Zerg
You're a bit off. The WM was changed more than any other unit in the last 1-2 years.
The widow mine is to HotS what the bunker was to WoL. No patch is truly complete without at least 1 change to it in some way.
Anybody knows when are they going to go live with some fixes?
Why there is absolutely no communication with the community? Yes they prepared the test map and since then ... silence. No comments, no patch impressions, nothing.
On February 19 2014 04:30 TW wrote: Anybody knows when are they going to go live with some fixes?
Why there is absolutely no communication with the community? Yes they prepared the test map and since then ... silence. No comments, no patch impressions, nothing.
Whoa, you gotta be a bit more patient than that. They just put the test map out a few days ago. This kind of thing does actually take time. Otherwise we get stuck with +Tempests and nerfed Blink.
I just hate the way blizzard goes about balancing stuff. They take ages to finally release a patch and then they tend to overnerf/overbuff stuff. It would be much better if they released patches faster with smaller changes instead of going from 14 to 9 or from 10 to 15 and stupid shit like that.
On February 15 2014 00:25 VArsovskiSC wrote: BOTH SH and WM are very good units at a level of design..
Problem is that they were released in the game as they came from the day1 in beta - i.e. - nothing was tweaked or experimented.. - Blizz never tried to do a better execution/implementation regarding those two
The last change (or couple of changes) to WM making it versatile unit instead of just vs Zerg only - is just one proof of that fact
In general as a whole - think it's a bad design "idea" to make units specialized vs only one race.. Such as the case of WM being only vs Zerg
You're a bit off. The WM was changed more than any other unit in the last 1-2 years.
infestor...
and the SH was tweaked too. But I agree with VArsovskiSC on SH tweaking. The tweaks they did to it were minor (unlike what they did with the mine, which resulted in a very good & fun unit). They had some cool ideas with it back in the alpha (GtA attacks from locusts) and how they wanted it to be played out. But all they did was play around with locust stats instead of trying to make it work the way they wanted it to be used and which sounded awesome (midgame siege unit). Also I think they underestimated how much defensive capability Zerg lost through infestor nerfs and medivac/Prism buffs and all that MsC centered play, which makes it quite hard to play anything slowsieging like SHs in the midgame.
Since the mine does 40 damage at 1.25 radius and a bit less outside of that, how is the shield damage applied? Is there any extra shield damage done when the mine would normally do 20 or 10 damage? The patch note just says 40 + 40 and nothing on the other damage values.
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
Widow mine drops are nothing like storm drops.
Didn't you people play the game at all between HOTS release and 2.0.1.2?
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Widow mine drops would be exactly the same as before they nerfed the AOE radius, meaning if you don't pull your probes you will actually take damage(5 kills maybe? instead of the 2/3 you get if you're lucky nowadays). You have like twice the time to pull your workers compared to a storm drop, the aoe radius is way smaller. So no nothing like storm drop, which is normal as it costs less and comes sooner and is lower down the tech tree. Don't know how it can be called "stupidly broken". I think it will be really strong against early speedlot timings and force detection. What remains to be seen is if even with detection the mines will go off and/or tank enough damage to be worth their cost.
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Reading some of the discussion about these changes can be so funny.
"No, you can't nerf MsC vision by -1, it will destabilize PvP, leaving it in complete ruins!"
"This widow mine buff is literally giving terran storm drops at 5 minutes."
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Reading some of the discussion about these changes can be so funny.
"No, you can't nerf MsC vision by -1, it will destabilize PvP, leaving it in complete ruins!"
"This widow mine buff is literally giving terran storm drops at 5 minutes."
"OMG, this 2 month period where a handful of established Protoss are winning consistently is worse than the Broodlord/Infestor period."
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Reading some of the discussion about these changes can be so funny.
"No, you can't nerf MsC vision by -1, it will destabilize PvP, leaving it in complete ruins!"
"This widow mine buff is literally giving terran storm drops at 5 minutes."
"OMG, this 2 month period where a handful of established Protoss are winning consistently is worse than the Broodlord/Infestor period."
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Reading some of the discussion about these changes can be so funny.
"No, you can't nerf MsC vision by -1, it will destabilize PvP, leaving it in complete ruins!"
