|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote:
Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon
- Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells
- An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved.
Gateway unlocking forge is a HORRIBLE idea. There will be no more FFE, and defending against a 6-7 pool will become a nightmare. If you cannot scout a canon rush, you deserve to lose. Honestly, a small degree of cheese is not a bad thing to have in games.
|
On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote:
Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon
- Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells
- An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved.
you would also eliminate forge expand so protoss gets even more stale.
|
On March 15 2011 00:19 dragonblade369 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote:
Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon
- Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells
- An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. Gateway unlocking forge is a HORRIBLE idea. There will be no more FFE, and defending against a 6-7 pool will become a nightmare. If you cannot scout a canon rush, you deserve to lose. Honestly, a small degree of cheese is not a bad thing to have in games.
Yeah, I agree with this.
|
While I agree the KA is very powerful i think a nerf to it wouldve been more justified, maybe 10 less energy or so. Removing it is too much IMO, cuz now it takes way too long to get a storm out when you need it and if they get ghosts than you really have to protect your templar for too long to be useful. Collosi is very strong but once they get a large AA count, collosi is less useful and gateway units get tons weaker as the game goes on compared to other units and their upgrades. If gateway units did get a buff than they would be to strong early game IMO, so it just becomes a big mess by buffing/nerfing a unit.
|
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
|
It's all in the Warpgate. The entire design of Protoss follows directly from what Warpgates necessitate and allow. The OP identified the 4gate as a possible problem, but that's just a specific timing taking advantage of the mechanics of Warpgates. Even if you push the upgrade back into the midgame, by increasing research time or making it require additional Tech, you'd still have 2 base Warpgate timing attacks with the new and improved gateway units. Imo, the way it is now is inherently unbalanced, and restricts gameplay in a lot of ways, both for Protoss and their opponents. The KA removal is just another Warpgate nerf by proxy.
As for the Sentry problem, I really think that the only time Sentries feel too strong, is if they're allowed to gather energy for 5 minutes, and then 6 Sentries can suddenly throw down 20 Forcefields, allowing complete control of space. If Zealots and Stalkers were buffed, I think it would be reasonable to put a short cooldown on FF (15 seconds perhaps?), and maybe add a Sentry energy upgrade to the TC. This would also add a new layer of strategy to designing your unit composition, because one would effectively only have as many FFs on the field simulatenously, as they have Sentries.
On March 15 2011 00:16 dementrio wrote:
What you and every other thread on TL are discussing is not game balance but army balance.
Imagine the game to be perfectly balanced using this logic, so that at any point in the game the ball of each race can beat the ball of every other race. What would this lead to? Every game would become a PvP, where eventually one huge engament will give the win to the player who was lucky enough to have the better position.
The way to "fix" the colossus imo is not by addressing the colossus itself, rather how protoss can sit on 2 or 3 bases and get an invincible army with the other races not being able to do anything about it. This can be done in a number of different ways, that can range from (off the top of my head) increasing the supply cap to giving other races more viable midgame harassment options to decreasing the amount of resources at each expansion. I'd like to see these kind of ideas discussed and tried rather than having every interesting unit in the game be slowly nerfed to death.
Actually, they're not discussing army balance per se, but rather core unit balance. In BW, a core unit ball of any race could win against a similar ball of any other race, and it worked out just fine. Not having relatively evenly matched core units is a recipe for volatile gameplay, imo.
Also, the Colossus is not an interesting unit at all, and the game would really not lose much if it had simply been removed and replaced with something else.
|
I can't really comment on whether the Colossus itself is overpowered or not. I also don't mind Toss being a race that relies on a "Power" unit. My problem as a Protoss player is that one of the three trees power unit is the obvious choice.
Templar are much more difficult to use, and will be made worse if the nerf goes through, and Carriers are impossible to get. I think all three tech choices should be made viable before we start messing with the colossus.
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
Man, seriously, i couldn't agree more!
Blizzard should be looking at the state of P in general (not only PvP) and question themselves if warpgates are indeed the reason for that damn boring Colossi unit and try to fix it in HOTS, because they will never touch the whole thing in a patch.
|
On March 15 2011 00:41 dragonblade369 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
Could you explain what the Dark Pylon is? Is there a Light Pylon?
|
On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I agree with this post entirely. There are obviously a lot of problems with the game right now, with Protoss specifically, but i think that huge, drastic changes such as removing complete upgrades (see amulet) or tech trees is a terrible idea. Removing things from the game is the last thing you want to do if you want to create a game with depth and a variety. At this point, anything more than messing with numbers is a poor choice. We shouldn't need to get any more extreme than the fixes suggested by this post.
|
Could you explain what the Dark Pylon is? Is there a Light Pylon?
