Community Feedback Update - February 18

General Discussion
1 2 3 17 Next
Balance
Thanks for your feedback and all the great ideas for our next Balance Test Map. Our goal is to aggressively test out various changes so that we can act quickly when problems arise. Don’t panic though, because these changes are not necessarily close to final for inclusion in a balance patch. We’re just testing and learning the effects of various changes before we make any final decisions.

With that said—let’s examine some of the changes we’d like to experiment with in an upcoming Balance Test Map.

Ravager Corrosive bile damage changed from 60 to 45 +15 bio
This is the first proposed change. This was the best suggestion we saw this week from the community, and we agree completely that it could be a good change for a few reasons.

  • In ZvP, this type of change will help Protoss against early/mid Ravager pushes while on defense.
  • In ZvT, with the Ravager shots nerfed heavily against mechanical units like Siege Tanks, we may be able to try out the Siege Tank Siege mode pick up removal.
  • In ZvZ, there will be no change, which is great since we want to continue to see a variety of units in the matchup.

Liberator ability range reduced by 1, but range is regained with the upgrade
This change was included mostly for ZvT. The biggest issue we see of making the Ravager change in this matchup is the strength of Liberators. We hope that a change such as this one will help Zerg deal with early Liberators with Spore Crawlers or Queens, until they get the proper defenses out.

Medivacs can’t pick up Siege Tanks in Siege Mode
Although sieged pickup has increased micro and early aggression, as many of you point out, removing this ability seems good for three reasons:

  • This ability takes away from the cool factor of Siege Tanks having a clear weakness vs. strength compared to other units in the game.
  • The advantages/disadvantages of mech vs. bio are lessened due to this change
  • This change will give us some room to increase the damage of Siege Tanks, which we agree could have positive effects in terms of Siege Tanks really fulfilling their fantasy.

Currently, Terran bio-play can have the fire power of Siege Tanks without sacrificing mobility. This seems to be a main reason to play bio instead of mech. By removing this ability, and giving more strength to the Siege Tank, we wonder if we can have this clear distinction between the two playstyles appear once again.

Siege Tank damage increased from 35 (50 vs. armored) to 40 (60 vs. armored)
We wanted to locate numbers that would specifically buff the Siege Tank heavily vs. certain units and not others. For example:

  • Siege Tanks’ relationship against Marines won’t be changed too significantly, but Marauders that just used Stim Pack to close in on Tanks will be heavily nerfed by this change.
  • Roaches and Ravagers won't be affected heavily, but once global upgrades start coming into play these changes will begin favoring Siege Tanks.
  • Against Protoss, this will change the Siege Tanks’ relationship against most ground units, but we wonder if this is a good thing since Protoss is already the most resistant to Siege Tank attacks.

What’s Next?
We just started playtesting these numbers internally this week, so we’d love your feedback regarding both the high level direction of these changes as well as specific number suggestions. Also, please note that none of these changes are final and there’s no need to overreact. Let’s work towards having the best set of changes for the next Balance Test Map!
By hook or by crook, I will be first on this book.
I really like these changes.

it could be an alternative to - if these were the only two options available - to see corrosive bile range increased by 1 rather than liberator range decreased by 1, but for starters this is a great initiation for the balance test map.

With that being said, Terran is compensated by the siege tank buff, and liberators are already a crucial part of the Terran midgame. Even if the pickup of siege-moded siege tanks will be weaker, I think the overall damage buff compensates for that to some extend at the very least.

Corrosive bile at 45 damage versus armored does not necessarily seem to promote strategies such as forge-fast expand or terran CC/depot walloff strategies on the lowground, but this can be a good thing. If the damage versus armored units (structures) was lower, these strategies could become too strong. I believe these numbers are good and does help overall with static defences, especially considering when the splash damage on 2-4 buildings will decrease by 15 in all of those cases as well, lowering the total amount of damage on corrosive bile quite a bit - up to 60 damage in total per shot of corrosive bile.

Whether the siege tank pickup nerf is properly compensated by the damage buff, time will tell. For now I believe the rationale would be too perceive the tank as upped a bit on the attackpower part and lowered a bit on the mobility part. When calculated, I am sure the nerf/buff is relatively well compensated.

It could seem worrisome that Liberators will have 1 less range, especially versus Protoss. Yet with the upgrade kicking in in the lategame they will still be strong. Perhaps siege tanks will take up some more space in the matchup both as a bio supportive unit and as a mech unit, despite the buff being relatively small, considering the attack speed of a siege tank. Refering back to why it may or may not be better with a corrosive bile range buff instead, since corrosive bile already outranges static defences.

For the siege tank pickup it definitely should be possible to pick up siege tanks in siege mode, unlike what I think is being said in the community update. However, after the pickup, then it should when redeployed:

- require manual siege up again
or
- automatically initiate a full siege up.

This would basically require the full duration, perhaps even more, than normally sieging up tanks without the deployal from a medivac.

I believe it is important that micro to dodge projectiles and perform escapes is important for siege tanks, but you could induce the potential of increasing the current delay on siege tanks to the actual re-siege after medivac deployment. Currently it does wait for the tank to actually "drop down" from the medivac, I believe, but the question is if this delay is enough to justify the usage of siege tanks without medivacs.

