Thanks everyone for all the recent feedback. We appreciate the thoughts and are eager to continue discussions with the topics below.
Protoss
We received feedback that the strength of Chrono Boost may be too strong and it’s allowing units to come out a bit too early. We are looking into reducing the strength of Chrono Boost but increasing the duration. This should help to reduce the ability to rapidly produce a particular unit or upgrade much faster than the opponent or before the opponent can have their own opportunity to respond. Since the effects of Chrono Boost will be reduced, we will most likely revert the Oracle’s build time from 43 seconds back to 37 seconds.
Also, we received feedback that the Stalker feels a bit strong right now due to the Stalker’s base damage value. We would like to try reducing the Particle Disruptor’s damage from 15 (21 vs armored) to 13 (18 vs armored) and decreasing the weapon period from 1.54 to 1.34. Also, the weapon upgrades would receive +1 base and +1 armored damage instead of +2 base damage. This kind of change will generally increase the number of shots it will take for the Stalker to kill various enemy units.
Next, the Disruptor’s Purification Nova might be a bit strong at the moment. In order to provide the opposing player with opportunities for counterplay against the Disruptor’s Purification Nova, we are thinking about adding a 1 second charge up time after activating the ability. Opponents will have a little more time to react to the Purification Nova and this should open up more opportunities for micro. Also, Disruptors in large numbers seem to be able to shoot a constant stream of Purification Novas at their enemy. In order to reduce the number of shots that could be fired in a given period, we want to try increasing the Purfication Nova’s cooldown from 14.3 to 17.9 seconds.
Nexus Chrono Boost strength reduced from 100% to 50% and duration per cast increased from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.
Stalker Particle Disruptors damage reduced from 15 (21 vs armored) to 13 (18 vs armored) and period reduced from 1.54 to 1.34.
Weapon upgrade will provide +1 base and +1 armored damage instead of +2 base damage.
Oracle Build time reduced from 43 to 37 seconds.
Disruptor Purification Nova cooldown increased from 14.3 to 17.9 seconds. Purification Nova has a 1 second charge up time.
Terran
The Raven unit hasn’t been used as much as the other units in the Teran arsenal most likely due to its current strength level. We want to increase the Raven’s strength a bit to try and make the unit more viable in matchups. We want to try reducing the Anti-Armor Missile energy cost so that each Raven can fire two Anti-Amor missiles. The Anti-Armor missile lock time seems a bit long right now and the initial delay could be reduced from 2.14 to 1.43 seconds to increase the chances for the ability to connect with the enemy target unit. Also, the Interference Matrix range might be too short right now and Ravens are having difficulty landing the ability on enemy targets. Increasing the range of Interference matrix from 8 to 9 should help the Raven and make it safer to cast on enemy units. Lastly, increasing the Interference Matrix missile speed would also help increase chances for the Interference Matrix to connect with the target.
Next, the Widow Mine’s build time seems like it could be reduced a bit to open up more opportunities for the unit. Reducing the Widow Mine’s build would allow players to build or replenish them faster.
Raven Anti-Armor Missile lock time reduced from 2.14 to 1.43. Anti-Armor Missile energy cost reduced from 125 to 100. Interference Matrix range increased from 8 to 9. Interference Matrix missile mover speed increased by 50%.
Widow Mine Build time reduced from 28.6 to 21.4 seconds.
Multiplayer Map On Blackpink, possibly adding a jumpable platform to provide Reapers with an entry or exit into the main base locations could help Terran players with scouting.
There are several esports events in the month of December so we would like to target a balance update on December 18th for now. Just to note, the exact values for the balance update may be adjusted and balance update publish date could change as well. Lastly, thanks for your continued feedback and please let us know what you think on the forums or any other community sites!
Poll: How do you feel about the Nexus / Chrono changes?
Strongly agree (244)
57%
Strongly disagree (75)
17%
Agree (65)
15%
Disagree (25)
6%
Neutral (20)
5%
429 total votes
Your vote: How do you feel about the Nexus / Chrono changes?
Protoss will lose the tech switch weapon (chrono) and the late game fighting stalker (with +2 upgrades). Congratulations on instead of buffing other races decide to make protoss boring again.
As a Terran player getting destroyed by Protoss atm, I think the stalker change is unnecessary. The real problem is chronoboost, and while this change will help vs all-ins, it wont help vs upgrades or just the flexibility of the spell, so I'm not certain it alone will be enough. I'd rather they keep the Stalker as is and nerf Chrono's actual % increase a little harder, down to ~20% (currently ~25% both pre- and post- nerf). Also I'm not sure how / what but something needs to be done about recall in early game situations. Disruptor nerf is quite welcome.
Raven change is pretty cool, I'm warming up to the unit a lot more lately and these changes would be good I'm wary of overbuffing it though. This widow mine change would be good compensation for the earlier nerf, makes it a better engagement unit in compensation for worse harass.
Honestly not a fan, after playing the new stalker for a while i really enjoy the way it functions and acts now. Sad that its slowly going back to the older stats.
hmm I don't think the stalker nerf is necessary. Stalkers are good but I don't think they are the problem with the current state of TvP. widow mines need to be made invisible again. This change has gutted TvP early game.
Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong.
Chronoboost change I like a lot, reverting the oracle is smart as well to line up with it.
Interference matrix is cool, I guess? Ravens just aren't useful aside from TvT, and as long as they require a tech lab or become absurdly strong that'll continue to be the case. Aside from specific openings, you'd never invest into a starport and tech lab for ravens, unless you're meching, and even then vikings and liberators are generally more useful.
Disruptor change I'm fine with, they're stupidly good in some scenarios and completely useless in others. This introduces a bit of micro potential for both players and I like that.
The double stalker change is pretty stupid. Try one at a time. Especially because the widow mine change, as well as chronoboost, should help against the mass gateway style as well. So that's a triple patch concerning one specific playstyle that's currently really strong in PvT. It's not an uninteresting or turtley style of play either, so I'd like to avoid killing it entirely.
Templar openings were strong, too. Then Protoss was quadruple nerfed all at once, now they're gone. Please don't make the same mistakes again.
New stalker and chrono were crucial to create stable macro openings for Protoss. Add this to the msc removal and protoss early game is more volatile than ever and you have an extremely short window to react to all ins.
So protoss is getting nerfed into the ground? Why? I thought they are the weakest at the moment? (Not following the scene that much, but from what I've seen in a couple of streams and gameplay experience).
They are basically backtracking on both the stalker and chronoboost changes...
On December 08 2017 07:36 Pursuit_ wrote: As a Terran player getting destroyed by Protoss atm, I think the stalker change is unnecessary. The real problem is chronoboost, and while this change will help vs all-ins, it wont help vs upgrades or just the flexibility of the spell, so I'm not certain it alone will be enough. I'd rather they keep the Stalker as is and nerf Chrono's actual % increase a little harder, down to ~20% (currently ~25% both pre- a.[/nd post- nerf).
Of course it helps with upgrades. Before you could half the time of the upgrades with chrono boost. Now you can only decrease the time to 3/4 of the actual time. Thats big. Agree on the stalkers.
They should just try one of the Stalker nerfs first and see how that goes. Stalkers are good right now but I don't think they're particularly broken (I think the issues in TvP stem from a culmination of different things atm). It'd would suck to overnerf them and put them back into a spot where they have marginal use in most matchups.
Chronoboost change is nice but I really think people overestimate this change.
Disruptor change is ok i guess but really...just bring back the old disruptor. Barely anyone seems to actually like this new version. It's stronger but not as fun to use or play against.
They should really give the Raven back its auto-turret. That might make it too strong, but I don't think that's a big problem because there isn't really any benefit to massing them anymore. If they give it its auto-turret back, people will actually have a reason to open raven, and then we can actually see a single Raven being useful later on in fights if they keep it alive. Even if they nerfed the turret a bit, I think it would be a good change. It's just too hard to justify making a raven early on in any matchup except TvT, and no-one is going to make one later on because of the tech lab requirement.
Widow mine change is nice i guess but tbh this unit is still crap. They should undo the +shields splash nerf they did a while back, at the very least.
On December 08 2017 08:10 [Phantom] wrote: So protoss is getting nerfed into the ground? Why? I thought they are the weakest at the moment? (Not following the scene that much, but from what I've seen in a couple of streams and gameplay experience).
They are basically backtracking on both the stalker and chronoboost changes...
Only halfway for the chrono and stalker change.
Honestly, this is gunna stay this way until we deal with Warp Gate.
You can't have strong midgame units with good map control when you have instant warpin and ignore the map completely :/
Either the Warp Prism needs to be nerfed (where did that upgrade for the slow->fast warpin go?) or Warp Gate itself needs to become later in the tech tree, ala templar level. Once that's done and you remove so much centralization of power you can start messing with giving Protoss strong gateway units, and make them less reliant off of harassment.
The main thing that needs to be fixed about the game (design-wise not balance-wise) are mass air battles but for some reason the devs refuse to adress or even acknowledge this is a problem.
- nerf oracle damage to 3 shot scv/marines - nerf chronoboost so oracle come 8 sec later - reduce window mine build to make sure terran can get at least 1 mine (2 is possible aswell)
Seems a bit overkill i would say. Blizzard like to please the terran community.
Basically oracles are worst now than 3 months ago. it's not a bad thing in a way because that unit is dumb but if you cut protoss cheese too much terrans will feel like kings and get greedy as fuck.
Yes, please nerf toss into the ground because having PvT slightly toss favoured is absolutely disgusting, while having it even below 45% for months was "fine" and "let the meta settle" and of course "let toss figure it out". Also, nothing about nerfs to zerg when they dominate both ZvT and ZvP. But as per usual the anti-toss bias is strong and terran whiners are getting what they want just because they're loud and whiny. Great.
Some changes were needed for PvT? Probably. But instead of "let the meta settle" and "let terrans figure it out", we get billions of nerfs to toss. Yes, I'm salty about this.
The changes are pretty crap, toss overnerf too fast, raven will still be useless, mines will still be banelings with friendly fire. At least all the toss salt makes it entertaining.
As I said a million times before, Terran whining is simply amazing. Blizzard takes no time to nerf everyone else to boost up Terran. This update seems to follow the pattern.
Terran's mech (AKA the cancer) is already overbuffed to the point it is viable (and recommended) in all matchups (including the freaking TvT). At this point, Terran plays mech against Z constantly. Who would go for bio if Mech wins the day in ZvT, right? Even bio is still winnable in ZvT thanks to MULES.
Let's pray the BlizzLord not to buff Hellions and Hellbats next because lings all-in are too strong.
I don't like so many changes to Protoss all at once, what with them being two kinda big changes. I'd so much rather they do one first then the other. I'm not sure how I feel about the changes for Disruptors either, but I'm leaning towards okay.
I've felt that the reason Ravens haven't been used much is because nobody in higher leagues has used them, and to a very noticeable effect, and until that happens was doubtful they'd be used much across the ladder. I think, from what admittedly little I've been watching of mech, it feels like Ravens are contributing so much less than Medivacs, since, unlike Medivacs' loading and boosting not requiring the resources that healing does, as well as healing not requiring action from the player other than having units nearby, Raven abilities all require a little more something and feel noticeably different, in a comparatively negative way, from the other big support unit. Additionally, Ravens prior to the change required less energy to use any of their abilities iirc (or maybe just two?) which made them able to affect the battlefield more regularly. Now, it feels like it does so little in comparison to its former self which seems to also steer Terrans away from it a little bit. To me, in the grander context of the whole game, they seemed pretty good before and obviously better now. Reducing the Anti-Armor Missile cost could help, but I wonder if players are actually going to play with them more and feel at all noticeably better/less bad about them or if they will continue not being used because they don't feel as effective in-game as the old Raven. I could be totally wrong, of course, and it's just a matter of them being a little low in power, but that's honestly not what I've been seeing with my own eyeballs. Either way, interesting changes, also after previewing my post sorry this rambling on the Raven covers half a darn page.
Widow Mine build time reduction... idk, dude. On a couple maps they always catch me in that one spot that I don't check, tucked away in some corner I don't see. The second thing that came to mind was mine drop flashbacks and that coming back somehow, so I hope that doesn't happen for my own sake.
On December 08 2017 08:05 Avexyli wrote: Here's the Blackpink change we were considering:
I like this. A couple of years ago I hated Reaper platforms, idk why but I'm much more open to them nowadays. Maybe I'm a tiny bit better of a player? Maybe it's because Reapers aren't crazy powerful lately? Regardless, I like map tweaks a lot and always want more thoughts on them from Blizz all the time.
thanks for explaining some things, update should bring amazing things. and yeah, i agree that they are basically backtracking on both the stalker and chronoboost changes
They simply don't know what to do about the game. Make some changes, then roll them back. Like, those changes were supposed to refresh the game, there was so much time to think them over. Protoss buff was obvious with 4.0 patch, aswell as that WM nerf would significantly influence on TvP. I just dunno what they were expecting with those changes. With those buffs/nerfs terran just needed something in return. But now they just undo 4.0 patch, GJ.
Nexus Chrono Boost strength reduced from 100% to 50% and duration per cast increased from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.
After I see this sentence, i am very upset. Don't you know that Chrono Boost destroy the Starcraft 2 balance? You only have to reduce that strength. Increasing Duration is not an option.
We were seeing new strats and units from T and Z to fight toss, even mech, but blizzard shuts immediately the last changes. It's just sad, back to more boring builds and compositions from P, T and Z, again.
On December 08 2017 10:28 beatmaro wrote: Nexus Chrono Boost strength reduced from 100% to 50% and duration per cast increased from 10 seconds to 20 seconds.
After I see this sentence, i am very upset. Don't you know that Chrono Boost destroy the Starcraft 2 balance? You only have to reduce that strength. Increasing Duration is not an option.
It's actually a significant nerf that hurts the power of saving up chrono for sharp timings.
Or would you rather we have the old, lame chronoboost that does 15%boost at a constant rate?
fucking with stalkers is getting old. no particular comment on balance - haven't played enough to understand balance, and stalker adept feels strong to me in pvt. but regardless of balance i don't want to learn a third version of the stalker with another different attack speed. the identity of the unit is being destroyed. it's one of my favorite units to use as protoss (i also play zerg), i loved the new version because i don't like opening adepts, and now it's just rolling back toward where it was.
ive been avoiding zerg on the new patch because zvp feels easy and zvt/zvz feel exactly the same, and i also enjoy shield batteries and new stalkers. but the constant oracle and stalker changes are making it difficult to get comfortable with the race. really unhappy with this
Stalkers are trash again, yay. Zerg is overpowered in early game ZvP. overlord drop is clearly the issue, without msc Protoss simply doesn't have enough dps to deal with mass lings.
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio 2) micro potential of mech 3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units.
Stalker trash again? The damage is still very high vs. amored but it is not the ultimative alround unit anymore. And that is a good step. They can buff other protoss stuff if necessary. But the stalker was overall too good.
1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
In a bad mood I sometimes think to myself, that one of the reasons protoss is under-represented at the top end of play is just because blizz overreact to complains about them any time they have anything remotely strong. But then I tell myself to stop complaining and git good...but these changes...it really looks like a knee-jerk reaction to complaints.
The chrono nerf and oracle I can understand, the stalker changes are going to make early game hell in ZvP.
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
On December 08 2017 15:11 SHODAN wrote: terran player perspective:
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio 2) micro potential of mech 3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units.
Mech anti-air has been a complaint for years and it's been ignored to an almost provoking level. I doubt they're planning to ever look into it.
On December 08 2017 07:36 Pursuit_ wrote: As a Terran player getting destroyed by Protoss atm, I think the stalker change is unnecessary. The real problem is chronoboost, and while this change will help vs all-ins, it wont help vs upgrades or just the flexibility of the spell, so I'm not certain it alone will be enough. I'd rather they keep the Stalker as is and nerf Chrono's actual % increase a little harder, down to ~20% (currently ~25% both pre- a.[/nd post- nerf).
Of course it helps with upgrades. Before you could half the time of the upgrades with chrono boost. Now you can only decrease the time to 3/4 of the actual time. Thats big. Agree on the stalkers.
No, upgrades take so long you're limited by energy. It takes 63 seconds for a nexus to get enough energy for a chrono. New chrono and current chrono will be effectively the same as far as upgrades are concerned (~25% increase with 3 nexus). All-ins will be later / weaker, upgrades will be the same. But Terran has already figured out how to hold most all-ins since oracle nerf.