The dark pylon is something that protoss had in the alpha version of the game that servers as the macro mechanism of protoss. I just used it for the name's sake. What i meant is that only a special pylon can warp-in units. The first pylon you build can warp-in units, and any additional one you want has to be morphed from a normal pylon after the warp-gate tech is done.
|
On March 14 2011 22:16 Ravomat wrote:
5. Well, Carriers have the highest DPS in the game but their cost especially with interceptors and build time even with chronoboost...I don't know they are strong but almost impossible to tech to. Maybe it would help to increase their mineral cost but make the interceptors untargetable.
Carriers have a dps of 26.6666667. They do have the highest burst damage in the game, at 80, but their dps in an extended fight is terrible for their cost. They also lose a horrific 16 damage per volley for each point of natural armor the target has and per level of armor the target has over the Protoss player's Air Attack level.
On the subject of the original post, one thing you forgot to mention is guardian shield. The unit stats for Protoss seem to be designed under the assumption that every fight will take place with the entire Protoss army under guardian shield.
To get Protoss away from Colossus tech probably isn't possible. Nerfing Colossi would require buffing other things.
First off, it's impossible to buff gateway units without nerfing warpgates in some way. Even if warpgates weren't nerfed, if stalkers are buffed to the point where they can beat marauders 1v1, Terrans will be forced to camp on one base behind bunkers in fear of 2 gate chronoboosted stalker attacks. If gateway units aren't buffed enough, there are currently timing attacks that Protoss players hold off with the extra round of units warped in when warpgate tech finishes. Delaying this would make those timing attacks too strong. Good luck with that.
Second, Colossi are currently Protoss's most versatile unit. They're the best choice for dealing with Roaches, Hydralisks, and Zerglings from Zerg and Marines, Marauders, and Hellions from Terran. Buffing other units to help fill in for a weakened Colossus would probably require buffing some combination of 2 or 3 units, probably the Zealot and the Stalker and/or the Immortal. Just buffing the Zealot would only help with Marines and Zerglings, and maybe Hydralisks depending on the exact buff. Buffing Stalkers and/or Immortals leaves the Protoss player tremendously open to a Hydra/Ling tech switch from Zerg.
Honestly, I believe that the problem isn't that the Colossus is too strong, but that it's too versatile. However, it's also the best unit Protoss has (and pretty much the only cost effective one) against any ground units except Thors, Ultralisks, and possibly siege tanks. One possible solution might be to move some of the Colossus's damage to a bonus to light units and buff the Immortal make it a properly effective choice against armored units.
Why buff the Immortal? It's currently on side of cost effective against Marauders and Hellions, but only barely. As it's produced from the Robotics Facility, it's not something that Protoss can effectively build their entire army out of in the fashion that Zerg and Terran can with Roaches and Marauders. Thus, it's a support unit. But, when the main body of the army is Zealots, Stalkers, and Sentries and they aren't cost effective, a barely cost effective support unit isn't really worth it. This is compounded by the Immortal's short range. It's incredibly easy to focus fire and destroy.
|
On March 15 2011 00:45 ander wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:31 Knee_of_Justice wrote:
The OP misses the obvious conclusion. What is the root of all these problems? 4gate? Forcefield? Colossus? WARPGATES.
My claim is that any nerf/buff to protoss will be ultimately futile until warpgates have been fixed. Warpgates are the root of all evil. Why are they problematic?
1) Can warp in virtually anywhere, leading to instant reinforcements
2) Reduced buildtime compared to gate
3) Skip a build cycle (effectively) upon researching it, leading to extremely powerful push timings
4) Very very cheap: tier 1.5, requires a 150M tech building, 50/50. Long research time can be mitigated with chronoboost
Let's go even further in depth.
Obvious claims that most people will agree with:
1) Protoss tier 1 is disturbingly weak compared to the other races. As a BW toss player, it saddens me to see my bread and butter so weak (like margarine on white bread instead of butter on whole grain, lol). Protoss gateway units in BW were terrifyingly powerful early game and lategame whereas now, the general consensus seems to be that the toss have sacrificed their power for mobility.
Clearly the cause of this is directly related to the warpgate mechanic. The ability to warp your army instantly across the map must come at a price if the game is to be balanced. That price is power leading to a weaker toss core.
But if toss units are weaker than the other races in the early game before warpgate, then what can be done to fix that? Forcefield.
2) Forcefield is a very powerful and neat ability that allows you to cut armies in half, plug up ramps, contain armies at chokepoints and prevent retreat, among many other things. Despite its many problems, it is the type of cool and powerful ability that made BW so great.
Most of the issues stem from its accessibility. There is no need for this powerful a spell to come:
1) Unresearched (like with EMP, this ability is powerful enough to deserve a semi-expensive upgrade)
2) On a low-tier unit.