"This widow mine buff is literally giving terran storm drops at 5 minutes."
"OMG, this 2 month period where a handful of established Protoss are winning consistently is worse than the Broodlord/Infestor period."
"MSC should have no vision whatsoever!"
I agree it is pretty silly.
Good thing no one is saying that then.
Hyperbole in balance discussions is a grand tradition that we must upkeep. And the mocking the hyperbolic comments. It is the circle of life.
Maybe I'm a little off here, but I don't remember this kind of moaning when BL/Infestor was nerfed, most zerg players seemed pretty ok with it. The blink nerf is harsh, yes, but unless we want to mutilate map making variety even further we have to look at actual balance.
I don't know, I don't see this breaking anything, and could even unbreak what the MSC broke.
On February 20 2014 00:47 plogamer wrote: People need to stop whining about the Protoss nerfs. Am I doing it right?
Yeah, but I think you can do better. You need some passive agressive comments about Protoss being mechanically easier than other races and maybe complain about the sad zealot. Also cite some professional terrans like Polt losing and claim they just barely were able to be competitive within the meta.
The most important part is to be as passive agressive as possible and provide as little complete information as you can get away with.
On February 20 2014 00:57 Squat wrote: Maybe I'm a little off here, but I don't remember this kind of moaning when BL/Infestor was nerfed, most zerg players seemed pretty ok with it. The blink nerf is harsh, yes, but unless we want to mutilate map making variety even further we have to look at actual balance.
I don't know, I don't see this breaking anything, and could even unbreak what the MSC broke.
There was quite an uproar in those HotS beta threads, not as harsh as these changes now, but there are several things to consider: -) it was a beta, people are probably more willing to experiment during a such a periode -) it was a beta, it didn't affect as many people -) they actually increased the range of fungal from 8 to 10; there were quite some heated arguments that some Ts/Ps considered that a buff (even some proplayer posted a video about how it was ridiculous and Zerg lategame got even stronger) -) they released changes afterwards specifically tagged to provide compensation for the weaker Infestors (Mutalisk buffs, Ultralisk buff)
I think it does break blink play as we know it in all matchups. I think even just going to 12seconds would be a huge change, just considering how often we see stalkers waiting for the cooldown to finish to blink out of a base again.
On February 20 2014 00:57 Squat wrote: Maybe I'm a little off here, but I don't remember this kind of moaning when BL/Infestor was nerfed, most zerg players seemed pretty ok with it. The blink nerf is harsh, yes, but unless we want to mutilate map making variety even further we have to look at actual balance.
I don't know, I don't see this breaking anything, and could even unbreak what the MSC broke.
There was quite an uproar in those HotS beta threads, not as harsh as these changes now, but there are several things to consider: -) it was a beta, people are probably more willing to experiment during a such a periode -) it was a beta, it didn't affect as many people -) they actually increased the range of fungal from 8 to 10; there were quite some heated arguments that some Ts/Ps considered that a buff (even some proplayer posted a video about how it was ridiculous and Zerg lategame got even stronger) -) they released changes afterwards specifically tagged to provide compensation for the weaker Infestors (Mutalisk buffs, Ultralisk buff)
I think it does break blink play as we know it in all matchups. I think even just going to 12seconds would be a huge change, just considering how often we see stalkers waiting for the cooldown to finish to blink out of a base again.
Fairly sure they won't need to change the cooldown if they just implement MSC with 9 sight; not to mention Blink openings will be weaker if Mine drops are relevant again.
What if... Photon overcharge also require 25energy on the nexus ( and uses it). This way, super greedy build that wanna rely on photon overcharge are alittle bit slower, since you have to save 25energy on your nexuses in case of rush. Basicly slows down toss by 1 chrono per nexus early game.
This way there is risk reward, and toss can still be caught offguard if too greedy and chrono mass probes.( Kind of like zerg lose to 4 gate pressure if mass drone). Just like terran has to save OC energy for scan in case of DTs around 7-8min mark.
Also, third base will have a bigger window to hit a timing on it, right now if nexus finish u photon overcharge right away.
In my head, this change+ mothership core vision is enough of a nerf to stop for 2months at least after that.