Most changes seem good/reasonable but the stalker change I feel is too much. ZvP in early game is already a pain in lower leagues and with this change it will gets even worse.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with is fine.
It's still unhealthy regardless of whether it's balanced or not. Adding a delay also helps reduce the amount of the "game ending moments" that Blizzard doesn't want.
Incidentally I wonder how the stalker change affects ZvP. While it's a huge nerf against terran, you do kill zerglings faster early on in ZvP which might help?
The weapon upgrades nerf for stalkers seems unnecessarily hasty of a change to make. Though maybe the balance team too feels pressured by all these sudden qualifiers.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
Do not Protoss players complain about Baneling Drops same way? Even if they literally has to fly in over the mineral line through all base defences? And it's much slower than waprism.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
Do not Protoss players complain about Baneling Drops same way? Even if they literally has to fly in over the mineral line through all base defences? And it's much slower than waprism.
Yeah they do, but Blizzard hasn't nerfed baneling drops or shown the slightest inclination to do so (rightfully so), so the situation isn't analogous.
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
On December 08 2017 08:01 Boggyb wrote: Zerg is OP in both ZvP and ZvT but no nerfs? ZvP win rates are probably going to hit 57-58% if not higher.
In which world is Zerg OP vs Protoss? Not in the pro world, that's for sure! Look at recent results especially in korean tournaments and cups, especially since Z got massively nerfed with the burrowed fungal removal and fungal radius + inf terrans range reduction.
In fact, Protoss is massively OP in both matchups vs Z and T at the moment. That's what most pro Players - and even Protoss Players - say.
I think the current changes go completely in the right direction.
TvZ is the most balanced matchup, though Z still has to struggle against Terra Mech, and the new changes won't change much in this matchup.
In TvP, the widow mine und raven changes combined with chrono and stalker nerf will possibly make this matchup playable again.
In ZvP, well it's hard to say if the chrono nerf and disruptor change will be enough to balance it out again.
But as said above, at least it's the right direction. I'm really looking forward to see the next tourneys after the patch!
Maybe they should look at bio TvZ ? the most imba MU.
Also, why they first nerf the stalker before even getting back the old marauder ? Please. (well it's true 2/2 stalkers was way too good, probably the +2 upgrade thing ). Bring. Back. The. Old. Marauder. One that dosen't scale miserably with upgrades.
Finally, dunno why some people whine crazy about toss not being let OP for 6 months before nerfs. We are just after a design patch. They are always frequent balance change after a design patch, it was expected.
The double standard imposed on balance changes has already become a problem of repetitive bias. Despite whether "allow time for the meta to settle" or "let the player figure it out" is actually helping the global balance, nerfing/altering a race much more frequently than doing so to another race is at least seemingly problematic, no to mention the actually effect on the global balance is open to debate. Yet Blizzard keeps relying on such pattern in disregard of protest and warning from the community. The continuum of such balancing policy will ultimately challenge the patience of the community to the extent that very few people genuinely give a fuck about what Blizzard does, how Blizzard does it and why Blizzard does it - that may be the time when people lose the faith in SC2. Before the scenario reaches such severe state, there are genuine questions for Blizzard: what is the position taken by the balance team regarding in-game race priority, and how does the team justify it?
On December 08 2017 18:48 xongnox wrote: Maybe they should look at bio TvZ ? the most imba MU.
Hm, I can't see it like that. It's just that Terra was so used to play bio in every MU. Now Terra has to vary playstyles. And I believe, that's one of the major intentions of the design patch. I admit, that it's quite hard to work out new approaches like playing mech with small bio drops or something else on the highest levels, but I'm absolutely confident, the korean pro players will soon come up with some interesting ideas
Finally, dunno why some people whine crazy about toss not being let OP for 6 months before nerfs. We are just after a design patch. They are always frequent balance change after a design patch, it was expected.
I totally agree with that. The design patch completely shook up the meta. And that was it's purpose. But of course you have to do some quick fine adjustments after such a heavy blow...
On December 08 2017 08:32 Charoisaur wrote: The main thing that needs to be fixed about the game (design-wise not balance-wise) are mass air battles but for some reason the devs refuse to adress or even acknowledge this is a problem.
What are they gonna do? Change their pathing fundamentally?
I guess after all the best way to go about it would be to nerf the "capital ships" into the ground so long games don't devolve into them.
Chrono change seems really good. But Stalkers doing less damge should be enough, they should still get +2 with upgrades. Or just make the upgrades less strong and keep the stalker at 15, but both at once? I'll have to see the disruptor change in games first.
Seriously I don't play Protoss, but it just seems like too much at once. Terran whining at it's best again :/. They should make the marauder better by giving it a single attack again instead of nerfing Stalkers that much.
Anyway I hope they won't start reverting everything again. Buff more instead of nerf more imo (except air to ground, don't buff air ).
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with is fine.
It's still unhealthy regardless of whether it's balanced or not. Adding a delay also helps reduce the amount of the "game ending moments" that Blizzard doesn't want.
Incidentally I wonder how the stalker change affects ZvP. While it's a huge nerf against terran, you do kill zerglings faster early on in ZvP which might help?
The weapon upgrades nerf for stalkers seems unnecessarily hasty of a change to make. Though maybe the balance team too feels pressured by all these sudden qualifiers.
I am more afraid of early roach/ravager + proxy hatch cheeses than ling floods in regards of that change. It is already hard without msc and stalker nerf might make it even harder.
The 1 sec delay will have bigger impact on hitting bio balls (especially with stim) than the worker lines imho. Still it is not as big of a deal - not many people open fast prism+disruptor in PvT as blink openers are so much better (I did I try both).
On December 08 2017 15:11 SHODAN wrote: terran player perspective:
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio 2) micro potential of mech 3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units.
Well, that's what mech is, a bunch of slow high damage units. The whole game in a mech vs Zerg is about Terran trying to get helions to mineral lines and it all ends with 1 big battle.
On top of that mechers ask for the removal of swarm hosts and you're asking for even more antiair, as if 1 thor shutting down any mutalisk play wasn't enough.
Asking for more microable units when you basicaly force zergs into a no micro gameplay is ironic at least.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
Sure buddy, it's not like Disruptor drop have been around since the start of LotV and it has been buffed now right? Also it's clear that when someone thinks it's shit play, it's their problem, but if you think it isn't, you're absutely right and Blizzard should listen to you.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
On December 08 2017 07:58 Olli wrote: Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong.
Chronoboost change I like a lot, reverting the oracle is smart as well to line up with it.
Interference matrix is cool, I guess? Ravens just aren't useful aside from TvT, and as long as they require a tech lab or become absurdly strong that'll continue to be the case. Aside from specific openings, you'd never invest into a starport and tech lab for ravens, unless you're meching, and even then vikings and liberators are generally more useful.
Disruptor change I'm fine with, they're stupidly good in some scenarios and completely useless in others. This introduces a bit of micro potential for both players and I like that.
The double stalker change is pretty stupid. Try one at a time. Especially because the widow mine change, as well as chronoboost, should help against the mass gateway style as well. So that's a triple patch concerning one specific playstyle that's currently really strong in PvT. It's not an uninteresting or turtley style of play either, so I'd like to avoid killing it entirely.
Templar openings were strong, too. Then Protoss was quadruple nerfed all at once, now they're gone. Please don't make the same mistakes again.
Hmm, I agree with most of your post,liking the individual chances apart from the stalker one and your opinion of the practice of overnerfing but I don't agree with this being "classically" a Protoss thing. This balance team in particular seems to like to do this in general; Member the triple infestor nerf?
Honestly I think terran whining and toxic behaviour is the worst in this game.
Sad if blizzar actually listens.
The stalker and shield batteries did a lot make protoss feel less impotent and flexible together with chrono.
I can understand the chrono change, but the stalker has to remain. This is a huge nerf, especially the late game missing +2 and the missing burst damage for micro potential.
I don't know what they are thinking? This is really idiotic.
Plus of course an incredible row of terran buffs which terrans ignore now but will come back later to bite everybody in the ass.
So disappointing again. Maybe it's time to let SC2 die finally after years of terran favouritism and now that shitty warbox behaviour..
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
It has got to be quite annoying for pros, but its even annoying for causals. I just want to play Protoss without needing to re-learn builds or strats all the time. I'm okay with that if its because the meta is shifting naturally, but not if its because some dude at blizzard decided what I'm currently doing needs to be stopped.
I didn't even bother learning any builds for the new disruptor because I suspected it would be nerfed into the ground within a week or so, but these changes are so drastic they'll effect everything.
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
It has got to be quite annoying for pros, but its even annoying for causals. I just want to play Protoss without needing to re-learn builds or strats all the time. I'm okay with that if its because the meta is shifting naturally, but not if its because some dude at blizzard decided what I'm currently doing needs to be stopped.
I didn't even bother learning any builds for the new disruptor because I suspected it would be nerfed into the ground within a week or so, but these changes are so drastic they'll effect everything.
I agree, it took long enough to get used to the new stalker speed when kiting, now you have to relearn it again, I'm all for changes but fucking with units speed is so annoying.
On December 08 2017 15:11 SHODAN wrote: terran player perspective:
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio 2) micro potential of mech 3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units.
Well, that's what mech is, a bunch of slow high damage units. The whole game in a mech vs Zerg is about Terran trying to get helions to mineral lines and it all ends with 1 big battle.
On top of that mechers ask for the removal of swarm hosts and you're asking for even more antiair, as if 1 thor shutting down any mutalisk play wasn't enough.
Asking for more microable units when you basicaly force zergs into a no micro gameplay is ironic at least.
mate, I've seen things you wouldn't believe. roach/hydra/viper armies torn apart by multi-pronged hellion/cyclone/mine harass. I watched a maxed ultra army get kited all the way across Dusk Towers. all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
yes, sadly that's what mech is. but it's not what mech should be. mech is an idea, a way of life. every terran player with half a brain wants thors removed from the game and replaced with a high skill AA unit. the only reason why thors are fun to use is because of the medivac. likewise, the only micro you can do with the current cyclones is afforded by medivacs. hellbats... same story. maybe you weren't as clued into the 2016 meta, but speedy mech was developing into something great thanks to lock-on cyclones.
for the record, I don't want swarm-hosts removed from the game. free units is a perfectly fine design concept. I just want a different answer to them.
on the 2016 patch, if Z went swarm hosts, you could move out with lock-on cyclone/hellion/mine and force him to defend. now Z knows exactly where the terran army is at all times. that's why playing vs swarm hosts is obnoxious... because mech is poorly designed, not because swarm hosts are poorly designed.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
Sure buddy, it's not like Disruptor drop have been around since the start of LotV and it has been buffed now right? Also it's clear that when someone thinks it's shit play, it's their problem, but if you think it isn't, you're absutely right and Blizzard should listen to you.
sure 'buddy', whoever you are, but how about you try reading my post?
Nowhere did I say this is how the disruptor SHOULD be. I said give it time to see if it is something the meta can form around, or if it truly is something that is stupid. The examples that have been given are literally horrendous. it's not like there is 0 terran players doing well on either server. In fact, as shown by players on both EU and KR, Terrans are indeed able to get good winrates even among the insane meta of PvT atm.
So, instead of playing it out, we're just throwing the meta around again. That doesn't really accomplish much and if anything, THAT makes the game much more volatile.
Hilarious to see Protoss tears. My favorite justification for whine is when they site "during x time we had a less than 50% winrate! So based on that being imba should be allowed!" Thats really sound logic...game use to be fucked up and so now we should leave it fucked up! LOL. Patches should happen fast when there are obvious problems. When those problems are making ur mmr artificially high the answer is always "please! Please blizz give it time! Meta will evolve!! And i might hit gm before u do!" Watch a vod of any top kr terran players stream since the first patch and the tvp matchups. These dudes are trying to go mech they are so desperate. And headsup to zerg get ready to bitch and moan yourselves cause as top eu zergs pointed out before any patch mech isnt going to be viable as a long term strategy in tvz. Thank god boring as f to play and watch. Kr zergs have caught up with the meta..its dead and bio will be getting buffed for sure.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
On December 08 2017 16:15 Scarlett` wrote:
On December 08 2017 15:53 iMrising wrote: 1. Doing them all at once is too fast. It feels like blizzard is too trigger happy 2. I really don't understand the disruptor changes and I encourage anyone who disagrees with me to talk with me, but it definitely feels nerfed beyond oblivion.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
That isn't even the main strategical counterpoint. The biggest factor, which you can clearly see in the game clip she linked is that the army value of the protoss is shit during that startup phase. So, they have to be microing well; and moreover, if you look at what he is building, he literally starts a colo, and like 1 sentry during that whole 30 seconds.
These sorts of builds have their ups and downs, and to just say that because he got 5 scv kills and killed a building turret is the pinnacle of shit gameplay, idk. Personally, I don't like the new disruptor myself, but at least lets try this stuff for more than like 30 days of 'off season' gameplay.
shit gameplay is being able to do consistent damage with 0 risk, yes; it feels miserable playing against it (whether or not it is in fact balanced)
i literally told you the risk of playing this style in my post.
i mean lets be honest here, do you think people enjoy playing the styles of protoss we had to play in the past just to be competitive?
and lets not be hyperbolic, as you clearly see in the game vikings easily chase away the WP. now, when is building them or if they are the right response? idk? im not a top 16 gm KR terran player and im not gonna sit here and pretend to be one.
but to throw your hands up in the air and just say "well, that fucking warp prism pick up range with a disruptor is dumb" when he literally flies the thing into the guys main mineral line, the dude doesnt move anything, and then literally just proceeds to fly out seems to scream more about being out of position and unprepared than anything else.
what you're talking about is more the fundamental ideology of how you 'think' a race is supposed to be played, or how you are 'supposed' to play against it. if you are unhappy with that, that is your own problem and not one with the game itself.
i will grant you that there is, of course, clear examples where this is shit for the game all around like BL infestor in WoL. it is something that was abysmal to play and to view. and there are more like that. but there is nothing inherently "shit" about a WP with an early disruptor other than the fact that you apparently dont like finding new ways to fight against it because it is different than before, at least, as it stands NOW.
look, as i mentioned, i am not really happy with the disruptor myself, but that doesnt change the fact that people are reeling over changes that have been around for ~month and not even been tested against counter builds that are being played in WCS level tournaments. i mean you should know, you're a high level zerg, there is an always evolving meta on the KR server. if people basically opened 100% of their games with WP disruptor and proceeded to win something like ~65%+ of them while the other person was completely failing to defend that initial pressure after X amount of time in tournaments then i'd totally be behind you; that just isnt the case.
Sure buddy, it's not like Disruptor drop have been around since the start of LotV and it has been buffed now right? Also it's clear that when someone thinks it's shit play, it's their problem, but if you think it isn't, you're absutely right and Blizzard should listen to you.
sure 'buddy', whoever you are, but how about you try reading my post?
Nowhere did I say this is how the disruptor SHOULD be. I said give it time to see if it is something the meta can form around, or if it truly is something that is stupid. The examples that have been given are literally horrendous. it's not like there is 0 terran players doing well on either server. In fact, as shown by players on both EU and KR, Terrans are indeed able to get good winrates even among the insane meta of PvT atm.
So, instead of playing it out, we're just throwing the meta around again. That doesn't really accomplish much and if anything, THAT makes the game much more volatile.
edit: as ret has just stated himself as well.
I totaly disagree. When something that is clearly bad design is found in the game it should be patched imediately. David Kim's aproach was always like yours, and what happend is that Byun won a GSL with reaper cheese.
On December 08 2017 23:24 DomeGetta wrote: Hilarious to see Protoss tears. My favorite justification for whine is when they site "during x time we had a less than 50% winrate! So based on that being imba should be allowed!" Thats really sound logic...game use to be fucked up and so now we should leave it fucked up! LOL. Patches should happen fast when there are obvious problems. When those problems are making ur mmr artificially high the answer is always "please! Please blizz give it time! Meta will evolve!! And i might hit gm before u do!" Watch a vod of any top kr terran players stream since the first patch and the tvp matchups. These dudes are trying to go mech they are so desperate. And headsup to zerg get ready to bitch and moan yourselves cause as top eu zergs pointed out before any patch mech isnt going to be viable as a long term strategy in tvz. Thank god boring as f to play and watch. Kr zergs have caught up with the meta..its dead and bio will be getting buffed for sure.
