|
On September 08 2011 19:20 XenoX101 wrote:
The solution is this, warpgate should be a tier 2-2.5 upgrade and decrease gateway unit build times to match warpgate times. It should not be the first thing you get with a cybernetics core, having such an advantage so quickly in the game is silly and the equivalent of zerg getting ovie speed + ventral sacs off of hatchery tech. If it cost 200/200 and didn't speed up unit build times I think it would be perfectly positioned for the mid-late game as a sensible upgrade rather than a game-breaking one.
Completely agree with this.
I think delaying to a higher tech would make the toss strategies more various and interesting. Buff to gateways would be, of course, necessary but as the game gets more in depth, the toss timings are going to be impossible to hold in PvP in maps like Taldarim
|
The other day I saw savior vs Bisu (commented by day9 and tyler) and for me it looked kind of cool the way toss functioned, pretty much like toss in sc2 does but based around zealots and dragoons beign good not coming fast
|
On September 08 2011 19:19 Detri wrote:I had never thought about Protoss in this way before, nice post and valid points. All I have to say though, is "Chrono boost, Guardian Sheild, Forcefields" Also protoss have the cheapest expand. I know hatcheries are cheaper, but you lose a drone, and need a queen for it to function effectively. And an Orbital is 550 mins. No other race gets spell casters at the lowest tier, and I don't think they need fixed. I'm no balance tester though, I just play for fun  But I certainly agree that PvP needs to be more dynamic, instead of being a game of chicken to see who expands first.
protoss do not have the cheapest expand, because terran gets mules from the orbital, as soon as it is finished they gain 300 minerals from the mule, meaning that their command center + orbital would cost 250 minerals
|
On September 09 2011 07:05 susySquark wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:01 Hikari wrote:
Shields often delete extremely fast, a shield battery may not necessary be "the thing" which protoss need for defense. I would also prefer something which repairs protoss mechanical units: because right now that immortal that only has 10 hp left would forever be at 10hp.
Strangely true. Never realized that, Terran with medivacs and repair, any unit that gets damaged can eventually be like new. Zerg regen same thing. Toss is the only race that has permanent damage done to units.
Same goes for buildings: Terrans have repair, zerg has xfuse, toss has shrivel up and die
|
A lot of good points raised about mechanics, but I'd just like to add one more complaint about warpin:
As a BW fan, the reason I've never been able to get into watching SC2 matches is because of warpin. It kills any fun to be had watching any PvX match. It's just a dumb mechanic from a viewer standpoint, and gets rid of a lot of the excitement.
|
Edit: Sorry, bad formating.
|
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1.
|
On September 09 2011 07:14 Plutonik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2011 19:19 Detri wrote:I had never thought about Protoss in this way before, nice post and valid points. All I have to say though, is "Chrono boost, Guardian Sheild, Forcefields" Also protoss have the cheapest expand. I know hatcheries are cheaper, but you lose a drone, and need a queen for it to function effectively. And an Orbital is 550 mins. No other race gets spell casters at the lowest tier, and I don't think they need fixed. I'm no balance tester though, I just play for fun But I certainly agree that PvP needs to be more dynamic, instead of being a game of chicken to see who expands first. protoss do not have the cheapest expand, because terran gets mules from the orbital, as soon as it is finished they gain 300 minerals from the mule, meaning that their command center + orbital would cost 250 minerals
Money doesn't work like that. Much of the importance of spending minerals in starcraft 2 is about when they are spent. If you invest in a colossus at the 3:00 mark you get a ridiculously overpowered colossus. If you invest in it at the 15:00 mark it's a different story. You put money into tech which starts the timer until the tech is done. Just because you get the minerals back eventually does not mean that you didn't spend them in the first place.
And if you want to get even more theoretical, having the extra chronoboost means you need less production facilities to spend the same amount of money. Meaning you spend less money, meaning that in a way, the chronoboost could reduce the cost of the nexus as well.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:17 Vindicare605 wrote:
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1.
What makes you think a shield battery in SC2 would be flat out better than one in SC1?
|
On September 09 2011 07:17 Vindicare605 wrote:
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1.
How would it be better than they were in BW?
