Community Update – March 13, 2018

General Discussion
1 2 3 11 Next
Hey everyone,

We’ve received a lot of feedback about the changes we announced recently, and we’d like to take an opportunity to address some of them now. But first, though, a quick note about behavior on our forums: we appreciate how passionate and invested you are in StarCraft II’s future, but it’s crucial that we all remain respectful of one another. We all want the same thing—to make StarCraft II as great as it can possibly be. Remember to play nice and play fair.

On that note, let’s switch gears and talk about the changes we’re making to what we originally proposed for the upcoming balance update.

We are still planning to move the Zerg’s Ventral Sacs upgrade to be part of Lair tech. We’ve heard your concerns that Zerg is losing an aggressive early-game option that easily transitions into the mid-game, so rest assured that we’ll be keep a close eye on the results of this change.

As for the Terran changes, we plan on holding off on them for now. It’s clear that some of you are worried that we’re moving too quickly to change things, so perhaps we can shed a bit more light on our design philosophy around these changes.

When we design something new or make a substantial change to how something works, we ask ourselves: “Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?” Once the change is in the players’ hands, though, they have a say as well. If players start using a unit or ability in a way we didn’t imagine or intend, it’s on us to keep that new gameplay in mind going forward. We think this is where our current disconnect is.

Our intention with Anti-Armor missile was to create a spell that Terran could use to get an edge over opponents in a direct fight, but that has low to no lethality on its own. Currently, it’s used in the late game primarily for its damage potential. Our worry here is that in the past, area of effect abilities that easily scaled in damage were often seen as unenjoyable to fight against. Thus, we wanted to bring the spell back in line with its original intent, to make it feel truer to its intended role, and eventually move the power it lost elsewhere in the Terran army. This could be in the form of direct late game power. Or perhaps this power could be directed more towards the mid-game, which would allow Terran players to transition more easily or delay an opponent’s transition.

Regarding the changes we proposed for the Vikings, they’re still up for consideration. Initially, we identified the Viking HP change as a frequently requested and “safe” change to help assuage the subsequent late-game power loss, though we realize it doesn’t make up for it completely. Though we’re holding off on it for now, this doesn’t mean it’s off the table.

As always, please let us know what you think and remember that we’re all in this together.
Highly Rated
“Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?”

Thats why mass carrier is still in the game? its fun ? interesting? micro potential from players?
03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team

We are still planning to move the Zerg’s Ventral Sacs upgrade to be part of Lair tech. We’ve heard your concerns that Zerg is losing an aggressive early-game option that easily transitions into the mid-game, so rest assured that we’ll be keep a close eye on the results of this change.


The lair tech move change is good. It shouldn't have been hatch tech in the first place because it hits players before enough defenses can get out and mitigates walling and protecting ramps.(something very important in the early game.)



03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team

Our intention with Anti-Armor missile was to create a spell that Terran could use to get an edge over opponents in a direct fight, but that has low to no lethality on its own. Currently, it’s used in the late game primarily for its damage potential. Our worry here is that in the past, area of effect abilities that easily scaled in damage were often seen as unenjoyable to fight against. Thus, we wanted to bring the spell back in line with its original intent, to make it feel truer to its intended role


Balance team, I'll give you several alternative ways to change the AAM:


1) Make it area cast, not lock on target cast so it can be dodged easier

2) Make it like Fungul growth. 30 Non-stacking damage over time that debuffs the units.

3) Combination of 1) and 2)

And a great(and logical) buff suggestion that would help in late game TvP:

  • AAM should also reduce shield armor.
  • 03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    , and eventually move the power it lost elsewhere in the Terran army. This could be in the form of direct late game power. Or perhaps this power could be directed more towards the mid-game, which would allow Terran players to transition more easily or delay an opponent’s transition.


    Look at the BC. It should be the unit that terrans work towards in the late game as much as protoss works towards carriers and zergs work towards broodlords.

    It should be the cornerstone unit of terrans late game with liberators, ravens, vikings and ghosts supporting it.

    The BC not being viable is a big reason why mass raven keeps showing up to fill the gap.

    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team


    Regarding the changes we proposed for the Vikings, they’re still up for consideration. Initially, we identified the Viking HP change as a frequently requested and “safe” change to help assuage the subsequent late-game power loss, though we realize it doesn’t make up for it completely. Though we’re holding off on it for now, this doesn’t mean it’s off the table.


    The viking change isn't a bad idea, but it's only fixing part of a much bigger problem of terrans late game not having a solid core T3 unit. Something the BC should be.
    Thank you Balance Team for keeping the raven as it is, for the time being.
    I'm from Canada: Im sorry if someone doesnt agree with me, im so sorry...
    Any Mistics in chat?
    Wtf so much text but no content. Literally saying "We heared all your feedback but we decided to ignore it and still push these changes"
    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    We’ve heard your concerns that Zerg is losing an aggressive early-game option that easily transitions into the mid-game, so rest assured that we’ll be keep a close eye on the results of this change.