Mech has no room for a skilled terran player to excel. "Positioning siege tanks" is as far as it can go. Bio terrans should step up in these threads and end this madness.
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Well if terran player had a viking or even was a bit more lucky (GumiHo almost spotted the prism with his marines) he would deflect the drop. Actually it looked like he was suspecting WP from protoss player and trying to find and intercept it but failed to do so. The only question is if it is ok design-wise when you drop disruptor on top of some unit and use nova so there is almost instant explosion and no potential for micro from the oponent. This is both true for worker harass as well as against army movements. TBH idk - rarely ever this behavior does insane hits.
On December 08 2017 15:11 SHODAN wrote: terran player perspective:
unimaginative changes which don't address the core design issues.
agree with the disruptor nerf
agree with the oracle nerf
strongly disagree with the chrono and stalker nerfs. it's the wrong approach. it messes with ZvP.
the most pressing issues for terran were not addressed:
1) strength of bio 2) micro potential of mech 3) terran anti-air and overlapping roles
universal consensus in the sc2 community that the marauder's single-shot attack should be reinstated.
widespread dissatisfaction with the micro potential of mech. in particular, tornado blaster cyclones.
there is ZERO skill difference between Innovation killing a zealot with a tornado blaster cyclone vs. a platinum league player killing a zealot with a cyclone. no kiting, no scoot and shoot, no nothing. probably the worst unit design in the game...
ground-to-ground lock-on should be reinstated. kiting is fun, a-move is not.
cyclone anti-air damage needs some major buffs. none of this "first 4 shots fire faster" bullshit. make it strong like the early days of LotV. if it's too strong in the early-game, add charon booster AA range upgrade and mag-field accelerator to the techlab.
widespread dissatisfaction with the state of terran anti-air. too much overlap. all of terran's mech AA is clumsy, slow, unmicroable, or hard-countered by one or more Z/P units.
Well, that's what mech is, a bunch of slow high damage units. The whole game in a mech vs Zerg is about Terran trying to get helions to mineral lines and it all ends with 1 big battle.
On top of that mechers ask for the removal of swarm hosts and you're asking for even more antiair, as if 1 thor shutting down any mutalisk play wasn't enough.
Asking for more microable units when you basicaly force zergs into a no micro gameplay is ironic at least.
mate, I've seen things you wouldn't believe. roach/hydra/viper armies torn apart by multi-pronged hellion/cyclone/mine harass. I watched a maxed ultra army get kited all the way across Dusk Towers. all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
yes, sadly that's what mech is. but it's not what mech should be. mech is an idea, a way of life. every terran player with half a brain wants thors removed from the game and replaced with a high skill AA unit. the only reason why thors are fun to use is because of the medivac. likewise, the only micro you can do with the current cyclones is afforded by medivacs. hellbats... same story. maybe you weren't as clued into the 2016 meta, but speedy mech was developing into something great thanks to lock-on cyclones.
for the record, I don't want swarm-hosts removed from the game. free units is a perfectly fine design concept. I just want a different answer to them.
on the 2016 patch, if Z went swarm hosts, you could move out with lock-on cyclone/hellion/mine and force him to defend. now Z knows exactly where the terran army is at all times. that's why playing vs swarm hosts is obnoxious... because mech is poorly designed, not because swarm hosts are poorly designed.
Honestly i dont think mech is ever going to workout vs zerg. The concept of the mech v z matchup is flawed. Basically a mech army in terms of damage output is currently better suited to take on a hive army than bio is but the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases. That combined w zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own..now add in free units from SH /BL and 150 mineral AA defense w queens and spores. Sure it can get wins with timings if the zerg is caught off guard but overall the zerg is gonna have to fuckup to lose imo..no matter how good the terran is..bc skill cap on mech is way too low. And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone??? Smart zerg wont overcommit to kill the terran bc he doesnt have to..smart terran wont move out onto creep ever..so the game drags on and on...if i have to watch another gsl of it will be a sad day. The bio tvz matchup needs review badly. I dont have the answer but ever since queen AA buff and hydra buff became part of the meta there doesnt seem to be any bio openings that put you in a good position for midgame. Hb openings can be defended with queens only. 2 1 1 as well..and greedy openings get punished by too many options (nydus / ravager ling all ins...see dark vods whenever he scouts fast third cc) last problem is still the ultras overall strength late game..which the ghost buff should definitely help with. Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does!
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Ah yes, because Protoss had so much time to react when a boosted medivac dropped a mine inside the mineral line.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
[quote]
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Ah yes, because Protoss had so much time to react when a boosted medivac dropped a mine inside the mineral line.
Yeah last time i checked the widow mine had to burrow to attack...not become invincible and able to chase ur probes..and then it has to unburrow to get picked up..and would u believe it..the medevac has to fly back over it to pick it up..not grab it from way the fuck outside ur base lol.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
preface: my thoughts on cyclones exist in a hypothetical patch where
a) there is no techlab requirement for lock-on cyclones b) there is no auto-cast range bug (you know, the one which went unreported / broken for 7 months) c) the supply cost is 3
the reason why you rarely saw lock-on cyclones as a core unit at pro GSL level was because of the bug, the supply cost, and the techlab requirement.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote: the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases.
patch 3.7 cyclones (4.72 movement speed) are faster than every zerg unit in the game besides metabolic zerglings. this not only makes it possible to defend 4+ bases, it also makes possible a Brood War strategy which has never been a part of sc2... long distance expansions.
patch 3.7 cyclones with 2nd fastest move speed unit in the match-up = you can take a long distance expansion. patch 3.7 cyclones with serious ground and AA damage that can beat lair/hive units = you can take a long distance expansion patch 3.7 cyclones that can kite any zerg unit besides zerglings = you can take a long distance expansion
not only is it possible to take a long distance 4th, it is strategically the best option on maps which allow it (e.g. Frost).
Frozen Temple was a great map for mech vZ because both players had to expand towards each other. 8-fact cyclone/hellion/widow mine vZ resulted in non-stop skirmishes and army trades. the only thing that could break this composition was infestor and/or brood lord - in which case, you needed to transition to tanks or thors. but under my hypothetical conditions, it would be very difficult for zerg to transition to brood lords thanks to the constant army trades and low-econ circumstances.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own
8-factory lock-on cyclone/hellion/widow mine can remax almost as fast as zerg can remax.
factor the time it takes for zerg to group up and travel across the map.
factor the ability for terran to buy time with planetaries + repair + lock-on kiting
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone???
lock-on cyclones have amazing synergy they have with hellions and widow mines. this composition is fast, furious, and very entertaining to watch. the games where Innovation went hellion/cyclone vZ made for some very excited live report threads
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does!
hey, you found that someone. it's me! here is the solution to fix mech vZ
1) bring back patch 3.7 cyclones - remove tornado blasters - reinstate ground-to-ground lock-on - reinstate ground-to-air lock-on - revert the movement speed nerf - revert the health buff (yep, you found a terran player asking for a terran nerf. cyclones should be glass cannons) - supply cost: 3 - patch 3.7 model size - bring back mag-field accelerator upgrade
2) no techlab limitation
3) reduce the cost to 125/75 and proportionally reduce ground-to-ground lock-on damage to match the cost (e.g. -20% damage, 320 damage over 14 seconds)
4) new upgrade: charon boosters. increases lock-on activation range for the ground-to-air weapon by 3 (activation range, not missile range)
5) if early game AA damage becomes a problem (too strong against oracle / overlords / medivacs / banshees), make AA dmg an upgrade, or merge the upgrade bonus with one of the other cyclone upgrades (e.g. mag field or charon boosters also increases the AA damage)
Really good changes overall. The Stalker nerf seems a little bit controversial but I think it is needed, right now the Stalker is way too good vs marines (3 shooting marines) and other light units, this change addresses exactly this problem. I'm still not convinced that they going in the right direction with the mine but it’s a buff to a garbage unit so I’m neutral to this one.
And to all who are saying things like “blizz is terran biased!”, “5 protoss nerfs at once, that’s too much, the Meta needs to settle down!”, “they wanted the stalker to be a strong unit, why are they rolling back?!” or “after 3.8 terran was favored for months in PvT that’s unfair!11”.
First off, the Stalker will be still better than pre 4.0, Chrono boost will be still better than pre 4.0, Protoss will still have better timings than pre 4.0 and the widow mine is still worse than pre 4.0. So i don't know why any Protoss player is upset right now. Blizz changed a lot with 4.0 and it was clear they will change a lot after 4.0.
Secondly, the balance teams job is to balance the game and keep it fun to play, not keeping a Matchup unbalanced for 3 month only because they made a mistake a year ago. I prefer watching good TvPs rather than watching Terrans doing 2 base all-ins or going mech in 90% of the games for another 2 month.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
On December 08 2017 23:24 DomeGetta wrote: Hilarious to see Protoss tears. My favorite justification for whine is when they site "during x time we had a less than 50% winrate! So based on that being imba should be allowed!" Thats really sound logic...game use to be fucked up and so now we should leave it fucked up! LOL. Patches should happen fast when there are obvious problems. When those problems are making ur mmr artificially high the answer is always "please! Please blizz give it time! Meta will evolve!! And i might hit gm before u do!" Watch a vod of any top kr terran players stream since the first patch and the tvp matchups. These dudes are trying to go mech they are so desperate. And headsup to zerg get ready to bitch and moan yourselves cause as top eu zergs pointed out before any patch mech isnt going to be viable as a long term strategy in tvz. Thank god boring as f to play and watch. Kr zergs have caught up with the meta..its dead and bio will be getting buffed for sure.
Mech has no room for a skilled terran player to excel. "Positioning siege tanks" is as far as it can go. Bio terrans should step up in these threads and end this madness.
in general i agree with your overall point about mech vs. bio. Hellions have some micro potential and, isn't the Cyclone designed to be very "micro-able" ?
preface: my thoughts on cyclones exist in a hypothetical patch where
a) there is no techlab requirement for lock-on cyclones b) there is no auto-cast range bug (you know, the one which went unreported / broken for 7 months) c) the supply cost is 3
the reason why you rarely saw lock-on cyclones as a core unit at pro GSL level was because of the bug, the supply cost, and the techlab requirement.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote: the problem is its too easy for zerg to take the entire map while terran tries to spread his slow army out enough to cover 4 bases.
patch 3.7 cyclones (4.72 movement speed) are faster than every zerg unit in the game besides metabolic zerglings. this not only makes it possible to defend 4+ bases, it also makes possible a Brood War strategy which has never been a part of sc2... long distance expansions.
patch 3.7 cyclones with 2nd fastest move speed unit in the match-up = you can take a long distance expansion. patch 3.7 cyclones with serious ground and AA damage that can beat lair/hive units = you can take a long distance expansion patch 3.7 cyclones that can kite any zerg unit besides zerglings = you can take a long distance expansion
not only is it possible to take a long distance 4th, it is strategically the best option on maps which allow it (e.g. Frost).
Frozen Temple was a great map for mech vZ because both players had to expand towards each other. 8-fact cyclone/hellion/widow mine vZ resulted in non-stop skirmishes and army trades. the only thing that could break this composition was infestor and/or brood lord - in which case, you needed to transition to tanks or thors. but under my hypothetical conditions, it would be very difficult for zerg to transition to brood lords thanks to the constant army trades and low-econ circumstances.
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:zerg macro mechanic needing 1 building per tech tree being able to literally bank max armies in larva made it hard enough on its own
8-factory lock-on cyclone/hellion/widow mine can remax almost as fast as zerg can remax.
factor the time it takes for zerg to group up and travel across the map.
factor the ability for terran to buy time with planetaries + repair + lock-on kiting
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:And lets be honest...outside of terran players who play mech..can we really say these games are entertaining for anyone???
lock-on cyclones have amazing synergy they have with hellions and widow mines. this composition is fast, furious, and very entertaining to watch. the games where Innovation went hellion/cyclone vZ made for some very excited live report threads
On December 09 2017 00:17 DomeGetta wrote:Easy to point out problems much harder to find solution. Hope someone does!
hey, you found that someone. it's me! here is the solution to fix mech vZ
1) bring back patch 3.7 cyclones - remove tornado blasters - reinstate ground-to-ground lock-on - reinstate ground-to-air lock-on - revert the movement speed nerf - revert the health buff (yep, you found a terran player asking for a terran nerf. cyclones should be glass cannons) - supply cost: 3 - patch 3.7 model size - bring back mag-field accelerator upgrade
2) no techlab limitation
3) reduce the cost to 125/75 and proportionally reduce ground-to-ground lock-on damage to match the cost (e.g. -20% damage, 320 damage over 14 seconds)
4) new upgrade: charon boosters. increases lock-on activation range for the ground-to-air weapon by 3 (activation range, not missile range)
5) if early game AA damage becomes a problem (too strong against oracle / overlords / medivacs / banshees), make AA dmg an upgrade, or merge the upgrade bonus with one of the other cyclone upgrades (e.g. mag field or charon boosters also increases the AA damage)
This is interesting - I would be all for a version of mech that doesn't = turtle 4 base max and hope the Zerg attacks.. I'm not sure how viable it would be but I'm honestly open to anything vs. we have now. I'd prefer a fix for bio cause I still find playing and watching those games more entertaining - but can't say I have anything to compare it to relative to this - could be interesting.
I think hydralisks upgrades should be separated, they come out very quickly and they power up so fast. I think slowing that power spike when they do get the bonus speed and range will also allow for Terran specifically bio Terrans, will have a bigger window in which they can attack the Zerg. I think another good idea for helping bio vs Z is taking away the +5 HP Buff that baneling speed gives. Granted a lot of these are nerfs but in TvZ if the Bioterran goes for tanks they usually want to upgrade their ship armor. So once Zerg gets +1 armor and the speed upgrade a siege tank will no longer be able to 1 shot banes in a splash radius as effectively unless they also get that upgrade. Which Terrans aren't doing too much atm. Vikings are also lackluster units in the late game, perhaps re-syncing the mech upgrades again may help overall late game when transitioning to air? I can see how a lot of these changes are controversial but right now Terran has very limited opportunities vs Zerg when going bio, and even when we go mech our units can still be out scaled.
Good direction for changes, now address swarmhost/carriers nerf them to the same level ravens are nerfed to, otherwise re-buff the raven because Terran currently has no late game vs Z or P.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
I feel like this is something that is being overlooked because everyone is upset about the nerf, that's a big reduction in weapon period time so kiting with blink Stalkers (it's not like Stalkers have ever benefited from just being a moved anyways they have always been about micro) is about to get stronger, I do feel like the Chronoboost nerf is sufficient at the moment though, I'm not a big fan of..
Chrono nerf (justified)
Stalker nerf (would be justified if Chrono wasn't already being nerfed)
Disruptor nerf (I don't care, I think this unit needs to be scrapped or redesigned into some bug like unit that shoots explosives...maybe they could call it something like the Reaver?)
It's not like Protoss is mega overpowered anything they are just pretty strong vs. Terran which I can see is what these nerfs are directed towards, I have to admit, Protoss feels a bit on the weak side vs. Zerg lately.....and I play Zerg...So I'm either waiting for Zerg nerfs (Droplords could probably go up to 50/50 or come out with maybe an upgrade in the Evolution Chamber) and we all know Ultralisks are still pretty silly vs Terran bio, so I'm predicting another Zerg nerf or two.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
Yep. Stalkers are way too strong now. Even after this upcoming nerf, they are still very strong.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
They're the exact units you buff when removing overcharge. Overcharge was used mostly to deal with early game shenanigans. Without it, what you have to deal with them, and drop play, is mostly gateway units and shield batteries.
Removing overcharge without buffing gateway units was never going to be possible. That's something you have to realize.
As for early marines, you still make one bunker to deal with the first few stalkers and that's it. It's always been this way. Stalkers being stronger doesn't change that.
Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
On December 09 2017 03:05 Olli wrote: Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
I wonder if I even care enough to wait for the eventual re-buff. When PvT win-rates dip far below the current TvP win-rates, I wonder what Terrans will think should be done.
