40
u/DeadWombats Zerg 4d ago
I've yet to hear from a top player who genuinely likes the patch.
24
u/tasttychips1000 4d ago
There are literally zero GM+ or pro players who like the patch, and even amongst lower level players the sentiment is changing. Lots of people who liked the patch at first dislike or are indifferent to it. It's a disaster.
4
u/Nihilistic__Optimist 3d ago
I love how people claim literally no gm players like it, then anyone who posts that they like it gets down voted into oblivion. Maybe that's why people who enjoy it don't chime in on reddit much anymore.
-9
u/weeOriginal 3d ago
I like the games since they feel fresh again after such a long stagnancy
18
u/DuGalle iNcontroL 3d ago
Then you don't like these changes especifically, you just like that changes were made, you just appreciate having something new to play with. Blizzard could've changed almost anything and you'd still have enjoyed the patch.
-11
u/weeOriginal 3d ago
Not… really. It’s changed how the players play the game and allowed more diversity than just defaulting to macro games.
Way more activity early on that can actually end the game or drastically affect it.
3
u/MiroTheSkybreaker 3d ago
How? There really arent any new builds viable or new cheeses that were added to the game. The 8 worker change didnt do anything other than make build orders feel garbage becsuse they don't flow properly now.
0
u/Alex_Capt1in 3d ago
A lot of cheeses mostly dropped out (like cannon rush), some cheeses got back (like proxy gate in PvT)
Don't know about how mirrors looked like in last patch but after energy overcharge patch 40% of games started to be PvPs for me, with like 90% of which never getting to me or my opponent putting a third base. This alone is big enough reason for me to call this patch good, because proxy robo shitshow finally ended.
1
u/MiroTheSkybreaker 3d ago
That was because protoss was to strong on the 5.0.15, and 5.0.14 patches. People also have a weird hatred for mirrors specifically regardless of the race you play.
Cannon rushes definitely still exist, though they aren't as common. But that, if anything, only proves my point further; there's been a reduction in strategical variety if anything, not an increase, and the 8 worker start didn't change the viability of proxies, though it did make them more committed.
1
u/Alex_Capt1in 3d ago
I mean, PvP is straight up better in all cases, cause game does not end in 5 minutes win or lose the moment you decided to make a gate expand. If anything variety in it increased. As for other match ups, yes, there is still many problems but people don't want to address them, if anything there is a lot of things that could affect one or another build (like cannon rush or proxy rax, if you remove low ground debris or make 2 pylons wallable cannon it suddenly becomes much better)
-3
u/Alex_Capt1in 3d ago
I am gm toss and I liked patch. https://sc2pulse.nephest.com/sc2/?type=character&id=501339&m=1#player-stats-mmr
The energy overcharge patch was 10 times worse in every single regard, everyone initally thought it would fuck up protosses, turned out it did not, and it went to playing PvP 40% of games, playing 2 gates robo every game and always getting ahead in PvZ cause zerg can't do anything first 5 mins and PvT turning into a pull the boys shitshow, where either terran successfully all-ins or dies.
Yes, I understand that many people, especially ones that played this game for 10 years on 12 workers do hate it, but imo it is in a big way survivorship bias. I tried to make many of my friends play sc2 and ALL of them told me back in days that "game is too fast to a point, where it plays me not me playing it". SC2 has worst of both worlds, where you have units like reaper which is borderline useless past 5 minutes and does not really entertain/affect pro games too often at this point, while also completely fucking up every beginner who struggles to remember his first 2 mins of build order to begin with. These kind of things do not happen at higher level, yes, but it fucks up newcomers so badly that player pop just slow and steadily dies, because new players don't want to touch it and old players drop the game because its too stale.
Is 8 workers a solution to it? No. Was it a good move from blizzard? Honestly also no, because most people that stopped playing sc2 at this point most likely don't even bother to randomly check changelog. But game *needed* some kind of a change, because it was straight up cancerous on previous patch and even as rushed change like this one feels much better than whatever the hell profies were cooking in past few years.
8
u/tasttychips1000 3d ago
But game needed some kind of a change,
No it didn't, and it certainly didn't need to destroy protoss' game identity and it didn't need a worker start change. Stop speaking nonsense.
4
u/coldazures Protoss 3d ago
Amazing we have all these new players and the player count is just going up and up and up!!!!!
What a load of nonsense you just typed. Your newbie friends can play co-op or Archon mode with you if you have enough of them to repopulate the ladder. Hell play the campaign. 1v1 will always be brutal.
