|
If it is, in fact, a dynamic for making Gateways build units faster than Warp Gates - I don't think it will change as much as people think it will. All it will mean is that Warp Gate research is not as important to get early, and instead only needed 200-or-so seconds before the Protoss decides to attack.
Save for about 2 or 3 needed in Warp Gate mode for instant defense of drops, you would leave your remainder in Gateway form to add to your army. When you are ready to push out, you'd shift them to Warp Gate mode and use them to reinforce your army as you attack. If your army is defeated you simply use a warp in at your base, then shift them back and begin chrono-ing out units and build your army quickly.
I really don't think this will fix PvP were the main change to be delaying Warp Gates. If Gateways build units faster than Warp Gates - it will become Colossi battles once more (as the Blink transition people use now is based on a transition from 4-gate). If they do not, but build a bit quicker than now - it will still become Colossi battles, as in order to hold off a high-gateway play an early Immortal is needed. To hold off Colossi play, you'd build aircraft. To hold off aircraft, you'd use lots of gateway units. In essence, it would simply shift the rock-paper-scissors part of the matchup to earlier (I'm aware it isn't that simple - I just don't like to type out the millions of nuances required to define the matchup better).
In essence, I think the change they suggested may remove 4 gating, but won't fix the matchup.
|
The suggestions in this thread that involve adding another unit/building is an awful way to going about a "fix" to the early game weakness Protoss will have after this adjustment.
|
|
|
On April 25 2011 15:25 Aequos wrote:
If it is, in fact, a dynamic for making Gateways build units faster than Warp Gates - I don't think it will change as much as people think it will. All it will mean is that Warp Gate research is not as important to get early, and instead only needed 200-or-so seconds before the Protoss decides to attack.
Save for about 2 or 3 needed in Warp Gate mode for instant defense of drops, you would leave your remainder in Gateway form to add to your army. When you are ready to push out, you'd shift them to Warp Gate mode and use them to reinforce your army as you attack. If your army is defeated you simply use a warp in at your base, then shift them back and begin chrono-ing out units and build your army quickly.
I really don't think this will fix PvP were the main change to be delaying Warp Gates. If Gateways build units faster than Warp Gates - it will become Colossi battles once more (as the Blink transition people use now is based on a transition from 4-gate). If they do not, but build a bit quicker than now - it will still become Colossi battles, as in order to hold off a high-gateway play an early Immortal is needed. To hold off Colossi play, you'd build aircraft. To hold off aircraft, you'd use lots of gateway units. In essence, it would simply shift the rock-paper-scissors part of the matchup to earlier (I'm aware it isn't that simple - I just don't like to type out the millions of nuances required to define the matchup better).
In essence, I think the change they suggested may remove 4 gating, but won't fix the matchup.
It's not a fix but it's such a dynamic addition to the game that it's just gonna be awesome to see the kind of Game plays that will adapt from this
|
On April 25 2011 13:42 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 13:38 ScythedBlade wrote:
If they seriously make Gateways cooldown shorter than Warpgate cooldown, tons of interesting stuff can happen. So many more options, and there's new macro mechanics between gateways and warpins.
Protoss can actually stop being underpowered =D good players will manage their gate modes properly and warp in and gate queue based on the tides of battle I am So stoked for this change just from a spectator's view
This just gave me nerd chills ;D
Props to Blizzard IF they actually go through with shaking up the game from the ground up. Whatever is needed for perfection. Even if we take initial steps backward.
edit: all they need to change is to give toss players a defenders advantage against other toss players. Warp gates unless severely nerfed will remain toss's offensive arm against other races.
|
On April 22 2011 17:39 Surreal wrote:
Hmm.. i have to think hard about this..
I understand that this might favor gateways in certain situations over warpgates.. but how does this "not affect" warpgates vs other races..?
Won't drastically reduce the amount of units you will have early game. Because now there is like 10 seconds difference for warpgate vs gateway. So, now zelots will build out of a gateway in 30 seconds and a warpgate in 28 (that was just an example). It only really affects perhaps 1 unit until warpgate arrives.
|
On April 25 2011 16:08 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2011 17:39 Surreal wrote:
Hmm.. i have to think hard about this..
I understand that this might favor gateways in certain situations over warpgates.. but how does this "not affect" warpgates vs other races..? Won't drastically reduce the amount of units you will have early game. Because now there is like 10 seconds difference for warpgate vs gateway. So, now zelots will build out of a gateway in 30 seconds and a warpgate in 28 (that was just an example). It only really affects perhaps 1 unit until warpgate arrives.