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 09 2011 07:18 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:14 Plutonik wrote:On September 08 2011 19:19 Detri wrote:I had never thought about Protoss in this way before, nice post and valid points. All I have to say though, is "Chrono boost, Guardian Sheild, Forcefields" Also protoss have the cheapest expand. I know hatcheries are cheaper, but you lose a drone, and need a queen for it to function effectively. And an Orbital is 550 mins. No other race gets spell casters at the lowest tier, and I don't think they need fixed. I'm no balance tester though, I just play for fun But I certainly agree that PvP needs to be more dynamic, instead of being a game of chicken to see who expands first. protoss do not have the cheapest expand, because terran gets mules from the orbital, as soon as it is finished they gain 300 minerals from the mule, meaning that their command center + orbital would cost 250 minerals Money doesn't work like that. Much of the importance of spending minerals in starcraft 2 is about when they are spent. If you invest in a colossus at the 3:00 mark you get a ridiculously overpowered colossus. If you invest in it at the 15:00 mark it's a different story. You put money into tech which starts the timer until the tech is done. Just because you get the minerals back eventually does not mean that you didn't spend them in the first place. And if you want to get even more theoretical, having the extra chronoboost means you need less production facilities to spend the same amount of money. Meaning you spend less money, meaning that in a way, the chronoboost could reduce the cost of the nexus as well.
If you want to bring opportunity cost into it, then zerg hatcheries and terran CC's just got cheaper too. This is a nonsense argument.
|
On September 09 2011 07:03 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:00 Eppa! wrote:On September 09 2011 06:55 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 09 2011 06:54 roymarthyup wrote:On September 09 2011 06:34 Sevenofnines wrote:On September 09 2011 06:10 roymarthyup wrote:
protoss wouldnt stand a chance without warpgates because removing warpgates is a NERF. a strong nerf at that
if you removed warpgates, but instead made cybercores have a 50/50 upgrade that said "all warpgates now produce units 300% faster, units are the same cost, buildtimes are just reduced by75%" then protoss would still be the same early game but after getting that upgrade they would probably be able to do the sime timing attacks against zerg (maybe even stronger) while having a defenders advantage as well
the point of this post is gateway units are not made weaker to compensate for warpgates
INSTEAD, gateway unit BUILDTIMES are made longer to compensate for warpgates. and the cooldown on warping in is considered to be a buildtime.
essentially, the rate at which each production building can create gateway units is what blizzard uses to balance the strength of warpgates, not by making gateway units weaker
You are taking a far too limited view on warpgates. Yes of course the warpgate cooldown basically acts like a "buildtime". Thus over a very long period of time, the amount of units made via warpgates vs queues or whatever will be approximately the same. That isn't the issue with warpgates. The issue at hand is WHEN and WHERE those units become available. Warpgates get you the units up front (not X seconds later) and wherever you happen to need them. It is this tactical advantage that is the true power of warpgates, and that advantage has to be balanced out somewhere else. To put it another way, gateway units are being made weaker to compensate for the tactical advantages of warpgates, not their build cooldowns. The reason I bought up how Toss would fair without warpgates is because some folks are saying that there isn't ANY connection between gateway unit strength and warpgates. If that's the case, then you could just remove it and gateway units should perform similarly. OF COURSE I know its a nerf. I mentioned that SPECIFICALLY because its a massive nerf to gateway units. This means there MUST be a connection between warpgates and the strength of gateway units because the removal of warpgates is a huge nerf to gateway units. If there was no connection at all, it wouldn't be a nerf. if you did removed warpgates right now in the current game, essentially what that means is protoss defensive power STAYS THE SAME, but their offensive power GOES DOWN. this assumes buildtimes on the gateway are altered to let toss get out just as many defensive units as he could get with warpgates theres no connection between warpgates and gateway unit strength there IS a connection between warpgates the amount of units blizzard designed warpgates/gateways to be able to produce per minute i agree with you, the fact that gateways can warp in anywhere is the "problem" with the warpgate concept this means blizzard cannot make balance out defenders advantage and protoss aggression at the same time right now, protoss defensive abilities are underpowered. protoss has a weaker defenders advantage than they should. but this doesnt mean protoss units are weaker than other races units in a pure UNIT COST and UNIT STRENGTH and FOOD vs FOOD comparison, i do not believe stalkers and zealots and sentries are weaker then other races T1 units. and I believe in all situations where a protoss is being defensive, you COULD "just remove warpgates" and gateway units would perform similarly... however ONLY in defensive scenarios would this be true. if you removed warpgates, protoss would suck because the enemy would know there is zero chance of being in danger of aggression so the enemy would play the game knowing he doesnt have to fear aggression. warpgates are the source of protoss aggression, if you remove that, protoss would suck. HOWEVER, thats simply logical that removing warpgates would make protoss suck because a race with no aggressive options is sucky but its not because protoss units are weaker, its because protoss would no longer be able to move those units across the map instantly I believe in every scenario where a protoss is being defensive, if warpgates were removed the gateway units WOULD perform similarly as long as gateway buildtimes were adjusted to allow the protoss to crank out just as many units to defend with as before Even if buildtimes are the same switching to warpgate allows you to get out an additional round of units^^ You could make the gateway -> WG morph time 30 seconds. and what would that fix? were talking about something complete way off from your point some people are saying they think protoss t1 units are weaker because warpgates exist im saying zealots and stalkers and sentries are not "made weaker" to compensate for warpgates instead, blizzard balances warpgates so protoss offensive abilities are not oveprowered, but the BAD RESULT OF THIS is that protoss as a race has zero defenders advantage. if you somehow gave protoss defenders advantage by making warpgates make more units, it would make their offensive ability overpowered my point is that even if warpgates were removed, protoss still would defend just as well (as long as gateway build times are somehow adjusted to allow just as many units to come out)
It would remove the extra round of units?