If all of Protoss' units are going to need ridiculous micro to get any value at all, I don't really see the point of playing the race any more. No one thought "Omg, Stalkers are too good in main-army battles" pre design-change, but they're going to be worse in those situations if this change goes through.
I guess the only good thing about it is that we can build 1 or 2 fewer stalkers to snipe things in the late game ... I certainly won't want to be building any more of them than my opponent forces me to.
i think nerfing stalkers is overkill, protoss needs the stalker to be strong in order to hold roach ravager allins in pvz. Stronger stalkers also mean that protoss can deflect drops if they position well, Which I think is good its allot better than when ms core meant protoss always had at least one base that could not be droped. I think the vast majority of the problems with this patch are cause by the insanely strong chrono that when stacked on long researches or production time allows protoss to do insanely powerful allins. I think toning donw the strength of chrono is enough, plz dont touch the stalker until we see how things would shake out with weaker chrono but decent stalker. Im also concerned for pvz balance Im worried that nerfing protoss to help the admittedly imbalanced pvt matchup will make them to week in pvz.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
They're the exact units you buff when removing overcharge. Overcharge was used mostly to deal with early game shenanigans. Without it, what you have to deal with them, and drop play, is mostly gateway units and shield batteries.
Removing overcharge without buffing gateway units was never going to be possible. That's something you have to realize.
As for early marines, you still make one bunker to deal with the first few stalkers and that's it. It's always been this way. Stalkers being stronger doesn't change that.
Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
Nah sorry man..this arguement isnt logical. Overcharge was in the game for defensive purposes. If the stalker buff only helped defense then I would agree but it obviously doesnt. Using stalkers early game with kiting was always strong..this just makes it even stronger and there is no point of that.. yah you can build a bunker obviously you can but that doesnt mean proxy gate builds cant get stalkers to the nat before they are up and bunkers work wonders on maps where you can blink into the main lol. Cheaper or more readily available static defense maybe.. but core gateway unit buff makes no sense relative to what got taken away. The fact that they also buffed disrupters..a unit that already synergized well with stalkers is just amplifying the issue later on.
On December 08 2017 21:25 Ej_ wrote: This time in the weekly balance whine thread: Protoss players teaching Scarlett who beat DRG and Keen with P about the game.
No one is teaching anyone anything.
we already went over this a few community updates back, just because you're a pro player doesn't mean you can't be biased or wrong when it comes to balance. It also just so happens that scarlett balance whines about protoss even when protoss doesn't perform well and comments on PvT..
Go find the discussion if you are interested more in the topic.
On December 09 2017 03:05 Olli wrote: Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
I wonder if I even care enough to wait for the eventual re-buff. When PvT win-rates dip far below the current TvP win-rates, I wonder what Terrans will think should be done.
If all of Protoss' units are going to need ridiculous micro to get any value at all, I don't really see the point of playing the race any more. No one thought "Omg, Stalkers are too good in main-army battles" pre design-change, but they're going to be worse in those situations if this change goes through.
I guess the only good thing about it is that we can build 1 or 2 fewer stalkers to snipe things in the late game ... I certainly won't want to be building any more of them than my opponent forces me to.
If all of Protoss' units are going to need ridiculous micro to get any value at all!
On December 09 2017 04:59 Lokxpr wrote: With the chrono and the Stalker nerf I don't think protoss will ever be able to hold early ravagers all in, i don't see a way.
yeah I think you can hold but it will require protoss to play very saftley, and than they will just get rolled by zerg who decide to not allin. I dont think adept scout comes out early enough for you to reactivly make additional gateways to hold on vs roach ravager. I think you have to make these gateways to hold it, so protoss might be forced into more gateway heavy early games which will make it difficult to scout, pressure and expand because curently protoss relies on tech builds for these functions and protoss might not saftley be able to tech if theses nerfs all go through. Honestly I think they should buff terran bio instead of nerfing protoss, nerfing toss after msc removal is rough.
On December 08 2017 16:35 -Kyo- wrote: ROFL, these protoss changes are absolutely hilarious
[quote]
u should know how much of an investment that is... -_- he thought he could defend without pulling workers, he didnt -_-
sure it's awful gameplay, but to basically nerf everything that was even patched to toss in the first place is like almost nonsensical
Actually, I think with the new disrupter, building a single turret in the mineral line is even better than before because it means toss has to drop outside of the mineral line, meaning you can just move one scv in front of the shot. However I haven't played it yet because disrupter drop builds are already a large investment and are a rare build.
I also don't see how it is any different from say a widowmine drop except being a larger investment lol.
Think of an expensive widow mine that fires instantly deals 145 damage and can get picked up from six range.
You avoided my question.
I'm going to sleepers now.
I assumed you were being intentionally obtuse and thus it wasn't worth answering. But if you were being serious...
On December 08 2017 16:31 youngjiddle wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
On December 08 2017 16:21 youngjiddle wrote: Toss does something awesome
Awful gameplay xD xD xD
The way the opponent has absolutely no chance whatsoever to react is definitely awesome too I take it.
Are you implying that the warp prism that barely slipped past the marines could not have been stopped in anyway?
The problem is obviously that you can't react to the shot once the disruptor has landed. For basically any other form of harassment there's at least some leisure to react if you failed to prevent the drop from happening. Not so for the disruptor which can just drop on top of the units instagib them and leave immediately. The widow mine has an attack delay precisely for that reason. Baneling drops are the most similar thing to it I guess, but there's a huge rift in the mobility and versatility of disruptor drops (before this change) and bane drops.
However the bane drops are capable of erasing whole mineral line wheras disruptor drop will kill 3-6 workers not more. I agree that there is little to do for defenders once the disruptor lands in the mineral line - however it is hardly inbalanced imho. The investment costs + actual dmg you can do with it - is fine.
Except that warp prisms are twice as fast as droper lords and banelings die when they attack, while with disruptors drop you kill workers for free and leave unharmed.
Yeah sure that's why it is not so easy to compare them. Also we should take into consideration the cost, shall we? Warp Prism + Speed + 1 disruptor cost: 200 + 100/100 + 150/150 = 450/250 1 dropolord + 4 banes cost: 100 + 25/25 + 200/100 (4x 50/25) = 325/125 <- where usually you must have overlord anyway as a "supply depot"
and if we assume that 1 dropped disruptor shot kills 5 workers then we need like 3-4 shots to kill similar worker count as with successful bane drop which surely can kill whole mineral line.
So I am not saying that bane drops are imba just saying that disruptor drops doesn't feel imba either in comparison. Maybe it is bad design because it is hard to prevent the drop ? idk to little data to say so as the patch is life several weeks only and almost nobody plays that opener.
Neither i am saying it's a matter of balance, but take a look at that clip. Terran has literaly 2 seconds to see the warp prism on the minimap and react, does that look like good design? Imo it doesn't, so the proposed nerf sounds good to me.
Ah yes, because Protoss had so much time to react when a boosted medivac dropped a mine inside the mineral line.
Yeah dude, we should justify bad design with other bad designs.
On December 09 2017 04:59 Lokxpr wrote: With the chrono and the Stalker nerf I don't think protoss will ever be able to hold early ravagers all in, i don't see a way.
yeah I think you can hold but it will require protoss to play very saftley, and than they will just get rolled by zerg who decide to not allin. I dont think adept scout comes out early enough for you to reactivly make additional gateways to hold on vs roach ravager. I think you have to make these gateways to hold it, so protoss might be forced into more gateway heavy early games which will make it difficult to scout, pressure and expand because curently protoss relies on tech builds for these functions and protoss might not saftley be able to tech if theses nerfs all go through. Honestly I think they should buff terran bio instead of nerfing protoss, nerfing toss after msc removal is rough.
I don't know a lot about PvZ. Can you explain why it will be a lot harder to hold an ravager all in? the Stalker dps is still the same and you can get an Adept scout way faster in 4.0 thanks to the new CB. If this becomes a problem, the better solution would be to reduce the Shield battery build time.
As a Protoss player I'm fine w/ the changes except for the Stalker nerf. Stalkers finally felt they had a solid, well-defined role and in particular the buff to their weapon scaling was very much needed since I think pretty much everybody can agree their scaling into the late game was terrible.
IMO the early game dynamic of the Stalker nerf is going to have a much smaller effect on win ratios compared to their reduced ability to deter drops, which is a core role for the Stalker in the Protoss army. I've always felt that due to the Stalker's high cost and low DPS it was too cost prohibitive to defend drops as Protoss, and they are probably worse off now defending drops than pre-4.0 w/ the removal of the MSC.
If the Stalker nerf goes through and Protoss starts to struggle in early game defense I think Zealot base move speed needs to seriously be looked at (leaving Chargelot speed unchanged). It always made no sense to me how Zealots, the first unit Protoss has available, are almost never built early game.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: As a Protoss player I'm fine w/ the changes except for the Stalker nerf. Stalkers finally felt they had a solid, well-defined role and in particular the buff to their weapon scaling was very much needed since I think pretty much everybody can agree their scaling into the late game was terrible.
But they scaling as good into Lategame as before, they still get +2 attack vs armored units. How many non armored Lategame units are in the game? the only one i can think of is the Ghost.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: IMO the early game dynamic of the Stalker nerf is going to have a much smaller effect on win ratios compared to their reduced ability to deter drops, which is a core role for the Stalker in the Protoss army. I've always felt that due to the Stalker's high cost and low DPS it was too cost prohibitive to defend drops as Protoss, and they are probably worse off now defending drops than pre-4.0 w/ the removal of the MSC.
the Stalker dps wasn't changed at all with 4.0, the Stalker buff only changed how many shots a Stalker needs to kill a medivac and how many Stalker you need to 1shot a medivac. With this patch the stalker still needs 3 shots less to kill a Medivac than before 4.0.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: As a Protoss player I'm fine w/ the changes except for the Stalker nerf. Stalkers finally felt they had a solid, well-defined role and in particular the buff to their weapon scaling was very much needed since I think pretty much everybody can agree their scaling into the late game was terrible.
But they scaling as good into Lategame as before, they still get +2 attack vs armored units. How many non armored Lategame units are in the game? the only one i can think of is the Ghost.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: IMO the early game dynamic of the Stalker nerf is going to have a much smaller effect on win ratios compared to their reduced ability to deter drops, which is a core role for the Stalker in the Protoss army. I've always felt that due to the Stalker's high cost and low DPS it was too cost prohibitive to defend drops as Protoss, and they are probably worse off now defending drops than pre-4.0 w/ the removal of the MSC.
the Stalker dps wasn't changed at all with 4.0, the Stalker buff only changed how many shots a Stalker needs to kill a medivac and how many Stalker you need to 1shot a medivac. With this patch the stalker still needs 3 shots less to kill a Medivac than before 4.0.
These are good clarifications, Stalkers are still in a better place then they were, it seems like this balance team is committed to more regular and attentive balance patching anyways so if Protoss starts to look weak, they will get a buff, they may need one oriented around Zerg (or maybe Zerg just needs a slight nerf somewhere) but they definitely don't need one against Terran at the moment.
Personally I think Protoss will always suffer from design "flaws" because they are the only race that has Warp Gate which clearly negates reinforcement time and nullifies defenders advantage in some cases. The entire race is balanced around a gimmick, if Warp Gate were removed then it would pave the way for Gateway buffs across the board, you can't have super strong units coming out of something 8 at a time anywhere there is a Pylon/Prism, but obviously, that ship has sailed long long ago.
On December 09 2017 04:59 Lokxpr wrote: With the chrono and the Stalker nerf I don't think protoss will ever be able to hold early ravagers all in, i don't see a way.
yeah I think you can hold but it will require protoss to play very saftley, and than they will just get rolled by zerg who decide to not allin. I dont think adept scout comes out early enough for you to reactivly make additional gateways to hold on vs roach ravager. I think you have to make these gateways to hold it, so protoss might be forced into more gateway heavy early games which will make it difficult to scout, pressure and expand because curently protoss relies on tech builds for these functions and protoss might not saftley be able to tech if theses nerfs all go through. Honestly I think they should buff terran bio instead of nerfing protoss, nerfing toss after msc removal is rough.
I don't know a lot about PvZ. Can you explain why it will be a lot harder to hold an ravager all in? the Stalker dps is still the same and you can get an Adept scout way faster in 4.0 thanks to the new CB. If this becomes a problem, the better solution would be to reduce the Shield battery build time.
Because you need stalkers to dps down roaches, and now chrono boosting stalkers take longer and they are weaker. I like the idea of the shield battery, reducing the building time so it becomes more of a reaction to attacks, and make it constructable only in a pylon within the range of a gate/nexus.
On December 09 2017 00:26 YourFavoriteTerran wrote: These changes are actually going to buff blink stalker builds and allins because they will be able to kite attack smoother.
Changing the stalker at all was just a horrendous idea. They need to change it back. They clearly did not think thru that changes implications at all. For a unit that gets its value from kiting the delay on shots is irrelevant so this is just a huge unecessary buff for pre stim timings and drop / lib defense.
Actually that's exactly what it was supposed to do, considering they removed overcharge and shield batteries don't do damage. It was a good change imo.
Disagree - Stalker is a core gateway unit - you don't buff that to replace an ability like overcharge. Overcharge has absolutely no impact on stalkers fighting the first few marines that pop out in the Terran nat.
The fact that 2 stalkers can now kill infinity non-stimmed marines does though.
They're the exact units you buff when removing overcharge. Overcharge was used mostly to deal with early game shenanigans. Without it, what you have to deal with them, and drop play, is mostly gateway units and shield batteries.
Removing overcharge without buffing gateway units was never going to be possible. That's something you have to realize.
As for early marines, you still make one bunker to deal with the first few stalkers and that's it. It's always been this way. Stalkers being stronger doesn't change that.
Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
"double buffing" haha, WM's buildtime almost as cyclone's is dumb after last nerf, and everyone will agree that raven need some adjustments, chrono kills bio so it's a must have nerf.
On December 09 2017 03:05 Olli wrote: Besides, stalkers being strong doesn't equate to them being too strong. If anything they were quite terrible before 4.0 and, imo, were buffed to a reasonable point. I'm fine with nerfing them a bit, but double nerfing them while also nerfing chronoboost and disruptors while double buffing terran is... questionable at best.
I wonder if I even care enough to wait for the eventual re-buff. When PvT win-rates dip far below the current TvP win-rates, I wonder what Terrans will think should be done.
If all of Protoss' units are going to need ridiculous micro to get any value at all, I don't really see the point of playing the race any more. No one thought "Omg, Stalkers are too good in main-army battles" pre design-change, but they're going to be worse in those situations if this change goes through.
I guess the only good thing about it is that we can build 1 or 2 fewer stalkers to snipe things in the late game ... I certainly won't want to be building any more of them than my opponent forces me to.
If all of Protoss' units are going to need ridiculous micro to get any value at all!
thats how terrans have had it for years bruh
decades.. in Brood War i used to run in terror from 4 Zealots... rather than exhausting all 175 APM and sweating my ass off for 25 seconds laser focused on a small battle that'll only kill mineral-units..
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: As a Protoss player I'm fine w/ the changes except for the Stalker nerf. Stalkers finally felt they had a solid, well-defined role and in particular the buff to their weapon scaling was very much needed since I think pretty much everybody can agree their scaling into the late game was terrible.
But they scaling as good into Lategame as before, they still get +2 attack vs armored units. How many non armored Lategame units are in the game? the only one i can think of is the Ghost.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: IMO the early game dynamic of the Stalker nerf is going to have a much smaller effect on win ratios compared to their reduced ability to deter drops, which is a core role for the Stalker in the Protoss army. I've always felt that due to the Stalker's high cost and low DPS it was too cost prohibitive to defend drops as Protoss, and they are probably worse off now defending drops than pre-4.0 w/ the removal of the MSC.
the Stalker dps wasn't changed at all with 4.0, the Stalker buff only changed how many shots a Stalker needs to kill a medivac and how many Stalker you need to 1 shot a medivac. With this patch the stalker still needs 3 shots less to kill a Medivac than before 4.0.
There are plenty of light armor units used that are used in the late game. When I say late game I don't mean high tech units. Late game = bigger armies = DPS plays a bigger role (and in particular DPS/cost, which Stalkers has pretty much the worst ratio of in the game). Stalker DPS wasn't changed in terms of the base raw numbers, but in real world applications it has due to armor and the weapon upgrade scaling changes.