It will favor default macro with Gateways, but warp gate to reinforce an attack or to protect an expansion that you're currently out of position to defend etc. You'd want to macro with Gateways and attack with Warp Gates.
|
On April 25 2011 07:30 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 01:32 SeraKuDA wrote:
The fact is that nobody even gave my idea a chance, or tried to work it out a little bit. It was instantly shut down because it wasn't directly from Blizzard. Hypocrites. You proposed something that, on the face of it, does not work. Blizzard proposed something that could work. They proposed a more nuanced and plausible idea than you did. It is your responsibility, as the person proposing the idea, to propose a good idea. It is not the responsibility of the reader to propose other changes in addition to yours to make your bad idea work.
Oh Plz. That's a textbook example of "Strawman's logic". What he proposed and what Blizzard proposed have a similar (identical) cause, and similar solutions as exampled by Blizzard. Neither are something written on stone. He made a suggestion which could lead further discussions, and it turned out Blizzard has had the same thought throughout. While Blizzard hasn't revealed exact solutions, they said "We will address PvP in the next patch". That's as clear as a message gets (that something will change) until we get actual patch notes.
Just shows how the TL forums stifle real discussions. Look at the first page and count the number of silly threads like "the best BM you've ever seen", "the hottest looking progamer", etc. Yet, any thread that touches the actual game (or dare I say "balance") quickly disappears unless it's written by a powers-that-be or some celebrity.
And his thread was closed with this stunningly dumb last post. (would believe if it were written by a 10 year old)
What if probes shoot boomerangs to stop zealot rushes?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=194199
|
On April 25 2011 16:12 Blasterion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 16:08 NoobSkills wrote:On April 22 2011 17:39 Surreal wrote:
Hmm.. i have to think hard about this..
I understand that this might favor gateways in certain situations over warpgates.. but how does this "not affect" warpgates vs other races..? Won't drastically reduce the amount of units you will have early game. Because now there is like 10 seconds difference for warpgate vs gateway. So, now zelots will build out of a gateway in 30 seconds and a warpgate in 28 (that was just an example). It only really affects perhaps 1 unit until warpgate arrives. It will favor default macro with Gateways, but warp gate to reinforce an attack or to protect an expansion that you're currently out of position to defend etc. You'd want to macro with Gateways and attack with Warp Gates.
It will also allow for "bursts" of units at certain points to reach unusual timings. Because there is a reason to switch back (unlike now) a push could be accelerated by 30 seconds by shifting to Warp Gates just prior to pushing out. This only occurs currently with the 4 gate, but if the two are equal, it could allow for unusually high amounts of units at certain points (the 6-gate would increase in power drastically from this).
Actually, doing the math, I don't think they can make Warp Gates and Gateways build units in the same amount of time, especially if the build time is less than twice the shift time. Observe: 1 Zealot takes 30 seconds (roughly) from gateway. It then takes 10 seconds to go to Warp Gate. Then it is instant to warp another Zealot. Then it takes 10 seconds to switch back. Then a new Zealot is queued. Total time: 30s + 10s + 10s + 30s = 80s. Total units: 3 Zealots. Basically, it would allow you to "cheat" the build times to get multiple Zealots with a shorter build time apiece in exchange for 1 with a longer build time. If you chain these together (which requires more button pressing) you could essentially cut 10 seconds within each "pair" of Zealots, such that 5 would require 130 seconds, 7 would require 180 seconds, and 9 would require 230 seconds. The longer this continues, the greater the advantage over "just" Warp Gates to produce a set of units.
To implement this, they'd better change the shift time for Gateway/Warp Gate, otherwise there will be a host of new problems implemented with the suddenly drastically increased amounts of units Protoss can produce.
|
Am I the only one simply excited to see that the gateway I've known and loved might just have a place beyond the early game?
|
On April 25 2011 16:32 Atticus.axl wrote:
Am I the only one simply excited to see that the gateway I've known and loved might just have a place beyond the early game?
nope most of us are =P it's boring that no one uses the button "Gateway Mode"
|
They'll never make gateways better in any way. All they're talking about is possibly delaying the introduction of ubiquitous warpgates.
Wish people would get over this. Gateways were removed as a design decision, then reintroduced to stop cheeses. They aren't ever going to be a viable alternative, Blizzard clearly wants warpgates as the norm.
It would be ridiculous to try and balance two sets of unit production speeds anyway.
|
I can't fathom why anyone would be glad for Protoss to use Gateways, that would mean Protoss would be even more turtly. They need to make it so Protoss don't sit in their base until 200/200 and actually go do shit.
Wouldn't be so bad if Protoss didn't have to flip a coin early in the game to want to go outside with their sentries.
