|
My argument against warp-in is simple economics. Considering equal economies at any point in the game, the Protoss can have his units right now, while the Terran or Zerg has to spend the money, then wait for the units. That is why P timings are so strong, you spend the money and get the units NOW. If an opponent has equal mining, he reacts to the attack, but now waits for his units to pop to defend. That is why it is so critical for T or Z to get an econ advantage over P at any stage of the game. That in itself is abusable by the warp in short rally point of the OP.
It lends itself to Protoss tech units to be so very cost effective since the gateway units must be less so (to an extent). Then, considering equal tech, Protoss tech destroys Terran and Zerg tech units, who then have to go back to low tier units to counter the P army. It's a very harsh cycle of events when players abuse this knowledge correctly.
That said, i don't think win/loss ratios would suggest this is overpowered by any means, but that the mechanic mentioned in the OP definitely raises more questions than answers when it comes to balance. I think map design will have to play a large role in the remaining balance equation. That and whatever units blizz decides to come up with in the upcoming expansions.
|
Has it been suggested that warpgates are the pylon? As in, each warpgate has a power field around it where you warp in units, and you can't warp in at pylons?
That way you can still warp defensively and offensively, except you'd have to proxy a gateway for offensive warp ins. Also, that would make pylons just used for powering buildings.
Just a thought.
|
On September 09 2011 07:39 Eppa! wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:29 Vindicare605 wrote: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.
Moonwells (like shield batteries) need time to gain energy. That's why they aren't effective offensively. If toss is really putting on the pressure, what would they rather have: another zealot, or a shield battery? Or even another proxy pylon! As far as contains go, terran are great at it. Sure, they cant warp in, but they bunkers and tanks, 2 of the best units for holding ground. I doubt shield batteries can ever overpower repair or siege mode.
|
Warp-in has screwed up both Protoss defender's advantage and Protoss unit strength. Protoss units are supposed to be the "strong but few" style, yet their T1 is absolutely atrocious compared to both Terran and Protoss T1, and this is due to the fact that Protoss can reinforce T1 so easily across the map. I love Warp-in from a conceptual standpoint, but from a balance standpoint it's an absolute nightmare to have in the game.
|
This is a very poorly constructed argument. While it does have some good points, the foundation of the argument is flawed and it does a lot of assuming.
Instead of explaining why Gateway units are weak, or how they are weak, it says they are and have to be because of Warpgate mechanics and thus Colossus have to make up for them by being overpowered, and when on the defensive early Protoss is thus underpowered unless you have a ramp because there is no Colossus and you can't benefit from your warpgate as much ect, ect.
I disagree because I think Gateway units are very good. But let me show you how easy it is to construct an arguement like this based on an assumption:
Why Marines broke SC2
Marines are really powerful in PvT, they just eat alive everything. Ever noticed that Colossus are so strong? They have to be to counter Marines.
The problem here is that Zerg doesn't a unit as powerful as the Marine, and thus Colossus rolf stomp the Zerg, and make Hydras useless.
And it also ruins PvP. Ever noticed that Colossus dominate PvP (if the game goes beyond the early game)? That is because they are overpowered, and both players must use Colossus because anything else is inferior.
Now without Marines being so strong, Colossus could be weaker, and then Hydras wouldn't be trash.
Never did you explain why Gateway units are weak, or why Colossus are strong. You just string together things and act like they are facts, when they are not.
However, there is some merit to some of your argument. Basically, the Force Field is the early defensive mechanism that Protoss uses to stay alive vs early pressure (Terran uses the Bunker, Zerg has the Spine Crawler and Queen). Cannons are obviously not viable unless you're opening with a Forge.
Thus on maps that you can't simply FF a choke easily or Forge Fast Expand, it is very difficult to hold against early aggression, forcing the Protoss player to build units. This constricts Protoss on certain maps.
|
On September 09 2011 07:37 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:29 Vindicare605 wrote: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.
Now that's an idea. I like that idea a lot.
|
How about making gateways function in a defensive way? Maybe something like, if you research warpgate your Gateways also gain the abilities of a Shield Battery (i.e. they get energy and the ability to recharge Shields). When you turn them to Warpgates, this ability fades.
That way it cannot really be used offensively. I also wouldn't give the gateways this ability from the get-go, as it might make protoss completely uncheeseable (which would be imbalanced, again). And it would probably make gateway-rushes imba as fuck :D
|
On September 09 2011 07:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:37 Skyro wrote:On September 09 2011 07:29 Vindicare605 wrote: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. Now that's an idea. I like that idea a lot.