I agree with all of the reasons for doing these changes, and perhaps these numbers can turn out to be great to back up those reasons.
I love these changes, this looks to go in the right direction.
Thank you Blizzard, and especially you David Kim!
Sounds great.
If this goes through, will this make mech the preferred composition in TvT? Marauder nerf already.
Am I mistaken, or does Ravager have 1 base armor? Wouldn't you need 41 damage to 3-shot a ravager (120 HP?)

The tank damage has several very large implications including +0 tanks killing stalkers in one less hit, +2 tanks ALWAYS 2-shotting a marauder (marauder will now take as many tank shells as a marine in the mid-late game.)
Hallelujah, a tank buff

But ravager nerf vs liberator may want to be looked into. 4 shot is bit huge tradeoff even if there is 1 less range due to speed of liberators

Mech still has big weakness in lack of anti air option but this is right step
Contaminate - still for low leagues for fun, like Mothership in HOTS,

Swarm Host - still useless.

Cyclone - just 1 for whole game to counter oracle/medivac
02/18/2016 11:13 AMPosted by AKD
Am I mistaken, or does Ravager have 1 base armor? Wouldn't you need 41 damage to 3-shot a ravager (120 HP?)

The tank damage has several very large implications including +0 tanks killing stalkers in one less hit, +2 tanks ALWAYS 2-shotting a marauder (marauder will now take as many tank shells as a marine in the mid-late game.)


While mech do get later upgrades, it scales 10% or so. It should be enough to overcome armor once +1 hits. Early game interactions would remain largely same I guess other than ling getting 1 hit (whereas it took +1 to kill them previously)
oh hey dts are back in the meta taeja left game with 0 kills this is bad design david.

1. broodwar had scans that weren't tied down to MULES

2. broodwar didnt have warp in ur base. this is BAD design
02/18/2016 11:15 AMPosted by jinjinn

While mech do get later upgrades, it scales 10% or so. It should be enough to overcome armor once +1 hits. Early game interactions would remain largely same I guess other than ling getting 1 hit (whereas it took +1 to kill them previously)

Yes but in the OP, Dayvie said that tanks would 3-shot ravagers with 40 damage. (They already can 3-shot ravagers with upgrades, so I don't think he was talking about upgrades.)

Lings being one-shot regardless of upgrades is also a huge difference.
Because TvP wasn't too hard for protoss already. Seriously, do you just select buffs and nerfs by pulling them out of a hat? FFS. TvZ is going to be a one sided massacre with ravagers wrecking tanks, TvT is going to be even more volatile, with damage upgrade making marines instakill, and TvP is just a buff for terran. Seriously, the medivac pickups were the only time a siege tanks were vulnerable. GG.
02/18/2016 11:16 AMPosted by llllllllllll
oh hey dts are back in the meta taeja left game with 0 kills this is bad design david.

1. broodwar had scans that weren't tied down to MULES

2. broodwar didnt have warp in ur base. this is BAD design


sadly he doesnt care ......
what about the cyclone bc marauder thor ghost snipe being USELESS mr kim ?.......
I'll admit to being skeptical about removing the tankivac but the corresponding changes seem to address some of the issues. Hopefully bio-tank will still be played in TvZ; I'll mess around with it in the test map.
02/18/2016 11:16 AMPosted by llllllllllll
oh hey dts are back in the meta taeja left game with 0 kills this is bad design david.

1. broodwar had scans that weren't tied down to MULES

2. broodwar didnt have warp in ur base. this is BAD design


There weren't even MULES in BW. there wernt warp ins, but there were transport that just dropped them instead. Go back and play BW.
if the tank buff is really strong vs protoss, can protoss get a buff to stasis similar to how they deal with it in BW? sorry but, watching 15 range Tempests isn't very fun lol

Why not add this to the balance test map too?

test an upgrade on the Fleet Beacon to reduce the cast time of stasis ward to one second, but it also stays on the map for like 5 or so seconds.

So here, Protoss will have two options: Keep it as a map control spell, or lose that for the ability to use it when you attack. And instead of it being a point and click spell like in BW, this will require some good control.
The Ravager one seems reasonable for early-mid game. The only issue is that it severely weakens ravagers vs liberators. Ravagers are pretty gas intensive so if you are going for ravager/infestor then it's super hard to squeeze out corruptors. Just an idea here, but maybe introduce an upgrade for the queen at lair tech that increases their AA attack range from 7 to 9 (Their AG attack stays at 5). It would allow them to better help out late game vs air without having to go for mass air yourself. It would be pretty controlled, as you can only make queens 1 at a time per hatch and they are slow off creep. It might be something worth testing at least. Besides the liberator def. I think the ravager change is a good one.

I basically already talked about the liberator with the Ravager, but again, The queen upgrade might be interesting as i think there should be more ground based units that can contend with it instead of having to co corruptor or try and land bile shots on all of them.

The only thing about the siege tank is I think you should be able to pick up tanks while sieged, but they have to drop in tank mode. I liked that you could retreat with them if the battle went bad. I thought that was a good way to retain them and encourage their use. I like the number change, but change no pick in siege mode to pick up sieged but drop in tank.

overall, I think these are pretty solid changes. Thanks for the update and for being aggressive in testing changes and not waiting till it's 95% confirmed it's a problem. Much better to test possible changes every couple months than wait 6 months before we start testing much needed changes.
The Ravager does not need such a drastic nerf, people will stop using the Ravager.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum