|
Disclaimer: The Idle Speculation series of posts contain dangerous levels of raw theorycraft, and should not be read by anyone, ever. It is, in every sense that matters, nothing to do with playing Starcraft 2.
With that out of the way, let's rub lobes.
Ever since the beta, the fact that warpgates are in every way better than gateways has niggled at me.
Partly this stems from the fact they can be turned back into gateways, which suggests we're missing an opportunity to make that a good idea in some circumstances.
It's also partly the ready availability of the warpgate upgrade. It's so quickly unlocked and such a no-brainer to get that the only decision is whether you chronoboost it. To put it another way, researching it feels like make-work; something to stop you proxy-pylon rushing an opponent at the 3 minute mark as opposed to a genuine strategic choice.
Mostly, however, it's niggled because of the degree to which it's come to define PvX play. This isn't about balance, either: a long time ago I wrote a blog post about the concept of stability in different match-ups, and the role defender's advantage plays in fostering stable, varied strategies. Briefly, I said defender's advantage should ramp up quickly to offer the opportunity for cheese but not allow it to dominate, and then decay over the course of the game as tech is unlocked.
When you look at the tech trees, with static defence tending to out-range and out-gun the units they're likely to face, and drops, air and siege coming later, you can see the application of that principle. By extension, when someone rushes for tech or air units, they're rushing to reduce their opponent's defender's advantage - something that almost always entails a degree of risk.
I say 'almost' because warpgate technology, I feel, reduces defender's advantage too much, too early, and with no downside. It's so powerful that no other early-game choices make sense. You can warp in reinforcements on your opponent's doorstep, warp them right into his base if you have vision - while also increasing your own defensive strength. Nothing at that level of tech comes close in terms of neutralising defensive advantage. Hardly surprising that PvP has been - and may well remain - a rather samey warpgate-fest.
Engage Idle Speculation Mode
What if the warpgate upgrade were modified as follows:
* Reduces the gateway construction time of units to their patch 1.3 warp-in cooldowns - perhaps less.
* Allows gateways to transform into warpgates. Warpgates function as they do now, but have unit cooldowns that are around as long as the patch 1.3 gateway construction times - perhaps longer.
In other words, the modified upgrade divides the benefits of the old upgrade between gateways and warpgates. Gateways become the means of choice for rapidly building up an army. Warpgates can still reinforce the front line (and for the first wave of reinforcements will be every bit as strong as they are now) but cannot maintain the same rate of production.
Imagine, for example, that a 4-warpgate had to become a 5-warpgate to bring a similar number of reinforcements to bear at the front line, while - defensively - three or four upgraded gateways were able to keep pace. Wouldn't that additional defender's advantage make a wider variety of openings possible in PvP? Wouldn't the fact that unupgraded gateways could match the production of Warpgates make Warpgate technology an economic corner that could be temporarily cut in a defensive build?
Imagine the same in PvZ: balls-out aggression would entail greater defensive vulnerability, as warping in units at home (after morphing warpgates in the anticipation of reinforcing aggression) would have a longer cooldown. At the same time, the ferocity of that aggression would be ever so slightly tempered (even if only by the minerals needed for another gateway), without weakening the Protoss's ability to play economically and defensively if he so chooses.
Imagine the dreaded Protoss deathball. If reinforcements had to either cross the map or be warped in at less frequent intervals, isolating and chipping away at the ball would be more effective.
EDIT: It's been pointed out that a 4-gating player might still have the advantage because they could be able to win with the first round of warped-in units. If this proved to be the case, I would make upgraded gateways have the same 5 second build-times and X-second cooldowns that patch 1.3 warpgates do now, with the 'morphed' configuration allowing remote warp-in at the cost of longer cooldowns.
As with all idle speculation this is all entirely pointless, but I get good feelings when I think about it.
Thanks for reading.
 
|
In PvP that wouldn't change anything as it is one connected upgrade. For example 2 players are producing units, RIGHT when warpgates finish, => warp in 4 units and then attack. The gateway player would still be building units and would then lose.
But yes, I do wish gateways are useful besides a tool for players who can't macro and need to queue. Not sure about your idea though...like with all idle speculation this is all entirely pointless I suppose...I don't get your same good feelings though T___T
|
I think I would race switch if they implemented this.
|
On April 06 2011 23:43 ReketSomething wrote:
In PvP that wouldn't change anything as it is one connected upgrade. For example 2 players are producing units, RIGHT when warpgates finish, => warp in 4 units and then attack. The gateway player would still be building units and would then lose.
Hmm.
The gateway morph time is 10 seconds, and the warp-in time is 5 more seconds. That's almost as long as it would take to chronoboost a zealot out of an upgraded gateway. However, I can see you wouldn't be able to have the upgrade AND chronoboost vs someone who had chronoboosted the upgrade.
Just to check: are you sure the warpgating player always wins with that first round of units? It's not the timing of the second round? Because it seems to me that, with perhaps a sentry helping out, someone who hasn't spent resources or chronoboost on the upgrade could hold out. They might need to get the upgrade to avoid being overwhelmed if their opponent commits to reinforcing cross-map or builds more warpgates, but it would at least be a response rather than something they need to do blindly, just in case.