That is pretty good, yeah.
Maybe make it an AoE that charges the shields of all your units inside the area over an amount of time.
That way you'd also create more micro (keeping your units in the area vs. enemies trying to force you out)
|
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)
I know what you're saying, I just disagree. I do think they made Protoss t1 units weaker because warpgates exist, so that timing attacks aren't too powerful. I still can't wrap my head exactly around how you're trying to suggest Protoss has no defenders advantage. Warpgates (exception of the extra warpin round) is highly irrelevant of defender's advantage, which we seem to agree upon (assuming build times were adjusted), but how does this eliminate a defender's advantage?
On September 09 2011 07:53 BronzeKnee wrote:
This is a very poorly constructed argument. While it does have some good points, the foundation of the argument is flawed and it does a lot of assuming.
Instead of explaining why Gateway units are weak, or how they are weak, it says they are and have to be because of Warpgate mechanics and thus Colossus have to make up for them by being overpowered, and when on the defensive early Protoss is thus underpowered unless you have a ramp because there is no Colossus and you can't benefit from your warpgate as much ect, ect.
I disagree because I think Gateway units are very good. But let me show you how easy it is to construct an arguement like this based on an assumption:
Why Marines broke SC2
Marines are really powerful in PvT, they just eat alive everything. Ever noticed that Colossus are so strong? They have to be to counter Marines.
The problem here is that Zerg doesn't a unit as powerful as the Marine, and thus Colossus rolf stomp the Zerg, and make Hydras useless.
And it also ruins PvP. Ever noticed that Colossus dominate PvP (if the game goes beyond the early game)? That is because they are overpowered, and both players must use Colossus because anything else is inferior.
Now without Marines being so strong, Colossus could be weaker, and then Hydras wouldn't be trash.
Never did you explain why Gateway units are weak, or why Colossus are strong. You just string together things and act like they are facts, when they are not.
However, there is some merit to some of your argument. Basically, the Force Field is the early defensive mechanism that Protoss uses to stay alive vs early pressure (Terran uses the Bunker, Zerg has the Spine Crawler and Queen). Cannons are obviously not viable unless you're opening with a Forge.
Thus on maps that you can't simply FF a choke easily, it is very difficult to hold against early aggression, forcing the Protoss player to build units.
The argument isn't analogous because one involves a mechanic, such as warpin and how it kills something like defender's advantage and makes timing attacks much stronger consequently, while your argument is just unit A vs unit B vs unit C and their counters.
|
Ok, I would like to make a contribution to this discussion. I have read/skimmed through to this (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=11296125) post and I find the conversation very intriguing. I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I think the OP makes some very good points. I think it is somewhat silly that maps require either a ramp or small choke (force field sized) to make one race viable or restrict its stratagem to a single viable method. While even in Broodwar most maps had a main choke to wider natural choke paradigm, I think there was a little bit more of a variance of what could be done and what was tried. As someone who is always interested to see map innovation, "fixing" protoss defense and its relationship to warp gate tech intrigues me.
To me the best place to start is Broodwar and work our way back to SC2. Not because I think BW is the only thing that works, but it is a good guide. While SC2 is in many ways its own game, it does rely heavily on the foundational concepts in Broodwar -- there really aren't many truly different things in SC2 than in BW. In BW, Protoss mobility relied on two pillars, the arbter and the shuttle. Protoss defense relied on unit strength and cannon tech being strong (vs Z) as well as sweet tech/units at key timings (vs T/P). Protoss had shield batteries for defense, but the only time I really ever seeing it used in a pro game was when a Terran did a sneaky bio early timing push and the Protoss player was desperately trying to keep his few dragoons alive. Why did these things work in Broodwar?
Let's start with the mobility units. Shuttles worked because they were strong and when upgraded very fast. The unit strength of zealots, dps of storms, splash of reavers, etc. made their payload quite deadly if not annoying for the receiving end. All it took was a few units to wreak a ton havoc.
Arbiters worked because they did what a shuttle could not do, and that is move large armies all at once. It helped that they also gave a cloaking field to units within its effect radius. Not only this but they synergized with the strength of the protoss units through their last ability: stasis. Stasis could cut an opposing army in half, allowing the now indisputably more powerful protoss force to clean up each piece one at a time. In a rare case, statis could be used to block a path.
So what did SC2 do with these things?