"OMG, this 2 month period where a handful of established Protoss are winning consistently is worse than the Broodlord/Infestor period."
Hahahahaha, "handful of established Protoss"!!!! That's the best one I've heard yet, thanks, made my day!
I know, who is this no name scrub, Hero? Talk about a guy riding imbalance to glory and beyond. I don't know how a no name player like him beat the all amarican hero, Polt.
On February 20 2014 00:24 Bagi wrote: So back to the original question, has anyone tested how the widow mine splash actually works on the test map?
Well I did, against AI because nobody seems to be playing the map (didnt see it once in the open games, and tried to make lobbies but nobody joined). It seems pretty strong as a direct combat unit, but it's really hard to tell as you can't try with specific compositions. Removing all the shields on stalkers in a pretty wide area could make it really good to defend greedy blink all ins, or at least make it dangerous for P to blink in. As I said in my previous post it will become really strong to defend early chargelots all ins. Don't know if it'll still be used later in the game though. To the sarcastic team above, the games look like shit because the oracle and blink combination make the matchup gimmicky as fuck and unfun to play, not even talking about how hard it is to scout exactly what is going on. It's not about winning or losing, even pro protosses agree that oracles are retarded and blink too strong...
Can't do much with corruptors tbh. They are like flying roaches with no cool burrow stuff. They shoot things. That's it. No micro potential, no fun utility.
I'd much rather they just scrap it and give us scourge or something.
If it just applies to the main radius then widow mines are completely unchanged against probes.
I don't know, but I think it sounds reasonable that it stays unchanged against probes.
Well David Kim himself said that one reason for this buff is to improve widow mine drops.
It was easily defendable and a niche strategy even when mines oneshot probes at a full 1.75 radius.
I Really doubt that the WM buff will make it. It would do as much damage as a Storm drop -- but at 5 minutes instead of 11 minutes. Would be stupidly broken.
No - it's be exactly the same as at release when Mines were perfectly fine vs toss. They got nerfed because TvZ got 'stale', not because gold tosses couldn't respond to mine drops within 8 seconds.
Reading some of the discussion about these changes can be so funny.
"No, you can't nerf MsC vision by -1, it will destabilize PvP, leaving it in complete ruins!"
"This widow mine buff is literally giving terran storm drops at 5 minutes."
"OMG, this 2 month period where a handful of established Protoss are winning consistently is worse than the Broodlord/Infestor period."
On February 15 2014 15:19 RaFox17 wrote: I agree with LSN on the point that could we stop skewing the statistics by taking out players that we think are too good to be counted. Let´s present the stats and see what we can take out of them. Statistics can be so easily manipulated even without random player exclusions based on them being soo good. I also agree that tvp is in a bad spot at the moment so no need to come after me.
I think we can remove statistics of games that are complete hpgwash like korean T vs foreign P. :\
That might be okay as long as you provide the original stats also but let´s stop taking out players ´cause they are too good. Also Elfi and Welmu are foreigners who have a habit of killing korean terrans
Who are both Protoss, so given the current meta, it'd be like if they were zergs in BL/Infestor era.
On February 20 2014 01:49 Squat wrote: Can't do much with corruptors tbh. They are like flying roaches with no cool burrow stuff. They shoot things. That's it. No micro potential, no fun utility.
I'd much rather they just scrap it and give us scourge or something.
Remove corruption, add the "Red alert 3 Arcula" special torpedo.
On February 20 2014 01:46 hfsrj wrote: Very nice. Love Desrow agreeing with Scarlett on buffing Corruptor. PLZ DO.
This, yet sadly DK doesn't listen to the community
What would be the drawback really?
Drawback: Breakdown of Protoss Airplay into a WoL state, in which mass Corruptor would beat all Protoss air.
Really, the last thing this game needs is Zerg (or any other race) being able to just make 1 type of unit to counter a broad amount of options that the opponent could deploy. Even worse, if such units have to exist they should at least be fun to play with (and against), not Corruptors.
Or, let me rephrase this: Which sane Protoss would build Air Units if Corruptors on top of countering Phoenix/Oracle/Tempest/Carrier would also counter Void Rays. Whole parts of PvZ gameplay would break down when Zerg could just spam out Corruptors to deal with Protoss Air. Also, Corruptors are very good antiair units in general. What they aren't is interesting or versatile.