Lately I just don't even bother, half the time Zerg is going some lame Ling/Roach or Ling/Baneling or Ling/Infestor strategy and i lose every sentry and subsequently lose the game. And before you say it, I rush hallucination--but until it's done, all I do is twiddle my thumbs. Now it is going to be even worse if warpgate tech research is increased because it is going to take even longer to get it out, probably going to negate the buff it was given -.-
|
On April 25 2011 07:30 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 01:32 SeraKuDA wrote:
The fact is that nobody even gave my idea a chance, or tried to work it out a little bit. It was instantly shut down because it wasn't directly from Blizzard. Hypocrites. You proposed something that, on the face of it, does not work. Blizzard proposed something that could work. They proposed a more nuanced and plausible idea than you did. It is your responsibility, as the person proposing the idea, to propose a good idea. It is not the responsibility of the reader to propose other changes in addition to yours to make your bad idea work. Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 03:00 Grumbels wrote:On April 25 2011 02:09 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 25 2011 01:58 Grumbels wrote:
[Personally I think that warpgate is a crutch for many protosses and that if it was somewhat changed, that then there would be more room for some interesting design by Blizzard. I wouldn't descrbe warpgate tech as a crutch. Each race has built in mechanics that are very powerful. The ability to build as many mutalisks as you have larva as soon as the spire pops for Zerg is an amazing advantage (if you build a stargate, you can build exactly 1 void ray when it finishes, with a spire the number is limited only to resources and larva). The ability to drop down mules, scans, or supplies and build planetary fortresses is amazing too. The point is, each race has weaknesses and strengths. We like to whine about the strengths, but we often don't look at the weaknesses. Protoss units in generally would need buffs and more mobility (Protoss units in general lack mobility except for the Stalker and Pheonix, and the Stalker is a "Ranged Support Unit" that lacks DPS, and the Pheonix has limited uses) if warpgate tech was taken away. Just like Terran units would need to cost less and detection would have to be more readily available in their tech tree if Terrans couldn't build Orbitals. These could be described as crutches, but they are the strengths of each race, and naturally players lean on their strengths. And I think these strengths are what makes the game interesting. That's meaningless. You can call everything strong a race has a 'strength', that is a 'unique feature'. Warpgate could severely be nerfed, while still allowing you to use it for mobility. I call it a crutch because protoss is dependent on warpgates to make almost all of their offensive timings work, and they use it to make drop defense work too. These aspects could be weakened a bit, with other things designed to take their place, and this way protoss would ..certainly change, but I think for the best, since they would no longer be this dependent on a single mechanic. Please. Every race has mechanics that they absolutely rely on for various things; that's the nature of the beast. The Zerg are built around one specific mechanic: all their units come from a single source. Everything about the Zerg is based on this. This is what makes StarCraft good; that each race has these unique facets that you must use in order to properly play them. If you weaken these unique aspects of races, then the races become more similar to one another. That's why Warp-in was invented in the first place: to help differentiate the races, since in SC1, Terrans and Protosses produced units in very similar ways.
Yes, they absolutely rely on the warpgate mechanic, hence my calling it a crutch. (? what's your point). Nowhere did I advocate doing away with the warpgate mechanic, I merely suggested that now it fills too many roles that make protoss too dependent on one single mechanic. It's not bad because of that, but because with warpgates you don't need to prepare for drop defense, and also it creates these simply counter-intuitive situations in PvP where you have a defender's disadvantage and so on. Hence my suggestion to tweak that a little bit.
When someone proposed warpgates and said: "wouldn't it be cool if protoss could warp in all units everywhere they have vision", then hopefully other designers didn't jump for joy and said: "great, let's implement that and ship the game", but instead wondered if there wouldn't be a problem with it taking away defender's advantage and so on. Warpgates already had a lot of nerfs, adding a few more won't hurt the game.
On April 25 2011 17:31 Zaros wrote:
I actually bet none of this discussion will ever happen.
Perhaps you should alert the authorities.
|
I actually bet none of this discussion will ever happen.
|
PvP is fine. It is fun and requires a lot of skill. Those who don't agree have to watch TSL 3 ro8 Naniwa vs Cruncher.