Well Arbiters could be seen to be split out into three concepts: the Mothership, the Sentry, and Warp Gate technology. Shuttles have a fairly straight conversion into warp prisms, however, warp prisms, in conjunction with warp gate tech also have a bit of an arbiter role as well.
First the obvious translation, the Mothership, is basically a souped up arbiter utterly and completely: cloaking field, check (plus buildings!); recall ability, check (massive radius!); split/immobilize opponent's army ability, check (but different!); sucky attack, couldn't leave this one out, check, check. The main difference really is the fact that you can only have one, which makes using the mothership for mobility as much as the arbiter was in BW for mobility purposes a problem.
So what do we do about that? We allow for waves of the main army (gateway units) to be built out in the field near a power source instead of directly at the production facility: enter warp gate tech, warp prisms, and proxy pylons. I contest that this is Bliz's "poor man's recall" for when the mothership is not in play. Like recall, a large force can be brought to a distant location in an "instant", though instead of being limited by the recall spell radius, it is limited by the number of warpgates (and cooldown cycles, resources, supply, etc.).
So now we have one problem left, we still don't have our "poor man's stasis": enter sentries. Sentries are basically one half of the arbiter with their crappy damage, buff ability for units within its effect radius, and most importantly, the "poor man's stasis" that is force field.
Okay, we've laid out the similarities, so what are the differences and the effects those differences have made?
Let's start backward. Force Field, to be very effective requires a lot of it cast, or favorable terrain since it is not unit targetable. It also has the downside that certain units can destroy it whereas in BW statis essentially took precedent over everything including other spells. A mixed blessing of force field is that it does not completely immobilize any units, though with enough force field or the right terrain conditions, it could do so, but this is not a direct effect. The major upside is the fact that it is now the ability of a tier 1.5 unit, and can be used as soon as that unit is created -- no upgrade, no waiting for energy. A major downside of this major upside is that now you have to balance the game (early game in particular) around an ability that though somewhat downgraded, used to be a tippy top tier ability. (You really couldn't get a more top tier unit than the Arbiter in BW requiring two tech paths to attain.) Sure, there are differences that make it less powerful, but do those differences in the long run balance out with it's availability? And if the answer is yes, we still need to ask whether base defense should be so heavily centered around the ability even if it is in some cases a very viable option.
Warp-in, like recall, has the potential to deliver a huge number of troops to a distant location very quickly. In the late game with 20+ warpgates, whether via proxy pylons or warp prisms, it is quite easy to dump a large army somewhere. The two main differences are that the "recall" is straight from the production facility and that it does not affect units that have already been produced. On the one hand this is very strong since every production cycle can "recall" another 40+ supply of units. On the other hand power units like colossus or full energy templar, require a mothership to make the instant leap. Add to that the fact that you require either the static pylon or the self-indefensible warp prism to enable you warp-in. Keep in mind that as I talk about this, I am speaking of warp-in/recall in terms of its offensive capability. Like the arbiter in BW, the offensive capabilities of warping in tend to overshadow the defensive capabilities, intended or not (I remember seeing somewhere that the main idea for recall was to, as its name suggests, bring back an army to defend). While defense is certainly "possible" with these abilities, well... I think anyone who's heard the phrase "the best defense is a good offense" knows where I'm going with that one. Oh and this "poor man's recall" is also a tier 1.5 ability.
Finally, motherships. RICH mans arbiter. 'nuff said.
So now back to the OP. What worked in Broodwar was the usage of the Arbiter as the closer. But now we have dumbed down closer mechanics designed to be more accessible and less powerful. And as mentioned in the OP but put in my own terms, the problem lies in the fact that these abilities were in BW mainly *offensive in nature* and I argue that primarily they still are. They fact that force field *can* defend a main choke does not mean that it should be forced to do so any more than stasis. And in fact, that is exactly what is being "required", that protoss pigeonhole an offensive capability into a defensive one for a specific purpose that is viable only under specific circumstances.
What used to work was the strength of the units themselves, but this was dumbed down to make warp tech not over powered. What used to work was cannons (to a degree), but this was dumbed down when the "dragoon" became a racially indifferent unit (i.e. terran got maraduer, zerg got roach). So what is left is the minute advantage of warp timing and force field which that early in the game in terrain dependant since you cannot have that many sentries that early.