They balance WG by making t1.5 tech WG weaker to compensate for the fact that WG weakens 1 of the biggest defenders advantages for the opponent(re-enforcement line).
They balance the stronger offensive use of WG by making t1 units weaker. Because t1 units are weaker defensive toss is weaker. Protoss has the weakest macro mechanic which makes the defenders advantage smaller(it not even close to zero even on bad Protoss maps like Dual Sight)
This is not helped by the fact that slow zealots are weak unless you are attacking into a base.
Without WG you would only lose the extra round of production from conversion from gate to WG. Which would leave toss with weaker offensive capabilities PvZ and inferior defender advantage in TvP.
On September 09 2011 07:18 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:14 Plutonik wrote:On September 08 2011 19:19 Detri wrote:I had never thought about Protoss in this way before, nice post and valid points. All I have to say though, is "Chrono boost, Guardian Sheild, Forcefields" Also protoss have the cheapest expand. I know hatcheries are cheaper, but you lose a drone, and need a queen for it to function effectively. And an Orbital is 550 mins. No other race gets spell casters at the lowest tier, and I don't think they need fixed. I'm no balance tester though, I just play for fun But I certainly agree that PvP needs to be more dynamic, instead of being a game of chicken to see who expands first. protoss do not have the cheapest expand, because terran gets mules from the orbital, as soon as it is finished they gain 300 minerals from the mule, meaning that their command center + orbital would cost 250 minerals Money doesn't work like that. Much of the importance of spending minerals in starcraft 2 is about when they are spent. If you invest in a colossus at the 3:00 mark you get a ridiculously overpowered colossus. If you invest in it at the 15:00 mark it's a different story. You put money into tech which starts the timer until the tech is done. Just because you get the minerals back eventually does not mean that you didn't spend them in the first place. And if you want to get even more theoretical, having the extra chronoboost means you need less production facilities to spend the same amount of money. Meaning you spend less money, meaning that in a way, the chronoboost could reduce the cost of the nexus as well.
Saying an Terran expo cost more than 400 makes no sense. You don't need Orbital or PF to use it.
|
On September 09 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:17 Vindicare605 wrote:
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1. What makes you think a shield battery in SC2 would be flat out better than one in SC1?
Three reasons. The first is because you'd be now combining potentially Shield Batteries with Warp Gates. This allows for an abuse of the mechanic offensively to a much greater extent than was possible in SC1.
The second is because Shields are a little bit different in SC2 than they are in SC1. Shields regenerate rapidly outside of combat rather than slowly but constantly like in SC1. This means that shield batteries are less needed as a defensive repairing tool and more of an emergency defensive/offensive support structure similar to moon wells in WC3. They wouldn't be needed as a quality of life tool because shields regenerate so rapidly already, this would mean they are always stocked full of energy for when they are needed.
Finally, because the user interface in SC2 would allow them to be used much more efficiently than they could be in SC1. You couldn't select a bunch of structures at once. You'd have to manually click each Shield Battery in order to use it, this made it very hard to use them in the thick of battle but in SC2 they'd be much easier to use and potentially abuse in combat. It's for this reason that spells are less powerful than they were in SC1.
|
On September 09 2011 07:15 PPTouch wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:05 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 07:01 Hikari wrote:
Shields often delete extremely fast, a shield battery may not necessary be "the thing" which protoss need for defense. I would also prefer something which repairs protoss mechanical units: because right now that immortal that only has 10 hp left would forever be at 10hp.