The reasons for both stem from the protoss need to delay major pushes before warpgate hits, such as early marauders. Even beyond these pushes, the protoss gateway army needs forcefields to basically come up even against an equal supply/cost terran/zerg army before support units come out because warpgate units wont cut it on their own. Lategame, with lots of sentries and energy, they become ridiculously powerful additions to the colssus death ball due to their zoning power.
3) Colossi fit into this puzzle by giving gateway units long range, mobile splash damage support. It overcompensates for the gateway units weakness. Nothing new being claimed here.
Blizzard needs to give the warpgate mechanic a cold hard look. It is too powerful, too cheap and too early.
I would have tried balancing the game like this:
1) Warpgate research is 150/150 or 200/200 on the core. Maybe even give the core a gas cost. Anything to delay the warpgate tech and make it a significant investment that you may consider skipping.
2) Warpgates increase the build time of the units they create, not decrease them. You still get them immediately, but instead of 38 for a zealot, it would be 5 seconds (get zealot) then the warpgate cools down for 40-45 seconds.
3) Gateway units buffed to be more equal with their zerg/terran counterparts early game.
4) Sentries start with guardian shield and upgrade both hallu and forcefield (150/150) on the cybernetics core. This gives a choice between forcefield upgrade and warpgates upgrade.
5) Nerf colossi and maybe immortals/voidray. Do not remove amulet. If it must be changed, nerf it slightly in one of the common suggested ways (ex: let it give +20 or +15 starting energy instead of +25)
Let us examine what we have done:
Warpgate is now a slow expensive upgrade that can be obtained early but that is also competing with other important upgrades (forcefield, specifically). In compensation, gateway units are now stronger and can hold their own until the other races begin to tech (as it should be). Sentries cannot forcefield until it is researched making it more of a mid-lategame ability. Protoss support units are now more in balance with the gateway units. There is no longer a striking disparity in power between the colossi and the zealot/stalker mix that accompanies them.
What does this do to warpgate specifically? What are its new uses? Well in a macro game, you would definitely consider keeping most of your gateways. Why? Faster and easier production.
However, you have the option to keep a few as warpgates, allowing your units to instantly reinforce or raid, or push across the map at the cost of a longer cooldown. If an opponent holds off your push, you have been disadvantaged by the slower cooldown. In PvP the player with gateways at his base will have faster reinforcements than the player warping in cross map and therefore a slight defender's advantage.
I really think that the lack of dynamism between the two types of gate is a huge design flaw with the game. If the toss has to decide whether to have mobility at the cost of production or production at the cost of mobility, that is an interesting mechanic that can be played with by the devs.
Warp prisms will be scarier because although they wont be able to warp in as fast, they will be warping in stronger units.
Reasons not to do this: You basically have to rebalance the game. Blizzard would never make such a dramatic design change.
Conclusion: if warpgates are causing so much trouble they need to be addressed by something more than just a build time change. They should have been balanced into the game from the start as an expensive mid-game commodity that allows the toss units to have some mobility at the cost of production. And if you can somehow fix warpgates, you can nerf the colossi and forcefield to compensate.
I agree with this post entirely. There are obviously a lot of problems with the game right now, with Protoss specifically, but i think that huge, drastic changes such as removing complete upgrades (see amulet) or tech trees is a terrible idea. Removing things from the game is the last thing you want to do if you want to create a game with depth and a variety. At this point, anything more than messing with numbers is a poor choice. We shouldn't need to get any more extreme than the fixes suggested by this post.
I second that. The thing is, playing vs P is like deja vu almost every game, they can't be missing that and even though i am a Terran player which has been burnt by the amulet a number of times, i think the removal is a terrible idea.
|
What if warpgate tech increased unit build times instead? That would add a tradeoff and different tactics and choices. (Remove the zealot build time nerf for normal gates too, proxy really is easy as fuck to stop). Warpgates are indeed the root of P imbalance and it must be nerfed if us Protoss want games that test our skill, not our knowledge of BOs and timing pushes. (this would also make the option of turning warpgates back into gateways have a fucking purpose.)
|
On March 15 2011 00:06 da_head wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2011 23:52 Blasterion wrote:On March 14 2011 23:37 Crashburn wrote:
Some other suggested changes:
Forge unlocked by gateway (eliminates cannon cheese that makes for shitty games both from the standpoint of a player and a spectator)
Warpgate research increased by 20 seconds. I think the 4 gate is a touch too strong in PvZ. This would allow Z's to have more time to prepare. Additionally, a 20 second increase would allow PvP to include a broader range of build orders. I don't think this would affect PvT much, assuming the Stim research time is also increased.
And how about these changes (buffs) to the archon?
Archon
- Unaffected by Fungal Growth and Concussive Shells
- An additional cost of 75 minerals added to Archon Warp.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 200/200 and a build time of 75 seconds, the archon's range increases from 2 to 4.