I think this is a sub-optimal design. This is not to say I do not like the changes in SC2 or that it cannot be its own game, but I do think protoss need something that allows for a defenders advantage, whether that be buffing gateway units, nerfing warpgate tech, a combination of both, or some other option like the Shield Battery.
TLDR #1 -- I agree with the OP to a large degree. Comparing to Broodwar, Force Field should be seen as a primarily offensive ability, and relying on it to make up for the lack of a good defenders advantage is silly. Something needs to change in the protoss arsenal to allow for defenders advantage.
So, you might ask "what should be done about it?" Well, I'm glad you did. Here's my baby that I think helps to solve multiple problems at once: Shield Battery.
What? Someone already said that. Yes, but not the new, improved, SC2'ed Shield Battery. How does it work? Instead of the standard shield healing that the SC1/BW shield battery provided, instead it would look like this:
Shield Equalizer (??)
Stats: 100 hp / 100 shields / 100 energy
Ability: Shield Redistribution (auto cast toggleable, enabled on creation) -- Effect: Within a radius of 5(/6/7/?), from the building, redistribute shields from all units/buildings at a rate of 2 shields for every 1 energy. When auto cast is disabled, the ability can target an area with the same radius within vision; this causes all units in the area to return to the building for shield redistribution. All units redistributed from/to are treated like they have just been attacked, i.e. delay before normal shield regeneration resumes.
So an example of this would be as follows: We'll take a standard protoss ramp "wall off" scenario. One pylon, one gateway, one cyber core, and a zealot. Add a Shield Equalizer, and now the zealot has essentially 200 more shields. Three roaches poke in and attack the zealot who is waiting desperately for the stalker to get out. But instead of the zealot taking 48 shield damage, instead the Shield Equalizer uses its ability to spread out the damage amongst all the units/buildings within its radius, in this case, the zealot/gateway/cybercore/pylon/shield equalizer. So just to keep things simple, we'll say the zealot takes 8 shield damage itself, and the rest take 10 shield damage, and the shield equalizer uses up 20 energy to do so. In four more attacks, the zealot is at 40 shield damage, each building is at 50 shield damage, and the shield equalizer is now out of energy (really, the zealot and buildings would all be at 48 damage at this point and there would be a little energy left, but again for the example I'm simplifying). The next attack would render a full 48 damage on the zealot, but at this point the stalker could pop and help fend off the rush.
This also conveniently doubles as the protoss response to terran repair and zerg transfuse. It also allows cannons to gain the beef they lose from the swarms of roach/maraduer. Finally, it lets you nerf warpgate tech to the point where it is still better than normal gateway tech, but actually has a trade off such as increased build (cooldown) time.
Also, the nexus could go back to a reasonable 750/750.
Oh and hellions don't necessarily immediately massacre all the probes on the first shot.
Are there any other benefits? Probably.
TLDR #2 -- Blizz please make the Shield Equalizer happen (so the rest of the stuff can be fixed)! If you want to but don't have the time, hire me, and I'll do it. 
|
On September 09 2011 08:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
The argument isn't analogous because one involves a mechanic, such as warpin and how it kills something like defender's advantage and makes timing attacks much stronger consequently, while your argument is just unit A vs unit B vs unit C and their counters.
It is analogous because my point was to show that you can't string a bunch of popular opinions together and present it as fact. While warpgate tech does reduce the defenders advantage, it does not eliminate it. Nor does it necessarily mean that Gateway units are weaker or that they need to be or should be weaker due to warpgate tech!
Protoss Gateway units do just fine against tier 1 Zerg and Terran units. You could just as easily argue that Stalkers and Zealots are weak because of the Sentry and FF. And I think Stalkers and Zealots alone are underpowered vs mass tier 1 from other races, but when FF and Guardian Shield comes into play, they become very strong and compete well. And I play and love Protoss.
You need to look at the whole picture.
|
On September 09 2011 08:15 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: TLDR #2 -- Blizz please make the Shield Equalizer happen (so the rest of the stuff can be fixed)! If you want to but don't have the time, hire me, and I'll do it.
Your equalizer would make any timing attack impossible vs Protoss early on. The amount of shields regened simply from the nexus (375) is insane, plus having like 2 pylons up there and you can effectively churn out 575 hp instantly.
|
I've always felt like there should be some sort of advantage to using regular Gatways over Warp Gates, that would fix the whole "no defender advantage" in PvP at least if say, Gateways built units faster than Warp Gates did. It would add a whole different element of macromanagement for Protoss as well, turn all your Gates into Gateways when defending, transform to Warp Gates when attacking.
|
On September 09 2011 08:23 BeeNu wrote:
I've always felt like there should be some sort of advantage to using regular Gatways over Warp Gates, that would fix the whole "no defender advantage" in PvP at least if say, Gateways built units faster than Warp Gates did. It would add a whole different element of macromanagement for Protoss as well, turn all your Gates into Gateways when defending, transform to Warp Gates when attacking.