Corruptors need same dps, faster attack speed. It will be slightly better against PDD.. and maybe mass pheonixes? I assume faster attack speed would mean less overkill on mass a move scenario.
On February 20 2014 01:46 hfsrj wrote: Very nice. Love Desrow agreeing with Scarlett on buffing Corruptor. PLZ DO.
This, yet sadly DK doesn't listen to the community
What would be the drawback really?
Drawback: Breakdown of Protoss Airplay into a WoL state, in which mass Corruptor would beat all Protoss air.
Really, the last thing this game needs is Zerg (or any other race) being able to just make 1 type of unit to counter a broad amount of options that the opponent could deploy. Even worse, if such units have to exist they should at least be fun to play with (and against), not Corruptors.
Or, let me rephrase this: Which sane Protoss would build Air Units if Corruptors on top of countering Phoenix/Oracle/Tempest/Carrier would also counter Void Rays. Whole parts of PvZ gameplay would break down when Zerg could just spam out Corruptors to deal with Protoss Air. Also, Corruptors are very good antiair units in general. What they aren't is interesting or versatile.
It's the degree to which Corruptors suck vs Voidrays. Voidrays can deal with Corruptors so ridiculously fast it is not even funny.
Also, Corruptors are checked by Archons and to a lesser extend storm and stalkers. Buffing them slightly vs Voidrays (and preferably Ravens) would not be a problem in this game AT ALL.
Making them cooler would be amazing, VR is the epitome of amove
On February 20 2014 01:46 hfsrj wrote: Very nice. Love Desrow agreeing with Scarlett on buffing Corruptor. PLZ DO.
This, yet sadly DK doesn't listen to the community
What would be the drawback really?
Drawback: Breakdown of Protoss Airplay into a WoL state, in which mass Corruptor would beat all Protoss air.
Really, the last thing this game needs is Zerg (or any other race) being able to just make 1 type of unit to counter a broad amount of options that the opponent could deploy. Even worse, if such units have to exist they should at least be fun to play with (and against), not Corruptors.
Or, let me rephrase this: Which sane Protoss would build Air Units if Corruptors on top of countering Phoenix/Oracle/Tempest/Carrier would also counter Void Rays. Whole parts of PvZ gameplay would break down when Zerg could just spam out Corruptors to deal with Protoss Air. Also, Corruptors are very good antiair units in general. What they aren't is interesting or versatile.
It's the degree to which Corruptors suck vs Voidrays. Voidrays can deal with Corruptors so ridiculously fast it is not even funny.
Also, Corruptors are checked by Archons and to a lesser extend storm and stalkers. Buffing them slightly vs Voidrays (and preferably Ravens) would not be a problem in this game AT ALL.
Making them cooler would be amazing, VR is the epitome of amove
So don't FLAT buff them. Redesign them so they suck less versus void rays and aren't cost efficient versus literally everything else. And make them exciting. Buffing them is incredibly dumb unless you just hate Protoss blindly.
On February 20 2014 01:46 hfsrj wrote: Very nice. Love Desrow agreeing with Scarlett on buffing Corruptor. PLZ DO.
This, yet sadly DK doesn't listen to the community
What would be the drawback really?
Drawback: Breakdown of Protoss Airplay into a WoL state, in which mass Corruptor would beat all Protoss air.
Really, the last thing this game needs is Zerg (or any other race) being able to just make 1 type of unit to counter a broad amount of options that the opponent could deploy. Even worse, if such units have to exist they should at least be fun to play with (and against), not Corruptors.
Or, let me rephrase this: Which sane Protoss would build Air Units if Corruptors on top of countering Phoenix/Oracle/Tempest/Carrier would also counter Void Rays. Whole parts of PvZ gameplay would break down when Zerg could just spam out Corruptors to deal with Protoss Air. Also, Corruptors are very good antiair units in general. What they aren't is interesting or versatile.
It's the degree to which Corruptors suck vs Voidrays. Voidrays can deal with Corruptors so ridiculously fast it is not even funny.
Also, Corruptors are checked by Archons and to a lesser extend storm and stalkers. Buffing them slightly vs Voidrays (and preferably Ravens) would not be a problem in this game AT ALL.