The proposed change makes it so Stalkers kill medivacs in 9 rather than 8 hits. That may not seem like a big deal but it does change the equation quite a bit, likely needing a 5th stalker to deter drops. That is just one example, but there are many unit matchups where I think Stalkers performance should be improved, such as vs. Phoenix, Oracles, Adepts, Mutas, etc. (unit matchups where Stalkers are supposed to be very effective against). We shall see. I just feel there was hardly any time at all for people to adjust to the new Stalker and that it was very rushed especially combined with the other nerfs.
On December 09 2017 08:40 Skyro wrote: We shall see. I just feel there was hardly any time at all for people to adjust to the new Stalker and that it was very rushed especially combined with the other nerfs.
i'm a Terran player and i think the buffed Stalker was pretty cool. I think Blizzard should not nerf the Stalker in its next patch update. Include the other Protoss nerfs and see how things go. As a last resort nerf the Stalker in another patch if things do not improve.
Basically, i want the Stalker to be a much more "core unit" to Protoss play than the fucking flying miracle machine called the Oracle.
Even more generally, i want more ground combat and less air combat.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: As a Protoss player I'm fine w/ the changes except for the Stalker nerf. Stalkers finally felt they had a solid, well-defined role and in particular the buff to their weapon scaling was very much needed since I think pretty much everybody can agree their scaling into the late game was terrible.
But they scaling as good into Lategame as before, they still get +2 attack vs armored units. How many non armored Lategame units are in the game? the only one i can think of is the Ghost.
On December 09 2017 06:31 Skyro wrote: IMO the early game dynamic of the Stalker nerf is going to have a much smaller effect on win ratios compared to their reduced ability to deter drops, which is a core role for the Stalker in the Protoss army. I've always felt that due to the Stalker's high cost and low DPS it was too cost prohibitive to defend drops as Protoss, and they are probably worse off now defending drops than pre-4.0 w/ the removal of the MSC.
the Stalker dps wasn't changed at all with 4.0, the Stalker buff only changed how many shots a Stalker needs to kill a medivac and how many Stalker you need to 1shot a medivac. With this patch the stalker still needs 3 shots less to kill a Medivac than before 4.0.
Although the dps is the same after playing on this patch I think we all learned how powerfull higher burst dmg is on stalkers. It's significant due to overkill, kiteing, and also just generally due to the fact that if you have higher burst at the time of fight initiation, so your other non stalker units will finish targets faster. It's a significant change and one that I'm not happy about. Btw no bias here I'm a Terran masters player. I know toss needs nerfs but why do we have to nerf the stalker? I'd much prefer to see nerfs eslwhere while keeping the new stalker intact.
Reverting the Stalker change is an absolutely terrible idea. And I say that as someone who's been getting their ass kicked recently. Protoss is a more straightforward, yet somehow significantly more fun matchup. If they're going to nerf the Stalker, they should lower the HP by a bit. I am all for keeping their well-controlled hit and run play as strong as it can be without utterly breaking all matchups.
Though I like the 1-second warmup on their shot, I would've liked to have seen a different adaptation to the heavy Disruptor comp issue than just a bland nerf of their cooldown. I entirely agree that large numbers of Disruptors lead to some frustrating and kind of stupid gameplay. But this change also creates problems with their play in lower numbers.
What I would like to see instead would be some slightly out-of-the-box idea that addresses the problem of repeated nova launches by "marking" the ground where a Disruptor shot blows up. This marked ground lasts for some length of time (let's say 15 seconds, just to throw that out there), and its collision behaves similarly to a unit, in that it forcibly detonates any nova that touches it. This will (hopefully) reduce the ability of a Protoss player to create cloying and obnoxious gameplay by holding the same engagement ground with a never-ending series of novas.
On December 09 2017 08:40 Skyro wrote: There are plenty of light armor units used that are used in the late game. When I say late game I don't mean high tech units. Late game = bigger armies = DPS plays a bigger role (and in particular DPS/cost, which Stalkers has pretty much the worst ratio of in the game). Stalker DPS wasn't changed in terms of the base raw numbers, but in real world applications it has due to armor and the weapon upgrade scaling changes.
But Protoss don't need the Stalker vs light units, you already have the Adept, Colossus and Storm to deal with them. Compared to other units the Stalkers DPS/cost is pretty bad but it's not his DPS that makes the Stalker a good unit, back in the Blink Stalker era the DPS/cost was bad too.
On December 09 2017 08:40 Skyro wrote: The proposed change makes it so Stalkers kill medivacs in 9 rather than 8 hits. That may not seem like a big deal but it does change the equation quite a bit, likely needing a 5th stalker to deter drops. That is just one example, but there are many unit matchups where I think Stalkers performance should be improved, such as vs. Phoenix, Oracles, Adepts, Mutas, etc. (unit matchups where Stalkers are supposed to be very effective against). We shall see. I just feel there was hardly any time at all for people to adjust to the new Stalker and that it was very rushed especially combined with the other nerfs.
I considered TvP pre 4.0 as pretty well balanced, maybe a little bit terran favored. If you compare the Game pre 4.0 with the Game after this Patch you will see that Protoss still got huge buffs especially in TvP. I don't even know if Colossus or Disruptor based comps are fine because no Protoss Pro is bothered to techup when Mass gateway Storm is that good at the moment.
the Chrono Boost change won't effect the upgrade situation that much in TvP, so this change and the Disruptor change alone aren't anywhere near enough to balance TvP.
On December 09 2017 08:40 Skyro wrote: There are plenty of light armor units used that are used in the late game. When I say late game I don't mean high tech units. Late game = bigger armies = DPS plays a bigger role (and in particular DPS/cost, which Stalkers has pretty much the worst ratio of in the game). Stalker DPS wasn't changed in terms of the base raw numbers, but in real world applications it has due to armor and the weapon upgrade scaling changes.
But Protoss don't need the Stalker vs light units, you already have the Adept, Colossus and Storm to deal with them. Compared to other units the Stalkers DPS/cost is pretty bad but it's not his DPS that makes the Stalker a good unit, back in the Blink Stalker era the DPS/cost was bad too.
On December 09 2017 08:40 Skyro wrote: The proposed change makes it so Stalkers kill medivacs in 9 rather than 8 hits. That may not seem like a big deal but it does change the equation quite a bit, likely needing a 5th stalker to deter drops. That is just one example, but there are many unit matchups where I think Stalkers performance should be improved, such as vs. Phoenix, Oracles, Adepts, Mutas, etc. (unit matchups where Stalkers are supposed to be very effective against). We shall see. I just feel there was hardly any time at all for people to adjust to the new Stalker and that it was very rushed especially combined with the other nerfs.
I considered TvP pre 4.0 as pretty well balanced, maybe a little bit terran favored. If you compare the Game pre 4.0 with the Game after this Patch you will see that Protoss still got huge buffs especially in TvP. I don't even know if Colossus or Disruptor based comps are fine because no Protoss Pro is bothered to techup when Mass gateway Storm is that good at the moment.
the Chrono Boost change won't effect the upgrade situation that much in TvP, so this change and the Disruptor change alone aren't anywhere near enough to balance TvP.
You forgot to mention the part where they removed the mothership core which single-handedly prevented Protoss from dying to all the all-ins pre-patch. Of course Protoss needed buffs.
You forgot to mention the part where they removed the mothership core which single-handedly prevented Protoss from dying to all the all-ins pre-patch. Of course Protoss needed buffs.
Of course, i don't say Protoss didn't need any buffs to compensated the removal of the MSC and i like that they try to make Gateway units scale better into the late game but may changes they made with 4.0 have huge impact for mid and late game which the MSC didn't have.
Looks like most people think the stalker nerf is overkill, Blizzard should leave it alone for now.
If they break ZvP early game somehow it will be a pain in the ass to balance protoss strengh so that they don't die to zerg but don't kill terrans easely.
What the fuck are you guys thinking about widowmines? The issue is and has ALWAYS been that any other harass that requires detection to deal with hits WAY later than widow mines can. Making proxy widow mines hit even faster is just stupid.
And yes... now you don't need detection to keep them from hitting again.
But widowmines still are ludicrously oppressive for such a fast and low investment drop in lower leagues vs both p and z, with even one set of shots from a drop being effectively instant wins.
On December 09 2017 11:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: early offense from a bunch of Stalkers is just more fun to defend that the Protoss flying-miracle-machine.
a guy really microes his Stalkers well and i just tip my hat to him. defending Oracle stuff is frustrating.
Totally agree, was not fun playing Oracle cheese as Protoss either. If I were Blizzard I would replace Pulsar Beam w/ Time Warp to make the Oracle a pure support unit (since MsC is gone). Oracle could still serve as harass with Stasis Ward (#s could be tweaked to make it balanced). If Time Warp was tweaked it could synergize well with Zealots (as well as with Stasis Ward itself to mop up frozen enemies so they can't run away).
I would also buff Void Rays so their Prismatic Alignment buffs their normal damage as well and give it a defined role as a defensive/siege unit. Then I would move Warp Gate tech to Twilight Council to make things like +1 Glaive Adepts all-ins more expensive (would have to build a 2nd Twilight Council), and then do a balance pass over all of Protoss core gateway units, but I doubt Blizzard will ever touch Warp Gate. I would swap the build times of warped in units vs. normal gateway units as well (e.g. warped in units would create a cooldown longer than normal gateway build time so it is a strategic choice).
i'm a top 8 diamond-tier1 Terran player with 125 APM and i probably play the game 8 months a year. i frequently take 2 week breaks. i have a 2nd account that i play random on and i'm always someplace in diamond with that account... again ~125 APM.
maybe for faster players the Oracle isn't so annoying. just my $0.02.
Less oracle openers/weaker oracle + no MSC is truly a blessing for terran builds. You no longer need to build an Ebay or have insane amounts of anti air very early. Actually i'm working on a TvP build where you open ghosts, then go for full marauder/ghosts/medivacs without marines. You don't need to research shield, you don't need as much minerals and you get a lot of firepower against stalkers.
On December 09 2017 13:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: just for completeness...
i'm a top 8 diamond-tier1 Terran player with 125 APM and i probably play the game 8 months a year. i frequently take 2 week breaks. i have a 2nd account that i play random on and i'm always someplace in diamond with that account... again ~125 APM.
maybe for faster players the Oracle isn't so annoying. just my $0.02.
The problem with the oracle is that it was busted before they nerfed it but now it's kind of trash because it comes out to late. They need to find a happy medium where Terran can hold dumb allins but Protoss can still do harassment and have interesting interaction with the Terran player.
On December 09 2017 14:10 JackONeill wrote: Less oracle openers/weaker oracle + no MSC is truly a blessing for terran builds. You no longer need to build an Ebay or have insane amounts of anti air very early. Actually i'm working on a TvP build where you open ghosts, then go for full marauder/ghosts/medivacs without marines. You don't need to research shield, you don't need as much minerals and you get a lot of firepower against stalkers.
Similarly the weaker mine allowed for greater opening diversity for Protoss in the match-up. Too bad Protoss is still pigeon-holed into one or two openings in PvZ or else you just die to lings.
And they plan to nerf disruptor into the ground great... this was a tool that required multitask,map vision, mb fast reaction, but not more than the mine and since it required more ressources (speedprism to being worth something) & deal almost less econ damage to me seemed good... but no all we should do now is turtle and waiting for collossi to A-Click, great.
We saw so little drop disru so far, nobody has tried the concept a bit far, nobody has the need to adapt to it, yet BAM nerfhammer. 1 sec + cd will just kill the unit, at least they should make the nova still explose once it launch even if the disru is killed.. better was to not make a such delay but...
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
I completely agree with this. The chrono nerf was the only one required for Protoss right now. The others should wait until the meta settles down again.
On December 09 2017 13:59 JimmyJRaynor wrote: just for completeness...
i'm a top 8 diamond-tier1 Terran player with 125 APM and i probably play the game 8 months a year. i frequently take 2 week breaks. i have a 2nd account that i play random on and i'm always someplace in diamond with that account... again ~125 APM.
maybe for faster players the Oracle isn't so annoying. just my $0.02.
The problem with the oracle is that it was busted before they nerfed it but now it's kind of trash because it comes out to late. They need to find a happy medium where Terran can hold dumb allins but Protoss can still do harassment and have interesting interaction with the Terran player.
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
I completely agree with this. The chrono nerf was the only one required for Protoss right now. The others should wait until the meta settles down again.
Disagree, Stalkers were overpowered vs. Marines and Chrono was overpowered in general, both nerfs are highly appropriate for the state of the game, Protoss is very strong right now vs. Terran and these balance changes clearly are targeted to giving Terrans some breathing room in the early game against Protoss openings.
And as for the triple Infestor nerf, they were only nerfed after they were buffed. Even post triple nerfs Infestors are still superior to their pre patch 4.0 brethren, they were triple nerfed because they were highly oppressive to play against and I say this as a Zerg player that was coming up on easy mode wins against Terrans with burrow fungal.
I'm split regarding the Stalker. I like the new slower, heavier shots, but the +2 might be a little much, so i think just the upgrade change to +1/+1 would be enough. I think the stalker will become very underused with this change as it's close to the original one. I guess time will tell.
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
I completely agree with this. The chrono nerf was the only one required for Protoss right now. The others should wait until the meta settles down again.
what meta? mass stalker early into mid every game tvp? lol
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
Totally agree. As simple as that. This "big patch" is being handle so so bad.
They did the exact same thing last year. The problem is practically the only thing Blizzzard cares about in terms of balance is the professional scene which doesn't bother to really start practicing on it till everything is basically set. Blizzard could and should give a streamer or community organizer a few grand to put on weekly balance test tournaments after the last WCS event and the WCS Global Finals. That wouldn't solve all issues but it would hopefully solve a number of ones which the plebeians note but Blizzard refuses to fix until the pros point out the exact same thing.
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
Totally agree. As simple as that. This "big patch" is being handle so so bad.
They did the exact same thing last year. The problem is practically the only thing Blizzzard cares about in terms of balance is the professional scene which doesn't bother to really start practicing on it till everything is basically set. Blizzard could and should give a streamer or community organizer a few grand to put on weekly balance test tournaments after the last WCS event and the WCS Global Finals. That wouldn't solve all issues but it would hopefully solve a number of ones which the plebeians note but Blizzard refuses to fix until the pros point out the exact same thing.
while you right on most of your points, I think there is a few things to be noted.
The new balance team finally talks about the big patches being "game design patches" not balance patches. For example, most people are happy they killed mass oracle, the mothership core, and mass raven. These were changes to improve the game, not the balance. For example the mine being revealed nerf is an amazing change for casual players, though it nerfs the widow mine. However, their balance changes are still overdone.
It is so, so stupid for them to overnerf protoss in PvT when PvZ has the SAME winrate problems that terran's has in PvT, from what we can see yet people won't talk about that.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
I completely agree with this. The chrono nerf was the only one required for Protoss right now. The others should wait until the meta settles down again.
On December 09 2017 11:58 curufinwe_wins wrote: What the fuck are you guys thinking about widowmines? The issue is and has ALWAYS been that any other harass that requires detection to deal with hits WAY later than widow mines can. Making proxy widow mines hit even faster is just stupid.
And yes... now you don't need detection to keep them from hitting again.
But widowmines still are ludicrously oppressive for such a fast and low investment drop in lower leagues vs both p and z, with even one set of shots from a drop being effectively instant wins.
Yes, I'd say this is exactly the wrong way to buff widow mines. They can already be reactored and require very little teching to get. Making them build faster would be an awful change.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
For sure, I definitely agree with that. I do think, though, that as meta actually settles, I think people will get used to the new changes of this patch and the potential next patch. Ultimately, a 45% winrate for Protoss isn't terrible.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
For sure, I definitely agree with that. I do think, though, that as meta actually settles, I think people will get used to the new changes of this patch and the potential next patch. Ultimately, a 45% winrate for Protoss isn't terrible.
If the sky is falling when Protoss have a 55% win rate, it is falling when they have a 45% win rate.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
For sure, I definitely agree with that. I do think, though, that as meta actually settles, I think people will get used to the new changes of this patch and the potential next patch. Ultimately, a 45% winrate for Protoss isn't terrible.
If the sky is falling when Protoss have a 55% win rate, it is falling when they have a 45% win rate.
