|
Italy2573 Posts
We hope you had fun watching the GSL Super Tournament event—we certainly did! The matches were really exciting, and we’re that much closer to crowning a champion at the global finals at BlizzCon. That said, all this excitement hasn’t stopped us from paying attention to community feedback on the balance test map. We’re already planning to make some additional changes. Let’s dig in!
TERRAN
Cyclone unit changed to 3.8 version. Now requires a Tech Lab to be built at the Factory. Health decreased from 180 to 120. Movement speed increased from 4.13 to 4.73. Supply cost increased from 3 to 4. Unit armor set to 1. Tornado Blaster weapon changed to the Typhoon Missile Pod weapon: Damage changed from 3 (+2 vs Armored) to 18. Can target air and ground units. Attack rate changed from 0.1 to 0.71. Range decreased from 6 to 5. Weapon upgrades changed from +1 to +2 to account for the new damage value. Lock On ability changed: Ability can auto-cast. Can now target ground and flying units and structures. Damage changed from 160 to 400 damage over 14 seconds. Rapid Fire Launchers upgrade removed. Added Mag-Field Accelerator upgrade: After researching Mag-Field Accelerator upgrade, Lock On will deal 400 (+400 vs Armored) over 14 seconds to ground and flying targets. When Legacy of the Void first launched, the Cyclone was quite different. Requiring a Tech Lab, sporting lower durability, and having the ability to lock onto both air and ground targets, the Cyclone acted as an assassination tool. It could pick a target and destroy it, assuming the player gave enough micro attention to keep it moving and out of harm’s way. These Cyclones were intended to pick off high tech or tanky units from other races to give Terran more early- to mid-game control, and the upgrade allowed it to scale better into late-game.
In patch 3.8, we changed the Cyclone into a front-line unit that could provide early-game firepower. While the meta has shifted back-and-forth since then, the frontline Cyclone did its job well, but there are concerns that early-game Terran strategies, especially for proxies, have become almost too varied for opponents to handle. At the same time, there is still room to give Terrans a way to trade against opponents in the mid and late game without going all-in. Additionally, just before 3.8 came out, we started seeing more innovative uses of the Cyclone in pro-level matches. For these reasons, we want to experiment with reinstating the pre-3.8 Cyclone.
Battlecruisers will no longer switch attack targets while moving unless ordered to do so or the current target leaves its range. Previously, the Battlecruiser would continuously re-evaluate threats while moving, often switching targets. Our aim is to give more control to the player, so Battlecruisers will now consistently “remember” their targets while moving.
ZERG
Hydralisk's attack speed changed from .57 to .59.
In the last test balance update, we changed the Hydralisk’s attack speed from 0.54 to 0.57 instead of reducing its health by 5HP. We still like the direction of this change but agree with feedback that we need to go a bit further before this change approaches what a 5HP nerf would do. Thus, we’ll be reverting the Hydralisk’s attack speed back to its Heart of the Swarm value of 0.59.
PROTOSS
Dark Shrine Shadow Stride research time reduced from 121 to 100 seconds. Shadow Stride cooldown reduced from 21 to 14 seconds.
The prospect of “Blink” Dark Templar, when they were first introduced, was a frightening nightmare for some, but we haven’t seen them used much lately. We’d like to try adjustments to both research time and cooldown and then re-evaluate the results.
Carrier Interceptor damage changed from 8x1 to 5x2. Interceptors will get +1x2 per Air Attack upgrade instead of +1x1. Interceptor release periods changed from 0.36 to 0.27.
We’ve gotten feedback that Carriers are a bit weaker than our ideal target power level. Thus, we’d like to make a few changes that will bring them closer to their previous damage output. In addition to their damage values being reverted, we’d like to decrease Interceptor release periods so they’ll launch at a rate between the pre- and post-Graviton Catapult upgrade rates.
Gateway's "Transform to Warp Gate" will now be an auto-cast ability. Previous iterations of the automated Warp Gate change caused a bit of confusion, as some Gateways would automatically transform to Warp Gates while others wouldn’t. We’d like to re-implement this change as an auto-cast ability, which should better communicate to players what is happening and provide more control over which Gateways transform.
As always, we’d like to reiterate that these changes are not final, and we’ll be actively looking at your feedback. Some specific concerns that we are continuing to look into include:
TvZ and the strength of Mutalisks against both Bio and Mech TvP early-game with the strength of proxies ZvP mid-game and the openers and compositions leading up to it. In addition, we’ll continuously be looking at late-game balance among all the races as per our initial design goals for the post-BlizzCon update. Thanks for testing out the changes, and please let us know what you think on the forums or through your preferred community sites!
See all the specific changes here: https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/22546437
|
carriers keep their hp buff right?
|
So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
|
I still don't understand the warpgate change. Protoss is almost universally considered the least mechanically demanding race. Why does it get so many QoL changes?
The high remplar auto attack, adept shade movement, observer stationary mode, and now auto transforming warpgates (which is the most pointless one yet). I'm not sure why they think toss is the race that needs it's skill floor lowered.
SC2 pros already have a tough time distinguishing themselves. Making the game play itself doesn't help, and as far as I know no one asked for it (?).
|
We’ve gotten feedback that Carriers are a bit weaker than our ideal target power level. Thus, we’d like to make a few changes that will bring them closer to their previous damage output. In addition to their damage values being reverted, we’d like to decrease Interceptor release periods so they’ll launch at a rate between the pre- and post-Graviton Catapult upgrade rates.
are they trolling us?
do they have any idea how strong carriers are with HT support? I really hope blizzard reads this section of this fourms. IDK where they are getting there feedback...
|
On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
Gravition catapult is still removed, and in this patch the default release speed is increased a little bit.
|
important to note that they keep the increased interceptor build time as well. it will be 'easier' (if you have the bank and the ports) to build up a fleet, but the first carrier will be only fully ready at about the same time as before 64+4*11=108 (new) vs 86+4*6=110 (old)
with the hp buff and removal of graviton they kinda rebalanced the unit, made it beefier, but removed some of the initial high burst damage.
they do no want to remove the unit, and they should not.
team games are still fucked, tho. and keep on keeping on i guess
|
Shadow stride buff--the change Starcraft really needed.
|
On October 10 2018 04:58 pzlama333 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
Gravition catapult is still removed, and in this patch the default release speed is increased a little bit.
Launch speed does not matter much. The difference between GC and no GC is just 6.7%. Even less for longer battles. Now compare this with 12.5% more hit points, 33% more damage vs Thors now when Thors got their armor nerfed, and build time being 34% faster.
Carrier with HT support is almost unbeatable in the live version and they are making it even stronger.
|
I like the cyclone change really. I was sad when it was completely changed just as pros started using it more and more, and making it an A-move unit with minimal anti-air was kinda bleh. It's also a big buff against people trying to build pylons and shield batteries everywhere around your base. Just Protoss proxies in general.
On the other hand I guess this means I will have to learn proper micro with and against proxy 2-rax reaper
|
|
On October 10 2018 05:04 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 04:58 pzlama333 wrote:On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
Gravition catapult is still removed, and in this patch the default release speed is increased a little bit. Launch speed does not matter much. The difference between GC and no GC is just 6.7%. Even less for longer battles. Now compare this with 12.5% more hit points, 33% more damage vs Thors now when Thors got their armor nerfed, and build time being 34% faster. Carrier with HT support is almost unbeatable in the live version and they are making it even stronger.
Without GC, interceptors are launched every 0.5 second in HotS time or 0.36 in LotV time. It takes 4 seconds (2.86 in lotv) to release all 8 interceptors. With GC, the first 4 interceptors are launched every 0.125 second (0.09 second in lotv) and the 5-8 one are launched every 0.25 second (0.18 in lotv). The total release time is 1.5 seconds (1.07 second in lotv)
|
On October 10 2018 05:15 pzlama333 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:04 MockHamill wrote:On October 10 2018 04:58 pzlama333 wrote:On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
Gravition catapult is still removed, and in this patch the default release speed is increased a little bit. Launch speed does not matter much. The difference between GC and no GC is just 6.7%. Even less for longer battles. Now compare this with 12.5% more hit points, 33% more damage vs Thors now when Thors got their armor nerfed, and build time being 34% faster. Carrier with HT support is almost unbeatable in the live version and they are making it even stronger. Without GC, interceptors are launched every 0.5 second in HotS time or 0.36 in LotV time. It takes 4 seconds (2.86 in lotv) to release all 8 interceptors. With GC, the first 4 interceptors are launched every 0.125 second (0.09 second in lotv) and the 5-8 one are launched every 0.25 second (0.18 in lotv). The total release time is 1.5 seconds (1.07 second in lotv)
Pretty big difference if you ask me Kev.
|
On October 10 2018 05:15 pzlama333 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:04 MockHamill wrote:On October 10 2018 04:58 pzlama333 wrote:On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
Gravition catapult is still removed, and in this patch the default release speed is increased a little bit. Launch speed does not matter much. The difference between GC and no GC is just 6.7%. Even less for longer battles. Now compare this with 12.5% more hit points, 33% more damage vs Thors now when Thors got their armor nerfed, and build time being 34% faster. Carrier with HT support is almost unbeatable in the live version and they are making it even stronger. Without GC, interceptors are launched every 0.5 second in HotS time or 0.36 in LotV time. It takes 4 seconds (2.86 in lotv) to release all 8 interceptors. With GC, the first 4 interceptors are launched every 0.125 second (0.09 second in lotv) and the 5-8 one are launched every 0.25 second (0.18 in lotv). The total release time is 1.5 seconds (1.07 second in lotv)
Test 3/3 Thor vs 3/3/3 Carrier with and without GC. The difference in outcome is about 6.7%. Since most major battles lasts longer then this the actual effect is even lower. Basically the slower launch rate is negligible compared to to the other improvements Carriers gets - increased hitpoints and faster build time.
If there is a single unit in the game that is too strong it is the Carrier. Their only downside is their build time. Now they are built much faster and have more hit points as well.
This is so absurd I am not even sure what to say. It seems like trolling to me, but why would Blizzard troll their own customers?
|
I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change.
|
On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Nerfing proxies is the goal.
|
Someone can explain Hydra change more clearly? I'm confused as it's third change in past 3 weeks
|
On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Proxy cyclones and other one base builds of that fashion were a big part of the meta the last time the cyclone was like this. People will just have to dig up build orders from 2016. Really the problem I see is that people will keep proxying because there's still little appeal to playing a "normal" TvP.
|
On October 10 2018 05:32 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Proxy cyclones and other one base builds of that fashion were a big part of the meta the last time the cyclone was like this. People will just have to dig up build orders from 2016. Really the problem I see is that people will keep proxying because there's still little appeal to playing a "normal" TvP. People busted out those builds every so often but they never seemed very good.
Cyclones were a lot better at defending rather than attacking back then.
|
The proxy meta is bullshit though so that can only be a welcoming change. Although in the wrong direction imo, the 3.8 one sucked as well, too much need and potential for micro.
The carrier change seems reasonable, some pros recommended that (before 4.0 or last years patch, don't remember). It doesn't make them stronger than the live version.
|
On October 10 2018 05:34 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:32 Elentos wrote:On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Proxy cyclones and other one base builds of that fashion were a big part of the meta the last time the cyclone was like this. People will just have to dig up build orders from 2016. Really the problem I see is that people will keep proxying because there's still little appeal to playing a "normal" TvP. People busted out those builds every so often but they never seemed very good. They were very strong if the Protoss didn't go robo. Prism micro shut them down quite hard. Still, there were all kinds of cheesy-ish builds going around back then, but just as it was getting interesting Blizzard patched it out. There were also a lot of straight up one base 1-1-1's.
But back then Terran had a better time in normal games vs Toss than now honestly. So for a longer series it was ok that the proxies were way more all-in than the current ones.
|
On October 10 2018 05:35 leublix wrote: The proxy meta is bullshit though so that can only be a welcoming change. Although in the wrong direction imo, the 3.8 one sucked as well, too much need and potential for micro.
The carrier change seems reasonable, some pros recommended that (before 4.0 or last years patch, don't remember). It doesn't make them stronger than the live version. Mech needs a micro-able unit that isn't a Hellion. More micro potential is never a bad thing.
|
On October 10 2018 04:38 MockHamill wrote: So Carriers get to keep their increased hit points, their faster build rate and have their old damage back? Are Blizzard realizing that they are making Carriers even stronger compared to the live version? The unit that with some HT support basically dominates everything when they get their numbers up?
I am stunned.
With no Gravitron Catapult and it taking nearly twice as long to rebuild interceptors, they are still quite a bit more fragile than in the past. Without Gravitron Catapult, they can no longer burst damage down units. Now carriers will need support since it will take time for them to get to full power so mass carrier likely won't be nearly as viable. Killing interceptors will now effectively take carriers out of the game for a significant amount of time.
They had to do some kind of compromise with the carrier. In the state they were in prior to this update to the balance patch they were basically useless. Removing Gravitron Catapult in itself is a massive nerf to carriers.
I'm not shocked by the cyclone change. Something had to give. I saw a lot of Protoss streamers getting destroyed by proxy cyclone/SCV auto-repair all-ins even when blind preparing for it upon scouting a proxy was happening (or getting faked out and ending up way behind). At the same time, it looked like the cyclone was pretty useless any time past the 5 minute mark outside of niche strategies like targeting down the third with 4-6 of them.
