EPTOn September 09 2011 03:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
Holy shit... that would totally fix PvP I think...
Holy shit... that would totally fix PvP I think...
Kinda makes you wonder why Blizzard didn't put the Shield Battery in the game from the start.
The Warp Mechanic and How It Broke Protoss - Page 13
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
Kinda makes you wonder why Blizzard didn't put the Shield Battery in the game from the start. | ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
Offensive Pylons. Why is it, that the warp in mechanic requires a building just like any other? THAT is what i would change. Lets make a new building, call it the Tal'darim Network. This building costs 100 mins and 100 gas. You can warp in within a set range of this building (same as pylon energy matrix). THEN change the warp in mechanic. Instead of beng able to warp in with ANY pylon. Give a range to the nexus (kinda like they do the Sensor tower) in which any pylon within range of this radius can be warped in on. This upgrade to nexus cost 50/50 and is as fast as a gate into warpgate transition to build. By combining these two aspects (warp prism can warp in too, but add 50 gas to cost) the rally advantage of protoss is actually a LARGE sacrifice of economy. To compensate for this lack of offensive capability early on (gas limitation) you can now create cannons from the Cybernetics Core OR the forge. This makes it so the FFE is still viable, but if you 1 gate expo you can cannon like a terran bunkers or a zerg uses spine crawlers. These changes allow for a rally advantage, but also makes it more valuable when the forward "pylon" or warp prism gets sniped (espec with warp prism buff this can make for some heavy prism play). And would effectively change the pace of PvT/Z and eliminate the 4gate v 4gate scenario of PvP. | ||
|
Selvik
United States8 Posts
| ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:43 branflakes14 wrote: Kinda makes you wonder why Blizzard didn't put the Shield Battery in the game from the start. because with the new unit system, a forward shield battery would make the early protoss pushes insanely tough to deal with and make contains almost impossible to push against, especially a immortal push/contain. | ||
|
branflakes14
2082 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:44 darklight54321 wrote: One thing I always considered, since i first started playing this game. Offensive Pylons. Why is it, that the warp in mechanic requires a building just like any other? THAT is what i would change. Lets make a new building, call it the Tal'darim Network. This building costs 100 mins and 100 gas. You can warp in within a set range of this building (same as pylon energy matrix). THEN change the warp in mechanic. Instead of beng able to warp in with ANY pylon. Give a range to the nexus (kinda like they do the Sensor tower) in which any pylon within range of this radius can be warped in on. This upgrade to nexus cost 50/50 and is as fast as a gate into warpgate transition to build. By combining these two aspects (warp prism can warp in too, but add 50 gas to cost) the rally advantage of protoss is actually a LARGE sacrifice of economy. To compensate for this lack of offensive capability early on (gas limitation) you can now create cannons from the Cybernetics Core OR the forge. This makes it so the FFE is still viable, but if you 1 gate expo you can cannon like a terran bunkers or a zerg uses spine crawlers. These changes allow for a rally advantage, but also makes it more valuable when the forward "pylon" or warp prism gets sniped (espec with warp prism buff this can make for some heavy prism play). And would effectively change the pace of PvT/Z and eliminate the 4gate v 4gate scenario of PvP. I've always dreamed of units being being allowed to be warped in at a Warp Prism, and Gateway production speeds tweaked to compensate. | ||
|
darklight54321
United States361 Posts
| ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:47 branflakes14 wrote: I've always dreamed of units being being allowed to be warped in at a Warp Prism, and Gateway production speeds tweaked to compensate. ? You mean Warp Prism only? | ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
However I don't agree at all about buffing Toss units. They're already quite Tanky as is, and that is how their position in the 3 races was always meant to be. Terrans - Ranged DPS. Zerg - The Swarm Race. Protoss - Tanks. They're positioned as they should be. If Shield Batteries were to be re-implemented in SCII, they'd need a completely revised from the BW days. I think looking at PvP is too narrow for Shield Battery applications and ignores how it affects the other races. Mainly Zergs. Can you imagine a Zerg trying to break a Protoss defensive position with Roaches if the Toss has Immortals out? The attack speed and DPS of the Roaches would make Roach play obsolete for Zergs. That leaves them with only one early game option - Ling/Blings. Shield Batteries would end up restricting Zerg's options immensely. The only thing I can see to get around this is to either implement some sort of Cooldown to Shield Batteries or restriction on Shield Recharging on one unit. For instance one Immortal can't be recharged over and over again. | ||
|
MrBarryObama
Korea (South)141 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:46 darklight54321 wrote: because with the new unit system, a forward shield battery would make the early protoss pushes insanely tough to deal with and make contains almost impossible to push against, especially a immortal push/contain. Shield batteries would have a build time and wouldnt start with full energy. They are an investment that delays the attacker from exploiting the contain. | ||
|
Allred
United States352 Posts
| ||
|
Klystron
United States99 Posts
People like to talk about the Zerg 300 supply push, however, that extra 100 supply still has both a build time and a travel time. Protoss has the ability to do a true 300 supply push by massing up gateways at 200 supply, and warping in reinforcements as units die. This is why some people say that you cannot let protoss sit on 4+ bases. A protoss on 4+ bases can support enough warpgates that it becomes nearly impossible to finish off the army unless the other player has a large supply/upgrade/positional advantage. My suggestions for changing warpgate as a mechanic for HOTS would be as follows. (note, gateway units would likely have to be adjusted as well) 1. Gateways should have faster net production than warpgates. Warpgate CD's should be 5-10 seconds longer than gateway build times after warpgate has been researched. ie Warpgate research enables gateways to morph into warpgates, and reduces build time from gateways by 10 seconds. Warpgate CD's are the same as gateway build times before WG research. 2. Warpgates should go on CD when supply blocked or supply capped. No more potential for constantly maxed, fielded army. | ||