No change is needed.
|
On April 25 2011 17:27 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 07:30 NicolBolas wrote:On April 25 2011 01:32 SeraKuDA wrote:
The fact is that nobody even gave my idea a chance, or tried to work it out a little bit. It was instantly shut down because it wasn't directly from Blizzard. Hypocrites. You proposed something that, on the face of it, does not work. Blizzard proposed something that could work. They proposed a more nuanced and plausible idea than you did. It is your responsibility, as the person proposing the idea, to propose a good idea. It is not the responsibility of the reader to propose other changes in addition to yours to make your bad idea work. On April 25 2011 03:00 Grumbels wrote:On April 25 2011 02:09 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 25 2011 01:58 Grumbels wrote:
[Personally I think that warpgate is a crutch for many protosses and that if it was somewhat changed, that then there would be more room for some interesting design by Blizzard. I wouldn't descrbe warpgate tech as a crutch. Each race has built in mechanics that are very powerful. The ability to build as many mutalisks as you have larva as soon as the spire pops for Zerg is an amazing advantage (if you build a stargate, you can build exactly 1 void ray when it finishes, with a spire the number is limited only to resources and larva). The ability to drop down mules, scans, or supplies and build planetary fortresses is amazing too. The point is, each race has weaknesses and strengths. We like to whine about the strengths, but we often don't look at the weaknesses. Protoss units in generally would need buffs and more mobility (Protoss units in general lack mobility except for the Stalker and Pheonix, and the Stalker is a "Ranged Support Unit" that lacks DPS, and the Pheonix has limited uses) if warpgate tech was taken away. Just like Terran units would need to cost less and detection would have to be more readily available in their tech tree if Terrans couldn't build Orbitals. These could be described as crutches, but they are the strengths of each race, and naturally players lean on their strengths. And I think these strengths are what makes the game interesting. That's meaningless. You can call everything strong a race has a 'strength', that is a 'unique feature'. Warpgate could severely be nerfed, while still allowing you to use it for mobility. I call it a crutch because protoss is dependent on warpgates to make almost all of their offensive timings work, and they use it to make drop defense work too. These aspects could be weakened a bit, with other things designed to take their place, and this way protoss would ..certainly change, but I think for the best, since they would no longer be this dependent on a single mechanic. Please. Every race has mechanics that they absolutely rely on for various things; that's the nature of the beast. The Zerg are built around one specific mechanic: all their units come from a single source. Everything about the Zerg is based on this. This is what makes StarCraft good; that each race has these unique facets that you must use in order to properly play them. If you weaken these unique aspects of races, then the races become more similar to one another. That's why Warp-in was invented in the first place: to help differentiate the races, since in SC1, Terrans and Protosses produced units in very similar ways. Yes, they absolutely rely on the warpgate mechanic, hence my calling it a crutch. (? what's your point). Nowhere did I advocate doing away with the warpgate mechanic, I merely suggested that now it fills too many roles that make protoss too dependent on one single mechanic. It's not bad because of that, but because with warpgates you don't need to prepare for drop defense, and also it creates these simply counter-intuitive situations in PvP where you have a defender's disadvantage and so on. Hence my suggestion to tweak that a little bit. When someone proposed warpgates and said: "wouldn't it be cool if protoss could warp in all units everywhere they have vision", then hopefully other designers didn't jump for joy and said: "great, let's implement that and ship the game", but instead wondered if there wouldn't be a problem with it taking away defender's advantage and so on. Warpgates already had a lot of nerfs, adding a few more won't hurt the game.
Uh, without Warpgates Protoss is the worst race at drop defense.
Their anti air defense is the worst of the three races for it's cost, especially when you have to factor in the cost of setting up perimeter pylons. Then on top of Gateway untis take longer to build than Barracks units, but they are powered by Pylons and made almost purely on a reactive level in the mid/late game. Then you have to factor in that Gateway units require a balance of all three--Stalker/Zealot/Sentry--to do well.