That hydra change is starting to approach something reasonable. It's now nearly a 9% attack speed nerf instead of around 5%. Hopefully it will be enough to discourage zergs from just rushing lair and going for mass hydra timings in PvZ. That got pretty old to play against a long time ago and it's still quite common. Every game comes down to whether or not the 1-2 storms you can afford at the time the attack hits does enough damage to clean up the hydras. If the storms don't do enough damage, the game is over the extreme majority of the time. It'd be an entirely different thing if it was a mixture of units, but quite often it's literally just a bunch of hydras hitting right after protoss gets their third established.
|
On October 10 2018 05:29 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Nerfing proxies is the goal.
Yeah I get that, I don't think the proxy meta is healthy for the game, but I don't think macro TvP is ever a good situation for Terran to be in right now, so if proxies are nerfed I'd like to see other changes to Terran that effect mid and late game tvp maybe a reduction in the cost of transitioning to ghosts or a change that makes ravens a more excesable option as a suport unit, perhaps thier cost could be reduced now that they no longer do any dmg with missle. I feel like the raven has the potential to be a pivotal tvp unit if it were not so expensive. With interference matrix and antiarmor effecting sheilds it could be like the ghost but for Terran vs robo tech, right now though you only see Terran ever get 1 or 2 if they get them at all because the starport time and the gas must go to medivacs, if Terran could more easily build them in addition to medivac out of a second starport they might see more use but the 200 gas cost and techlab requirment prity much deters this.
or something to help Terran with Protoss's upgrade lead, maybe a cheaper armory. Maybe something to make a small number of blink stalkers less effective at controlling the map.
|
So, Blizzard is basically saying: Don't let them get there ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ But at the same time, doesn't want to see proxies. Pretty conflicting desu.
|
maybe make liberator lab unit too but nerf queen aa range? it would fit in prism pick up range nerf and will make banshee play in tvz more appealing than now.
|
These changes are going the right direction. The carrier nerf before was really silly to look at seeing all these carriers do literally no damage. This change makes carrier more of a support unit that can still deal reliable damage overtime but isn't going to be soloing down armies. Carrier launchers are still removed and interceptor build time still increased. Not sure why terrans are complaining about carrier because BC have always and still are the hard counter to carrier and BC are now getting buffed to also be good vs ground units which should give terrans a real lategame to switch to. Imagine how cool its going to be to run 3-4 bcs across a mineral line in lategame cleaning up alot of probes and then teleporting out as soon as protoss responds.
The change to cyclone is unexpected but welcome. the change removes proxy cyclone as a viable strategy which based on the notes seems to be the intention because currently when terran proxies protoss sees 1 depot and 2 gas but it could be proxy hellion drop, proxy widow mine drop, cyclone/marauder allin tank/lib/reactor marine 1/1/1 all in, reactor cyclone proxy cloak banshee cc macro play. Currently vs alot of these cyclone variations the only defense is to cut warpate and spend all chronos on stalker from 1 gate and build robo and also chrono immortal. this response is not very good vs other variations and awful if terran cc'd behind it which turns the game into blind luck whether the probe can find the spot on the map terran happened to build key buildings. Removing reactor cyclone variation allows protoss to not die if they didn't rush robo immortal.
Reverting the damage of Hydra back to HoTS is the right move. Hydralisk got an HP buff of 12% and an attack damage buff of 9% turning smaller groups of hydra into literal death balls. No other unit has been buffed so heavily. Hydra are still going to be the go to unit but maybe after this change we will see more fair trades between hydra and chargelot/archon and possibly zerg mixing in more tanky units like roaches to buy hydra enough time to clear everything because currently most units die before they are able to really do much damage to hydralisks.
I'd also like an update on some of the not so great design changes like making recall small and spammable, making tempests kite everything o.O? Also not a fan of the shield battery hp change. Something I thought of for shield battery is to reduce the shield regen rate by 25% but decrease cost of battery back to 75 minerals. This might solve the proxy robo build problem because only 1 shield battery can heal a unit at a time which decreases the amount of dps needed to damage down an immortal by 25%. Some possible problems is whether or not 1 shield battery will still outheal an oracle or a banshee and numbers can be tweaked to maintain the current 1:1 2:1 counter relationship
|
RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game.
|
Maybe sOs can win Blizzcon with carriers now.
|
we'll be reverting the Hydralisk's attack speed back to its Heart of the Swarm value of 0.59 Huh? I never knew Hydras got an attack speed buff. Is this true?
|
On October 10 2018 07:18 Zephyp wrote: Maybe sOs can win Blizzcon with carriers now. I think you mean B L I N K D T
|
On October 10 2018 07:23 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +we'll be reverting the Hydralisk's attack speed back to its Heart of the Swarm value of 0.59 Huh? I never knew Hydras got an attack speed buff. Is this true?
They got an attack speed buff in HotS:
Hydralisk (Heart of the Swarm)
Hydralisks got buffed in three ways--attack speed, movement speed, and HP--from WoL to LotV. They're rolling back one of those buffs.
|
On October 10 2018 07:25 yht9657 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 07:18 Zephyp wrote: Maybe sOs can win Blizzcon with carriers now. I think you mean B L I N K D T
I can see it now, an sOs Serral final. Serral the foreigner hope, the first to get to a blizzcon final and maybe, just maybe the first to win it. It's game seven, tied 3-3 and Serral is going into his signature burrowed roach play, amassing an unstoppable end game army composition. Suddenly he hears the announcer stating he is being attacked. He looks to his mineral lines and sees it being slaughtered by dts. He hastens to get an overseer and a portion of his army back to save his workers only to find the dt has blinked to another mineral line. Suddenly, he's 20 workers down and with a chargelot DT push sOs wins his 3rd Blizzcon title, crushing the foreigner dream.
|
On October 10 2018 04:54 Fango wrote: Protoss is almost universally considered the least mechanically demanding race. Why does it get so many QoL changes? 1) if this were wikipedia you'd be required to have a source for the first statement xD 2) all races should get QoL changes whenever they are deemed beneficial to player comfort. the entire concept of a QoL change is something that makes the game more playable, and playability is the ground zero goal of all games. if QoL makes toss "easier" then you can continue with more tweaks. the slippery slope goes all the way back to BW with multi building select. games should be modern, not UI wars
|
|
4.73?
Remind me what is the on and off creep speed of speedlings
|
On October 10 2018 07:47 Cricketer12 wrote: 4.73?
Remind me what is the on and off creep speed of speedlings
6.58/8.55
|
On October 10 2018 05:49 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 05:29 Athenau wrote:On October 10 2018 05:27 washikie wrote: I'm worried about tvp ballance after this cyclone change, cyclone is the backbone of the proxy meta and w nerf to it is a nerf to all proxy strats, I'm gine with that if they give Terran better tools to play a normal tvp but right now I think tvp is going to be busted if this change goes through. Terran and Protoss need further adjustment after this kind of change. Nerfing proxies is the goal. Yeah I get that, I don't think the proxy meta is healthy for the game, but I don't think macro TvP is ever a good situation for Terran to be in right now, so if proxies are nerfed I'd like to see other changes to Terran that effect mid and late game tvp maybe a reduction in the cost of transitioning to ghosts or a change that makes ravens a more excesable option as a suport unit, perhaps thier cost could be reduced now that they no longer do any dmg with missle, the I feel like the raven has the potential to be a pivotal tvp unit if it were not so expensive, or something to help Terran with Protoss's upgrade lead, maybe a cheaper armory. Maybe something to make a small number of blink stalkers less effective at controlling the map.
I'm actually pretty optimistic for macro TvP after all these changes hit the ladder. Just compare both terran and protoss units to a time where TvP wasn't a complete shit show. pre 4.0 was pretty decent i think.
Marauder - straight up better Widow Mine - not clocked from the start but produces faster Ghost - change in cost, they are easier to afford Viking - +10hp Raven - imo Interference Matrix and Anti-Armor Missile are better than PDD and seeker in TvP (Battlecruiser - we don't know yet if he will have a good position in the game)
Stalker - straight up better Sentry - bigger guardian shield Disruptor - same as pre 4.0 but I want to point out that this change is huge for TvP, the best change in this patch! Colossus - a lot better vs marines but a lot worse against Marauders high Templar - feedback nerf Tempest - probably better than pre 4.0 but we have to see how this plays out
Overall I think terran can be very happy with these changes.
|
On October 10 2018 07:14 Charoisaur wrote: RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game.
You think so? I don't recall that early protoss and zerg pushes were broken pre 3.8.
|
On October 10 2018 04:54 Fango wrote: I still don't understand the warpgate change. Protoss is almost universally considered the least mechanically demanding race. Why does it get so many QoL changes?
The high remplar auto attack, adept shade movement, observer stationary mode, and now auto transforming warpgates (which is the most pointless one yet). I'm not sure why they think toss is the race that needs it's skill floor lowered.
SC2 pros already have a tough time distinguishing themselves. Making the game play itself doesn't help, and as far as I know no one asked for it (?).
You know that people who aren't pros play this game, and are just as if not arguably more important to Blizzard right? This is the kind of thing noone at Diamond 1 or higher would care about either way (i don't care that protoss gets this QoL improvement, it doesn't really make their race easier to play or harder for me to face), but makes the game greatly less frustrating for the casual player base. If you suggest good QoL improvements for other races that don't overpower them (no auto-creep spread or auto-muling) I'm sure Blizz will consider it. In fact the reason they reverted chrono boost was because it was too much of a QoL improvement.
|
On October 10 2018 08:06 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 07:14 Charoisaur wrote: RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game. You think so? I don't recall that early protoss and zerg pushes were broken pre 3.8. thats because you didnt play terran
|
On October 10 2018 08:06 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 07:14 Charoisaur wrote: RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game. You think so? I don't recall that early protoss and zerg pushes were broken pre 3.8. That's because terran had tankivacs back then. With neither tankivacs nor Cyclones Ravager rushes will be insanely strong.
|
Bring back tankivacs to! how else can we stop ravager rushes now?
|
Hydralisk's attack speed changed from .57 to .59. Now protoss can just go 2 base mass carriers and kite again
|
Old cyclone was a freaking amazing defensive tool. Its actually way better than the current cyclone, its only downside is that it something else for buffer but WP, oracles, immortals, roaches and ravagers (at least rushed) melted to cyclone without ever catching them.
Not for nothing it was nicknamed the terran MsC.
|
On October 10 2018 08:13 kOrc wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 04:54 Fango wrote: I still don't understand the warpgate change. Protoss is almost universally considered the least mechanically demanding race. Why does it get so many QoL changes?
The high remplar auto attack, adept shade movement, observer stationary mode, and now auto transforming warpgates (which is the most pointless one yet). I'm not sure why they think toss is the race that needs it's skill floor lowered.
SC2 pros already have a tough time distinguishing themselves. Making the game play itself doesn't help, and as far as I know no one asked for it (?). You know that people who aren't pros play this game, and are just as if not arguably more important to Blizzard right? This is the kind of thing noone at Diamond 1 or higher would care about either way (i don't care that protoss gets this QoL improvement, it doesn't really make their race easier to play or harder for me to face), but makes the game greatly less frustrating for the casual player base. If you suggest good QoL improvements for other races that don't overpower them (no auto-creep spread or auto-muling) I'm sure Blizz will consider it. In fact the reason they reverted chrono boost was because it was too much of a QoL improvement.
best qol change ever would be to let Terran select which side of the building the addon builds on if they have only one building selected, no more lost reactor to Allin cause spawned on wrong side of map.
|
This is madness. No! This is Balance Team!
|
On October 10 2018 10:33 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 08:13 kOrc wrote:On October 10 2018 04:54 Fango wrote: I still don't understand the warpgate change. Protoss is almost universally considered the least mechanically demanding race. Why does it get so many QoL changes?
The high remplar auto attack, adept shade movement, observer stationary mode, and now auto transforming warpgates (which is the most pointless one yet). I'm not sure why they think toss is the race that needs it's skill floor lowered.
SC2 pros already have a tough time distinguishing themselves. Making the game play itself doesn't help, and as far as I know no one asked for it (?). You know that people who aren't pros play this game, and are just as if not arguably more important to Blizzard right? This is the kind of thing noone at Diamond 1 or higher would care about either way (i don't care that protoss gets this QoL improvement, it doesn't really make their race easier to play or harder for me to face), but makes the game greatly less frustrating for the casual player base. If you suggest good QoL improvements for other races that don't overpower them (no auto-creep spread or auto-muling) I'm sure Blizz will consider it. In fact the reason they reverted chrono boost was because it was too much of a QoL improvement. best qol change ever would be to let Terran select which side of the building the addon builds on if they have only one building selected, no more lost reactor to Allin cause spawned on wrong side of map.
Agreed, this is a much needed QoL improvement for terran, it's too much RNG impact in a game like starcraft and changes building placement logic drastically just switching sides on the same map! I would be ok even if instead of letting you choose, it automatically chose the corner facing the terran's start location (so towards bottom left if you spawn bottom left, to top right if you spawn top right), that way it should always be inside your starting ramp and natural wall-in. This could also not require any unnecessary building UI for add-ons from having to choose.
|
|
On October 10 2018 08:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 08:06 MrWayne wrote:On October 10 2018 07:14 Charoisaur wrote: RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game. You think so? I don't recall that early protoss and zerg pushes were broken pre 3.8. That's because terran had tankivacs back then. With neither tankivacs nor Cyclones Ravager rushes will be insanely strong.