Blizzard has already stated that they wanted toss to start out with warpgates and be using warpgates at all points, but when they originally were testing the game warpgates were OP early on. Consequently, gateways were reintroduced to the game. They've stated they don't want gateways to have any advantage over warpgates.
|
On September 09 2011 08:07 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:03 roymarthyup wrote: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) I know what you're saying, I just disagree. I do think they made Protoss t1 units weaker because warpgates exist, so that timing attacks aren't too powerful. I still can't wrap my head exactly around how you're trying to suggest Protoss has no defenders advantage. Warpgates (exception of the extra warpin round) is highly irrelevant of defender's advantage, which we seem to agree upon (assuming build times were adjusted), but how does this eliminate a defender's advantage?
this is my explanation as to how warpgates eliminated protosses defenders advantage
blizzards logic on how to balance warpgates is what removes protosses defenders advantage which should be there if the game is to be balanced
zerg and terran both will have more units at their base if they are defending, and less units at the enemies base if they are attacking
zerg and terran are both more powerful when they are on the defensive. zerg and terran are both weaker when they are on the offensive
because of warpgates, PROTOSS has equal amounts of units whether he is attacking or defending
this is due to blizzards logic behind how to make warpgates function. blizzards logic on how to balance warpgates is what what eliminates protosses defenders advantage as an entire race
this, this statement right there means protoss has no defenders advantage as a race. protoss is not more powerful when it is on the defensive. i dont know how to explain it any clearer than that. because protoss is not more powerful when it is on the defensive, it means "protoss as a race has no defenders advantage"
|
another way to look at it is like this. as a race, zerg and terran have the option to push a button that says "i will have more units and be more powerful, but i can only defend"
protoss does not have that option
blizzard designed warpgate numbers so protoss aggression wouldnt be overpowered. warpgates were balanced so toss wouldnt have too many units when on the offensive. Because blizzard balanced warpgates so protoss couldnt get too many offensive units, this means protoss LACKS that option that zerg and terran have
zerg and terran have the option to push a button that says "i will have more units and be more powerful, but i can only defend". protoss does not have that option. protoss as a race has no defenders advantage compared to zerg or terran
|
On September 09 2011 08:15 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 08:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
The argument isn't analogous because one involves a mechanic, such as warpin and how it kills something like defender's advantage and makes timing attacks much stronger consequently, while your argument is just unit A vs unit B vs unit C and their counters. It is analogous because my point was to show that you can't string a bunch of popular opinions together and present it as fact. While warpgate tech does reduce the defenders advantage, it does not eliminate it. Nor does it necessarily mean that Gateway units are weaker or that they need to be or should be weaker due to warpgate tech! Protoss Gateway units do just fine against tier 1 Zerg and Terran units. You could just as easily argue that Stalkers and Zealots are weak because of the Sentry and FF. And I think Stalkers and Zealots alone are underpowered vs mass tier 1 from other races, but when FF and Guardian Shield comes into play, they become very strong and compete well. And I play and love Protoss. You need to look at the whole picture.
you can't just say that "Protoss Gateway units do just fine against tier 1 Zerg and Terran units" and present it as fact either though. The problem is that looking at t1 vs t1 doesn't tell the whole story. Once you find the compositions that actually duke it out in games, you have to check the cost effectiveness of the armies and the micro capabilities and whatnot. For example, make equally costed armies with your equally skilled friend and simulate battles over and over, trying every maneuver on every kind of terrain. That would do a lot to answer the question, but is a crazy amount of work to go through, and would still not satisfy everyone. The only thing we can go on is how pro games turn out.