Strangely true. Never realized that, Terran with medivacs and repair, any unit that gets damaged can eventually be like new. Zerg regen same thing. Toss is the only race that has permanent damage done to units. Same goes for buildings: Terrans have repair, zerg has xfuse, toss has shrivel up and die
Toss have shields (but when is the last game you saw regen win a toss a game?)
I miss my shield battery =(
|
why i don't see any mention of the warp prism in any of the post here who talk about removing WG? If you get rid of the wg, it will just make the toss willing to go even more for the death ball.
Terran have the Medivac who give the drop capacity and healing, Zerg got Overlord which give him supply plus drop and what is for toss' warp prism? ok drop, but how will you change the Warp Prism to be able to give another thing? Just keep the energy because it is still usefull to power the building? lol
This will require alot more than just a balance change.
|
On September 09 2011 07:29 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 07:17 Vindicare605 wrote:
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1. What makes you think a shield battery in SC2 would be flat out better than one in SC1? Three reasons. The first is because you'd be now combining potentially Shield Batteries with Warp Gates. This allows for an abuse of the mechanic offensively to a much greater extent than was possible in SC1. The second is because Shields are a little bit different in SC2 than they are in SC1. Shields regenerate rapidly outside of combat rather than slowly like in SC1 and constantly. This means that shield batteries are less needed as a defensive repairing tool and more of an emergency defensive/offensive support structure similar to moon wells in WC3. They wouldn't be needed as a quality of life tool because shields regenerate so rapidly already, this would mean they are always stocked full of energy for when they are needed. Finally, because the user interface in SC2 would allow them to be used much more efficiently than they could be in SC1. You couldn't select a bunch of structures at once. You'd have to manually click each Shield Battery in order to use it, this made it very hard to use them in the thick of battle but in SC2 they'd be much easier to use and potentially abuse in combat. It's for this reason that spells are less powerful than they were in SC1.
Or they could make it so you use nexus energy to quickly recharge shields on a unit, much in the same way Terrans have to choose b/w scans and mules. Make it so the ability can only be used on units a certain distance from the nexus to give protoss a defender's advantage while not affecting balance on the offensive side of the equation.
|
On September 09 2011 07:29 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:18 Whitewing wrote:On September 09 2011 07:17 Vindicare605 wrote:
Very good read and I agree that Shield Batteries should make a comeback. It's an idea I've supported since the beta.
I'd like to add that the reason Photon Cannons require a Forge rather than a Gateway is the same reason why Warp Gates make for weaker Gateway units. The potential to abuse them offensively.
Photon Cannons are inherently different from Bunkers and Spine Crawlers in their capacity to be used offensively. Spine Crawlers need creep and Bunkers require units to occupy them and are also more vulnerable while constructing because of the ability to snipe the SCV. Photon Cannons need only a Pylon and in the early game are extremely powerful until units like Roaches and Marauders can be fielded.
As such they are a bit weaker and underused compared to the other static defensive structures. I think adding in a Shield Battery possibly in HOTS will give Protoss an equal defender's advantage to the other races. However, It cannot cost 125 minerals only like it did in SC1. It would have to be more expensive because of how much better it would be than in SC1. What makes you think a shield battery in SC2 would be flat out better than one in SC1? Three reasons. The first is because you'd be now combining potentially Shield Batteries with Warp Gates. This allows for an abuse of the mechanic offensively to a much greater extent than was possible in SC1. The second is because Shields are a little bit different in SC2 than they are in SC1. Shields regenerate rapidly outside of combat rather than slowly like in SC1 and constantly. This means that shield batteries are less needed as a defensive repairing tool and more of an emergency defensive/offensive support structure similar to moon wells in WC3. They wouldn't be needed as a quality of life tool because shields regenerate so rapidly already, this would mean they are always stocked full of energy for when they are needed. Finally, because the user interface in SC2 would allow them to be used much more efficiently than they could be in SC1. You couldn't select a bunch of structures at once. You'd have to manually click each Shield Battery in order to use it, this made it very hard to use them in the thick of battle but in SC2 they'd be much easier to use and potentially abuse in combat. It's for this reason that spells are less powerful than they were in SC1.
They still have a limited range. Since PvP was the only MU it was used in (In sc2 it would be used in both PvT and PvP.) You only build it to stop a timing push as macro wise it was to hard to use in any other way.