Yeah ravager rush is going to be much stronger agian, so will proxy hatch. might make this really strong in the meta in maps with shorter rush distances.
|
On October 10 2018 09:48 Lexender wrote: Old cyclone was a freaking amazing defensive tool. Its actually way better than the current cyclone, its only downside is that it something else for buffer but WP, oracles, immortals, roaches and ravagers (at least rushed) melted to cyclone without ever catching them.
Not for nothing it was nicknamed the terran MsC.
In tvp and tvt yeah, in tvz it really was not that great unless you built a ton of them. I think this may have a larger than anticipated effect on terran's Allin defense in tvz, it also removes the punishing followups terran had vs Zerg allins you can't counter Allin with cyclones any more nor can you do a ton of dmg with tank drop harass to punish an Allin Zergs lack of creep. I might be wrong on this but it is a concern.
|
It's not a good idea changing back the old cyclone. Looking back... ravanger rush, proxy voidrays, oracles, and you're a dead man. Just a scratch on your cyclone, you're a dead man in minutes. You're dead. Did you hear me? You're dead!
|
proxy voidrays, oracles Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage.
|
I really would love to see the whiteboard in Blizz balance team conference room to see what the overall strategy play is for all the races. I don't understand what they're doing with some of this and seems like they're randomly throwing a dart at some sticky notes with suggested changes. The carrier situation is still pretty ridiculous.
|
Russian Federation54 Posts
Aiur heard my pleas. BlinkDT is now super good PvT unit. It was good even before but now its godlike This balance update becomes better and better. Though i prefer nerfed carriers rather than buffed
|
At this point I'd really rather they give up on Cyclones and bring back the Goliath. I think I mostly appreciate the other changes, with the exception of the Hydralisk nerf. I would greatly prefer the very slight HP nerf to the DPS nerf, as I would like for them to emphasize the fragility of the unit, which is part of what makes Hydras unique in SC2.
|
On October 10 2018 12:50 Pontius Pirate wrote: At this point I'd really rather they give up on Cyclones and bring back the Goliath. I think I mostly appreciate the other changes, with the exception of the Hydralisk nerf. I would greatly prefer the very slight HP nerf to the DPS nerf, as I would like for them to emphasize the fragility of the unit, which is part of what makes Hydras unique in SC2.
There's a bunch of reasons against bringing back the goliath, the main ones being:
- its role overlaps a ton with both the thor and the viking - mutas are already bad - it doesn't solve any of the core problems that mech faces in SCII
|
On October 10 2018 12:09 Athenau wrote:Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage. Now requires a Tech Lab to be built at the Factory. Dude...... you're dead before the first cyclone.
|
I remember the old cyclones. I tried to use them in 100s of games vs Protoss until I realized they were useless.
If you had like 8 cyclones and Protoss started building disruptors suddenly you sat there with 32 supply that could not be used any more due to disruptor shots.
I think people are nostalgic about the cool micro you could do with the old cylones (and you could) but forget how easily Protoss made your cyclones dead supply.
|
Btw The number of terran openings now equals the number one. 1-1-1.
|
So let me get this straight about PvZ...
Protoss gets buffed disruptors (reverted version is crazy good against Zerg), buffed Collosus, lowered cost of robo (now it will be easier to mass immortals) and Zerg gets nerfed hydras to discourage them to make mass hydra timing?
Someone forgot, that Zergs were doing this timing because nothing else worked vs Protoss? So what we get to equal this nerf in PvZ context? I know that in ZvT mutas will be viable again (maybe). But what about PvZ?
Sounds like AGAIN Blizzard is reverting game to classic paper-rock-scizzors. Zerg will wreck Terran, Protoss will wreck Zerg, and Terran will wreck Protoss...Ehh...
|
On October 10 2018 12:09 Athenau wrote:Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage. The current response to proxy voidray is cyclone into reactor into swap to starport for double viking production. You can't fit a tech lab in there.
|
Since all of the recently released patch notes read like an entire comedy sketch, i'm going to just do it myself and list a bunch of changes that would make SC2 more of a healthy game for not only professional level of play (i'm talking for the entire WORLD rather than balancing the game for 10 S.Korean players in the closed off GSL tournament).
Here we go, if you agree, want any of these implemented, and find the patch suggestions that blizzard release basically to continuously be a joke, then feel free to comment. It's clear they have been out of touch with the SC2 scene for years now.
AVILO'S SET OF HEALTHY GAME BALANCE/DESIGN CHANGES FOR SC2:
Terran: Thor hyperballistic missile upgrade added into the game, requires fusioncore/armory to research. Increases thor javelin missile splash damage radius by .25 and changes the thor javelin missile damage to flat damage, also giving it bonus damage to capital air units (carriers, tempests, broodlords).
Allows for a lategame reponse to mass air, as well as dissuading mass air gameplay.
Cyclone - sure, revert it to the time that it previously didn't suck, but decrease supply to 2, reactor-able, and re-focus it's design usage on countering mass air units (make it similar to SC1 goliath). In LOTV beta, you could go tank/cyclone similar to tank goliath because the anti-air lock on automatically targetted interceptors and was very strong, had longer range, etc. Return the game to a state similar to this.
Nuke cost changed to 50/50 - simple change, exactly same as nydus worm cost changes. Allow nukes to be more viable. If it's ok to buff Zerg's equivalent, Terran deserves the same love for all levels of play.
Vikings build-able from the factory, come out in ground mode, transformable after transformation servos upgrade is researched - sadly the counter to mass air is already in the game, myself and "darkblizzard" a map modder designed a balance mod with this exact type of change on it, ran a tournament, and proved that vikings from factories helped mech to counter mass air by ease of accessibility of vikings, and allow mass factories to be built, rather than requiring more gas investment in starports.
BCS - DO NOT BUFF THEM. Mass air needs to be weakened, not made more powerful. Liberators - liberator range is removed from the game, mass air is too powerful in all forms in SC2, tone it down.
Protoss:
Shield battery can either be removed from the game, or needs a severe nerf it's UNHEALTHY for SC2, too abuse-able in proxy play, which is where it's seen in 99% of games on the ladder. Blizzard is out of touch with how ridiculous this building is, it needs a severe nerf to it's healing, or a smaller max energy, something.
Carrier - all of the nerfs they planned PLUS interceptor cost REVERTED back to 25 minerals. This now allows a player to fight carriers the old fashioned way, by killing the interceptors which gives carriers back their severe weakness. Currently with 15 mineral interceptors there are situations where a Protoss player is able to save 1000's of minerals due to the cheaper cost. Revert interceptor cost back to 25 minerals is a huge deal.
Nexus recall - removed from the game. This is a get out of jail free card for bad positioning, over extending. It does not belong in SC2.
Tempests - do not buff them any further, mass air in all forms, for all races should be dissuaded. It is unhealthy for SC2.
Zealot charge price reverted to 200/200.
3 nexus TvP build must be addressed - LOTV changed income and build timings making PvT broken in Protosses favor. Either the nexus needs to cost 450 or perhaps chronoboost needs to be toned down, because there's currently an economical imbalance in PvT.
Warp prism range REVERTED to original pick up values. This does not belong in the game, it never did. It makes for a one sided situation where the Zerg/Terran has no counter play to a unit being instantly picked up from 5-6 range away. Revert it back to HOTS values.
Warp prism is given a gas cost of 50 gas. Cost now 200 minerals 150 gas. Another nerf to one of the currently most OP units in the game. Right now warp prisms are thrown away almost for free, as well as are too strong simply existing on the map, threatening mass counter attacks into bases. Giving it a gas cost means it now matters if you lose one.
Adept shade is no longer cancellable. This unit is another problem unit with very little to no counter play by the defender. Now the drawback is returned to it that if you shade in, you are committing to it and the opponent can have a valid defensive response.
Zerg:
Swarmhosts locusts no longer fly. Swarmhosts changed to light armor tag (now killable by hellions). Swarmhost price increased to 200/200 minerals (now limiting them to their true design purpose - build a "few" to harrass).
Swarmhosts do not belong in SC2. This unit + David Kim's negligence as a developer alone are partly how LoL became such a huge esport. This unit was one of the "SC2 killers." To this day there are people on the LoL subreddit, SC2 subreddit, forums, and elsewhere that will anecdotally joke about why they quit SC2 and how the game was at one point mass swarmhosts "those things that just made infinite units" along with broodlord infestor.
This unit has been broken for the last 1.5 yrs of LOTV. Myself, and every other mech player that didn't quit the game completely yet have been flaming and raging and pleading for this absolutely batshit broken unit to be addressed. With STILL zero response from blizzard. Either at this point they simply do not give a fuck, or they are purposely leaving it in it's current broken state to dissuade people from playing mech. That is unhealthy for SC2, and negligent on the developers parts.
I'm not going to even list any other Zerg changes here because at this point most people know the problems with mass queen, the previous hydra/bane buffs, etc. but the #1 most broken thing that needs to be fixed is the swarmhost.
Zerg is probably the most well designed race in general because you can do anything and it'll work if you execute it well. Although, that may be because the race at it's core has received so many buffs over the last few years that Zerg is pretty op in general. Corruptor piss on buildings, corruptor speed buff, lurker upgrade in the game, adrenal, list goes on, there have been COUNTLESS Zerg buffs introduced to every single unit in the game except the drone, so it's no wonder Zerg is the dominant race in pro play (except GSL that was largely Terran since SC2's inception).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To sum up:
Blizzard's patch notes say NOTHING about Swarmhosts. LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. Let's discuss it here on the forums, probably one of the last places that gives a fuck about SC2. Let's talk about swarmhosts. Get it on the developers radar. IT should have already been on their radar over a year ago, which leads me to believe they simply are purposely ignoring it or do not give a fuck.
Talk about swarmhosts, why is it not mentioned at all in these new patch notes? Let's get it fixed, and addressed.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
"few to harass" while they can be killed by massable fast MINERAL ONLY land unit(uh...) and they cannot effectively harass because you took away the flying locusts? Are you reading what you write or your Terran bias makes you blind?
|
On October 10 2018 16:20 deacon.frost wrote: "few to harass" while they can be killed by massable fast MINERAL ONLY land unit(uh...) and they cannot effectively harass because you took away the flying locusts? Are you reading what you write or your Terran bias makes you blind?
The unit does not belong in competitive play, let alone ladder play in any form. I've played both Zerg/Terran from both sides of the match-up, beaten many mech players not even building a single swarmhost.
They are un-necessary and actively harm the health of the game whenever they are viable in any way. They need multiple nerfs/fixes so that they're not a part of the meta because their only purpose in this game is to make mech play not viable.
They also break the fundamental rules of the game by creating free armies repeatedly that would normally cost resources. If anything, they should flat out be removed from the game, they serve no purpose in SC2 other than making players miserable and limiting strategic diversity, as well as forcing slow gameplay.
|
On October 10 2018 15:10 hiroshOne wrote: So let me get this straight about PvZ...
Protoss gets buffed disruptors (reverted version is crazy good against Zerg), buffed Collosus, lowered cost of robo (now it will be easier to mass immortals) and Zerg gets nerfed hydras to discourage them to make mass hydra timing?
Someone forgot, that Zergs were doing this timing because nothing else worked vs Protoss? So what we get to equal this nerf in PvZ context? I know that in ZvT mutas will be viable again (maybe). But what about PvZ?
Sounds like AGAIN Blizzard is reverting game to classic paper-rock-scizzors. Zerg will wreck Terran, Protoss will wreck Zerg, and Terran will wreck Protoss...Ehh...
Disruptor isn't getting buffed its getting reverted. Blizzard intended to change the disruptor to be more reliable but less game changing, but they didn't intend for it to disappear vs zerg because it blew up vs a 25 mineral zergling. The revert means that the disruptor has a longer cool down and you can either split your units, run back, or target fire the disruptor before the timer pops. The disruptor was never changed because it was OP and stats never showed it being OP and it was a style used in conjunction with blink stalker, which have since been nerfed so even with reverted disruptor it prolly still won't be used vs zerg.
The colossus buff turret tracking doesnt increase the dps except for when its running away which probably means protoss lost already, secondly the colossus doesn't really exist in PvZ except for surprise all ins because its not very good vs non light units like roaches, sets zerg up to get cost effective corruptors that can later be morphed into broodlords, and if zerg doesn't wish to do either of those things, colossus can also be countered by lurkers or vipers. Robo buff hardly matters 50 minerals won't change outcome almost ever and protoss don't really care either way which way the change goes
The hydra isn't getting trash tiered or removed from the game and you can still do timings hydra are still going to dunk on gateway units and archons, they will just dunk on them slightly less giving protoss units a few more hits on the hydra before they die. Currently Muta's have a specific place in PvZ where if you get slightly ahead you can close out the game spawning 7-9 mutas, but aren't good if they are fast teched to and protoss sees it coming and has the ability to respond. tbh its a good place to be in because making ling/muta a viable playstyle just reverts to baserace and or/turtle play which is kinda boring and has been going on since the game started.