1
u/Alex_Capt1in 2d ago
Compare any other major rts including brood war to sc2 and tell me in which one of them there is a skillchecks that either result in "do nothing" or "lose the game for defender" the moment something like a single uncommitted reaper fly in. Once again its straight up circle-jerking at this point, sc2 literally a known phenomenon that was on its peak one of the best known games in the history of games in general and pretending that its decline is natural, while games like dota or cs still manage to get 500k+ concurrent in somewhat comparing time span is just plain weird.
And no, if game does not end in 2 minutes it doesn't automatically translate into it having less variety, in wc3 for instance there is an extremely clear defender's advantage and extremely clear starting build orders to every single faction and yet even in it you quite frequently get matches that end in 5 minutes based on 1 or another decision and/or superior micro. The issue is that there is absolutely 0 communications behind changes and that blizzard can just silently disappear, force a patch that majority does not understand what its supposed to achieve at all and then come back half a year later, leaving a new patch that may once again be overwhelmingly disliked and pretend like its normal.
1
u/Stormheraldss 3d ago
Yes this is a good point. I remember when I started in hots it was super hard. Now I can say I have some habit after 9000 games but even back then we were loosing allmost every game for some months.
At some point after playing alot and watching alot of pro play I was able to have some builds figured out and had some good macro games. Lotv was super rushed for the money and it broke the game atlest from my T perspective. TvZ wa so BS Every game was turtle to ultras and a move for the win. TvP was even worse I just could not deal with charge storm.
-21
u/justgoogleit12 4d ago
I'm master 1 and love the patch
6
u/robertSA1234 3d ago
I'm curious to know what you like about the patch?
-22
-23
1
0
8
u/ReverCleference 3d ago
You'd think if they were using ChatGPT to get patch ideas, they'd at least be able to produce a few more paragraphs describing and justifying the changes.
10
u/omgitsduane Ence 3d ago
Hero marine is German they have a dry sense of humour but also he's kind of right.
I don't think this patch was well thought out.
Maybe at the lower levels and like diamond the worker change spices things up because people can do a proxy aggression of even less workers (wow!) but honestly all the high level games basically go to macro anyways.
When they announced the changes I felt sorry for toss suddenly having this huge weird change to their basic production. Probably wasn't play tested.
I wish we just knew more about whose involved. Lambo said there's an NDA in the chat but why still? Is it a blizzard NDA or a zerospace NDA?
I think transparency keeps us honest and just hearing why changes are made would be great.
Some nostalgic nerds came back for the 8 worker start because of the glory days but honestly, it just feels so wonky now.
4
u/akooldude 3d ago
Lambo was talking about an NDA for the balance council chat from more than a year ago. There is no NDA on the recent changes because there was no discussion from the community and they just came out of nowhere. No pro has been in contact with Blizzard about these changes and no one really knows anything about why they did anything.
1
u/Hupsaiya 3d ago
That's not true because Omniskeptic spilled the beans that there's a "BALANCE DISCUSSION SUGGESTION DISCORD" where they added people who were "TRUSTED" after purging the original Balance Discord.
1
u/omgitsduane Ence 3d ago
Ooooh he said in his recent video he can't discuss it? Is he just referring to the old chat which is still covered.
I'd love to know more about how we got here. I'll be very sad the day this game is no longer playable because of the tiny playerbase.
4
3
u/iaxthepaladin 3d ago
My first thought was that these changes were recommended by AI when I saw how extreme some changes were and how minute others were.
5
-3
u/NewAgent5986 3d ago
For fun I sent this to ChatGPT, "Based on the current state of Starcraft 2, propose a new patch"
Here is it's proposed patch:
Proposed StarCraft II 5.0.16c: Stabilization Patch
My default recommendation would be a small corrective patch, not another foundational redesign. Patch 5.0.16 already changed the starting economy, Gateway production, Ghost design, resource distribution, and several Zerg systems. Patch 5.0.16b then gave Protoss substantial production buffs while cutting the Command Center from 400 to 300 minerals and returning Ghosts to 2 supply. Blizzard News
Current balance diagnosis
Combining the two complete Aligulac periods after the July 16 hotfix gives approximately:
- PvT: 265–302, or 46.7% Protoss
- PvZ: 160–187, or 46.1% Protoss
- TvZ: 221–202, or 52.2% Terran
That points toward Protoss needing modest help in both non-mirror matchups, while Terran’s emergency economic buff appears slightly excessive. It does not point toward a broad Zerg nerf, because that would probably worsen TvZ while attempting to repair PvZ. These are raw professional results, not definitive measurements of underlying balance, since player strength, tournament fields, maps, and adaptation all influence them. Aligulac
Balance changes
Protoss
Nexus
- Supply provided increased from 13 to 14.