I think, B team, they are confused/stumped and don't know what they want next. On the other hand, the community saying a lot of. Here's still a lot of discontent. Was there a need for a patch 4.0 at all? Maybe we need to consider that it was only experience and we should roll back?
i like patch 4.0. it lowered the amount of air-to-ground attack options Terran has. i like the terran changes a lot. i like the initial changes to Protoss that included a stronger Stalker along with the Shield Battery as a defensive structure. getting rid of the mothership core was a gutsy move and the right move.
i think this will be the last year they'll make a giant balance patch.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
This is exactly my feelings of pre and post patch PvZ. I did okeyish with classic chargelot immo archon into storm occasionally instantly dying to banes. Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
On December 08 2017 22:04 Liquid`Ret wrote: This balance designer overdoes things.
Triple infestor nerf.
Now Protoss being nerfed x3.
Terran just got ghosts buffed a while ago - now protoss is getting their strenght tuned down and still widow mines are changed as well?
Constantly things are going too far in one direction.
I completely agree with this. The chrono nerf was the only one required for Protoss right now. The others should wait until the meta settles down again.
Disagree, Stalkers were overpowered vs. Marines and Chrono was overpowered in general, both nerfs are highly appropriate for the state of the game, Protoss is very strong right now vs. Terran and these balance changes clearly are targeted to giving Terrans some breathing room in the early game against Protoss openings.
Yup, agreed. The stalker nerf and the chrono nerf both need to go through for PvsT to be balanced. Right now, it's too easy to win as Protoss.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
This is exactly my feelings of pre and post patch PvZ. I did okeyish with classic chargelot immo archon into storm occasionally instantly dying to banes. Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
In PvZ I would already secure taking my third with a mothership, or map control with oracles, but with two huge nerfs (oracles and removal of the momma core) and the stalker/shieldbattery combo being nerfed (stalker damage down again, shield battery cost up) those midgame attacks by zerg are going to be scarier than ever. After these changes I am just gonna two base allin unless if I learn a build soon that works.
Just to touch on the Shield batteries, they only cost 25 minerals more. You can put other units with the SBs other than just stalkers. For the cost of two cannons, you can put down three shield batteries. They are still really, really strong when you use them correctly.
I don't disagree, shield batteries are strong. But I am making a comparison based on current winrates (with the current shield battery cost), and the fact that the winrate could get worse than how bad they are right now with a direct nerf to them.
Another thing, shield batteries are not as helpful vs. crazy burst damage like the baneling. Ling/bane/hydra was already a problem for protoss players when taking a third throughout the end of the year, arguably causing the mass oracle meta and oracle opening meta (which is now nerfed also).
This is exactly my feelings of pre and post patch PvZ. I did okeyish with classic chargelot immo archon into storm occasionally instantly dying to banes. Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
make a collossus
Yeah I'm trying to make it work since the patch got out. Colossus thou is not a remedium to everything. Thing is that I usually get behind because I get my 3rd delayed which leads to delayed 3 Colo timing which then gets crushed as Zerg buys enough time for lurkers as they destroy stalker Colo balls. Is other words Colo is great vs LBH compositions but it doesn't help in getting 3rd base fast and also P is on a timer due to lurkers.
Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
Mass oracle was pretty boring though. Personally the option of getting colossi to stomp the whole hydra/ling/bane is nice.
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
Mass oracle was pretty boring though. Personally the option of getting colossi to stomp the whole hydra/ling/bane is nice.
I think Collossus is much more boring than mass oracles
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Do we still file it under surprise when it works in 3 separate games and TY made no effort to hide it?
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Do we still file it under surprise when it works in 3 separate games and TY made no effort to hide it?
Oh I only caught 1 game. But in theory fungal should counter that strategy pretty hard.
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Do we still file it under surprise when it works in 3 separate games and TY made no effort to hide it?
Gotta love when people want to make their balance arguments on "well didn't you see that one pro-gamer beat this other one ?? Clearly if there was imbalance it would be impossible for a member of the under-powered race to win any games, ever. Considering Dark has chronically struggled vs. Mech - where as EU zergs and finally some Kr zergs catching up have figured it out - this is irrelevant. Tell me more about how "mech is the answer" for Tvz please.
Hey fam, this is just too much.. I agree some changes are needed, but all at once? It's crazy.. I think blizzard should step back a little with these changes, there is no way.. When liberator was so strong, blizzard buff queen and spores (no nerf lib), and now that stalkers can be a threat, u just nerf them to the ground? That is not objective at all, "no nerf way" but hey, its protoss, in this case nerf them all.. And btw, zerg is so strong atm, and 0 changes??? I'm impressed..
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Do we still file it under surprise when it works in 3 separate games and TY made no effort to hide it?
Gotta love when people want to make their balance arguments on "well didn't you see that one pro-gamer beat this other one ?? Clearly if there was imbalance it would be impossible for a member of the under-powered race to win any games, ever. Considering Dark has chronically struggled vs. Mech - where as EU zergs and finally some Kr zergs catching up have figured it out - this is irrelevant. Tell me more about how "mech is the answer" for Tvz please.
Gotta love when people from a parallel universe where that bold part is true try to tell you what your post means.
On December 10 2017 23:45 shadymmj wrote: they should revert the raven change. it's a total failure. terran needs ravens to fight against viper/BL/infestor from what i see.
TY beat Dark with mass thors and widow mines just today
yes but Dark got surprised by the fact TY had wms in his medivacs. If he had known this he would have just made infestors and fungaled the medivacs.
Then I switched into mass Oracle and suddenly PvZ was sooo much easier mainly due to map control. Now I feel it is a bit harder to control the map and take 3rd uninterrupted so I'm worried about these changes.
Mass oracle was pretty boring though. Personally the option of getting colossi to stomp the whole hydra/ling/bane is nice.
I think Collossus is much more boring than mass oracles
On the plus side the existence of the colossus means that zerg doesn't go ling/bane/hydra every game anymore and also goes for stuff like ling/bane/ravager.
The problem with ZvP right now is that ling floods and ling drops are very good at doing damage to Protoss early on, or at the very least delay when the third can be taken, which means zerg is in a strong position going into the midgame. I don't think it needs to be addressed immediately, but it will need to eventually if things stay the same. Maybe a dropperlord nerf will be in order.
I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
It feels to me like Protoss players won't ever be able to have decent tools or units without them being moderated into the ground by Blizzard. I understand that most players are Z/T and complain about Protoss, but that shouldn't effect gameplay or balance philosophy.
I still consider myself primarily a Protoss player, despite playing mostly Terran for the past year. I just can't stand the years of reactionary balance changes that put Protoss players in this ridiculous position of having to invent new ways to win games, and then nerfing those innovations at a slightly slower pace.
I think it's important to keep the damage numbers stable if chronoboost is being nerfed all over again. I'd prefer Blizzard settle on a chronoboost timing, because it's highly ingrained into how I play - it's a timing that I have to build up over years, and it's incredibly annoying to have it changed mechanically and functionally so frequently. Ideally, it'd be exactly how it was in WoL.
I don't particularly care if Terrans get angry when their marines don't insta-kill every gateway unit, or their air unit dies to our "new anti-air unit". We were told this would be a change to how the race operated, and to help compensate for overcharge. We'll now have completed the nerf of every single Protoss buff planned; instead, gve Protoss a proper early-game unit and ignore the endless lobbying by T/Z players and analyze some games with your eyeballs. Ignore the complaints and try to get some of your Protoss playerbase to return to the game and test it out, because we're tired of being beaten down by rhetoric-based patch changes that make the game frustrating and un-fun.
Sorry for the negativity, I do appreciate that the game is being worked on but I'm really surprised - and frankly, angry - at these proposed changes. I can't imagine how any non-pro could ever keep up with it all.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim.
Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim.
Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game.
To answer your question "Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines?", it more like... They don't exactly, but they do need to ultimately be better vs everything else.
For example, with no mothership core protoss needs and effective way to defend proxy cyclones, proxy liberators, proxy rax, ect. You can no longer defend your main with your motheship core, instead you need to split off a unit to defend, making you weaker elsewhere. The way to compensate was the shield battery and the use of stalkers and kiting.
Your comment "Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game" makes no sense because adepts are weak to many things that early-midgame terran can pump out: widow mines, liberators, cyclones, banshees, plus they need an upgrade to do good dps. The adept is in a weird state of being a midgame tanking unit for timing attacks or harrassment.
Also one last thing, just saying "Why should the stalker be good vs. marines?" is just not fair. It's like saying "why should the marine be good vs ______" or any other unit. There's nothing wrong with having a core unit that is just.... good. I've already been saying for months and months that the stalker is one of the worst protoss units (pre 4.0).
Worrying changes all round but especially chronoboost. That's a massive change which will be as bad as Mule nerf hit Terran. I hope they test these changes thoroughly before they go live.
I am very confused on why there is such intense focus on early game stalker vs marine dynamics. Early game Terran has been weak since the dawn of SC2, this interaction only makes it easier to pick off the stray Marine or SCV here or there, whereas this nerf has much bigger ramifications in so many other unit interactions throughout the game. It's not like Terran doesn't have multiple other units that destroy Stalkers, and MMM still obliterates Stalkers in any straight up encounter.
A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue.
On December 11 2017 10:12 Skyro wrote: I am very confused on why there is such intense focus on early game stalker vs marine dynamics. Early game Terran has been weak since the dawn of SC2, this interaction only makes it easier to pick off the stray Marine or SCV here or there, whereas this nerf has much bigger ramifications in so many other unit interactions throughout the game. It's not like Terran doesn't have multiple other units that destroy Stalkers, and MMM still obliterates Stalkers in any straight up encounter.
A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue.
So you're saying that Terran needs an earlygame buff?
On December 11 2017 10:12 Skyro wrote: I am very confused on why there is such intense focus on early game stalker vs marine dynamics. Early game Terran has been weak since the dawn of SC2, this interaction only makes it easier to pick off the stray Marine or SCV here or there, whereas this nerf has much bigger ramifications in so many other unit interactions throughout the game. It's not like Terran doesn't have multiple other units that destroy Stalkers, and MMM still obliterates Stalkers in any straight up encounter.
A lot of Protoss changes have been made that specifically target this early game PvT interaction (Adepts, Oracles, and now Stalkers) and as more and more tweaks are made it highlights to me at its core this is really a game design issue.
Can't agree more. man you are saying sth that all terran want to say.Protoss is gou bi and CNM
On December 08 2017 07:58 Olli wrote: Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong.
It's actually kind of funny now. When the Adept was strong it had one month of play before it got massively nerfed. And it restored TvP to the 45-55% it was before the Adept came into mass usage.
On December 08 2017 07:58 Olli wrote: Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong.
It's actually kind of funny now. When the Adept was strong it had one month of play before it got massively nerfed. And it restored TvP to the 45-55% it was before the Adept came into mass usage.
Isn't 45-55% the optimal range for balance that Blizzard (and everyone) wants?
Actually the real question is, what is the antecedent for "it" the first time it is used in the second sentence? Bonus points if you get the grammar joke.
In any case, I approve of the balance team's approach. Rapid and decisive fixes are completely warranted after drastic design changes like 4.0. This kind of response is exactly what was needed after 3.8 as well, but the balance team dropped the ball last year. It's good to see them learning from their mistakes and correcting imbalance before the tournament season starts up in earnest. Hopefully they will continue to do so.
Can I just point out the fact that in 11 pages of discussion the Raven changes are very rarely mentioned? I think Blizzard might as well delete the unit from the game now and not much would change, maybe only in TvT.
On December 11 2017 15:41 ihatevideogames wrote: Can I just point out the fact that in 11 pages of discussion the Raven changes are very rarely mentioned? I think Blizzard might as well delete the unit from the game now and not much would change, maybe only in TvT.
It's not exactly surprising that people discuss the changes that could make or break PvT rather than some raven tweaks.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim.
Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game.
Don't forget that the -10 from stim is usually mitigated by Medivacs, at the point where you have stim stalkers generally get shredded in a head on engagement.
I don't actually mind the stalker changes though, the current fire rate feels a bit too slow to me. We will have to see how it plays out.
It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
Ah right, I didn't see him on the sidebar so assumed he wasn't streaming atm. Cheers I'll have a look when I get the chance.
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
On December 11 2017 16:42 pvsnp wrote: It's quite surreal watching Inno's Bio-Mine losing a direct engagement with some 6.1k's Chargelot-Stalker. I mean, a Colossus deathball, sure. But a Gateway deathball?
Inb4 some genius claims that "You aren't supposed to engage a gateway army with bio, duh." Or better yet: "Don't let them get there!"
Have you got a link to that happening by any chance? I'm not doubting you at all, but I would be interested to see how it played out if possible.
Sorry, I have no idea how to clip stuff from Panda.
He's still streaming, you can wait for him to run into another Protoss if you want (he's playing soO right now): https://www.panda.tv/1160340
Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
So no balance concerns there.
EDIT: I stand corrected, soO won that game with the followup allin. The mindgames are real. Shitty ravager rush confirmed shitty, but in the best possible way. Still no balance concerns.
On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote: In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ?
Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/
On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner
Hey everyone! First, I want to tell that I like that Blizzard is changing the game, because it makes it alive. If no changes were made than the game would simply die, or its core players mass would decrease massively. In the same time, I think we all want game to be fun and fair. No race or units should be too strong, at which point you can mass it, then A + Click and win the game. At the same times there should be no units or upgrades, which are not rarely to none used. Regarding December changes, I think changes are too limited, as if Blizzard thinks only how to balance TvP, forgetting that there are other match-ups. So, by nerfing protoss they are breaking PvZ, which already was a bit in favor of zerg, now will be unbalanced. Moreover, changes are not addressing the biggest problem of tvp, or tvz is the extinction of bio based armies, as they are almost unplayable, as specially in late game. So, lower is changes which I offer. Terran. New upgrade: 1. “advance Stim”, researched from tech lab, after Stim, fusion core required. After update marines will take minus 5hp, marauders -10hp. This is update is needed for late game as in late game medivac die very fast (from, stalker, phoenix, hydra, corruptors), and what is left is over stimed army which is trying to run away from ultras or colossus. 2. “advance Shields”, researched from tech lab, after combat shields, fusion core required, +10hp to marines and marauders, this address another problem of late game bio that terran units are too easily to die. At the same time this won’t affect either baneligs nor storms(marine will steal die from two banelings and one storm). 3. “advance Interference Matrix” – cost 150/150, after the update Ravens interference Matrix will drain 50 energy from opponents caster. Existing upgrades: 1. “Drilling claws” – make the price 200/200, researched from tech lab(no armory is needed), - mines will stay invisible after the shoot. (it will open possibility for some terran cheese, but will make it very expensive and risky to do. (revert mines production time to 28.6) 2. “Infantry Weapon upgrade 3” will give Marauders +2(or+3 more tests are needed) for attack, instead of +1. 3. “Advance ballistics” – in antiair mode will give Libirator bonus vsLight, and vsShields (terrans air units are The Weakest in the game, at least in late game you can counter Mutas and Phoenixes.) 4. “Corvid Reactor” – delete from the game 5. “Neosteel Frame” – delete from the game
Units: 1. Reapers – rarely used, something needs to be done, perhaps KD8 charge cooldown time reduce from 14 to 10. (makes some cheese possible, but still very hard) 2. Battlercruiser – now almost no use, possibly increase attack range vs ground units from 6 to 8 (for late game harass) Protoss 1. Keep stalkers as they are now(+2 per upgrade and damage) 2. Oracles (damage 15+10 light, damage type changed from normal to spell damage, build time 27.4) 3. Something needs to be done with chrono boost it is too strong in early game. My suggestion: keep chrone boost as it is now, but Nexus needs to be upgraded after “Cybernetics Core” is build. (similar to terran CC to Orbital Command) After upgrade Nexus can cast “Chrono Boost” and “Mass Recall”, starting energy 50. I will stop here as, when started writing didn't thought it would be so long,so my respect to anyone who has read it to the end. Regarding Zerg I have some ides, but this post is already too long.Thank you.
On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote: In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ?
Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/
On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner
IIRC soO gave Inno credit for inventing the shitty ravager build on stream (dankshrine?). It's the one-base three-ravager rush I'm talking about.
The patch most likely goes live on Tuesday, December 19. The Korean qualifiers for IEM are on December 22-23.