Scoke said it best in the "12 weeks with the Pros" when he said that Protoss mineral units in SC1:BW (Dragoons/Zealots) were a LOT stronger, Dragoon/Zealots shit on Medivac/Marine, but in SC2, unless you have an upgrade lead (and even with an upgrade lead) it is no where close to same level, you alomst always need to warp-in more supply of units to what is getting dropped tp win
|
On April 25 2011 17:40 Dommk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 25 2011 17:27 Grumbels wrote:On April 25 2011 07:30 NicolBolas wrote:On April 25 2011 01:32 SeraKuDA wrote:
The fact is that nobody even gave my idea a chance, or tried to work it out a little bit. It was instantly shut down because it wasn't directly from Blizzard. Hypocrites. You proposed something that, on the face of it, does not work. Blizzard proposed something that could work. They proposed a more nuanced and plausible idea than you did. It is your responsibility, as the person proposing the idea, to propose a good idea. It is not the responsibility of the reader to propose other changes in addition to yours to make your bad idea work. On April 25 2011 03:00 Grumbels wrote:On April 25 2011 02:09 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 25 2011 01:58 Grumbels wrote:
[Personally I think that warpgate is a crutch for many protosses and that if it was somewhat changed, that then there would be more room for some interesting design by Blizzard. I wouldn't descrbe warpgate tech as a crutch. Each race has built in mechanics that are very powerful. The ability to build as many mutalisks as you have larva as soon as the spire pops for Zerg is an amazing advantage (if you build a stargate, you can build exactly 1 void ray when it finishes, with a spire the number is limited only to resources and larva). The ability to drop down mules, scans, or supplies and build planetary fortresses is amazing too. The point is, each race has weaknesses and strengths. We like to whine about the strengths, but we often don't look at the weaknesses. Protoss units in generally would need buffs and more mobility (Protoss units in general lack mobility except for the Stalker and Pheonix, and the Stalker is a "Ranged Support Unit" that lacks DPS, and the Pheonix has limited uses) if warpgate tech was taken away. Just like Terran units would need to cost less and detection would have to be more readily available in their tech tree if Terrans couldn't build Orbitals. These could be described as crutches, but they are the strengths of each race, and naturally players lean on their strengths. And I think these strengths are what makes the game interesting. That's meaningless. You can call everything strong a race has a 'strength', that is a 'unique feature'. Warpgate could severely be nerfed, while still allowing you to use it for mobility. I call it a crutch because protoss is dependent on warpgates to make almost all of their offensive timings work, and they use it to make drop defense work too. These aspects could be weakened a bit, with other things designed to take their place, and this way protoss would ..certainly change, but I think for the best, since they would no longer be this dependent on a single mechanic. Please. Every race has mechanics that they absolutely rely on for various things; that's the nature of the beast. The Zerg are built around one specific mechanic: all their units come from a single source. Everything about the Zerg is based on this. This is what makes StarCraft good; that each race has these unique facets that you must use in order to properly play them. If you weaken these unique aspects of races, then the races become more similar to one another. That's why Warp-in was invented in the first place: to help differentiate the races, since in SC1, Terrans and Protosses produced units in very similar ways. Yes, they absolutely rely on the warpgate mechanic, hence my calling it a crutch. (? what's your point). Nowhere did I advocate doing away with the warpgate mechanic, I merely suggested that now it fills too many roles that make protoss too dependent on one single mechanic. It's not bad because of that, but because with warpgates you don't need to prepare for drop defense, and also it creates these simply counter-intuitive situations in PvP where you have a defender's disadvantage and so on. Hence my suggestion to tweak that a little bit. When someone proposed warpgates and said: "wouldn't it be cool if protoss could warp in all units everywhere they have vision", then hopefully other designers didn't jump for joy and said: "great, let's implement that and ship the game", but instead wondered if there wouldn't be a problem with it taking away defender's advantage and so on. Warpgates already had a lot of nerfs, adding a few more won't hurt the game. Uh, without Warpgates Protoss is the worst race at drop defense. Their anti air defense is the worst of the three races for it's cost, especially when you have to factor in the cost of setting up perimeter pylons. Then on top of Gateway untis take longer to build than Barracks units, but they are powered by Pylons and made almost purely on a reactive level in the mid/late game. Then you have to factor in that Gateway units require a balance of all three--Stalker/Zealot/Sentry--to do well. Scoke said it best in the "12 weeks with the Pros" when he said that Protoss mineral units in SC1:BW (Dragoons/Zealots) were a LOT stronger, Dragoon/Zealots shit on Medivac/Marine, but in SC2, unless you have an upgrade lead (and even with an upgrade lead) it is no where close to same level, you alomst always need to warp-in more supply of units to what is getting dropped tp win
warp gates though isn't going away, it's more like I need X units at Y so I am going to warp in. and I need units so I do gate way. Warp in will be a ...how do you word it, gimmick? to skip reinforce distances and stuff while gateways are for max macro purposes.
|
maybe they should instead disable the pylon warp in mechanic and make it so that the units warp in near the nexus, with a bigger range. protoss could still do the same to defend drop harass, and this would give a role to the warp prism, because you know, you can use it to warp in units mid/late game....no more 4gate, no defense nerf to protoss, 1 unit with an increased use.
this would also solve the thing that many people have been complaining about, that protoss doesnt suffer from a bigger map and can still decide to go super agressive early game or super greedy nexus first, while the other races still have to prepare for these 4gate / 3gate rushes, while they cant scout it fast enough....see, everything is solved...
|
I'd have to hold off judgements until I see actual numbers, but at first glance this seems like a great idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