|
On September 09 2011 08:27 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 08:07 FabledIntegral wrote:On September 09 2011 07:03 roymarthyup wrote: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) I know what you're saying, I just disagree. I do think they made Protoss t1 units weaker because warpgates exist, so that timing attacks aren't too powerful. I still can't wrap my head exactly around how you're trying to suggest Protoss has no defenders advantage. Warpgates (exception of the extra warpin round) is highly irrelevant of defender's advantage, which we seem to agree upon (assuming build times were adjusted), but how does this eliminate a defender's advantage? this is my explanation as to how warpgates eliminated protosses defenders advantage blizzards logic on how to balance warpgates is what removes protosses defenders advantage which should be there if the game is to be balanced zerg and terran both will have more units at their base if they are defending, and less units at the enemies base if they are attacking zerg and terran are both more powerful when they are on the defensive. zerg and terran are both weaker when they are on the offensive because of warpgates, PROTOSS has equal amounts of units whether he is attacking or defending this is due to blizzards logic behind how to make warpgates function. blizzards logic on how to balance warpgates is what what eliminates protosses defenders advantage as an entire race this, this statement right there means protoss has no defenders advantage as a race. protoss is not more powerful when it is on the defensive. i dont know how to explain it any clearer than that. because protoss is not more powerful when it is on the defensive, it means "protoss as a race has no defenders advantage"
Oh, I see what you're saying. Haha, regardless, I still disagree completely. While Protoss will have the same amount of units when attacking or defending, the amount of units the Terran or Zerg units attacking/defending at that point in time will be different. You've already stated this, so we are agreeing on this point. Because when Protoss defends they will always be facing less units than if they were attacking, that is the defender's advantage, no?
You could just as easily interpret your argument as saying that warpin removes the defender's advantage for T/Z when facing P, and only Protoss experiences a defender's advantage.
|
The big problem is that you totally disregard the power of forcefields, even on an open battlefield, they can be used extremely effectively to defend. And the whole thing of the lack of defenders advantage is wrong, protoss attacks are a bit more powerful than the other races, and their defense has zero rally, while the opponnent has to rally cross-map, meaning toss will be ahead by a full production cycle (due to warpgate mechanics) and whatever the rally distance is, 45 seconds or so on xel naga ramp to ramp, much further on the more open maps like cross pos metal and tal darim.
Warpgate makes protoss way too powerful offensively, so they've messed the timings up, so that the original timing builds don't line up as they did before, however once toss players figured out new builds, their gateway pushes were just as strong as before, just different timings to punish different things.
Protoss ramps/chokes are almost impossible to break with ground armies due to FF, and offensive, protoss can contain you forever with just a few hundred gas and very small food investment, compared to other races, protoss has the cheapest space control throughout the game.
The warpgate mechanic is a bit powerful for my taste, I think there should be an upgrade mb from the robo support bay or twilight council that makes protoss pylons have a greater warp-in range, back to pre-pylon nerf times, but the starting range would be 3, so that you can't just warp in over the cliff in PvT and PvP. This would help stabilize the metagame a lot, and allow terrans and protoss players to create a hugely wider variety of different builds, mech openings could be more greedy for example.
Also, gateway units are not weak... before stim gateway units are more efficient than marauders, and even after stim, the cost of production for gateway units makes the same investment into gateways pay off more than the investment into barracks or roach/ling.
tl; dr:
1) Didn't take into account the rally distance for whoever's attacking the protoss player, combined with the reversed production cycles from protoss.
2) Forcefield is super effective, on open ground it can easily allow protoss to destroy an army much larger than their own, and on a choke it can make protoss nigh invincible.
3) Gateway units are efficient against bio and lings/roachs and can be easily micro'd to increase their efficiency further.
4) The space control potential for sentries is through the roof compared to the other race's options, 1 sentry can prevent terran from leaving their base until medivacs are out, or allow protoss to tech up to double upgrade colosus with only a single stalker and 4 sentries, and easily hold off any ground attacks on maps like shakuras or antiga.
|
I always said that warp-gate tech is stupid. But ofc protosses loved it until we learned to shut down their cannon rush and 4gate with proxy pylon. Game cannot be balanced with such broken mechanics as warpgate and spawn larva because they multiply EVERY single buff by incredible amount.
I guess the only way to balance the game for protoss is to buff/nerf other than gateway units (for example immortal buff).
But I think the real problem is with the larva inject. This retarded mechanic made zerg FE unpunishable, and you can't implement any real buffs to the zerg units because of this...
I hope in HotS blizzard could remove larva inject, warpgate, chronoboost and mules ;] but ofc that is not possible so at least they could revamp these mechanics a little bit ;] For example make warping units possible only within some radius around the nexus (about the same radius as sensor tower has), and make larva inject last for like 2 minutes so zerg doesn't have to do it manually, but nerf larva spawn to +1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