On December 11 2017 17:17 pvsnp wrote: In other news, soO's shitty ravager rush (that Inno invented) is still shitty. You'd think he'd think Inno would know how to stop it.
INno really invented it ?
Also what a shame that the balance patch won't kick before IEM qualifier :/
On December 11 2017 17:04 ZigguratOfUr wrote: Can we bring back the narrative that INno is only good when terran is good (unlike more GOATlike terrans such as Taeja and Mvp who thrive when terran sucks)?
Mvp won 2 of 3 GSL and his GSL World with TvT in Gom TvT area and Taeja isn't even a Starleague winner
IIRC soO gave Inno credit for inventing the shitty ravager build on stream (dankshrine?). It's the one-base three-ravager rush I'm talking about.
The patch most likely goes live on Tuesday, December 19. The Korean qualifiers for IEM are on December 22-23.
INno so strong at mindgame that he gave a shit build to Zerg so that they can lose more and more often.
i think it's important to stick to the principle that change must be for a good reason i don't buy into LOL or Dota's belief that change for change's sake to help keep the game fresh if the game isn't fresh, that's because it lacks strategic depth. it might have been important to buff underused units and strategies (carriers are a good example), but it is absurd to make lesser seen units completely unusable.
Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so.....
On December 11 2017 19:03 pvsnp wrote: Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so.....
To be honest this Ravager build was first invented by Polish Zerg Matiz, then adapted by Elazer and then used by soO. Innovation had nothing to do with that.
On December 11 2017 19:03 pvsnp wrote: Ok, I went back and dug around through some old vods, and I can now confirm that INnoVation is in fact the inventor of the Shitty Ravager Build™.
During soO's winner's interview over TY in the first season of GSL this year, Gyuri specifically asks if soO invented the shitty ravager build, and soO gives Inno the credit for that. soO thought it was "an almost perfect build."
TL forumgoers, on the other hand, promptly named it the "shitty ravager build," so.....
To be honest this Ravager build was first invented by Polish Zerg Matiz, then adapted by Elazer and then used by soO. Innovation had nothing to do with that.
During the interview after he beated TY in GSL 2017 S1 soO said that to Gyuri, that it was Inno who recommended him that build.
On December 08 2017 07:58 Olli wrote: Classic, triple nerf Protoss after less than one month of play, and simultaneously double buff Terran. That's not to say I dislike the individual changes, most of them are good. Just, as usual, complete overkill the second Protoss appears to be strong.
It's actually kind of funny now. When the Adept was strong it had one month of play before it got massively nerfed. And it restored TvP to the 45-55% it was before the Adept came into mass usage.
Isn't 45-55% the optimal range for balance that Blizzard (and everyone) wants?
Yes, but only if Terran is at 55% for the match up.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim.
Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game.
To answer your question "Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines?", it more like... They don't exactly, but they do need to ultimately be better vs everything else.
For example, with no mothership core protoss needs and effective way to defend proxy cyclones, proxy liberators, proxy rax, ect. You can no longer defend your main with your motheship core, instead you need to split off a unit to defend, making you weaker elsewhere. The way to compensate was the shield battery and the use of stalkers and kiting.
Your comment "Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game" makes no sense because adepts are weak to many things that early-midgame terran can pump out: widow mines, liberators, cyclones, banshees, plus they need an upgrade to do good dps. The adept is in a weird state of being a midgame tanking unit for timing attacks or harrassment.
Also one last thing, just saying "Why should the stalker be good vs. marines?" is just not fair, as youngjiddle explains, but I'll exound on i. It's like saying "why should the marine be good vs ______" or any other unit. There's nothing wrong with having a core unit that is just.... good. I've already been saying for months and months that the stalker is one of the worst protoss units (pre 4.0).
Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have
from the "design change" presentation for 4.0 they said
"Stalker:
With the removal of the Mothership Core we are also looking into Protoss’s other early game units. In particular we wanted to try sharpening the role of the Stalker, and make it more of a shoot and move unit with sniping capabilities. To do this we are slowing its attack rate but increasing its damage per shot. "
I don't know if you have inside info on additional reasons for the stalker change, but making it better against marines wasn't part of the description for the change.
My theory was that with the adept and the zealots being frontline fighters, they wanted the stalker to be better at early skirmishes and better at sniping suff, maybe for stalkers being better at picking off liberators in the later stages of the game when terran has range.
I agree with the idea that the stalker should be a little better since LOTV and 3.0 introduced a lot of new counter to it (tanks now shred them, ravagers are decent, lukers massacre them, etc.), but over-buffing a core unit that can teleport (which is extremely strong as far as RTS abilities go) every 8 secs or so can have extreme and very immediate implications on balance
hey, like ummm call me captain obvious here.. but Stalkers should be good against Marines because they cost gas.. a Marine is 50 Minerals and requires only a Rax. A Stalker requires a CyberCore and a Gateway and they cost 125 Minerals and 50 Gas.
<<goes into his John Lennon voice>> "All We Are Saying .... Is Give Peace Stalkers A Chance"
if i get smashed by good stalker micro right after i've done 1-rax fast expand... its on me... keep the Stalker strong. the Stalker nerf is a bad idea. if you want to nerf something on Protoss nerf an air unit.
i'd like to see Protoss early air and Protoss early multiple gateway both be viable as aggressive openings so that i see my opponents doing a mix of things. i don't want to see 500 Protoss opponents in a row all going for the Oracle as their 1st offensive move every game.
On December 12 2017 05:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: hey, like ummm call me captain obvious here.. but Stalkers should be good against Marines because they cost gas.. a Marine is 50 Minerals and requires only a Rax. A Stalker requires a CyberCore and a Gateway and they cost 125 Minerals and 50 Gas.
<> "All We Are Saying .... Is Give Peace Stalkers A Chance"
if i get smashed by good stalker micro right after i've done 1-rax fast expand... its on me... keep the Stalker strong. the Stalker nerf is a bad idea. if you want to nerf something on Protoss nerf an air unit.
i'd like to see Protoss early air and Protoss early multiple gateway both be viable as aggressive openings so that i see my opponents doing a mix of things. i don't want to see 500 Protoss opponents in a row all going for the Oracle as their 1st offensive move every game.
By that logic zerglings should be bad vs mauraders. I don't think the idea that because a unit costs gas it should magically be better than mineral only units holds much weight. Additionally having efficient mineral only units is a core mechanic and identity of Terran in sc2.
With that being said I'd prefer they not nerf the stalker and find alternatives to balance tvp. Maybe buffs to the maurader and early game units out of factory or starport or nerfs to chrono. Maybe a nerf to upgrade research time or cost for Protoss so balls of pure gateway units arnt shredding bio. I think that having strong stalkers and no ms core just makes Protoss feel so much better to play and I hope blizzard finds another way to fix tvp.
On December 11 2017 05:52 NonY wrote: I don't get why they are now ultimately changing Stalker from 10 (15) to 13 (18). Doesn't seem very significant. Seems like they made a change that had actual impact by making it 15 (21). And now they're concerned about balance and so just nerfing Stalkers, but it's actually a design change, not just a balance change, and remembering where Stalkers started and how they were trying to redesign them with the November redesign patch, this just doesn't make sense to me. Either they have the numbers to fill other roles or they don't. They changed the stalker so that it could fill more roles and it's doing so and now they regret it? I don't know what's going on or what 13 (18) is specifically intended to do. Honestly just seems like their thought process is "stalkers are too strong, let's reduce their numbers" which is what some armchair dev would do, not the kind of sophistication you'd expect from a team of professionals
On the other hand, the chrono boost change is something that would benefit from a small change. There's nothing weird about making a small change to that, such as halfway between what it is now and what they're proposing. Their proposed change is so drastic and chrono boost is important for so many things other than the specific things they're targeting with this change. Such a big change that affects so many things, just to address a small number of specific things... weird way to approach changing the rules of the game. Seems like that should go against some basic policies on what kind of rule changes you can make as devs.
Stalker changes actually would make sense if they deal with it in the right way.
For example 15 damage stalkers kill marines in 3 and 4 hits (no CS and with CS) and these numbers don't change except it's +2 attack stalker vs +1 armor marines and +3 attack stalkers vsmarines regardless of armor. Meanwhile 14 damage talkers kill marines in 4 and also 4 hits both CS and no CS, meanwhile +1 attack stalkers kill both no CS and with CS marines in 3 hits and +2 attack stalkers would kill +1 armor marines in 3 attacks and +3 attack stalkers kill marines in 3 shots regardless of upgrades.
I think if they change stalkers to 14 instead of 13 and leave upgrades at +2 it would make more sense because it would be just like the nerf to adepts last year, it only affect the early game and then once upgrades roll is all back to normal.
The Stalker change makes a lot of sense, blizz don't want Stalkers 3 shooting marines at any time in the game.. If they only changed the attack from 15(21) to 13(18) and kept the +2 attack per upgrade the Stalker would 3 shot a marine again once 2/2 kicks in. CS +10 hp is often negated by Stim.
Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines? Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game and Colossus/ Storm in the later stages of the game.
To answer your question "Why should the Stalker be that good vs marines?", it more like... They don't exactly, but they do need to ultimately be better vs everything else.
For example, with no mothership core protoss needs and effective way to defend proxy cyclones, proxy liberators, proxy rax, ect. You can no longer defend your main with your motheship core, instead you need to split off a unit to defend, making you weaker elsewhere. The way to compensate was the shield battery and the use of stalkers and kiting.
Your comment "Protoss already has tools to deal with light units, the Adept in the early game/ mid game" makes no sense because adepts are weak to many things that early-midgame terran can pump out: widow mines, liberators, cyclones, banshees, plus they need an upgrade to do good dps. The adept is in a weird state of being a midgame tanking unit for timing attacks or harrassment.
Also one last thing, just saying "Why should the stalker be good vs. marines?" is just not fair, as youngjiddle explains, but I'll exound on i. It's like saying "why should the marine be good vs ______" or any other unit. There's nothing wrong with having a core unit that is just.... good. I've already been saying for months and months that the stalker is one of the worst protoss units (pre 4.0).
Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
I agree with everything you've said, but +3 damage on Stalkers is still pretty significant. Significant enough to offset the loss of the MSC and Photon Overcharge? I guess we'll see, Stalkers will fire slightly faster.
Sadly, Protoss has always suffered like this in PvT, their win rate hits 55% and Blizzard slams them. Then their win rate sits at 45% for months, slowly creeping toward 50%. And then they get something that helps them to 55% and the process repeats.
I've never understood why Terran gets a pass when they have a 55% winrate, just bias at Blizzard when they tell us to the let the meta "settle" when Terrans are wrecking face.
On December 12 2017 01:19 NonY wrote: Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
first of, I don't think they wanted to redesign the Stalker and if they wanted so, they did a pretty bad job. the Stalker is basically the same unit as pre 4.0 with exactly the same role they just made him better, a little bit too good it seems. If they want to make the Stalker a marine like basic unit they need to buff the DPS sagnificantly and obviusly remove blink from the game, even than it will be hard to balance this, the Stalker can not be a brood war dragoon because Zerg and Terran aren't their BW counterparts.
About the openings in PvT: the oracle nerf was an overkill they should remove the dmg nerf and balance the oracle by adjusting the build time. Obviously it will become harder to get a 3 base but terran cheese and early game pressure is not particular strong right now, also a lot of you overestimate the Chrono Boost change.
if protoss players have trouble to defend their bases blizzard should buff defensive structures and not units that are used offensively and up until the late game.
On December 12 2017 05:33 JimmyJRaynor wrote: hey, like ummm call me captain obvious here.. but Stalkers should be good against Marines because they cost gas.. a Marine is 50 Minerals and requires only a Rax. A Stalker requires a CyberCore and a Gateway and they cost 125 Minerals and 50 Gas.
<<goes into his John Lennon voice>> "All We Are Saying .... Is Give Peace Stalkers A Chance"
if i get smashed by good stalker micro right after i've done 1-rax fast expand... its on me... keep the Stalker strong. the Stalker nerf is a bad idea. if you want to nerf something on Protoss nerf an air unit.
i'd like to see Protoss early air and Protoss early multiple gateway both be viable as aggressive openings so that i see my opponents doing a mix of things. i don't want to see 500 Protoss opponents in a row all going for the Oracle as their 1st offensive move every game.
By that logic zerglings should be bad vs mauraders. I don't think the idea that because a unit costs gas it should magically be better than mineral only units holds much weight. Additionally having efficient mineral only units is a core mechanic and identity of Terran in sc2.
With that being said I'd prefer they not nerf the stalker and find alternatives to ballance tvp. Mabey buffs to the maurader and early game units out of factory or starport or nerfs to chrono. Mabey a nerf to upgrade research time or cost for Protoss so balls of pure gateway units arnt shredding bio. I think that having strong stalkers and no ms core just makes Protoss feel so much better to play and I hope blizzard finds another way to fix tvp.
ya, the problem is the Stalker is like the Marine in that it is a ground unit that attacks both air and ground with a ranged weapon.
i agree with everything else in your post and i'm a terran player.
On December 12 2017 01:19 NonY wrote: Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
first of, I don't think they wanted to redesign the Stalker and if they wanted so, they did a pretty bad job. the Stalker is basically the same unit as pre 4.0 with exactly the same role they just made him better, a little bit too good it seems. If they want to make the Stalker a marine like basic unit they need to buff the DPS sagnificantly and obviusly remove blink from the game, even than it will be hard to balance this, the Stalker can not be a brood war dragoon because Zerg and Terran aren't their BW counterparts.
About the openings in PvT: the oracle nerf was an overkill they should remove the dmg nerf and balance the oracle by adjusting the build time. Obviously it will become harder to get a 3 base but terran cheese and early game pressure is not particular strong right now, also a lot of you overestimate the Chrono Boost change.
if protoss players have trouble to defend their bases blizzard should buff defensive structures and not units that are used offensively and up until the late game.
with regards to the stalker, what they have said is
With the removal of the Mothership Core we are also looking into Protoss’s other early game units. In particular we wanted to try sharpening the role of the Stalker
It is also mentioned in the team liquid Q&A they did where I think they talked about wanting to only change the numbers on the stalker, not it's utility.
anyways, I find your comments really funny, because they are the opposite of what players want.
The common player does not want the oracle strong, and really hates the units.
Also you think that blizzard should buff defensive structures so that protoss can win? Yeah, fuck the protoss player, he should never leave his base until 20 minutes!
On December 12 2017 01:19 NonY wrote: Another way to answer the question "why should stalkers be good against marines?" is because that's the effect the initial change was supposed to have. With 10 (15) and +1 per weapon upgrade, they weren't very good. Part of the redesign patch was to make stalkers better against light units so that they could be good all-around units, like marines are. That's why I'm asking why they're changing it to 13 (18). If someone then asks "why should they be good against marines?" it's just going full-circle and not making any progress. They should be good against marines because that was part of the redesign this year. That's a core change that I assumed would stick for a while and balance issues would be dealt with around it, so we could see what the game is like when the stalker is an actual good unit.
Is it actually good for the game? Who knows. It's way too early to tell. But now they're just reverting a major design change they made as a knee-jerk reaction to a balance issue. PvT success has been totally dependent on three things: oracle openings (gone), the new stalker being the key to a solid 3 base defensive build (gonna be gone), and chrono boost providing stronger openings (gonna be gone). I can see how they didn't intend oracles to do what they were doing, so I'm fine with that changing, but I don't understand how this wasn't what they envisioned for stalkers and chrono boost. If it's too strong, they should look for other ways to alter the win percentages. Giving us design changes and then simply taking them away when they're key to our strategies is just absurd. What if these are really good design changes? Just because the matchup happens to start out imbalanced, you're gonna revert your design changes instead of finding a way to keep the gameplay intact and tweaking the win percentages some other way?
Expounding on what youngjiddle already just explained: Adepts are a good way to deal with marines but they're pretty 1-dimensional units. If protoss has to make adepts in anticipation of terran making marines, I think terran is better off there, because adepts are more of a liability early-game than marines are. Hypothetically, we'd have to make adepts just to survive your marine pressure, whereas it's easy for you to survive early adept pressure. So it's just a survival tool for us against on specific thing, but then we are no threat to medivacs, not prepared for liberator harass, and they're also horrible against cyclones. If protoss doesn't get lucky with probe scouting and we can't tell if you're going marine pressure or cyclone pressure, god forbid we make adepts and 2 cyclones show up.