Making them cooler would be amazing, VR is the epitome of amove
So don't FLAT buff them. Redesign them so they suck less versus void rays and aren't cost efficient versus literally everything else. And make them exciting. Buffing them is incredibly dumb unless you just hate Protoss blindly.
Like most of us? ^^ But I do agree with changing them, not just buffing. I feel like a lot of zerg units need that fast-weak-swarmy feel to them again.
Make the corruptor an insanely low damage unit that magnifies damage done to whatever target it is shooting. Force zerg to either go corruptor/muta or corruptor/hydra vs air (well corruptor/queen?!) but have it so that say 4 voids crush 6 mutalisks but 4 voids trade evenly with 5 mutas and 1 corruptor (ie it depends on splash, upgrades, etc).
On February 20 2014 01:46 hfsrj wrote: Very nice. Love Desrow agreeing with Scarlett on buffing Corruptor. PLZ DO.
This, yet sadly DK doesn't listen to the community
What would be the drawback really?
Drawback: Breakdown of Protoss Airplay into a WoL state, in which mass Corruptor would beat all Protoss air.
Really, the last thing this game needs is Zerg (or any other race) being able to just make 1 type of unit to counter a broad amount of options that the opponent could deploy. Even worse, if such units have to exist they should at least be fun to play with (and against), not Corruptors.
You mean like voidrays?
The suggestion isn't to make corruptors directly counter voidrays, but rather to make them more interesting, less complete dogshit vs every air unit in the game. They're an anti-air flyer that's only actually good vs ground units (collossus). Yeah you gotta make them in some situations, like vs phoenix or maybe vs bcs in the rare occasions (but even then corruptors usually lose out given the bc/raven comps), but ultimately it's just a unit that is logically inconsistent. It doesn't have a proper place in the game right now because it doesn't make sense.
I like how all the P players whine about PvP now, as if it is now an impossible matchup and they forgot how to play their race or it isn't possible to play without a mothershipcore anymore. Some really got too used to the cheesy/early aggression without punishment style of it. Well it is time to adapt, but honestly, this was clear from the very very first day of HotS release, really. These things were very strong from the beginning, and it was just a matter of time when they were used to an extend that it could either be called "abuse" or "imba". Call it whatever you want, I just find it funny when mirror matchups are called "difficult", "imba" or whatever. However, this still doesn't change design decisions like for one race it is possible to warp units over the whole map, whereas others have to think about where their army is, how they move it and watch the movements, so they don't lose army stupidly (I know that is a description that is overexaggerated one, it was just for the example. I do NOT think PvP is inbalanced at all. I do NOT think races are inbalanced at all, as I cannot say that because I KNOW that the game is balanced about the korean pro level and I am not there (yet, or will ever be). So no: i don'T say it is imba or whatever, I just question if a game with 3 completely different mechanics can ever be balanced at all.
however: @TL or whoever made the interviews/gathered the thought processes of the progamers: awesome. Hearing noobs like us complaining about changes is one thing (and really, sometimes developements in the metagame can be seen way before they get to pro levels at our noob level, but this is no excuse for constant whining on the noob level of things), but hearing the pros' opinions is just great. Thx for that, thx for the ammount of players you asked and how you did it (splitting it up for every change etc), there was not only a good thought process going on, but also effort,that went into it. Me like
As for can the game be balanced...sure it can be reasonably balanced. First of course you need to define balance.
If you make it that on pro authorized maps all races have at least a 46% win rate against all other races then bam we have it and we have had numbers around those off and on for the duration of starcraft 2.
I don't know why people want to bring up warp gate. You can look at offensive ground army harassment options.
Terran has drops and can often drop their entire army. These drops come with healing and the ability to rapidly evacuate the units. This often leads early game to keeping units at home and late game into base trades. Terran also has speedy hellions to just run around and mobile reapers that can abuse terrain and self heal.
Protoss has proxy pylons and warp prisms. Can warp in as many units as they have gateways, but escape requires a mothership core to be with the harassment (not likely). Warp prism storm drops are excellent worker harass. Protoss also has blink stalkers that can abuse terrain every 10 seconds.