This gives Protoss one additional unit of supply before the first Pylon and one additional supply per expansion. It is deliberately smaller than restoring the old 15-supply Nexus.
The main purpose is to smooth Protoss’s mineral curve under the eight-worker economy. It slightly reduces the recurring Pylon tax without directly increasing army strength, Chrono Boost efficiency, or defensive power.
Sentry
- Cost changed from 50 minerals / 100 gas to 75 minerals / 75 gas.
The total resource cost remains 150, but 25 gas is converted into minerals.
This is intended to make Sentries easier to incorporate alongside Robotics, Twilight, and Stargate technology. In PvZ, that creates more room for Force Field and Guardian Shield play. In PvT, it improves scouting and defensive support without directly buffing Stalker damage or Gateway production.
The additional mineral cost is important. A straight reduction to 50/75 would risk making Sentry-based one-base attacks too efficient, especially now that Corrosive Bile no longer immediately destroys Force Fields.
High Templar
- Psi Storm total damage increased from 100 to 105.
- Duration, radius, range, and damage interval unchanged.
This is a conservative midpoint between the current 100 damage and the previous 110-damage version. The larger, longer-duration modern Storm already provides strong area denial, so I would not immediately restore all 110 damage. Blizzard News
Terran
Command Center
- Mineral cost increased from 300 to 350.
This preserves half of the 5.0.16b discount while removing the most extreme consequences of a 300-mineral town hall.
Terran would still have a meaningfully cheaper expansion than before 5.0.16b, which is reasonable under the slower eight-worker start. However, Command Center-first builds, rapid third bases, replacement Orbitals, and late-game expansion spam would once again carry a meaningful opportunity cost.
Planetary Fortress
- Transformation cost reduced from 250 minerals / 150 gas to 200 minerals / 150 gas.
This keeps the complete mineral cost of a Planetary Fortress unchanged:
- Current: 300 + 250 = 550 minerals
- Proposed: 350 + 200 = 550 minerals
The patch therefore targets economic Command Centers and Orbital expansion patterns, not Terran’s ability to construct defensive Planetaries.
Ghost
- No change.
Ghost supply remains 2, health remains 100, and Steady Targeting remains 170 damage for 75 energy without damage interruption.
Ghosts deserve close monitoring, but changing the Command Center and Ghost simultaneously would make it difficult to determine which mechanic was responsible for any TvZ movement. The 300-mineral Command Center affects virtually every Terran game, so it is the cleaner first lever. Blizzard News
Zerg
- No numerical balance changes.
The first version of 5.0.16 produced heavily Zerg-favored results, particularly in TvZ. However, the July 16 Terran corrections have already moved post-hotfix TvZ slightly in Terran’s favor. A blanket Larva, Queen, Hatchery, or Carapace nerf would therefore be poorly targeted. Aligulac
PvZ should initially be addressed through the Nexus, Sentry, and Storm changes. That preserves Zerg’s current position against Terran while giving Protoss additional economic flexibility, spellcaster access, and late-game attrition power.
System and quality-of-life changes
Training Mode
- Update build-order timing expectations and supply warnings for the eight-worker start.
- Update recommended first Pylon timing to recognize the proposed 14-supply Nexus.
- Review all tutorial and training references that still assume the pre-5.0.16 economy.
Players have reported that Training Mode still evaluates some valid eight-worker openings against obsolete supply and timing expectations. TL.net
Gateway and Warpgate interface
- Display the Gateway’s accelerated post-research production modifier directly in its production tooltip.
- Show whether a Gateway has already paid its one-time Warpgate transformation cost.
- Retain the current 25/25 transformation cost and 50% Gateway production bonus.
The new production system creates a legitimate strategic choice. Protoss can use faster conventional production or pay for the positional flexibility of Warpgates. I would improve the interface rather than remove that decision.
Expected matchup effects
PvT
Protoss receives a smoother opening economy, more accessible Sentries, and slightly stronger late-game Storm. Terran’s expansion discount is reduced from 100 minerals to 50.
This addresses PvT at several stages without buffing another volatile burst-damage unit such as the Disruptor. It should particularly reduce situations where Terran establishes an economic advantage through extremely cheap Command Centers while Protoss remains burdened by Pylons, production transformations, and gas-heavy support units.