In Sc2 using it for recharging shield is useless because they recharge so fast anyway. Moonwells are not very strong offensively (although I never played much WC3) while still strong defensively. But it not like we put them on necessary macro structures like pylons.
|
My solution:
- Warpgates by default
- Add Shield battery (requires forge)
- Can only warp near a Warpgate (no offensive advantage)
- Warpgates can warp in at a warpprism
- Pylon warp-in upgrade where it currently is (requires citadel of adun, or w/e its called, and stargate? ionno)
|
On September 09 2011 07:32 Rorschach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:15 PPTouch wrote:On September 09 2011 07:05 susySquark wrote:On September 09 2011 07:01 Hikari wrote:
Shields often delete extremely fast, a shield battery may not necessary be "the thing" which protoss need for defense. I would also prefer something which repairs protoss mechanical units: because right now that immortal that only has 10 hp left would forever be at 10hp.
Strangely true. Never realized that, Terran with medivacs and repair, any unit that gets damaged can eventually be like new. Zerg regen same thing. Toss is the only race that has permanent damage done to units. Same goes for buildings: Terrans have repair, zerg has xfuse, toss has shrivel up and die Toss have shields (but when is the last game you saw regen win a toss a game?) I miss my shield battery =(
Shields add to blink's power. Injured stalkers in the back can regenerate a significant amount of shields before they have to engage again.
|
On September 09 2011 06:54 roymarthyup wrote:
if you did removed warpgates right now in the current game, essentially what that means is protoss defensive power STAYS THE SAME, but their offensive power GOES DOWN. this assumes buildtimes on the gateway are altered to let toss get out just as many defensive units as he could get with warpgates
theres no connection between warpgates and gateway unit strength
there IS a connection between warpgates the amount of units blizzard designed warpgates/gateways to be able to produce per minute
i agree with you, the fact that gateways can warp in anywhere is the "problem" with the warpgate concept
this means blizzard cannot make balance out defenders advantage and protoss aggression at the same time
right now, protoss defensive abilities are underpowered. protoss has a weaker defenders advantage than they should.
Ah but that is contradictory. You say there is no connection between between unit strength and warpgates, and yet you say that if warpgates were removed, you would have to change gateways in order for the toss to make a similar number of units! If warpgates didn't affect the strength of units, then WHY would you need to change gateways at all? The answer of course, is that without that extra round of units and/or instant reinforcement, gateway units don't cut it against the other races.
You are correct that Protoss defense would probably not be seriously affected, but that is because there is little to no walking distance when you are on defense. On the other hand, no warpgates on offense means their offense is weaker. This results in a net nerf to gateway units: similar strength on defense, weaker on offense. Since the removal of warpgates would result in a net nerf to the strength of gateway units there MUST be a connection between the two. Now, we can argue how much of a connection there is and so on, but it's undeniable that it exists.
but this doesnt mean protoss units are weaker than other races units
in a pure UNIT COST and UNIT STRENGTH and FOOD vs FOOD comparison, i do not believe stalkers and zealots and sentries are weaker then other races T1 units.
and I believe in all situations where a protoss is being defensive, you COULD "just remove warpgates" and gateway units would perform similarly... however ONLY in defensive scenarios would this be true.
if you removed warpgates, protoss would suck because the enemy would know there is zero chance of being in danger of aggression so the enemy would play the game knowing he doesnt have to fear aggression. warpgates are the source of protoss aggression, if you remove that, protoss would suck.
HOWEVER, thats simply logical that removing warpgates would make protoss suck because a race with no aggressive options is sucky
but its not because protoss units are weaker, its because protoss would no longer be able to move those units across the map instantly
I believe in every scenario where a protoss is being defensive, if warpgates were removed the gateway units WOULD perform similarly as long as gateway buildtimes were adjusted to allow the protoss to crank out just as many units to defend with as before
You are correct that the STATS of the units don't change based on warpgates or no warpgates, so in that respect their "strength" does not change. The thing is, the tactical abilities of a unit are an integral part of their true strength. Warpgates add a layer of tactical strength to all the gateway units that goes beyond their stats. The fact that they can instantly reinforce, instantly defend anywhere on the map, etc. MUST be balanced out somewhere else, if not from gateway units themselves, then elsewhere in the race. It obviously isn't coming out of Colossi and Robotech. Maybe its coming out of Carriers. Actually on that thought, I retract my former theory. You are correct: gateway units aren't weaker because of warpgates. Carriers are. =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