Zerg has nydus, drops, and the fastest ground army. Zerglings can easily do run by's and have very high dps per food investment. If Zerg gets drops they can always drop their entire ground army. Nydus is mostly used as an early midgame all in type play or to get slow units across the map faster. They also have burrowed movement for roaches and infestors that has won many a pro game.
I can tell you right now that Protoss would love to have a Nydus like warp gate that would allow their entire army to walk into a hidden spot and escape back. Zerg would love to have overlords that were fast and could also heal their dropped units (building swipes and their disposable lings/roaches live a little longer to ensure the snipe?). Terran would love to have the ability to have their units arrive from medivacs inside the base rather than having to only use loaded units.
Its just so silly to focus on 1 mechanic and say nobody else can do that. Protoss has ZERO healing...maybe that makes them the worst? Terran has both the repair option and Medivacs which are super powerful...queens have long been amazing with ultras and broodlords..or timely transfuses to save a hatch or spore or another queen.
Its the differences between the races that have made blizzard RTS games so good. Bloodlust was way overpowered in war2, but it was a fun game. StarCraft took it to the next level although balance has always been a bit tougher.
Still...overall I think the problems with starcraft center around the scale and speed of the game and just a few stupid units. I'll put swarmhosts and broodlords in that group as the only units I just hate within the game design. I wish the game played out in slower battles (way reduce dps, especially for stimmed bio) over more bases. But the game is overall pretty good.
I think you want a healthy mix of similarities and differences. It's not fun if one race is more mechanically intensive than the other, or if one race is stronger at the pro level. It's the same for if one race doesn't have to care about core RTS concepts like positioning, economy, map control, scouting. And whatever advantage asymmetrical race design might have, it also adds a lot of complexity to the balancing process.
For some reason there is a tendency on this forum to have people say: "we don't want races to play the same, we want them to be different" without recognizing that if the races are too different the game becomes completely unstable. You need each race to have harassment options, to have powerful late-game armies, to have scouting units, and so on. Otherwise one race might have to concede some strategic goals straight away, which reduces the depth of the game because you literally have fewer things to fight for.
If you look at Warcraft 3, the factions in that game have a lot in common. They all have heroes, similar tech paths, item shops. Imagine if there was one faction where the designers made the choice to not give them access to heroes, out of some ill-conceived desire to have asymmetrical design. It would be horrible, the race would have nothing in common with the other ones.
Agreed, Sometimes it feels like these stupid situation will never be changed or fixed..... So I don't see the reign of terror stopping anytime soon... Personally I would like to see the game stabilize to something awesome then the balancing team just leave everything alone! lol instead of changing things out of " Stale Meta " Honestly they should let the players advance the meta... its hard to get better at a game that is constantly changing....
On February 20 2014 22:39 Pirfiktshon wrote: Agreed, Sometimes it feels like these stupid situation will never be changed or fixed..... So I don't see the reign of terror stopping anytime soon... Personally I would like to see the game stabilize to something awesome then the balancing team just leave everything alone! lol instead of changing things out of " Stale Meta " Honestly they should let the players advance the meta... its hard to get better at a game that is constantly changing....
We have something awesome. We always had*. That's why we are here in these forums.
*and no change has ever destroyed the core of awesomeness we hold.
As for can the game be balanced...sure it can be reasonably balanced. First of course you need to define balance.
If you make it that on pro authorized maps all races have at least a 46% win rate against all other races then bam we have it and we have had numbers around those off and on for the duration of starcraft 2.
I don't know why people want to bring up warp gate. You can look at offensive ground army harassment options.
Terran has drops and can often drop their entire army. These drops come with healing and the ability to rapidly evacuate the units. This often leads early game to keeping units at home and late game into base trades. Terran also has speedy hellions to just run around and mobile reapers that can abuse terrain and self heal.
Protoss has proxy pylons and warp prisms. Can warp in as many units as they have gateways, but escape requires a mothership core to be with the harassment (not likely). Warp prism storm drops are excellent worker harass. Protoss also has blink stalkers that can abuse terrain every 10 seconds.