If not, then I suppose upgraded gateways could have the build-times and cool-downs of patch 1.3 warpgates, but still construct units right next to themselves, with the 'open' configuration allowing warp-in anywhere there's power, just with a longer cooldown. That way the defender would not only have quicker rounds of units, but also wouldn't have to wait for the 10 second morph animation to complete.
|
On April 06 2011 23:56 Vlare wrote:
I think I would race switch if they implemented this.
In a good way, or a bad way?
|
Accidental quote instead of edit.
|
As a Protoss player who four gates a lot, I agree. Warpgates are awesome, but overpowered. For instance it wasn't Amulet that made HT's incredibly strong, but Warpgates (imagine if Terran could warp in EMP anywhere, or Zerg Fungal Growth). And who wouldn't get the upgrade? It is so cheap, lessens the cooldown of units and allows you to warp in anywhere. There is no downside except for the fact it costs 50-50 and takes some time to research, making Gateways totally unused except for a 2 gate proxy rush.
However, while I do believe that while Warpgates are overpowered and a mechanically a bad choice for the game, they are necessary for the balance of the game due other questionable mechanics in the game that exist.
For instance, Marines are overpowered. Blizzard realizes this and instead of fixing the problem directly, deals with it indirectly, by increasing bunker timing (bunkers that generally protect Marines) and stim research timing. This is like removing Amulet when Warpgates are overpowered, while solving the issue with HT's it doesn't do anything to combat early Warpgate pushes (and in fact increases their likelyhood against Terran, since bunkers take longer, and stim comes out later). So the nerf to Marines reduces the effectiveness of bunker rushes, and makes they get stim later, but they remain the same units. Marines in large groups with stim still effectively counter (on a cost by cost basis) Zealots, Stalkers, Sentries, Immortals, Pheonixes, Carriers and Void Rays. Even when facing a mix of these units, they win. There is even strategies that recommend only building Marines vs Protoss (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=200525). You cannot fault people for doing strategies like this, because the game was balanced this way (don't hate the player, hate the game), but for it to be actually feasible for a tier 1 of the game with upgrades that come out of a Tier 1 tech structure to be the only unit built and counter so many units including units at the top level of another races tech tree is absurd (just as absurd as the idea that Gateways could be rendered useless by an ultra cheap early game upgrade).
And the counter to Marine is Colossus, which is an overpowered unit in and of itself (often takes one to kill one when it comes to balance...). The fact that it dominates (assuming the game lasts beyond the Warpgate rush phase) PvP is indication of this, as it is by far the most cost effective way to roll over armies for the Protoss. And this has dire consequences for PvZ as we know. Sadly though, Colossus needs to be this powerful to combat Marines.
Anyway now I'm just ranting, but I love to study the different matchups and the mechanics (which directly effects the balance), and it needs some work, warpgates included. But you can't just take nerf Warpgates and expect the Protoss to remain competitive against the other races. Or in otherwords, Warpgate being overpowered is necessary to combat other units and strategies that are overpowered at this point.
|
On April 07 2011 00:29 BronzeKnee wrote:But you can't just take nerf Warpgates and expect the Protoss to remain competitive against the other races. Or in otherwords, Warpgate being overpowered is necessary to combat other units and strategies that are overpowered at this point.
Just to be clear - the change I'm talking about wouldn't affect a Protoss player's ability to make units at the same rate he is now. He would just need to either a) make them in his base via upgraded gateways and reinforce as normal, or b) build one or two extra warpgates to compensate for their slower cooldown if he wanted to warp cross-map.
The reason I think this change is a good one is that it only affects the degree to which warpgate technology overcomes defensive advantage in the very early game. Protoss can still make just as much stuff, but if they want to do it right up in your face they'll have to invest in extra production facilities. Heck, you could even have a second upgrade that reduces the warpgate cooldown in line with the upgraded gateway timing, researchable at the Cyber core once you have an Archive up (for instance).
|
The idea of a gateway of the gateway is completely nullified by having the warp gate upgrade. Without balance being considered, it would make sense that warp gates and gateways would have separate pros and cons, as the OP suggested- one can power out an army, one can warp across the map. Having the warp gate do both just raises questions as to why you're allowed to turn it back in the first place (other than, maybe, "My macro is really bad and I decided I want to queue units.")
That said, I think things are fine the way they are. Its an odd decision that Blizzard has made, but for balance purposes, there is no reason to change it.
|
Well I dont think you can tinker too much with warpgates at this stage of the game. What I'd like to see is reduced build time on units produced from normal gateways (right now I think theyre 10 sec slower than if they were warped in, and the warpin time is only 5 sec offset).
And then increase the amount of time it takes to convert a gateway into a warpgate -- from 10 sec to something more like 30 sec. This would make protoss choose between immediate units and increased production capability. Much like how terrans need to decide if/when to get reactors, or how zergs need to balance between hatcheries and units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
