Why don't they just flip the build times for Warpgate/Gateway after the Warpgate research is finished. So after you finish Gateway research you get the more units, faster for producing out of Gateway. And then the Warpgate takes on the old speed of the gateway.

horticulturalist

United States13 Posts

April 23 2011 19:38 GMT

#884

I've always thought that the solution to PvP 4gate would be to making warp-in time proportional to distance from a Nexus. That is: warp ins close to your base would take the normal amount of time, and everything further out (say, near your opponent's base) would take longer. Maybe this would have to be scaled according to map size, as well, so that 4gating would still be viable on bigger maps such as Tal'Darim.

FrogOfWar

Germany1406 Posts

April 23 2011 19:42 GMT

#885

Nvm., wrong thread :D

brood909

Canada3 Posts

April 23 2011 19:46 GMT

#886

In my opinion, instead of:
1) reducing gateway timing & increase warpgate research time - (makes 2 gate rushes more powerful)
2) moving the warpgate upgrade to twilight council - (3 gate robo players will find it extremely difficult to ever get warpgate tech/push out)
3) increasing warp in time in relation to the distance from the nearest nexus - (makes pvp highly map dependent; compare close air positions on meta to close ground on meta)

Why not:
1) Keep the warpgate upgrade on the cybernetics core but require a tier 2 structure (robo, twilight, stargate) to be constructed in order to research warpgate technology. In effect making the warpgate upgrade akin to the reaper speed upgrade.

Kovaz

Canada233 Posts

April 23 2011 19:49 GMT

#887

What about moving warpgate to TC tech? imo it would make it more viable as a tech tree in PvP as HTs are rarely used and DTs aren't all that effective since the dominance of robo makes observers so common.

DreamSailor

Canada433 Posts

April 23 2011 20:22 GMT

#888

All they really need to do, is have a second upgrade at the Cybernetics Core, that increases the build speed of Gateways by whatever percentage they feel is balanced, that researches significantly faster than warpgates for a similar cost, so instead of the typical 1 Zealot/ 2 stalker or whatever variation + warp in whenever the research finishes, you will be continually making units.

That way, if you want to play offensively, you can still Warpgate, but if you choose to play more defensively, you can opt to get the Gateway upgrade now, and then get the Warpgate upgrade later. This doesn't break the Proxy gateways, this doesn't make 2gate pressure incredibly broken, it makes it (in my opinion) reasonable, and would semi-diversify tech, as well as making both warpgates and gateways usable all game long.

brood909

Canada3 Posts

April 23 2011 21:23 GMT

#889

On April 24 2011 04:49 Kovaz wrote:
What about moving warpgate to TC tech? imo it would make it more viable as a tech tree in PvP as HTs are rarely used and DTs aren't all that effective since the dominance of robo makes observers so common.

My main issue with moving WG tech to the TC is that in other matchups, PvT and PvZ, protoss would be severely confined to TC / templar tech in the early-mid game. While I'm all for more HT play, I don't think limiting the tech path of protoss would make the game any more interesting. Rather simply making TC/Robo/Stargate a requirement for WG, the protoss tech path is still very open.

infinity2k9

United Kingdom2397 Posts

April 23 2011 21:43 GMT

#890

On April 24 2011 02:44 Apolo wrote:

Show nested quote +

Negates any defenders advantage? What are you on about? What is creep? Spine crawlers? queens? Bunkers? Harvesters? Spawning units attacking right away? Sieged tanks? Don't come tell that warp in negates defenders advantage, because that's not true.

That a lot of people here are more concerned about easier wins that better game balance is nothing new, but please, moderate yourselves.

It doesn't mean literally takes away all defenders advantage. If you can't see how an ability to remove rush distance is somewhat problematic i don't know what to say. Map design has always been very reliant on rush distance to help balance, now they have to balance around this.

FenneK

France1231 Posts

April 23 2011 21:56 GMT

#891

Bleh, this could solve PvP, not sure how it'll affect the other match ups though.