Zerg has nydus, drops, and the fastest ground army. Zerglings can easily do run by's and have very high dps per food investment. If Zerg gets drops they can always drop their entire ground army. Nydus is mostly used as an early midgame all in type play or to get slow units across the map faster. They also have burrowed movement for roaches and infestors that has won many a pro game.
I can tell you right now that Protoss would love to have a Nydus like warp gate that would allow their entire army to walk into a hidden spot and escape back. Zerg would love to have overlords that were fast and could also heal their dropped units (building swipes and their disposable lings/roaches live a little longer to ensure the snipe?). Terran would love to have the ability to have their units arrive from medivacs inside the base rather than having to only use loaded units.
Its just so silly to focus on 1 mechanic and say nobody else can do that. Protoss has ZERO healing...maybe that makes them the worst? Terran has both the repair option and Medivacs which are super powerful...queens have long been amazing with ultras and broodlords..or timely transfuses to save a hatch or spore or another queen.
Its the differences between the races that have made blizzard RTS games so good. Bloodlust was way overpowered in war2, but it was a fun game. StarCraft took it to the next level although balance has always been a bit tougher.
Still...overall I think the problems with starcraft center around the scale and speed of the game and just a few stupid units. I'll put swarmhosts and broodlords in that group as the only units I just hate within the game design. I wish the game played out in slower battles (way reduce dps, especially for stimmed bio) over more bases. But the game is overall pretty good.
I want to dd collosi, roach, corruptor, marauder, thor to that.
Just wanted to give props to LiquidHero for highlighting one of main issues making TvP a rofl-fest. As disappointed as I am to see Innovation get 3-0'd - this is exactly what Blizzard needs to see. Let's examine exactly what happened / happens (over and over again on the NA masters + ladder).
1 base aggressive options for Terran: - Gas first opener - (Widowmine drops / Helion Drops / Cloak Banshee) Protoss scouting / reaction: Probe scout gas first - (Forge / cannon at both mineral into robo/macro up counters all 3)
1 base aggressive options for Protoss (Just fully ignoring old school 4 gates) - Double gas 3 on each. Proxy Oracle / Proxy Twilight into Blink / Proxy Twilight into DT / Proxy Robo into 3 gate immortal bust.
Terran scouting / reaction: To counter DT / Oracle - Ebay needed (if you call letting 2 oracles keep you in your base while the protoss gets a fast third a counter) To counter Blink/Immo bunkers in the main / CC inside (if you can call being contained on 1 base a counter - only reason it's the "counter" is because it's the only way not to die)
So you have a 50/50 chance of living and being behind vs. 1 base aggression assuming you can't find the proxy soon enough (good luck on most of the large maps) and let's be honest - even if you scout blink coming you still have a 50/50 chance of dying to it with EQUAL mechanics. If the protoss has as good or better micro you will certainly lose.
Now let's forget about proxy or 1 base - assume you open reaper and you find the Twilight with an expo... what does this really mean? Well - could be 2 base blink.. could be DT /Warp Prism...could be fast HT with double forge into a 2 base all in...even an 8 gate with fast 2/2..or if the protoss is smart (LiquidHero) could be a fake into macroing up.
So let's recap - all above being considered - what exactly does the protoss have to worry about in terms of aggression that MSC / 1 gate can't hold? Absolutely nothing that can't be scouted by the initial probe scout (11/11 etc). Yet the Terran has to examine a ridiculous sum of potential threats - guess correctly and micro perfectly just to get into the mid to late game.. I'm sorry but this is really just ridiculous and I think even protoss players would agree that there is absolutely nothing "impressive" or to marvel at watching games like this.. who really wants to see a 3-0 - 30 minute series where each game was decided (the last game I will say was not related to this) not by impressive multitask - micro - macro / decision making / strategy and tactics but by absolute nonsense. The fact that a NA player with platinum mechanics can get to GM as protoss says nothing about "balance" per say but be totally honest with yourself, what Hero did in game 1 happens on ladder every day by platinum level players.. really look at the game and outside of the "genius move" that made him go blink vs DT when he saw the Ebay drop.. what else went on there that was even remotely impressive? I'm sorry but you can change MSC spells / fiddle around with whatever else you want until you fix this issue the match-up is going to be this way. Not a pro here by any means (casual mid masters player) but this doesn't take a pro to realize.