- Additional upgrade added to the Templar Archives. For 100/100 and a build time of 30 seconds, the Archon Warp time decreases from 12 seconds to 6 seconds and allows warping-in archons to be moved. I think Passive constnat stuffs are boring something like this, Archon Auto-Cast Ability Psionic Surge Cast when The Archon attacks, causes Archon's movement speed to increase, removes Fungal Growth and Concussive Shell effect, and increase attack range by 1. for 10 seconds/ This effect will stack up to 3 times and will refresh itself. this way it keeps the Archon interesting and you try to keep the buff up throughout battle. or even make it attack your own units so that Archons can shake free of Slow effects. or go into battle with the buff stacked. on another note Archons that are merging can be pushed around already though lol wc3 much? -___- Show nested quote +On March 15 2011 00:03 b_unnies wrote:
zeal/stalks being undepowered again goes back to the point where tons of protoss were feeling back during the roach buff patch where roach gets +2 atk per upgrade while stalks only get +1 atk per upgrade. if you want to buff zeal/stalks, make ground upgrades stronger i think blizzard's reasoning for this is that zealots get +2 per upgrade, dts and immortals get +5 (and carriers +16). stalkers aren't meant to have a dps role.
What's so bad about WC3 =P, It's a interesting concept, makes it more micro/skill oriented. and can be used in very different ways =) it leads to dynamic game play in a way
|
On March 15 2011 00:41 dragonblade369 wrote:
I think instead of doing all those changes, just give warpgate some limitation to stop the efficiency of 4-gates. For example, re-introduce the dark pylon. The first pylon you build is a dark pylon. Any additional dark pylon can be morphed after the warp-gate tech for a price and a good amount of time. This will delay a 4-gate push significantly while giving warp prism and late-gate toss more possibilities.
But that only solves one aspect (3) of the whole issue, which includes:
1) The imbalance of power between protoss core units (zealot stalker and sentry (kinda)) and their support units/abilities (colossi, immortal, storm, forcefield). This also includes the toss deathball effect in the lategame.
2) mobility vs power (sacrificing power for mobility). If you read my post i propose sacrificing production for mobility rather than mobility for power and instead make warpgates harder to acquire and maintain.
If the 4 warpgate effect still takes place, then they could try a few things, like increase the warp-in time of units to 8-10 seconds, or make the conversion from warpgate to gateway take longer so that there is a distinct timing window to scout/attack.
3) Protoss rushes/cheese, specifically 4 warpgate pushes
Warpgates are tricky because they violate one of the core traditions of RTS, which is that units must travel from their base to the war. They should have expected major problems and been ready to deal with them in beta.
edit:
@Kyadytim: Colossi are versatile for the obvious reason that they are long ranged, do splash damge and have a large unmodified attack. If you strengthen the core protoss army, then you can minimize or change their damage, their range, their move/attack speed so that they arent so powerful against everything and therefore less versatile as well.
Immortals are a great unit, but they live in the colossus's shadow: they are slow, short ranged and expensive, and although they are trucks and deal amazing damage, colossi do it better in almost every respect, especially to lots of cheap units like lings/marines which the immortal sucks against. And especially in a deathball.
I think it is actually in a decent place compared to the more damning colossus vs warpgate unit discrepancy. It has powerful strengths and glaring weaknesses. The colossi has more powerful strengths and one glaring weakness that is fairly easily overcome. The immortal will always be useful, simply for its raw DPS vs armored and amazing tanking ability. I doubt it will be overused.
|
I agree completely as a 2k diamond toss, I really wish that collosus would be nerfed for PvP, as it is the reason everybody 4gates, and if you have 1 less collosus or worst positioning you lose, plain and simple
|
Really like the OP. Very good suggestions hope people think about implementing a few of them especially the observer one
|
i get sad faced with these threads, ppl hate on and nit pick everything.
Gateway unlock forge? worst idea ive heard ever
How many more nerfs we need for you people to be happy???
Other than 4gate, toss needs to tech to win, otherwise it will be a slow painful death for them
they need the sentry to block off the early game, rauder concussion rush, or even 6 roach rush, 6-7 pool is extremely effective vP.
Everyone just wants to get 200/200 army and win, unfortunately the races are designed differently
Protoss units rely on each other, zergs units are effective with swarming (making army's really fast) and terran units are extremely cost effective.
I do agree collossi is overused, but P needs to go robo because of observers.
Wargate tech isnt "op", Terran has EASY macro capabilities, and zerg can make there army's extremely fast, whats the problem ???
With the rate of the HUGE amounts of these kinda threads, there will be no upgrades, everything will be nerfed to shit, the game will be boring as hell (which it kinda is right now) Amulet nerf (if it happens) will totally make templar tech unviable (for the time being)
I think people need to think of ways to beat it, instead of complaining about every little thing, its tiring reading this stuff (and i read it cuz i like TL)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