Remember also that adepts aren't really a great counter to marines until they get glaives and +1. If we're forced into doing that all the time, that gives the terran such a large window throughout early game and mid game when there's no blink. Protoss plays against protoss too -- we know how nice it is to harass a protoss that doesn't have blink.
first of, I don't think they wanted to redesign the Stalker and if they wanted so, they did a pretty bad job. the Stalker is basically the same unit as pre 4.0 with exactly the same role they just made him better, a little bit too good it seems. If they want to make the Stalker a marine like basic unit they need to buff the DPS sagnificantly and obviusly remove blink from the game, even than it will be hard to balance this, the Stalker can not be a brood war dragoon because Zerg and Terran aren't their BW counterparts.
About the openings in PvT: the oracle nerf was an overkill they should remove the dmg nerf and balance the oracle by adjusting the build time. Obviously it will become harder to get a 3 base but terran cheese and early game pressure is not particular strong right now, also a lot of you overestimate the Chrono Boost change.
if protoss players have trouble to defend their bases blizzard should buff defensive structures and not units that are used offensively and up until the late game.
with regards to the stalker, what they have said is
With the removal of the Mothership Core we are also looking into Protoss’s other early game units. In particular we wanted to try sharpening the role of the Stalker
It is also mentioned in the team liquid Q&A they did where I think they talked about wanting to only change the numbers on the stalker, not it's utility.
anyways, I find your comments really funny, because they are the opposite of what players want.
The common player does not want the oracle strong, and really hates the units.
Also you think that blizzard should buff defensive structures so that protoss can win? Yeah, fuck the protoss player, he should never leave his base until 20 minutes!
Wasn't the whole point of 4.0 to remove/reduce the power of defensive structures like pylon overcharge/msc? Remove PO/MSC and replace with buffing actual units. Which is exactly what they did. This patch in a few days isn't changing any of that, it's only tweaking some numbers because the buffs were too strong. The major design change (units instead of msc) is still very much there.
After this latest balance patch we will (theoretically) have a more balanced game without the design flaw of the msc. Obviously some more balance patches may be needed, but that is the end goal.
I for one approve of the balance team's direction.
On December 12 2017 12:46 pvsnp wrote: Remove PO/MSC and replace with buffing actual units. Which is exactly what they did.
The only relevant change to units was the change to the stalker, which is being heavily backpedaled now. The shield battery has also received a nerf.
Honestly, anyone who doesn't expect the next patch to include a major buff to early-game Protoss units (if this one gets through as-is) is deluding themselves. PvX win-rates will certainly plummet below what we're seeing today in TvP.
On December 12 2017 12:46 pvsnp wrote: Remove PO/MSC and replace with buffing actual units. Which is exactly what they did.
The only relevant change to units was the change to the stalker, which is being heavily backpedaled now. The shield battery has also received a nerf.
Honestly, anyone who doesn't expect the next patch to include a major buff to early-game Protoss units (if this one gets through as-is) is deluding themselves. PvX win-rates will certainly plummet below what we're seeing today in TvP.
Presumably TvP will be restored to some semblance of balance after these changes go through. Seeing as the MU is nowhere close to balanced now, with pure gateway armies stronger than anything Terran can put together.
I am worried about earlygame PvZ though, since Protoss is already suffering in that regard. That being said, I think that's more an a ling drop issue than anything else, so I would expect to see Zerg nerfs rather than Protoss buffs.
Seeing as these balance changes are explicitly designed to fix the balance issues that resulted from the design patch, the balance team will most likely have to nerf Zerg. That, or figure out some way to buff Protoss in such a way that PvT remains balanced, which I doubt they can seeing as Protoss is currently shitting all over Terran and still losing to Zerg.
Currently: P > T T = Z Z > P (early)
The upcoming change should fix PvT, so after this it is just PvZ that needs fixing. Unfortunately PvZ is in an odd spot where Zerg has a significant advantage early, but Protoss has a significant advantage late. Obviously a lategame advantage is useless if the game never goes late, but if the balance team fixes that and Protoss can get to mass air, the winrates could very well swing the other way very quickly.
It's the same problem that existed pre-4.0, where Skytoss is nigh-invincible and the Zerg has to win before then, which led to hydra/bane pushes, which in turn led to mass oracle.
Personally, I think the balance team could've saved themselves a lot of headache if they just directly buffed bio (probably marauders). The hydra and stalker buffs + WM nerf made bio so much weaker that Terrans transitioned to mech against Zerg and were basically doomed against Protoss since mech sucks like it always has in TvP.
Ling drops are fine. If they nerf ling drops I assune they should nerf warprisms and medivacks drops too as they surely are capable of dealing game ending damage far more than ling drop. Nerfing drops means no early game damage for Zerg in PvZ. That snowballs to games where Protoss camps on 3 bases to his perfect deathball not disturbed by any agression. To defend vs ling drop all they need is shieldbattery and some units. It's about time that all Protosses understood that playing without actual units, just pumping eco and tech till 6 minutes mark is not an option anymore. And that's healthy for the game.
On December 12 2017 16:06 hiroshOne wrote: Ling drops are fine. If they nerf ling drops I assune they should nerf warprisms and medivacks drops too as they surely are capable of dealing game ending damage far more than ling drop. Nerfing drops means no early game damage for Zerg in PvZ. That snowballs to games where Protoss camps on 3 bases to his perfect deathball not disturbed by any agression. To defend vs ling drop all they need is shieldbattery and some units. It's about time that all Protosses understood that playing without actual units, just pumping eco and tech till 6 minutes mark is not an option anymore. And that's healthy for the game.
The only thing that bothers me a lot is this argument that "the stalker vs the marine dynamic favors the stalker too heavily in the early game"
Too heavily in what context? Terran can make a bunker at the front and marines are now really good at holding early stalker pokes. if the only dynamic that is concerning is the early game then why not adjust something with the bunker? Terran players have been staunchly against ever having to change their play, insist on doing the same 1/1/1's every game and any time they have to do anything remotely defensive Protoss gets patched into the ground. It's pretty absurd. Terran bio scales with upgrades and is vulnerable early. Compensate by using your races defensive structure, the bunker. Terran does NOT have to commit marines to attacking the other side of the map. They have many options available to them via widow mines, liberators, hellions, hellbat drops, banshees, even ghost openers.
This kneejerk nerf on the stalker really does upset me a lot and I really hope Blizzard takes more time to consider all possible avenues. I have watched a lot of high level replays on this current patch and most the time that Terran ends up losing is not because of a straight up fight and the protoss army is "imba" , it's because Terran is out of position, the liberators or tanks aren't sieged up, they committed too much to a drop... So many things can be pointed out as the reason Terran lost and it's not because the stalker is too strong. If anything is too strong it's upgrades / chronoboost, they can come out too fast for the terran to properly deal with, and this can be adjusted by changing the research time on upgrades with chronoboost in mind. Point being, there are many things to look at and many options to choose from on what to do instead of a kneejerk reaction with the stalker nerf.
I would rather see Protoss keep the current Stalkers if Carriers instead received some kind of nerf.
Stalkers are strong but beatable. But the late game armanda of Carrier/Tempest/HT is almost unbeatable for Terran given similiar economies. And it seems to a problem in PvZ as well.
On December 12 2017 23:33 MockHamill wrote: I would rather see Protoss keep the current Stalkers if Carriers instead received some kind of nerf.
Stalkers are strong but beatable. But the late game armanda of Carrier/Tempest/HT is almost unbeatable for Terran given similiar economies. And it seems to a problem in PvZ as well.
Agreed. Or Collossus, they are incredibly strong right now. The Stalker is the wrong unit to nerf imo
Well, they can nerf the stalker, the blink for example. The unit was useless besides all ins, but nowadays it gives so much to the game, harass, late game. We even see units like tanks because of them. I'll say it again, buff other races, don't nerf stalkers besides of blink! Protoss needs this "dragoon".
On December 12 2017 22:20 LHK wrote: The only thing that bothers me a lot is this argument that "the stalker vs the marine dynamic favors the stalker too heavily in the early game"
Too heavily in what context? Terran can make a bunker at the front and marines are now really good at holding early stalker pokes. if the only dynamic that is concerning is the early game then why not adjust something with the bunker? Terran players have been staunchly against ever having to change their play, insist on doing the same 1/1/1's every game and any time they have to do anything remotely defensive Protoss gets patched into the ground. It's pretty absurd. Terran bio scales with upgrades and is vulnerable early. Compensate by using your races defensive structure, the bunker. Terran does NOT have to commit marines to attacking the other side of the map. They have many options available to them via widow mines, liberators, hellions, hellbat drops, banshees, even ghost openers.
This kneejerk nerf on the stalker really does upset me a lot and I really hope Blizzard takes more time to consider all possible avenues. I have watched a lot of high level replays on this current patch and most the time that Terran ends up losing is not because of a straight up fight and the protoss army is "imba" , it's because Terran is out of position, the liberators or tanks aren't sieged up, they committed too much to a drop... So many things can be pointed out as the reason Terran lost and it's not because the stalker is too strong. If anything is too strong it's upgrades / chronoboost, they can come out too fast for the terran to properly deal with, and this can be adjusted by changing the research time on upgrades with chronoboost in mind. Point being, there are many things to look at and many options to choose from on what to do instead of a kneejerk reaction with the stalker nerf.
hears the issue, since Terran marines cant push back a stalker until they have stim protoss gets total map control and is free to do whatever they want until Terran has stim. this lets protoss do things like take absurdly fast thirds while pumping double upgrades with the new chrono boost. protoss gets so far ahead during this stage of the game that you see things like balls of pure gateway units shredding any army terran can muster. Maybe you don't need to fix it by nerfing the stalker but terran needs some kind of tool to keep protoss honest. it used to be widowmine drops, as a protoss you had to be prepared for a potential drop so you could only be so greedy even with photon overcharge as a safety net, since these drops now suck, and also direct ground pushes suck since they get shredded by stalkers there is nothing to keep protoss honest. this means protoss can be incredibly greedy and Terran cant punish it. It was always the case that protoss defense let them be greedy but this patch seems to have increased the amount of greed that's possible partially because protoss does not need to tech to high tier units to hold off Terran pushes due to chronoed upgrades, partially because they don't need to get detection in their build to counter widowmine drops, and partially because there map control is so solid for so long. Meanwhile terran still has to be super careful because once the reaper is shut down they have no map control and no solid idea what protoss is doing, they could be doing the popular greedy style but they could also be preparing a massive allin, You can scan but than you've sunk 100 minerals in a bunker that only helps you live through the first stalker and an additional 500 minerals into 2 scans, and you might still not know what going on if they hid there tech well at this point your still so behind it wont matter if you know what protoss is doing because you wont be able to stop it. This problem makes Terran have to play very safely while protoss has free reign and this leads to the imbalance we see in the match up. There are not enough threats that terran can dish out to keep protoss honest so they cant run away with the game and at the same time protoss is to threatening for terran to cut enough corners to keep up with toss.
To get out of this situation many terran have had to open cyclones so they can push back the stalkers, the problem with cyclones is that they are a huge investment since they are realy expensive compared to what terran used to need in the early game. They really slow down your ability to get your bio with stim, medivacs and a third up and running leading many terran to go mech off of cyclones, the problem with mech is that its not all that great vs a race with immortals, chargelots and carriers. so Terran is in a tough bind. They can go cyclones and not be behind early but be behind latter or they can go bio and just be behind. Either way in the current iteration of the game Terran is usually stuck playing from behind protoss. Protoss has to make large errors for Terran to catch up. I think at most levels of play Terran has a reasonable chance to catch up with medivac drops, hellion runbys, proxy ghost allins, But pro protoss are just very solid and seem to be able to not take damage from Terran and than roll over them hence the imbalance.
I think a big part of the reason for current Terran struggles revolves around some less tangible things than simply Stalkers vs. Marines.
1. Early offense & defense: - Terran cannot gain early map control in TvP or TvZ. It's not that they don't want to pay for the investment. There's nothing to invest in. Any unit that once gave map control (early BF hellions/reapers/bunker rushing) was nerfed to the point that it no longer can offer map control without an investment so high that losing it means losing the game. - Bunker defense has been largely negated by Ravager/mass numbers of banelings/stalkers, etc. - The Cyclone was originally designed to be a defensive powerhouse, but then when the redesign came around they were made into very expensive tanky/all around sorts of units. The biggest drawback to the current Cyclone is its cost vs. its utility, with a close second being its build time. This unit is a poor investment in most circumstances.
Point 1: Terran needs better options for map control and/or better early offensive capabilities. There are 2 ideas I have for this. A. Replace the bunker with a very slow mobile attack transport from the campaign. It could move, units could be loaded into it, it could be repairable and even gain the upgrade from the engineering bay for more units or better armor, making use out of a few different things that have very little utility right now. This would also allow for some micro capability against Ravagers. B. Allow multiple SCV's to build a building simultaneously(up to 3 or something), so that Terran could leverage the early game for offensive and not just macro purpose.
2. Terran lacks Harassment you can believe in: There is without a doubt no unit that is comparable in the Terran arsenal to the risk vs. reward the Protoss can get out of the Oracle and Zerg can get out of Zerglings. The marine was once a unit that could hold its own in packs against a lot of different things. That is not the case anymore. Consider the harass units that have been nerfed for Terran in the past: - Widow mine nerf - Liberator nerf/queen buff - Banshee/queen buff - Raven redesign - MMM drops have been dramatically effected by the economy changes in LOTV. The acceleration to the midgame means much more creep/overlords/observers/pheonixes, etc., to take map control. Drops came in at a time in the past where Terran could begin the drop phase and leverage it for a win. More common at this point is losing a medivac or two for nothing and being dramatically behind because of it. For instance, opening 2-1-1 in HOTS gave you 16 marines and 2 medivacs vs. a 2 base zerg with around 40-45 drones that could have 2 base muta coming out soon. Opening 2-1-1 in LOTV gives you 16 marines vs. a Zerg with 55-60 drones and 5-6 queens and about 30 zerglings to hold you off with.
Point 2: Terran needs reliable harassment. Some of these units were problematic (Liberator), but nerfing each one down to its current state seems to have left Terran without reliable harassment. Not only does this mean you need more apm to accomplish damage and convert it into a reasonable push, it means most games will have little to no action for the first 6 or 8 minutes. People have complained about turtling with mech, but most of the turtling I see going on in SC2 right now is Zergs building 70 drones and then massing hydras. Just a couple of ideas for this: A. Retool the Cyclone a bit, increasing its speed to move with Hellions so that hellions are not absolutely shut down by armored units. This would require a lowering of the Cyclone's hit points and cost, as well as its build time. B. Give Reapers a speed upgrade (75/75 cost or so) so that they equal Zerglings with speed. The micro battles would still be phenomenal, but battles could be won by micro rather than simply by bombs. C. Give Reapers an upgrade to be able to attack air (75/75 cost or so)so that Hellion/Reaper openings are feasible and the game simply doesn't end if Zerg builds some Mutas or Protoss builds an Oracle. D. Give the new Ghost, or an upgraded Reaper the ability to plant a bomb that would destroy or dramatically damage an opponent's tech building so that the explosion followed by a Reaper attack could flip the game on its side or something.
On the Current Changes: I write all this because I don't think the issue with Terran is going to be solved by the current changes on Ravens or Widow mines. And I don't think the answer lies in nerfing Stalkers. A. The Raven - The intangible issue with the Raven is that while you're making it you're not making Medivacs or Vikings or Liberators or Banshees, and nothing they are proposing is anywhere near the utility of those units. Moving the current Raven to the Factory is an idea that would shake things up. B. Widow Mines - I understand the design dilemma behind Widow Mines, but anyone who has ever said "they're too much of a set it and forget it type unit" is forgetting that it's a land mine. The only future I see for the Widow Mine is even farther in the direction they're currently going. In its current design it is a single shot unit. It will shoot, then it will die. Reduce its supply cost, damage, and resource cost and make it a pure map control unit that needs to operate in groups. It no longer functions as any sort of effective harassment unit.
If anything TvP is going to continue to be extremely volatile while Zerg already has Early, Mid, and Late Game options for Offense, Defense, and Harassment, in addition to units that have been reworked to be reliable and flexible for the various stages of the game.