What is zerg getting in this patch for PvZ? Carrier is losing DPS, Feedback is getting nerfed pretty hard to where it won't be able to kill anything even if it has full energy so lategame Zerg is pretty buffed allowing feedbacked vipers and queens to micro back and get transfused. Shield battery is losing 50 shields and 50 hit points or 25% of its durability. Recall is getting pretty largely nerfed which will reduce protoss mobility in lategame and nerf protoss baserace chances. It sucks when your race gets nerfed especially when its a strategy you like to use, but by pretty much every metric we have from ladder representation, aligulac player performance, aligulac winrates etc, measuring how balanced the game is PvZ has been pretty zerg favored for two years now so its not so surprising that the balance team is going to look into adjusting the stats of units that seem to be overperforming and skewing the results.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On October 10 2018 16:33 avilo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 16:20 deacon.frost wrote: "few to harass" while they can be killed by massable fast MINERAL ONLY land unit(uh...) and they cannot effectively harass because you took away the flying locusts? Are you reading what you write or your Terran bias makes you blind? The unit does not belong in competitive play, let alone ladder play in any form. I've played both Zerg/Terran from both sides of the match-up, beaten many mech players not even building a single swarmhost. They are un-necessary and actively harm the health of the game whenever they are viable in any way. They need multiple nerfs/fixes so that they're not a part of the meta because their only purpose in this game is to make mech play not viable. They also break the fundamental rules of the game by creating free armies repeatedly that would normally cost resources. If anything, they should flat out be removed from the game, they serve no purpose in SC2 other than making players miserable and limiting strategic diversity, as well as forcing slow gameplay. Then grow balls and say you want to remove them and don't say anything else. This "balancing" them into unusable state is just a poor hypocrisy. They are necessary to fight turtling mech players. If you want to remove them(and I wouldn't really mind) we need to address that(and while this doesn't work on the top level - everything works on lower levels).
SO, unless you wanna weaken the turtling capabilities of mech...
|
Looks like he wants to remove protoss in general.. Come on, I don't understand why Blizzard even posts these updates here (maybe they are just reported from somewhere else) when every time you have the same 3 posters who advocate for mass turtle mech and over nerfing everything else (no matter what is the content of the balance update) Avilo's post is just not serious, and everyone knows it, but for some reason it gets taken into discussion watering down every attempt at discussing the actual changes
|
Old disruptor trashed Hydras and Roaches. It's not bio in stim u know? Splitting doesn't work here the same way. It's not as effective. On the old dusruptors we saw very often hiw Zerg could not ever engage Protoss with 4 or more disruptors. Not without Vipers, which are wrecked by HT feedback anyway. Just go watch some vods from LOTV beginning.
|
On October 10 2018 17:18 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 16:33 avilo wrote:On October 10 2018 16:20 deacon.frost wrote: "few to harass" while they can be killed by massable fast MINERAL ONLY land unit(uh...) and they cannot effectively harass because you took away the flying locusts? Are you reading what you write or your Terran bias makes you blind? The unit does not belong in competitive play, let alone ladder play in any form. I've played both Zerg/Terran from both sides of the match-up, beaten many mech players not even building a single swarmhost. They are un-necessary and actively harm the health of the game whenever they are viable in any way. They need multiple nerfs/fixes so that they're not a part of the meta because their only purpose in this game is to make mech play not viable. They also break the fundamental rules of the game by creating free armies repeatedly that would normally cost resources. If anything, they should flat out be removed from the game, they serve no purpose in SC2 other than making players miserable and limiting strategic diversity, as well as forcing slow gameplay. Then grow balls and say you want to remove them and don't say anything else. This "balancing" them into unusable state is just a poor hypocrisy. They are necessary to fight turtling mech players. If you want to remove them(and I wouldn't really mind) we need to address that(and while this doesn't work on the top level - everything works on lower levels). SO, unless you wanna weaken the turtling capabilities of mech...
Except they're not necessary to fight turtling mech? I've proven that as many other players have. When i ZvT i almost never use swarmhosts and still crush "meching Terrans." Maybe it's your lack of game knowledge about Zerg or how to fight versus mech?
I mean, considering i've played mech since SC2 released, maybe i just have a better understanding than the average player on "how to beat mech with zerg."
Mech is easily beatable with just nydus worms, drops, or just flat out making 5-10 vipers every single game. You personally unable to beat mech is an entirely seperate problem for the issue that swarmhosts are an absolutely broken unit by design.
Swarmhosts are definitely "beatable" but the fact you can amass an army of 40 swarmhosts is very unhealthy for the game, and obviously broken. Trying to defend a broken unit is probably not a good sign of being unbiased.
As a matter of fact, the last times i personally played Zerg vs mech i didn't even use vipers - i amassed pure ling lurker armies with hydra remaxes and was able to crush 200/200 mech armies without even using blinding cloud or abduct.
Your arguments don't address the fact that swarmhosts are fundamentally broken and overpowered specifically only versus mech play. They literally only exist in the game to be a cancer to people that want to play mech instead of bio. They need a removal/severe nerfs and there is STILL no word from blizzard even in this most recent update, despite the fact there's been 3 updates now with NOTHING about them.
It's time people start talking about swarmhosts and get blizzard to openly fix them or openly state they don't care or that they are going to leave them as is.
|
On October 10 2018 17:38 VHbb wrote: Looks like he wants to remove protoss in general.. Come on, I don't understand why Blizzard even posts these updates here (maybe they are just reported from somewhere else) when every time you have the same 3 posters who advocate for mass turtle mech and over nerfing everything else (no matter what is the content of the balance update) Avilo's post is just not serious, and everyone knows it, but for some reason it gets taken into discussion watering down every attempt at discussing the actual changes
My post is entirely serious, there has been an economic imbalance of 3 nexus vs both Z/T for a long time now, and it was only exacerbated with the introduction of shield batteries.
Protoss as a race has the most cost efficient units, and traditionally was not supposed to be able to get 3 bases at the same time or before Terran/Zerg.
Currently look at the amount of masters, GM, and pro+ games where Protoss has 3 bases fully saturated at the same time as the Zerg player or in PvT's case....they have 3 base full saturation while the Terran third orbital is quite literally just flying over to the third location.
Things like warp prism pick up range put the micro only in the hands of the Protoss with no counter-play from the Z/T. It doesn't matter if winrates are 99-0 against Protoss, if a mechanic is broken, or absurd, it should be addressed, and then balance can be tweaked after core design things are addressed.
Protoss design as a whole right now is quite terrible. The race is literally designed around "bullshitting" your opponent. Until those things are addressed, nothing else can really be "balanced" with the race.
You think i want to "nerf Protoss" when it's clear the race has fundamental design issues. Carriers are not supposed to counter every single unit in the game when you build 10 of them with 5 high templar. The amount of all-ins proxy play that Protoss arguably has to rely on to play at a high level is also quite bad.
As are things like cannon/shield battery rushes that, by the way, helped push players like snute into retirement. I say this is an aside, but i'm quite literally angry for players like snute. A pro i respected that played good late game macro games, literally gets owned by rejects in tournaments off 1 base that build 10 shield batteries outside his base.
Do you understand how frustrating that is to lose to things that basically require zero skill or practice to do? Things like that absolutely turn off people from playing the game, and when they affect the most hardcore to the point even they hate playing it...that's when it's an issue and justifiably needs fixes. (and no i'm not speaking for snute here, i'm speaking in general, and for myself. Tho...a ton of the most hardcore SC2 people/streamers absolutely hate playing the game in it's current form and have been fed up with it for a long time, but refuse to speak up about it for their own respective reasons).
Unless you're defending things like mass shield battery proxy games vs Zerg and Terran? Are people of the mindset these are helping out SC2 retain players in any way?
Do not look at the small picture. Look at the big picture. Things of this nature should be addressed and patched out of the game because they're simply shit game mechanics.
|
Avilo is at least right on mass air. Since BL/infestors, mass air in SC2 is terrible. Probably due to stackable (zero collision) air units, plus SC2 maps relying exclusively on cliffs, but each time mass air is viable in any MU it's a real cancer to the opponent. Hey you could have half the economy of opponent, and spend half on it on static defenses, it's still fine you have the best army every that can a-move to victory (and, yeah, recall, because why not LOL ?)
TvP macro issues come from openings, the cheap protoss chronoboosted upgrades, and recall. Terrans trying to legit macro with viable early builds finds sometimes themsleves 1/1 vs 3/3. It's not even they have more hight-tech units (some ghost or range libs vs some aoe damage) or propulation. Recall is way to strong vs drops, it punish them hard. Will see with the new recall. But at least the recalled army should not quasi instantly one-shoot everything, opponent should have more time to react.
|
Avilo, you do realize that every single one of your changes is a buff to terran or a nerf to either zerg or protoss. That should clue you in to how biased it is no matter how much you believe it. Not everything that you die to "doesn't belong in the game".
|
I would be better if Blizzard just reverted all the changes to the live version. They are trying too many things and are creating more problems than they solve.
The only thing that really needs to be changed is Carrier/HT combo Swarm Hosts against mech.
The first you could solve by reducing the interceptors from 8 to 6 but give them graviton catapult for free. The second you could solve by a price increase or making Swarm Hosts light so that hellions could chase them down.
Just change was needs to be changed and leave the rest of the game as it is. There is no reason to change 100 things at once and hope for the best.
|
On October 10 2018 15:20 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 12:09 Athenau wrote:proxy voidrays, oracles Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage. The current response to proxy voidray is cyclone into reactor into swap to starport for double viking production. You can't fit a tech lab in there. You don't need Vikings to shut down Voidrays with the pre 3.8 Cyclones. You get Vikings now because live Cyclone anti-air is SO bad.
Old lock-on with mag-field does 5(!) times the damage of the current lock-on.
|
On October 10 2018 18:13 ZackAttack wrote: Avilo, you do realize that every single one of your changes is a buff to terran or a nerf to either zerg or protoss. That should clue you in to how biased it is no matter how much you believe it. Not everything that you die to "doesn't belong in the game". Don't know why are you wasting your time with him, pretty much most of the pros consider Avilo to be a clown and just laugh at his suggestions. Not even mentioning that his level of play and the level at which actual pros are playing are miles apart.
On a more serious note, Blizzard have no clue what to do with Cyclone, this unit has been reworked bunch of times already and it never found a stable place except for a few every specific situations. I doubt that is going to change this time.
|
I've been shilling for lock-on ever since they were replaced with tornado blasters. today I am a very happy man. GOOD JOB BLIZZ
|
On October 10 2018 07:14 Charoisaur wrote: RIP Terran. Ravager rushes and early Protoss pushes will be unstoppable.. The Cyclone change will break terran early game.
complete and utter nonsense. ravager rushes were easier to stop with lock-on... warp prisms got BTFO by lock-on. oracles got BTFO by lock-on. the oracle (or was it stargate?) build time has been adjusted to compensate for the techlab build time
|
On October 10 2018 15:20 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 12:09 Athenau wrote:proxy voidrays, oracles Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage. The current response to proxy voidray is cyclone into reactor into swap to starport for double viking production. You can't fit a tech lab in there.
no it isn't. the meta at the top level of korean play is to make 2 starports without add-ons so the game doesn't immediately end when the reactor is sniped. see: keen vs hero
also, nobody at the top level of korean play builds a tornado blaster cyclone vs proxy void ray. the current response is to cancel your natural CC, pump widow mines, build a tank, pump x 2 vikings from 2 starports, pump x 2 marines. if toss builds loads of shield batteries in your natural, you simply fly all your vikings across the map, force a recall of his void rays, then walk down the ramp with 1 tank, mines and marines and kill all his shield batteries.
|
Yet an other update showing they don't really know what to do with the cyclone. Sad!
|
I think they should keep this cyclone with some slight changes. I think ideally
+ 30 hp (150 hp from 120) + 1 range (6 from 5) - 300 damage over 14 seconds (from 400 over 14) - Mag field 300 (+400 damage vs armored over 14 seconds) + Cyclone requires no addon to be built
I think lockons damage should be weaker until people get mag-field accelerator (Because let's be honest unless you want to go mech you shouldn't be given that much damage) Additionally I think this unit will need to have somewhat more HP so it can hold some cheeses or have some survivability vs new tanks in TvT or when holding cheeses. This could, however, be replaced by having it be a techlab unit instead of a reactor unit. This way you can get the unit out to hold a cheese but can't quite reactor it as it costs 4 supply. The change from techlab -> no requirement is big because holding things such as ravager allins, proxy 2gate, shield battery voidray, or any early on push you would have to get a techlab on the factory which already takes too long but then you would also have to get a unit worse than current siege tank and more supply heavy in the phase where supply maximum count is low. The way I imagine the current cyclone will interact in the game today is that it will either be a gimmick mech unit that people mass back the way they did in 2016 or it will be made to hold warp prism / banshee (It actually does hold speed prism really well) But that is assuming your opponent did not put on any pressure to punish the lack of an early game defensive unit
|
I don't really have valid opinions on the balance changes due to the lack of complete understanding of the game, but I see absolutely no point in the automation of Warpgate. While the action being quite minimal and doesn't require the biggest focus in-game, it's always been a core fundamental task for Protoss players. I just don't see the necessity for this change; we're talking about a game that's supposed to be mechanically intensive in the end.
|
On October 10 2018 21:49 Ryu3600 wrote: I think they should keep this cyclone with some slight changes. I think ideally
+ 1 range (6 from 5)
woooooooah, I didn't notice this when I first read the OP. this is a serious mistake in the balance notes!
the 3.8 version of lock-on is supposed to have an activation range of 7, not 5.
the 3.8 version did indeed have an activation range of 5 for long time, but this was because of a bug that went unresolved for months. check it out:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/503667-serious-problem-or-bug-on-cyclone
|
On October 10 2018 15:20 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 12:09 Athenau wrote:proxy voidrays, oracles Wat? Lock-on cyclones are way better vs voidrays and oracles. Live cyclone AA is garbage. The current response to proxy voidray is cyclone into reactor into swap to starport for double viking production. You can't fit a tech lab in there.