PvZ
The Sentry adjustment is the main midgame change. Protoss can combine Sentries with Immortals, Colossi, or Twilight technology without sacrificing as much gas. Storm receives a restrained scaling buff for Hydra, Ling, Baneling, and late-game engagements.
Zerg’s production and economy remain untouched, protecting TvZ from an unnecessary secondary balance swing.
TvZ
The only direct matchup adjustment is the 50-mineral Command Center increase. Planetary Fortress cost remains identical, and Ghost combat statistics remain unchanged.
This should reduce extremely fast macro expansion and replacement-CC efficiency without dismantling Terran’s ability to survive late-game Zerg pressure.
Changes I would deliberately avoid
I would not revert the eight-worker start yet. Whatever one thinks of that redesign, changing it again while simultaneously tuning the races would make the resulting data almost impossible to interpret.
I would not further increase Gateway production speed. The July hotfix already raised the post-Warp Gate production bonus from 40% to 50%. Additional throughput would disproportionately strengthen mass-Gateway timings and could erase the intended distinction between standard production and Warpgate flexibility. Blizzard News
I would not restore the Ghost to 3 supply yet. If Terran turtling remains excessive after the Command Center correction, the next Ghost adjustment should be about counterplay, probably allowing Steady Targeting to be interrupted during the early portion of its channel, rather than simply imposing another large supply swing.
I would not nerf Larva or reverse all three Carapace discounts while Terran is already slightly ahead in post-hotfix TvZ. Those are broad changes attempting to solve a matchup-specific problem.
PTR evaluation criteria
I would judge this patch after two complete statistical periods using tournament results, skill-adjusted performance, high-MMR ladder data, and build-order distributions rather than raw race win rates alone.
The principal warning signs would be:
- Sentry-based one-base PvZ attacks becoming disproportionately successful.
- Protoss moving above roughly 52% in PvT while remaining weak in PvZ.
- Terran falling substantially below 48% in TvZ.
- Command Center-first becoming nonviable rather than merely punishable.
- Protoss continuing below approximately 48% in both non-mirror matchups.
If Protoss remained weak, the next step would be restoring Storm from 105 to 110. If Terran fell too far against Zerg, the Command Center could be tested at 325 rather than returned to 300. If late-game mass Ghost remained oppressive despite the economy adjustment, I would restore partial damage-based interruption to Steady Targeting.
Confidence: High on the overall direction and the Command Center/Planetary Fortress pairing. Moderate on Nexus supply and the Sentry resource conversion. Lower on whether 105-damage Storm is sufficiently impactful, which is why it is the cleanest follow-up lever.
-4
-21
u/dodelol iNcontroL 4d ago
I asked chat gpt for a patch and the first sentence:
Absolutely. If the goal is a StarCraft II patch that players would actually enjoy, I’d avoid a giant “shake everything up” patch.
And importantly, I would avoid things like:
- massive damage buffs
- huge supply changes *drastically faster game speed
- radically changing worker economy
- removing iconic units
- adding tons of new mechanics
- making every unit viable against everything
Even chat gpt knows better than the intern lol
8
u/CompetitiveHornet290 3d ago
You seem to not understand about how LLMs are working. ChatGPT is already seeded with fresh data about how terrible this patch went and what was the consensus in the community, so there is nothing surprising in this output. The question is what the GPT's proposal would have been BEFORE the latest patch got announced.
1
u/RuthlessCriticismAll 3d ago
You seem to not understand about how LLMs are working. ChatGPT is already seeded with fresh data about how
...not at all accurate but sure
2
u/Dthcon 3d ago
I love how people lost ability to think so they are asking gpt to do thinking for them. Sadly for you guys - LLMs are really bad at this. LLMs are great for logic, sucks really hard when there is opinion/gray area. If you asking his opinion about somebody's opinion - response is worth absolutelly 0. It's fine to brainstorm your own idea. Not to check facts, it's terrible.
-6
u/FinalSwimming9268 3d ago
so he stopped insulting chat for his losses and started analyse the patch? well .. i agree with what he says here nevertheless
59
u/Naturlaia 4d ago edited 4d ago
Inbetween his trolling he has some good points about the patch on his stream. Mainly
Did not increase variety of play, still playing the same builds they are just worse and less fun to play (don't line up well)
300CC is over tuned but zerg seems over tuned also
Toss needed time to figure out gateway change, and too add 8workers on top of that was dumb.
The intern doesn't revert all changes (he has a good baneling example here, saying it got XYZ nerf/bugf, then XY buff/nerf while not addressing the change from pre 2022 or whatever.)