HFcinfinity

United States29 Posts

April 23 2011 22:06 GMT

#892

I don't know if I'm really for this idea. I think it would be better to make the creation time for stalkers and sentries faster, if you make the zealot spawn too fast than proxy gates are a little bit hard to defend. But what I really like is moving the warp gate tech to the twilight council instead of just increasing the time more, then there will be a reason to not get warp gates, or to get high templar.

Samhax

1054 Posts

April 23 2011 22:10 GMT

#893

On April 24 2011 04:32 RifleCow wrote:
Why don't they just flip the build times for Warpgate/Gateway after the Warpgate research is finished. So after you finish Gateway research you get the more units, faster for producing out of Gateway. And then the Warpgate takes on the old speed of the gateway.

Lol that's a very esthetic way to do it, good proposition

Sarsi

Norway76 Posts

April 23 2011 22:17 GMT

#894

Why don't they just let it be the way it is for once?

GoldenH

1115 Posts

April 23 2011 22:19 GMT

#895

On April 24 2011 04:38 horticulturalist wrote:
I've always thought that the solution to PvP 4gate would be to making warp-in time proportional to distance from a Nexus. That is: warp ins close to your base would take the normal amount of time, and everything further out (say, near your opponent's base) would take longer. Maybe this would have to be scaled according to map size, as well, so that 4gating would still be viable on bigger maps such as Tal'Darim.

My problem with this is that it would be relatively easy to put warpgates up on a cliff and warp units down it close to their base. It might be less safe than building in your main, but it would be much safer than an actual proxy.

LetoAtreides82

United States1188 Posts

April 23 2011 22:21 GMT

#896

On April 22 2011 17:42 Cajun2k1 wrote:
Didn't they already increase buildtime for gateways because they found 2 gate to be too strong?

Yes two gate zealot rush was pretty tough for zergs to stop during the beta, so they nerfed the gateway buildtimes. I hope they're not forgetting that.

Drowsy

United States4876 Posts

April 23 2011 22:26 GMT

#897

WOW this is awesome news. I'm very happy to hear this!~ And with roaches at 4 range and terran t1 being generally good, I really wouldn't fear proxygates and stuff.

ShotoElite

United States79 Posts

April 23 2011 23:03 GMT

#898

Taking a closer look at Blizzard's proposed (although not certain) fix, it could prove to be a major buff to the protoss race overall lol.

They are supposedly planning to decrease gateway production times while leaving warpgate production times the same. Well, the only real need of warping in is either reinforcement or emergency warp ins to stop drops and what not where you need units in a certain area. Otherwise, it would be largely more beneficial to be using gateways if you are just producing inside your own base, and macroing up.

The only downside to their plan is increasing warpgate research time, which would mess up timings for early protoss warpgate rushes, but they were easy to scout and easy to stop anyway so this is just encouraging players not to play risky. It isn't really a big deal to increase warpgate research time. It is a very similar change to blizzard increasing the stim research time. It is a nuisance at most.

This change would be glorious for matchups outside of PvP because this essentially means that everything remains the same, except protoss gets faster unit production out of gateways which will most likely be used more often throughout the game when warpgates aren't needed.

As for PvP, it will allow the non-warpgating protoss player to produce units faster than a player who chooses to use warpgates, whose only advantage of using warpgates is to warp in outside of his base, presumably to attack. This is good and all but I can't really judge until I can play with it and feel it out.

carloselcoco

United States2302 Posts

April 23 2011 23:11 GMT

#899

So the problem is that in PvP is that 4 gate is imba?

+ Show Spoiler +

I am not a P player, so I do not know about PvP, so please help me out!

kiy0

Portugal593 Posts

April 23 2011 23:16 GMT

#900

Any kind of Warpgate cooldown timer increase would not solve the problem at all for PvP. Longer cooldowns means you have more time to stack up minerals/gas, so adding an extra gate would become standart. 5 warpgate ftw! :D

Faster build times on the gateway over the warpgate seems to be the way to go...