You don't need to if the cyclone IS your form of defense, cyclones deal 400 damage over 14 seconds and can do some from a range of 15, they are way better than vikings in lower numbers, if you go for TL, get magfield and cyclones 3-4 I don't see how voidrays would do anything to you. A single cyclone with magfield kills a void ray in about 5 seconds, its no joke how they are against them.
Even just going for 1-2 without magfield is much better because they can actually kill void rays until vikings are out, not to mention they are way better at dealing with the initial oracle that current cyclones.
Before the patch there were gas first cyclone expand builds that were really good because they offered defense and map control and considering that was back when pylon overcharge still existed, imagine a cyclone arriving in a protoss were he only has a stalker and a battery on the way, thats some good potential damage without much investment.
|
On October 10 2018 22:14 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 21:49 Ryu3600 wrote: I think they should keep this cyclone with some slight changes. I think ideally
+ 1 range (6 from 5)
woooooooah, I didn't notice this when I first read the OP. this is a serious mistake in the balance notes! the 3.8 version of lock-on is supposed to have an activation range of 7, not 5. the 3.8 version did indeed have an activation range of 5 for long time, but this was because of a bug that went unresolved for months. check it out: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/503667-serious-problem-or-bug-on-cyclone
Thats the auto attack range, lock on range is still 7.
|
On October 10 2018 22:22 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 22:14 SHODAN wrote:On October 10 2018 21:49 Ryu3600 wrote: I think they should keep this cyclone with some slight changes. I think ideally
+ 1 range (6 from 5)
woooooooah, I didn't notice this when I first read the OP. this is a serious mistake in the balance notes! the 3.8 version of lock-on is supposed to have an activation range of 7, not 5. the 3.8 version did indeed have an activation range of 5 for long time, but this was because of a bug that went unresolved for months. check it out: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/503667-serious-problem-or-bug-on-cyclone Thats the auto attack range lock, on range is still 7.
uh... wait a minute. looks like I've been quoting the wrong version number of the cyclone. looks like Blizzard have also been quoting the wrong version number of the cyclone.
Blizzard have made a typo in their notes.
the version of the cyclone they are describing is the pre-3.8 cyclone.
the 3.8 cyclone is the tornado blaster version (aka, the current live version). this is according to the liquipedia notes:
Cyclone
the pre-3.8 version is supposed to have an activation range of 7, including auto-cast!
the bug existed for most of pre-3.8 and reduced its auto-cast activation range to 5. this bug did not affect its manual cast range.
this bug was fixed 3 months before 3.8 (aka, tornado blasters) were introduced. the the fixed pre-3.8 version of the cyclone had 7 auto-cast activation range
|
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3idKHdJp_YAJ:us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/20372512/starcraft-ii-legacy-of-the-void-380-patch-notes-11-21-2016 &cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b-ab
(cached because the url ain't loading)
here are the 3.8 patch notes for the cyclone:
Cyclone
The anti-ground weapon has been heavily changed. Damage changed from 18 to 3 (+2 vs armored). Range decreased from 5 to 4, and the new "Mag-Field Launchers" upgrade gives +2 range. Attack period change from .7 seconds to .1 seconds and random delays removed. Weapon upgrade amount changed from 2 to 1 to account for the new damage value. Changed weapon name to Tornado Blaster. No anti-air weapon. Movement speed decreased from 4.72 to 4.13. Lock On can now target air units and air structures only. Range is unchanged, and the ability now deals 160 damage over 14 seconds. Removed auto-cast for the Lock On ability. Supply cost decreased from 4 to 3. Increased health from 120 to 180. The Cyclone no longer requires a Tech Lab, and can now be built with a Reactor. The Cyclone auto-attack missile art has been adjusted to reduce visual clutter. The missiles fired from the Lock On ability are unchanged. Removed the Cyclone Lock On Damage upgrade from the Factory Tech Lab.
in other words, the live version (tornado blasters) IS the 3.8 version!
so... the cyclone Blizzard are describing in Balance Mod Update Oct 9, 2018 is the pre-3.8 version.
|
lol guys calm down, no they didn't made a typo, you are simply mixing two different things up.
Pre 3.8 cyclone had 2 forms of attack.
-Lock on: Activated ability, 7 range, 400 damage, both ground and air. -Auto attack: The normal attack of the unit, 5 range, 18 damage, can also target both ground and air.
Before nobody ever talked about that attack because it was garbagge, however the cyclone did have a normal attack that would be used when either lock was on cooldown or if the auto cast was deactivated and an attack comman was issued.
The reason Blizzard is mentioning that attack is that current 4.0 cyclone has a more distinctive difference between the 2, the ground only auto attack and the air only AA activated ability.
However test patch cyclone is very much the 7 range, 400 damage, ground and air lock on we all know and love.
|
On October 10 2018 23:08 Lexender wrote: lol guys calm down, no they didn't made a typo, you are simply mixing two different things up.
Pre 3.8 cyclone had 2 forms of attack.
-Lock on: Activated ability, 7 range, 400 damage, both ground and air. -Auto attack: The normal attack of the unit, 5 range, 18 damage, can also target both ground and air.
Before nobody ever talked about that attack because it was garbagge, however the cyclone did have a normal attack that would be used when either lock was on cooldown or if the auto cast was deactivated and an attack comman was issued.
The reason Blizzard is mentioning that attack is that current 4.0 cyclone has a more distinctive difference between the 2, the ground only auto attack and the air only AA activated ability.
However test patch cyclone is very much the 7 range, 400 damage, ground and air lock on we all know and love.
pre-3.8 cyclone didn't have an auto-attack. it just sat there doing nothing until the lock-on cooldown was over. at least that is my memory... but yeah, I get it now :D they took the pre-3.8 cyclone and added a weak auto attack
|
So one Terran finding success means you need to nerf cyclones? Why don't you listen to your own advice and let the meta sort itself out. It's only a matter of time before Maru's proxies get crushed.
TY has already show-cased one of the potential weakness in Maru's proxies. When Maru's proxy fails, he goes 3cc to catch up while flying his rax home. His rax aren't making units or addons. This severely cuts his unit production leaving him open to a counter push.
For protoss, the only real proxy threat is reactor cyclone and they would recognize it faster by scouting directly vs trying to find it in fog of war. Build some more stalkers and a shield battery and you're done. Lift with pheonix. Attack with oracle/VR. Chrono immo in the meantime. Whatever. All this does is keep Protoss honest instead of letting them get a stupidly fast 3-4min third base followed by their double forge and 8-10 gate explosion. If Protoss could do that every game, Terran has no timing whatsoever.
Zerg is probably the most tricky. If they hold the 2 rax proxy, Terran will be mainly be relying on factory and starport units to defend. I've seen a queen nydus attack kill Maru before but I forget how well they held the proxy and when the scouting rax was killed. Either way, Leenock and Reynor were in a prime position to eliminate Maru from the GSL so it's not like he's invincible in that match-up either.
|
On October 10 2018 23:36 SHODAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 10 2018 23:08 Lexender wrote: lol guys calm down, no they didn't made a typo, you are simply mixing two different things up.
Pre 3.8 cyclone had 2 forms of attack.
-Lock on: Activated ability, 7 range, 400 damage, both ground and air. -Auto attack: The normal attack of the unit, 5 range, 18 damage, can also target both ground and air.
Before nobody ever talked about that attack because it was garbagge, however the cyclone did have a normal attack that would be used when either lock was on cooldown or if the auto cast was deactivated and an attack comman was issued.
The reason Blizzard is mentioning that attack is that current 4.0 cyclone has a more distinctive difference between the 2, the ground only auto attack and the air only AA activated ability.
However test patch cyclone is very much the 7 range, 400 damage, ground and air lock on we all know and love. pre-3.8 cyclone didn't have an auto-attack. it just sat there doing nothing until the lock-on cooldown was over. at least that is my memory... but yeah, I get it now :D they took the pre-3.8 cyclone and added a weak auto attack Nope, your memory is wrong, it had an auto-attack that was just never considered because cyclones were only built for lock-on. The lock-on was its only redeeming value.
|
The cyclone should not be a 120 hp 4 supply unit that requires a techlab lmao the current siegetank is better in every way
|
So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. RIP cyclone.
Also 120 hp unit with 4 supply . I remember there was once another 4 supply unit called the tempest, but it had 450hp.
|
There are still zergs playing this game... NERFHAMMER
|
On October 11 2018 01:59 Loccstana wrote: So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. Last time it was in this state we called it Terran mothership core.
|
On October 11 2018 01:59 Loccstana wrote:So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. RIP cyclone. Also 120 hp unit with 4 supply . I remember there was once another 4 supply unit called the tempest, but it had 450hp. A unit that does 800dmg vs armored with 14 range ?
That new cyclon beat a BC alone without being touch if it doesn't yamato it.
It's freaking OP.
|
If we are talking QOL changes, can't we make swapping addons easier as terran? It's a pain in the ass.
|
On October 11 2018 03:08 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 01:59 Loccstana wrote:So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. RIP cyclone. Also 120 hp unit with 4 supply . I remember there was once another 4 supply unit called the tempest, but it had 450hp. A unit that does 800dmg vs armored with 14 range ? That new cyclon beat a BC alone without being touch if it doesn't yamato it. It's freaking OP. It's so OP that it was always built once and then never again because it sucks against everything except single air harass units.
|
On October 11 2018 03:51 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 03:08 Tyrhanius wrote:On October 11 2018 01:59 Loccstana wrote:So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. RIP cyclone. Also 120 hp unit with 4 supply . I remember there was once another 4 supply unit called the tempest, but it had 450hp. A unit that does 800dmg vs armored with 14 range ? That new cyclon beat a BC alone without being touch if it doesn't yamato it. It's freaking OP. It's so OP that it was always built once and then never again because it sucks against everything except single air harass units. It's pretty good against pylons and nexus tbh.
|
On October 11 2018 03:08 Tyrhanius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 11 2018 01:59 Loccstana wrote:So now the cyclone goes from a decent early game unit to the reaper 2.0. RIP cyclone. Also 120 hp unit with 4 supply . I remember there was once another 4 supply unit called the tempest, but it had 450hp. A unit that does 800dmg vs armored with 14 range ? That new cyclon beat a BC alone without being touch if it doesn't yamato it. It's freaking OP.
A viking can beat a BC alone with being touch if it doesn't yamato it
|
lock-on cyclones are the answer to swarm hosts. oh, you mindlessly sent all your swarm hosts across the map? gg, massive locust wave at my 4th base? well guess what, sweetie, my merry band of cyclone / hellion got to your 5th hatch first. yep, it's already dead. b-b-but, muh ravager swarm host contain! yeah, that ain't happening anymore. b-b-but you sacked your cyclones to do it, r-right? now I can just a-move... NOPE :D hate to bust your balls kid, but my 4.73 speed cyclones can outrange and outspeed everything you have on the ground. now zergs have to make infestors or lurkers to stop cyclones... it's so dirty I love it
|
There was a reason Blizzard changed the old cyclone in the first place. The old cyclones was completely useless while the current one is good early game and mediocre beyond that.
Just give the current cyclones more air damage with rapid fire launchers and it will work as a mobile support unit against air in the mid and late game. There is no point going back to a useless version of the cyclone when the current one could be made useful with a small adjustment.
|
I hate mech lobby. None of real starcraft players or spectators want mech being viable. It's boring and slow and always degrades eventually.
|
On October 11 2018 05:01 Elantris wrote: I hate mech lobby. None of real starcraft players or spectators want mech being viable. It's boring and slow and always degrades eventually.
Are you joking? The best game ever played in Starcraft 2 was a mech vs bio game, Innovation vs Taeja.
What makes SC2 interesting is variation and depth. If only bio or only mech was viable the game would be more limited compared to if both are viable.
The more play styles that can be used the more interesting the play and spectator experience becomes.
|
The old cyclones was completely useless while the current one is good early game and mediocre beyond that. No it wasn't.
|
On October 11 2018 04:27 SHODAN wrote: lock-on cyclones are the answer to swarm hosts. oh, you mindlessly sent all your swarm hosts across the map? gg, massive locust wave at my 4th base? well guess what, sweetie, my merry band of cyclone / hellion got to your 5th hatch first. yep, it's already dead. b-b-but, muh ravager swarm host contain! yeah, that ain't happening anymore. b-b-but you sacked your cyclones to do it, r-right? now I can just a-move... NOPE :D hate to bust your balls kid, but my 4.73 speed cyclones can outrange and outspeed everything you have on the ground. now zergs have to make infestors or lurkers to stop cyclones... it's so dirty I love it
congratulation man, you were so tenacious commenting in every single balance update thread, you deserve this change!
But I'm a little bit disappointed you didn't knew the old cyclone had a normal attack.
|
On October 11 2018 05:19 MockHamill wrote: The best game ever played in Starcraft 2 was a mech vs bio game
This is so terran.
|
So carriers are better in that they have more hit points (+12.5%) and a shorter build time (-26%) but worse in that interceptors take longer to produce (+45%) and don’t have the release interceptors upgrade detailed below.