    Lol just like you kept an eye on zergs aggressive options vs terran before hive tech? Yeah right xD

    Why would I bother contributing to a discussion with someone who blatantly lies to my face? You said 3.8 was to increase army diversity and that was a load of crap, 4.0 was supposed to reduce game ending moments and now you're literally talking about how you're going to keep a new game ending spell that was created by patch 4.0.....

    You also said 4.0 was supposed to reduce zergs reliance on creep and increase our aggressive options before hivetech, while in the same post saying you were going to nerf the swarm host (an aggressive option before hivetech) by making it dependent on creep.....

    Seriously what is this? I mean I know there's a ton of idiots in the sc2 community but do you really think EVERYONE is this stupid?

    Choose a design philosophy and STICK with it already! ffs lol...

    03/13/2018 11:05 AMPosted by HatsuneMiku
    “Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?”

    Thats why mass carrier is still in the game? its fun ? interesting? micro potential from players?


    ^^^ Another great example. The turtlefest that has resulted from this has made for extremely BORING games in tournaments where both players rush straight to lategame with 5 bases and almost never attack each other before 12 minutes. If you don't want to explain your decisions then don't blizzard, don't just make up reasons if you aren't willing to tell us the real ones.
    Nothing about TvP?! Not a single word?!
    03/13/2018 11:25 AMPosted by ProRazer
    Wtf so much text but no content. Literally saying "We heared all your feedback but we decided to ignore it and still push these changes"
    well they are only pushing the Droplord changes and not the raven/viking changes.
    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    When we design something new or make a substantial change to how something works, we ask ourselves: “Does this change result in something that’s more interesting and fun than what was there before?”


    Guys, can you please explain how fun current state of adept as unit is? Can you please have a closer look to one of the core Protoss units and how it is underperforming in any army setup. Thank you.
    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    As for the Terran changes, we plan on holding off on them for now.
    That's all I ask. You let protoss sit on super dragoon stalkers and super chrono for months, then let them talk you into delaying stalker nerfs even longer because "nerfing stalker is irresponsible". So let them have just a bit longer in trying to figure out raven counter-play because what's good for the goose is good for the gander after all.
    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    Remember to play nice and play fair.


    Will do.

    Builds 2 proxy gateways

    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    and remember that we’re all in this together.


    Unless you are Neosteel Frame.
    03/13/2018 10:55 AMPosted by Balance Team
    a quick note about behavior on our forums: we appreciate how passionate and invested you are in StarCraft II’s future, but it’s crucial that we all remain respectful of one another.


    Maybe get some moderators for the forum ? Just a suggestion... It's currently impossible to discuss the game in a healthy way on this forum.
    Not going to even comment on cannon rush + shield battery rushes and the amount of effort it takes to defend vs execute them? i guess we can assume it will never get addressed because printf is now a foreigner fan favorite doing the same build in all 3 matchups every game.
    There have been so many proposals on this forum for late game Terran buffs that do not revolve around an aoe raven ability. Can we please get a Test map with a less drastic anti-armor missile damage nerf, but buffs to the battlecruiser and viking hp.

    The honest reason why a lot of feedback is so harsh is because these updates are so inconsistent. No only do you never share any data from either your own testing or the pro-games that the balance team is observing, but incredibly powerful late game options for zerg and protoss are in the game, but as soon as Terran receives something comparable you were about to nerf it straight into the ground after a single tournament in which Maru still lost.
    03/13/2018 11:25 AMPosted by ProRazer
    Wtf so much text but no content. Literally saying "We heared all your feedback but we decided to ignore it and still push these changes"


    Seriously? Learn to read.
    Nobody has had bad behaviour on the forum, if we think you are not doing your job correctly then we will be negative, everyone has the right to complain. Play the game and please start listening to feedback (it feels like you don't) and we might get there in the end and get the StarCraft that we all want.
    The forums are pretty entertaining. Now instead of laughing over people ranting about the balance team hating all Terran players now we can spend some time laughing over people ranting about the balance team backing down after the previous rants.

    Remember, for extra entertainment value, read the posts out loud in the most serious voice you can manage until you inevitably crack up.
    You might want to consider opening up the "balance testing" match making to user-made mods. Then people whining in the forum can just implement their ideas themselves and see if they gain tracktion with players :)
    I agree 100% with keeping the Raven as it is.

    Terran need a tool to fight against late game air armies. Terran, Zerg and Protoss all have powerful tools to fight against Ravens now when pdd is no longer in the game and when turret cast range is so low.

    I predict that people will get better at fighting against Raven and that keeping Ravens as they are will be good for the game. Anything that discourage massing Carriers an a-moving with them is should be encouraged.

    Join the Conversation

    Return to Forum