|
MrBarryObama
Korea (South)141 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:55 Eps wrote: The OP makes some good points about Shield Batteries. However I don't agree at all about buffing Toss units. They're already quite Tanky as is, and that is how their position in the 3 races was always meant to be. Terrans - Ranged DPS. Zerg - The Swarm Race. Protoss - Tanks. They're positioned as they should be. If Shield Batteries were to be re-implemented in SCII, they'd need a completely revised from the BW days. I think looking at PvP is too narrow for Shield Battery applications and ignores how it affects the other races. Mainly Zergs. Can you imagine a Zerg trying to break a Protoss defensive position with Roaches if the Toss has Immortals out? The attack speed and DPS of the Roaches would make Roach play obsolete for Zergs. That leaves them with only one early game option - Ling/Blings. Shield Batteries would end up restricting Zerg's options immensely. The only thing I can see to get around this is to either implement some sort of Cooldown to Shield Batteries or restriction on Shield Recharging on one unit. For instance one Immortal can't be recharged over and over again. The max energy of shield batteries can be tweaked. Also, in BW, shield batteries froze the unit it was recharging. Tweak the restoration rate, and the immortal issue isn't so bad. | ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:58 Allred wrote: hmmm i think blizzard realized this when they made the game and that is why stalkers suck cost for cost I don't see how people can just say Stalkers suck when compared to the other race's alternatives. They're not meant to be compared to Roaches or Marauders. Neither unit can shoot up, and Stalkers are one of the fastest non-upgraded land units straight out of production. You can't compare units of different races that play different roles simply as is without looking at the bigger picture. | ||
|
Lamphead
Canada241 Posts
| ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
We should also be careful about what we mean when we say 'weak'. You can argue that neither the zealot or the stalker are weak. Zealots are basically 4 slow zerglings (with the benefit of not losing 25% of their dps for every 35 damage done) and stalkers have exceptional health despite mediocre dps. Their weakness is a design problem, not a balance problem in my opinion. And OP, I'd like for you to explain how you think this situation has contributed to the percieved current weakness. After all, we've discussed these pointes before, but they were discarded because Protoss found ways to win regardless. When I watch Protoss lose games, I don't necessarily think, if only warpgate units were stronger. I do think it may affect the general inflexibility of the race though. | ||
|
tribbe
Germany34 Posts
On September 08 2011 20:04 sleepingdog wrote: Make warp-ins only possible near a Nexus or under a warp-prism. Problem solved? This is what I wanted to post at first thought. It would be awesome if Blizzard would make the warp prism more viable in addition to 1.4 by restricting warp-ins to only being possible in range of warp-prisms & Nexi. By disabling early warp-gate-pressure and all-in builds, warp gate units could therefore get a slight buff e.g. in build-time and (or) DMG / HP / cost and so on. But balance wouldn't be finished with such a change. What if the warp-ins within the area of the warp prism would create new and similar timings for the Protoss? I could imagine a situation where the P got a buff concerning their warp gate units but they still can warp in range of the prism just a bit later than usual. Ordianry builds would strike later but with stronger units as before the changes were implemented. And once again the same problems could arise and nerfs would possibly follow. This is really difficult to balance. Perhaps there's really an issue with the warp-in mechanic as such. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On September 09 2011 03:47 branflakes14 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On September 09 2011 03:44 darklight54321 wrote: One thing I always considered, since i first started playing this game. Offensive Pylons. Why is it, that the warp in mechanic requires a building just like any other? THAT is what i would change. Lets make a new building, call it the Tal'darim Network. This building costs 100 mins and 100 gas. You can warp in within a set range of this building (same as pylon energy matrix). THEN change the warp in mechanic. Instead of beng able to warp in with ANY pylon. Give a range to the nexus (kinda like they do the Sensor tower) in which any pylon within range of this radius can be warped in on. This upgrade to nexus cost 50/50 and is as fast as a gate into warpgate transition to build. By combining these two aspects (warp prism can warp in too, but add 50 gas to cost) the rally advantage of protoss is actually a LARGE sacrifice of economy. To compensate for this lack of offensive capability early on (gas limitation) you can now create cannons from the Cybernetics Core OR the forge. This makes it so the FFE is still viable, but if you 1 gate expo you can cannon like a terran bunkers or a zerg uses spine crawlers. These changes allow for a rally advantage, but also makes it more valuable when the forward "pylon" or warp prism gets sniped (espec with warp prism buff this can make for some heavy prism play). And would effectively change the pace of PvT/Z and eliminate the 4gate v 4gate scenario of PvP. I've always dreamed of units being being allowed to be warped in at a Warp Prism, and Gateway production speeds tweaked to compensate. Since you apparently didn't understand what he was saying: He was suggesting that you only be able to warp in at a special (presumably slower building) structure so that early proxy pylons would not be available. Warp prisms might still work, but that would still slow the build down. | ||
|
okrane
France265 Posts
| ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
Counters and timing are too Brutal in my taste against a Protoss player. The defender should always have an advantage of some sort. | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
| ||
| ||