With the upgrade the first four interceptors would come out at intervals of 0.09s (67% faster than patch version) and the last 4 at 0.18s (50% faster than patch version).
Carriers will definitely not be as strong as they were but they will be easier to produce, seems like a good trade to me. I play Protoss and I hate carriers with a passion, I want them to be a powerful option but not the be all and end all unit they are currently.
|
So many reverts make me really sad...
|
On October 11 2018 06:33 Fezvezfez wrote: So many reverts make me really sad... Many people (including myself) were complaining over the years because the balance team never reverted a bad change. Now they seem to be more mature and recognize their previous failed attempts.
So many reverts make me really happy...
|
A big thing about the old Disruptor was that in combination with the Warp Prism's pick up range it would wreck mineral lines over and over with hardly any risk involved.
I remember Nathanias abusing the old Cyclone for hours on end vP. Ultimately, it was removed/changed with some babbeling about not wanting to create a mech Marine, because there already is the Marine. On the whole, the old Cyclone never seemed to really fit with anything or anybody.
Bringing back both feels very strange.
|
On October 11 2018 07:47 QuinnTheEskimo wrote: A big thing about the old Disruptor was that in combination with the Warp Prism's pick up range it would wreck mineral lines over and over with hardly any risk involved.
I remember Nathanias abusing the old Cyclone for hours on end vP. Ultimately, it was removed/changed with some babbeling about not wanting to create a mech Marine, because there already is the Marine. On the whole, the old Cyclone never seemed to really fit with anything or anybody.
Bringing back both feels very strange.
"Not wanting to create a mech marine" makes no sense whatsoever. At least their rationale for reverting it is reasonable.
|
damn it blizzard i thought terran engineers said that old cyclones are fucking inefficient according on your twittter ? just give it a little more hp or lower it supply...
|
I'm a little late to the thread, but I just wanted to say that I hope the balance team seriously looks at just removing the cyclone from the Terran's lineup.
The balance team just can't figure out a good role for the unit. Why have a unit with no role.
Sometimes units are mistakes. The mothership core might have been a mistake. Maybe the cyclone too.
|
On October 12 2018 02:51 youngjiddle wrote: I'm a little late to the thread, but I just wanted to say that I hope the balance team seriously looks at just removing the cyclone from the Terran's lineup.
The balance team just can't figure out a good role for the unit. Why have a unit with no role.
Sometimes units are mistakes. The mothership core might have been a mistake. Maybe the cyclone too.
But the cyclone does have a role in All matchups in tvt its kind of a catch all deffensive unit that you can build to shore up your early game deffense, in tvp its the backbone enabler of the proxy meta, the threat of proxy reactor cyclone forces protoss to hold their front and allows Terran to instead do a drop or go for banshees. In tvz the cyclone is a unit you build when you scout some kind of Allin, it's great vs roaches, useful vs ravagers, and also helpful vs ling bane Allin. Another nice thing about the cyclone is it gives Terran a powerfull way to punish a zerg who's Allin has failed, the counter Allin potential of cyclones is an important aspect of the tvz meta, you might not see pros using them much but I think it's because they are good enough that Zerg are not going for 1 base allins much vs Terran.
Now you can argue that this role as an early game stabilizer is not a good one for the unit but I think it is. Both Zerg and toss have tools that are designed to be good at holding early game aggression. Protoss has shield battery's and Zerg has queens, the cyclone is like the Terran equivalent of this it's something Terran has that gives them stability and safety.
|
On October 12 2018 03:13 washikie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 02:51 youngjiddle wrote: I'm a little late to the thread, but I just wanted to say that I hope the balance team seriously looks at just removing the cyclone from the Terran's lineup.
The balance team just can't figure out a good role for the unit. Why have a unit with no role.
Sometimes units are mistakes. The mothership core might have been a mistake. Maybe the cyclone too. But the cyclone does have a role in All matchups in tvt its kind of a catch all deffensive unit that you can build to shore up your early game deffense, in tvp its the backbone enabler of the proxy meta, the threat of proxy reactor cyclone forces protoss to hold their front and allows Terran to instead do a drop or go for banshees. In tvz the cyclone is a unit you build when you scout some kind of Allin, it's great vs roaches, useful vs ravagers, and also helpful vs ling bane Allin. Another nice thing about the cyclone is it gives Terran a powerfull way to punish a zerg who's Allin has failed, the counter Allin potential of cyclones is an important aspect of the tvz meta, you might not see pros using them much but I think it's because they are good enough that Zerg are not going for 1 base allins much vs Terran. Now you can argue that this role as an early game stabilizer is not a good one for the unit but I think it is. Both Zerg and toss have tools that are designed to be good at holding early game aggression. Protoss has shield battery's and Zerg has queens, the cyclone is like the Terran equivalent of this it's something Terran has that gives them stability and safety.
Let me remind you that terran has the bunker+repair, a bunker that can be salvaged for it's money back.
Two base allins are pretty horrible vs terran right now too, due mostly to tank strength. Terran's don't make cyclones vs. a two base allin. The thing is terran has other units that fit the early defense role. for example in TvT a hellion is good vs early reapers. Instead currently, terran has to build some cyclones because if they don't, they will lose to the enemies cyclones.
right now, honestly, I feel the unit is pretty much used to cheese protoss, or to not die in TvT to the other enemies cyclones.
|
On October 12 2018 02:51 youngjiddle wrote: I'm a little late to the thread, but I just wanted to say that I hope the balance team seriously looks at just removing the cyclone from the Terran's lineup.
The balance team just can't figure out a good role for the unit. Why have a unit with no role.
Sometimes units are mistakes. The mothership core might have been a mistake. Maybe the cyclone too.
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss.
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
|
Not that these year end lets make drastic change updates dont normally baffle me..but this is going beyond.
There are a couple of universal issues with the game that basically everyone agrees on. I would like to focus on TVP
Tvp: Proxy play sucks to watch. Whether its OP or not is still up for debate and blizzcon provides a decent sample to test but its definitely not good for viewers.
Up through midgame balance is not terrible but t favored. Late mid game to all of late game is heavily toss favored.
If the t player is not 2 base all inn its too easy for the p player to saturate 3 base. Even if the T player takes a greedy third cc he wont keep up due to chrono grades on top of just plain overall better available tech late game.
Even IF the new BCs change that. Which is a big if..what are we hoping to accomplish here? Setting up early hots zvp ? Split map turtle to max air fight??
Why not try to propose a change that will give both sides incentive to harass and skirmish from the mid game? Aggression that is not all in is what makes for the best games for viewers. So players are demonstrating their micro macro multi all game and gaining edges from solid execution? So if i do better all game harassing and defending while macroing i still have a chance to win?
Best example is tvz prior to last mine nerf in hots.
To accomplish that in tvp you have to fix chrono and eliminate the "uncounterable" deathball unit compositions. Before disrupter storm had a counter colossus had a counter. There isnt any unit comp from terran that can be microd to counter all the splash plus tempests that counter libs. This on top of always being behind upgrades makes not all inning a losing strategy. Get rid of carriers completley. They are the definition of lets make a deathball army. Nerf terran early and mid game all in aggression curb chrono down and get rid of disrupters. Get rid of BC. Put nexus range limit on SB toss does not need ANOTHER bullshit all in cheese to go with the 100 others.
Or no i know reduce blink dt cooldown and make carriers different...exactly the same but different. Cause u know they wont still just be mass deathball units...nerf feedback! For all them doom drops countered by 1 HT...change tempests so they counter libs even harder...dope smokin goin on.
|
Well, thanks Maru And generally please consider late game maxed out armies more.
|
if anyone high master / low gm want to practice balance test mod on EU gimme a shout SHODAN#21253
|
On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them.
lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game.
It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty
btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
|
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
You just said that they should remove it because it doesn't have a role. Now you're saying they should remove it because it _has_ a role, you just don't like it.
Seems like you just want the unit removed rather than having any sort of principled reason to do so.
|
On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. Show nested quote +It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit...
So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game?
|
|
On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game?
other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun.
|
Cyclone being reverted to a 4 supply unit with less health than a marauder and there's actually people that think that's fine lol.
Until we all see blizzard mention they are fixing swarmhosts, can't take anything they release for patch notes seriously.
|
On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun.
None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either.
|
i think the real crime here is the herc never came back since its announcment in 2015 ;-; it would have fixed all the swarm host and carrier and bio and protoss imbalance
|
Live Carriers are very strong. They can be countered in low numbers but are almost impossible to counter in higher numbers or with HT support.
Carriers on the test map are produced faster but interceptors slower. The interceptor production rate does not mean much because the faster produced Carriers can build the interceptors on route to the enemy base.
The hitpoint increase is 12.5% while the slower interceptor release rate only effect the first 2 seconds of a battle. For the rest of the battle all interceptors are out. So the battle effect of slower released interceptors will only be a few percent, but the increased hitpoint effect is 12.5% (plus there will be more Carriers, since they are produced faster).
So basically Blizzard managed to make an already very strong unit even stronger, and not only that, they managed to so while Protoss player still think that the Carrier got nerfed.
|
I'm ok with nerfing the cyclone (I'm terran) as I don't like their current use, but then something else has to be adjusted for the T v P. Otherwise T is too weak.
|
been playing a lot of games on KR vs ~5.5k terrans. gotta say that i think the new thor is too strong vs carriers/tempests. like, idc if they wanna change carriers and tempests and give protoss power in other areas(though they havent really balanced that part yet), but the fact that our end game unit is pretty ehh now, vs a unit that is lower tech and does even better than it did before is very confusing.
basically, right now, mass robo immortal archon/with harass/ms is a much better alternative late game for protoss than anything else due to how strong thor is vs massive.
im really kinda confused with what they're doing with protoss after the last 2 updates. @_@;;
|
On October 13 2018 12:44 -Kyo- wrote: the new thor is too strong vs carriers/tempests. I'm shocked.
btw Checked the "New" cylcone. I don't think that is right...
|
The best thing that could happen to this game is if mass Air was situational, not something you automatically do no matter what when the game reaches late game.
Like if your opponent starts to produce a lot of units that are supposed to counter mass air you need adjust your composition instead of just continuing massing air.
If these patches manages to achieve that I would say SC2 is better for it.
|
On October 13 2018 14:50 MockHamill wrote: The best thing that could happen to this game is if mass Air was situational, not something you automatically do no matter what when the game reaches late game.
Like if your opponent starts to produce a lot of units that are supposed to counter mass air you need adjust your composition instead of just continuing massing air.
If these patches manages to achieve that I would say SC2 is better for it.
Well, right now it's more like... don't build air at all as protoss except for mothership.... cuz it's complete pooper vs some of the current T units.
|
Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points. The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live. But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units.
|
On October 13 2018 23:32 MockHamill wrote: Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points. The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live. But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units.
ermm.. i dont think fire rate = 20% 'stronger' nor do i think adding or subtracting %s makes any real sense... @_@
edit: just so it's clear, your posts all seem to be relating to the strength of carriers, but one thing you're really not taking into account in real games is that leash attacking with carriers is much harder to do in sc2. it's very rare that u just A move carriers unless u have some huge terrain advantage, or you're fighting mass vikings and you're storming or something. So in the event you're re-leashing your carriers the lower release speed compounds their test-map ineffectiveness in terms of DPS(this is quite a real issue - slightly remedied with their slightly buffed leash time, but still sucks compared to upgrade); and of course, the reason this is important to thors now is because of their dmg/speed vs massive. so engaging and re-engaging carriers actually does quite a bit better now.
|
On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either.
No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin.
You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
|
On October 14 2018 14:06 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either. No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
if your being hit by a proxy allin often you wont have the time to make a siege tank as terran. so making cyclones for these kinds of holds is fairly common, you almost always have a reactor rax so if you see the need you can swap your factory over to get out some cyclones to hold.
|
On October 13 2018 23:32 MockHamill wrote: Interceptors do 8 damage instead of 6 against Thors due to Thors losing one armor. That is 33.3% more damage. Carriers have 450 hit points instead of 400. That is 12.5% more hit points. The interceptors are launched slower, but this only affects the first 2 seconds of the battle. Let’s estimate this to 5% worse for Carriers since battles lasts a lot longer than 2 seconds.
Carriers are (1.33 * 1.125 * 0.95)-1 = 42% better vs Thors compared to live. But Thors fire 20% faster which means Thors are 20% better against Carriers.
So, Carriers are 42-20= 22% stronger vs Thors compared to live.
Granted, if you try to kill the interceptors instead of the Carriers the Carrier DPS will go down. But during all this Thors will take damage or die while Carrier loses 15 mineral units. Pre-patch it was always much better to try to focus down the Carriers instead of trying to kill the interceptors. Thor has also got their anti-air splash radius nerfed compared to live.
It is bad that there is no unit test map available with the patch changes so that we can verify the actual effect of the changes. It is hard to judge stuff like this in game, since the in game experience is more subjective and other factors (economy, player skill, upgrade differences etc.) will skew the results.
But if you do look at the actual math it seems that Carriers are stronger vs Thors compared to live version. Which seems like the opposite of what Blizzard tries to achieve when they talk of Thors as "giant killers" that should be stronger vs massive units but weaker vs swarms of smaller units. I don't think that's a particularly mathematically honest way of analyzing carriers versus thors. You're abusing percentages pretty badly and manipulating numbers to look favourable to your arguments.
And you continue to completely ignore the impact of Gravitron Catapult, which completely changes how carriers can be used as a unit and is a big part of why they are so strong right now. Had you ever actually played protoss with a carrier composition to compare them with and without Gravitron Catapult, you would understand this. Having half of all interceptors hit in half a second allowed carriers to burst damage down units if focus fired. Blizzard themselves even said it was the main reason carriers were so strong. You could hit with hundreds of point of damage in half a second. Without Gravitron Catapult, that's no longer the case as the damage is significantly more spread out. Keep in mind that once out, interceptors have an attack cool down of 2.14. That's very slow, the same as a siege tank shoots in siege mode.
It's ridiculous to compare thors and carriers in a vacuum anyway since in real game scenarios, there will be other units from both sides factoring in. Throw in an anti-armour missile and a group of vikings targeting the carriers along side the thors and I imagine things will look quite different. Not to mention that after Gravitron Catapult is removed, it will be rare to see carriers without other air units along side to provide support since the carrier itself can no longer initiate fights in the way it can now.
|
On October 14 2018 14:06 youngjiddle wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 09:23 Athenau wrote:On October 12 2018 08:49 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 06:57 MrWayne wrote:On October 12 2018 06:39 youngjiddle wrote:On October 12 2018 04:38 MrWayne wrote:
I don't really see the logic behind your reasoning, the only people who should be bothered if the cyclone don't have a role in the game are terran players because they would never build them. lol what. anyone can wish a unit has a role in the game. It seems to me that you're just a bit salty that the cyclon is so good at cheesing protoss. no need to call me salty btw the new/old cyclone is very good at "designated pressure" in TvP.
I'm well aware, which is why I think they should just remove the unit... So for you "designated pressure" isn't a worthwhile role for a unit in this game? other units already fill the role. the 4 hellion runby, widowmine drops, banshee, liberators, proxy marauders, the list goes on. That's what I mean, I don't see the role a cyclone can fill while still being fun. None of those things functioned like the Cyclone did and none of them filled the role of an early-game defensive unit either. No terran players are making 4 cyclones for early defense against protoss. You build a bunker and a tank and you can hold any pathetic 2 base allin. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.
Maru opened with 2 to 6 cyclones when he won GSL vs Classic.
Stop trying to push your narrative about removing the cyclone.
|
On October 12 2018 14:30 MockHamill wrote: Live Carriers are very strong. They can be countered in low numbers but are almost impossible to counter in higher numbers or with HT support.
Carriers on the test map are produced faster but interceptors slower. The interceptor production rate does not mean much because the faster produced Carriers can build the interceptors on route to the enemy base.
The hitpoint increase is 12.5% while the slower interceptor release rate only effect the first 2 seconds of a battle. For the rest of the battle all interceptors are out. So the battle effect of slower released interceptors will only be a few percent, but the increased hitpoint effect is 12.5% (plus there will be more Carriers, since they are produced faster).
So basically Blizzard managed to make an already very strong unit even stronger, and not only that, they managed to so while Protoss player still think that the Carrier got nerfed.
I tested the new carrier, The new carrier is stronger in some respects and weaker in others, but is overall easier to play against. The best way to counter the old carrier was to snipe the carriers which took micro and unit control and once the carrier died its interceptors also died with it. Doing the same technique on the new carrier is actually worse because the new carrier is 50 hp more tanky and it doesn't take advantage of the interceptor build time nerf. The best way to deal with carriers now is to actually just attack move. Carriers without interceptors do 0 damage and its pretty easy to kill all the interceptors with stim marines or hydra. On the flip side, the reduced build time of the carrier make it a more reliable tech which will decrease the number of times protoss die just before they get carriers out. Is this a good change? Hard to say, carriers will be easier to counter because most people are good at attack moving. I definitely wouldn't make my army 18 carriers and 7 high templar with the new carrier because the damage is more unreliable, if all the interceptors die there goes all my dps. At the same time, I probably wouldn't max out 200 supply on immortal/archon/ht either because the build time of carriers is alot more accessible making it less risky to tech to
|
On October 14 2018 17:41 Near_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 12 2018 14:30 MockHamill wrote: Live Carriers are very strong. They can be countered in low numbers but are almost impossible to counter in higher numbers or with HT support.
Carriers on the test map are produced faster but interceptors slower. The interceptor production rate does not mean much because the faster produced Carriers can build the interceptors on route to the enemy base.
The hitpoint increase is 12.5% while the slower interceptor release rate only effect the first 2 seconds of a battle. For the rest of the battle all interceptors are out. So the battle effect of slower released interceptors will only be a few percent, but the increased hitpoint effect is 12.5% (plus there will be more Carriers, since they are produced faster).
So basically Blizzard managed to make an already very strong unit even stronger, and not only that, they managed to so while Protoss player still think that the Carrier got nerfed. I tested the new carrier, The new carrier is stronger in some respects and weaker in others, but is overall easier to play against. The best way to counter the old carrier was to snipe the carriers which took micro and unit control and once the carrier died its interceptors also died with it. Doing the same technique on the new carrier is actually worse because the new carrier is 50 hp more tanky and it doesn't take advantage of the interceptor build time nerf. The best way to deal with carriers now is to actually just attack move. Carriers without interceptors do 0 damage and its pretty easy to kill all the interceptors with stim marines or hydra. On the flip side, the reduced build time of the carrier make it a more reliable tech which will decrease the number of times protoss die just before they get carriers out. Is this a good change? Hard to say, carriers will be easier to counter because most people are good at attack moving. I definitely wouldn't make my army 18 carriers and 7 high templar with the new carrier because the damage is more unreliable, if all the interceptors die there goes all my dps. At the same time, I probably wouldn't max out 200 supply on immortal/archon/ht either because the build time of carriers is alot more accessible making it less risky to tech to
If this is how things work out, and they are easier to get but also easier to fight then that is perfect. It reduces the annoying part of both sides of the fight (dying during the transition/being dead if the opponent gets too many). I am generally for changes that soften the edges of match ups so that there is less, "If this works you die, if it doesnt I die" things in the game.
On a side note, I hope they take the same view of brood lords because that is a unit based off the, "kill him while they are building" dynamic.
|
anyone around 5-6k mmr wanna try to the balance mod with me?
|
I think the current live cyclone is fine and doesn't need any changes unless the TvP proxy meta continues to dominate next year.
|
On October 14 2018 20:15 SHODAN wrote: anyone around 5-6k mmr wanna try to the balance mod with me?
TL is probably not the best place to find training partners. Do you have Discord? PiGs and Beastyqts Discord servers are great places to find training partners.
|
On October 14 2018 21:24 MrWayne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2018 20:15 SHODAN wrote: anyone around 5-6k mmr wanna try to the balance mod with me? TL is probably not the best place to find training partners. Do you have Discord? PiGs and Beastyqts Discord servers are great places to find training partners.
ok cool, thanks for the tip!
|
there is one other thing I would like to see in the balance revamp. I wish tanks and liberators benefited in some way from smart servos. obviously it would be OP if tanks and liberators sieged in 1 second... but it is also stupid watching an unavoidable corrosive bile coming down on a liberator. even if you immediately unsiege when the corrosive bile is cast, it takes a moment for the liberator to accelerate and move out of the way. this results in the liberator always dying, no matter how quick you are. maybe if smart servos didn't affect the actual siege time, but reduced the unsiege time so that corrosive biles could be avoided... that would be a nice reward for players who are quick enough!
|
Have anyone tested a window mine plus viking combo against Carriers?
I used it successfully back when interceptors were 25 minerals but then interceptors become dirt cheap so i stopped using it.
Now with interceptors taking more time to rebuild maybe blowing up some of the interceptors first and then focus down the carriers can work again. Then again, I am not sure if it worth it to sacrifice 10 window mines (20 supply, 1000 resources) to blow up a bunch of 15 mineral units. I guess it depends on how many Carriers you manage to focus down before he teleports home.
|
What if we bring back the old Raven from 3.8. with Build Point Defense Drone and old Seeker Missile but with supply cost = 4. I think it's time to. And to end with Cyclone let's replace it with Goliath.
|
lmfao Carriers got nerfed, noobs cried and they are already taking it back
We miss you already Mike!
User was warned for this post.
|
Czech Republic12116 Posts
On October 15 2018 17:14 MockHamill wrote: Have anyone tested a window mine plus viking combo against Carriers?
I used it successfully back when interceptors were 25 minerals but then interceptors become dirt cheap so i stopped using it.
Now with interceptors taking more time to rebuild maybe blowing up some of the interceptors first and then focus down the carriers can work again. Then again, I am not sure if it worth it to sacrifice 10 window mines (20 supply, 1000 resources) to blow up a bunch of 15 mineral units. I guess it depends on how many Carriers you manage to focus down before he teleports home. Have you tried during your tests liberators? If so - how are they?
|
On October 15 2018 19:34 deacon.frost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 17:14 MockHamill wrote: Have anyone tested a window mine plus viking combo against Carriers?
I used it successfully back when interceptors were 25 minerals but then interceptors become dirt cheap so i stopped using it.
Now with interceptors taking more time to rebuild maybe blowing up some of the interceptors first and then focus down the carriers can work again. Then again, I am not sure if it worth it to sacrifice 10 window mines (20 supply, 1000 resources) to blow up a bunch of 15 mineral units. I guess it depends on how many Carriers you manage to focus down before he teleports home. Have you tried during your tests liberators? If so - how are they?
I have only tried thors and vikings so far, thors seems weaker compared to live and vikings about the same. Neither seem to counter carriers.
Problems is that no unit test map is avaiable, it is very hard to know for sure just based on your in-game experience.
I think it should be obligatory for Blizzard to realase a unit test map with every major test patch so that we can test changes both in game and in a unit vs unit test map where you can check the effect of number of units, uppgrades, compositions etc.
|
On October 15 2018 20:27 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 19:34 deacon.frost wrote:On October 15 2018 17:14 MockHamill wrote: Have anyone tested a window mine plus viking combo against Carriers?
I used it successfully back when interceptors were 25 minerals but then interceptors become dirt cheap so i stopped using it.
Now with interceptors taking more time to rebuild maybe blowing up some of the interceptors first and then focus down the carriers can work again. Then again, I am not sure if it worth it to sacrifice 10 window mines (20 supply, 1000 resources) to blow up a bunch of 15 mineral units. I guess it depends on how many Carriers you manage to focus down before he teleports home. Have you tried during your tests liberators? If so - how are they? I have only tried thors and vikings so far, thors seems weaker compared to live and vikings about the same. Neither seem to counter carriers. Problems is that no unit test map is avaiable, it is very hard to know for sure just based on your in-game experience. I think it should be obligatory for Blizzard to realase a unit test map with every major test patch so that we can test changes both in game and in a unit vs unit test map where you can check the effect of number of units, uppgrades, compositions etc.
Yes for sure, some micro maps with the new units is the perfect way to test units. Why don t do this....
|
On October 15 2018 03:14 SHODAN wrote: there is one other thing I would like to see in the balance revamp. I wish tanks and liberators benefited in some way from smart servos. obviously it would be OP if tanks and liberators sieged in 1 second... but it is also stupid watching an unavoidable corrosive bile coming down on a liberator. even if you immediately unsiege when the corrosive bile is cast, it takes a moment for the liberator to accelerate and move out of the way. this results in the liberator always dying, no matter how quick you are. maybe if smart servos didn't affect the actual siege time, but reduced the unsiege time so that corrosive biles could be avoided... that would be a nice reward for players who are quick enough!
You already can avoid corrosive biles. If Ravagers approach your tanks/libs you know they will cast corrosive biles. So you unsiege them before the biles are cast. Zerg can already hit almost nothing with biles if the opponent pays attention. Imo this shouldn't be made even easier.
|
On October 16 2018 06:57 Doink wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 03:14 SHODAN wrote: there is one other thing I would like to see in the balance revamp. I wish tanks and liberators benefited in some way from smart servos. obviously it would be OP if tanks and liberators sieged in 1 second... but it is also stupid watching an unavoidable corrosive bile coming down on a liberator. even if you immediately unsiege when the corrosive bile is cast, it takes a moment for the liberator to accelerate and move out of the way. this results in the liberator always dying, no matter how quick you are. maybe if smart servos didn't affect the actual siege time, but reduced the unsiege time so that corrosive biles could be avoided... that would be a nice reward for players who are quick enough! You already can avoid corrosive biles. If Ravagers approach your tanks/libs you know they will cast corrosive biles. So you unsiege them before the biles are cast. Zerg can already hit almost nothing with biles if the opponent pays attention. Imo this shouldn't be made even easier.
it takes approx. 2.5 seconds for a corrosive bile to land after it is cast. it takes 3.5417 seconds to unsiege a tank. it takes a little extra time for the tank to accelerate and move out of range of the corrosive bile. not only do you have to see the ravagers coming it advance, you need to see the ravagers coming well in advance. and since you don't know which tank the ravagers are going to target, you would need to un-siege all your front-line tanks if you're adamant about avoiding the corrosive bile. if you un-siege all your tanks, what do you think zerg's gonna do? twiddle his thumbs? sign a peace treaty? no, he's going to A-move and kill you because your tanks are unsieged.
same story with liberators. the unsiege time for liberators is 1.46 seconds. the acceleration time is about 1 second. that means the corrosive bile will hit, even if you unsieged 0.04 seconds after the corrosive bile was cast. "zerg can already hit almost nothing with biles if the opponent pays attention". 555-come-on-now.jpg I think we both know this is a big fat porky pie
|
Oh no...Seems like instead "siege and forget" u need to actually baby sit your army...What a shame. Look, if Zerg doesn't do the same, and it's pretty much harder to see ghosts aproaching- puff puff and allyour Broodlords are gone. We must nerf snipe then? This is your logic.
|
What is this carrier change... why make the cyclone weak again?
Maru getting Terran nerfed all by himself. Does Blizzard seem to think that every Terran can just pull a 'Maru' and get their proxy scouted and just win from behind anyway?
The proxy-meta will go away when Maru stops being so effective. It's literally one player. Is this not correct?
|
On October 16 2018 13:43 hiroshOne wrote: Oh no...Seems like instead "siege and forget" u need to actually baby sit your army...What a shame. Look, if Zerg doesn't do the same, and it's pretty much harder to see ghosts aproaching- puff puff and allyour Broodlords are gone. We must nerf snipe then? This is your logic.
this is not my logic. puff puff vs brood lords is not even in the same ballpark.
snipe cancelled by zerg spells? yes snipe cancelled by damage? yes corrosive bile cancelled by terran spells? no corrosive bile cancelled by damage? no
the only way terran can avoid corrosive biles is to split the units. siege tanks can't split with 3.5417 unsiege time + acceleration time.
remember, when the ravager unit was introduced in LotV, terran could save the tank with a medivac. tankivacs have rightly been removed from the game. however, there is no new mechanic to compensate for the slowness of tank unsiege. it seems to be a complete oversight in terms of unit interactions.
cancelling an attack with spells is just one scenario... there are other counter-plays which could reward skill. for example, eating damage. imagine the mech player sent an inferior unit (like a hellion) or a massive hp unit (like a thor) to eat the ravager shot. it would be the same relationship as bio vs disruptor. you sacrifice a less important unit to save the siege unit. again, this is not possible because corrosive bile is AOE.
you are trying to embellish your argument with hyperbole, yes? who said siege and forget? not me! just seems like you are a salty zerg player afraid to admit the truth. I'm watching top players like gumiho and TY. these players certainly don't "siege and forget". in the basetradeTV cross server finals, I watched gumiho try to avoid corrosive biles while playing mech vZ. sometimes he tried to unsiege the liberator / tank and it dies anyway, or he keeps the unit sieged and hopes it will land an extra shot before dying.
I already quoted you the numbers which show that babysitting your tanks won't save them. babysitting your liberators won't save them either. you have to babysit and also guess which tank / liberator the zerg player is going to target. this is entirely dependent on luck, not skill.
I disagree on principle with the idea of unavoidable spells and inevitable unit interactions. I am not saying mech needs a buff or zerg needs a nerf. mech is very strong vZ on the live patch. but... since you attack me with hyperbole, maybe you have a stake in maintaining this low-skill, no-brain, no micro relationship between ravagers and siege units... that's fine don't want to hurt your win-rate
|
On October 16 2018 06:57 Doink wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2018 03:14 SHODAN wrote: there is one other thing I would like to see in the balance revamp. I wish tanks and liberators benefited in some way from smart servos. obviously it would be OP if tanks and liberators sieged in 1 second... but it is also stupid watching an unavoidable corrosive bile coming down on a liberator. even if you immediately unsiege when the corrosive bile is cast, it takes a moment for the liberator to accelerate and move out of the way. this results in the liberator always dying, no matter how quick you are. maybe if smart servos didn't affect the actual siege time, but reduced the unsiege time so that corrosive biles could be avoided... that would be a nice reward for players who are quick enough! You already can avoid corrosive biles. If Ravagers approach your tanks/libs you know they will cast corrosive biles. So you unsiege them before the biles are cast. Zerg can already hit almost nothing with biles if the opponent pays attention. Imo this shouldn't be made even easier. You're right. Terrans should unsiege their army once the Zerg attacks with Roach/Ravager. How couldn't I see this?
|
So not to be a complainer about changes but I found something really cool that these changes removes. Mothership Recall synergy. Basically when you're really far ahead and just want to have some fun, fly your mothership on the edge of the map into the enemy base, recall your army right on top of the base, then to add insult to injury, when the other player makes it back to respond, massrecall back to ur nexus.
|
Still no word on fixing the lock on range on cyclones.
It shouldn't take 2 weeks to fix a bug.
|
On October 17 2018 02:10 Lexender wrote: Still no word on fixing the lock on range on cyclones.
It shouldn't take 2 weeks to fix a bug. Is the old bug back? Of what I've seen it's as it should be, but I haven't tried the balance mod myself.
On a side note, I want to remind people of ALL of the changes: https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/22372713
|
To be honest with all that Hydra nerfs, and especially robo buffs (easier to mass) I want to see some small Immortal nerf. I'll just explain- the main issue with Hydras was, that people say u can mass Hydra into Protoss yolo and win if they don't make fast HT. I feel same with Immortals- u just can't go wrong with massing immortals vs everything what Zerg have. They suppose to counter Roach heavy style, and I agree, but the problem is they counter everything exept things that can fly. Especially in defence with shield battery. Immortal overall is too much obvious with it's immortality. With lowering Robo cost, which make them easier to mass earlier in the game, I feel like Immortal pushes will be too strong in PvZ, and PvT too. So if u nerf Hydras, not wanting Zergs to mass them vs everything,.I feel like same aproach should be implemented woth Immortals.
|
They slightly updated things: https://starcraft2.com/en-us/news/22564766 .
The SCV attack priority change sounds reasonable to me given that everyone knows to shift-click SCVs when they're just building barracks or CCs early on, but that it isn't always possible when it comes to bunker rushes.
|
you know after thinking about it and everyone saying protoss is getting alot of nerfs, and they are dont get me wrong. I think toss overall is going to be a lot stronger on this patch. Cheeper robo is actually a really big deal for protoss since it allows alot more build variety, combined with the big nerf to cyclones that nerf Terran proxy heavily proxy robo rush is going to an insanely strong strategy and I can see the PVT match up just doing a 180 with this change where now protoss is the race that proxys evrey game because proxy robo is really strong and the thing that keep it out of the meta like powerful cylones, terran proxying a rax nearly every game and thus always being able to have a reaper in toss's base really fast are going to go away, or at least be less common. Stalker battery rushes will also be back in style because without reactor cyclone no longer has the punching power to invalidate them as a viable strategy. further since proxys are nerfed protoss can go back to the meta where they take a super early third base while going duble upgrades and teching to aoe which is going to be really strong vs terran.
Vs Zerg yeah shield battery nerf hurts as does mass recall, but tactical recall might allow for wierd pressure builds with the lower cd time. Also cheeper robo and weeker hydras will make you wayyy more stable getting to three base which is often the realy hard part for toss. burrrow changes wont be a big deal because robo is cheeper so obs are alot more accessible, further cheeper robo might mean that toss can build alot more obs and have better map vision. Sure carrier is nerfed but your ability to kill zerg before they get there went way up, also the new tempest seems like it will be alot better vs zerg because it will be alot harder to abduct them and kill them with that increased move speed.
I plan on playing alot of protoss after this patch hits. Im gona proxy robo evrey game vs terran so I get 60%+ PvT win rate and than im going to macro vs zerg and other toss.
|
Barracks, Factory, Starport - Tech Lab If a player tries to lift a structure when there is an upgrade being researched in an attached Tech Lab, the player will not be able to do so and will receive a red text error message. Finally!
|
Blizzard...if u revert Waprism pickup range nerf, I assume u will revert Queen nerf too? As u said: "we’d like for all races to feel like they have strong options out of the gate with the new patch.". So where is this "Zerg's strong option out of the gate with the new patch". Queen and creep are crutial to Zerg's early game. Nerfing it, u are killing this race for good.
|
On October 24 2018 04:22 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +Barracks, Factory, Starport - Tech Lab If a player tries to lift a structure when there is an upgrade being researched in an attached Tech Lab, the player will not be able to do so and will receive a red text error message. Finally! amen
|
Sad to read they reverted the WP pick up range, always have found that to be ridiculous.
|
If this goes live TvP will have serious problems.
Losing proxy cyclone pressure and weaker bunker rushes.
Meanwhile Protoss got higher hitpoints carriers that are built faster, tempest that are much better at their job (no one will build BCs due to the new Tempest), stronger disruptors, stronger immortal rushes due to cheaper Robos, improved proxy Tempest rush due to faster Tempest etc.
I wonder what the Korean Terrans will say when they realize what Blizzard has done.
I guess we have to hope for an emergency patch before any major tournament starts.
|
France12466 Posts
On October 24 2018 04:50 MockHamill wrote: If this goes live TvP will have serious problems.
Losing proxy cyclone pressure and weaker bunker rushes.
Meanwhile Protoss got higher hitpoints carriers that are built faster, tempest that are much better at their job (no one will build BCs due to the new Tempest), stronger disruptors, stronger immortal rushes due to cheaper Robos, improved proxy Tempest rush due to faster Tempest etc.
I wonder what the Korean Terrans will say when they realize what Blizzard has done.
I guess we have to hope for an emergency patch before any major tournament starts. I don’t think TvP can get worse than right now Disruptor is nerfed isn’t it?
|
On October 24 2018 05:00 Poopi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2018 04:50 MockHamill wrote: If this goes live TvP will have serious problems.
Losing proxy cyclone pressure and weaker bunker rushes.
Meanwhile Protoss got higher hitpoints carriers that are built faster, tempest that are much better at their job (no one will build BCs due to the new Tempest), stronger disruptors, stronger immortal rushes due to cheaper Robos, improved proxy Tempest rush due to faster Tempest etc.
I wonder what the Korean Terrans will say when they realize what Blizzard has done.
I guess we have to hope for an emergency patch before any major tournament starts. I don’t think TvP can get worse than right now Disruptor is nerfed isn’t it?
I mean right now Terran is actually very strong vs toss but it all rests on the proxy meta being very unfair for toss. Bliz is taking away the proxy meta but not giving Terran any meaningful changes to ballance tvp in a meta where Terran can't proxy evrey single game to deny Protoss the type of game they are way to strong in. I think that rather than reaching a good medium where both toss and Terran are competitive with one another this patch just massively swings ballance in toss's favor after a period of being underpowered purely due to the proxy meta Maru created. I hope I'm wrong on this but that's my prediction. I think we will see a return of the 2 base tank Allin evrey game meta that we previously saw because Terran just lacks the tools to beat toss in the late game on this upcoming patch. And is lossing the proxy strats that allowed them to set Protoss so far back they struggled to ever reach that insane late game. It feels like queen range patch in wol all over agian Terran is to strong at denying late game so they nerf terran's ability to do so, but make no meaningful change to fix said late game Terran was able to deny in the past. So Terran is left in a state where they must deny late game to have a chance at wining but don't have all that many ways to do so. Yeah Terran can be a little more greedy with new cyclone but the upgrade lead and cheaper robo more than make up for that plus now tempest is waaaay stronger vs Terran. I don't see new raven new bc or new cyclone being at all competitive with what toss is getting in return. Shield battery nerf seemed like a big deal, but now that proxy is nerfed it is alot less important.
|
On October 24 2018 04:21 washikie wrote: you know after thinking about it and everyone saying protoss is getting alot of nerfs, and they are dont get me wrong. I think toss overall is going to be a lot stronger on this patch. Cheeper robo is actually a really big deal for protoss since it allows alot more build variety, combined with the big nerf to cyclones that nerf Terran proxy heavily proxy robo rush is going to an insanely strong strategy and I can see the PVT match up just doing a 180 with this change where now protoss is the race that proxys evrey game because proxy robo is really strong and the thing that keep it out of the meta like powerful cylones, terran proxying a rax nearly every game and thus always being able to have a reaper in toss's base really fast are going to go away, or at least be less common. Stalker battery rushes will also be back in style because without reactor cyclone no longer has the punching power to invalidate them as a viable strategy. further since proxys are nerfed protoss can go back to the meta where they take a super early third base while going duble upgrades and teching to aoe which is going to be really strong vs terran.
Vs Zerg yeah shield battery nerf hurts as does mass recall, but tactical recall might allow for wierd pressure builds with the lower cd time. Also cheeper robo and weeker hydras will make you wayyy more stable getting to three base which is often the realy hard part for toss. burrrow changes wont be a big deal because robo is cheeper so obs are alot more accessible, further cheeper robo might mean that toss can build alot more obs and have better map vision. Sure carrier is nerfed but your ability to kill zerg before they get there went way up, also the new tempest seems like it will be alot better vs zerg because it will be alot harder to abduct them and kill them with that increased move speed.
I plan on playing alot of protoss after this patch hits. Im gona proxy robo evrey game vs terran so I get 60%+ PvT win rate and than im going to macro vs zerg and other toss. I dunno, a lot of these assertions are pretty premature, IMO.
For example, I don't think it's at all obvious that reactor Cyclone would be better at holding proxy immortals then tech-lab Cyclones--Immortals shit on current Cyclones as is, and the old-new Cyclone does a way better job at denying the prism and doesn't have to face-tank Immortal damage.
As for late game, Protoss got one of the two pillars (Templars) of their lategame deathball vs bio nerfed and it's still an open question on how the changes to the other one (Tempests) will play out.
Regardless, the lategame is one of the things they're going to watch closely, so if it's as bad as you say it'll be patched pretty soon. But I don't think it'll be as bad as you say.
|
|
|
|