|
On September 15 2011 19:42 zul wrote:
"The warp mechanic, by its very nature, crosses "short rally" off of the defender's advantage list for Protoss. An attacking Protoss army and a defending Protoss army will be reinforced just as quickly." doesn`t this assure that the better player wins. Whoever has the better timed out Buildorder, whoever has the stronger macro, whoever microes more precise will win the game and therefore it is very fair.
btw. dont forget "attack the is best defense" and no other race can attack and reinforce as fast as the protoss race.
That's cute in theory but in reality the nature of an RTS game does not lend itself to ATTACK ATTACK ATTACK in every situation.
The OP is pretty much entirely correct. Gateway units are inherently weak because of the warpin advantage they have. The side effect of this is that when they are defending they get no benefit and all of the penalties the mechanic grants them.
It forces you to play one way, because playing defensively as Protoss isn't the most efficient way to play the game. It's not even a very viable option at the top level because the entire warp in mechanic doesn't lend itself to that.
|
On September 15 2011 19:45 kinglemon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 18:29 17Sphynx17 wrote:On September 15 2011 17:54 kinglemon wrote:On September 15 2011 15:54 Bleak wrote:On September 15 2011 15:46 Carmine wrote:I can tell you put a lot of work into your post, but I think your reasoning is not sound. The warp mechanic, by its very nature, crosses "short rally" off of the defender's advantage list for Protoss. An attacking Protoss army and a defending Protoss army will be reinforced just as quickly. You made it sound like this is a weakness for Protoss. Even if Protoss did not have Warp gate mechanics they would reinforce at about the same rate in a defending battle. It only strengthens them offensively. The other player still has a longer rally distance when attacking the Protoss player. This is the point you glossed over when you used your PvP example, using that to validate your points and then dismissing it as automatically balanced. I don't think the game was balanced in the nature that you think it was. I also think it is bad practice to look at a localized imbalance (differences in race mechanics) and claim a net imbalance. The presence of an imbalance must be determined by a lot of games being played, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support your claim. Is anyone actually reading? He is saying that because of the warpgate, it is possible to traverse distances instantly and reinforce at your opponent's doorstep. Because of THIS, they have to make gateway units weaker. And he is saying, that this ruined Protoss. but gateway units aren't weak. they are the best units compared to t and z's early units (without updates). sure stim can change a lot, but blink can also change a lot. and to kill a toss with early agressive builds he needs to either be really greedy or just lack in scouting. same can be said for terran and zerg, if they dont scout or be to greedy, they will die to a good timing attack. the important thing is: protoss units are the best and most resistant units out of the 3 races, and they have shields which regenerate very fast. p does not need defensive structures (that much) because the units are aleready pretty strong and defensive in their own way. z and t need defensive structures because their units are so weak in the early game. . Well you have to consider two things when making your analogy. One you mentioned stim comparing to blink, but blink is not a readily accessible at the tech level you are comparing them. well it's only one building, and therefore u have a nice tech tree open up for u once u go for blink. you can go dt, ht, archons or chargelot afterwards. it's not like u would go in an one-way-street, like for example cloak banshee is most of the time.
That is true, it does open up a tech tree that opens up either of those possibilities available at gateway, one may then argue that it can be equated to getting ghost academy as it is the viable techtree. Even without cloak research or nuke, you get the EMP which nullifies shield and energy as it is the viable techtree already for the toss just to reach blink.
My apologies also for our Zerg Brethren, I know I'm not comparing with their race because they have a fellow melee unit on their tech tree (Zergling/Baneling) and thus the force field can serve the purpose of assisting in defendse, whether at a choke or even in open areas to limit the surface area of the attack.
The toss gateway units are generally weakened to compensate for the warpgate design offensive reinforcement when attacking and thus melt quicker than you can reinforce against the opponent when defending. Just go by DPS figures and you can see that. If you manage to focus fire against Toss, the "life bonus" they get is negated and it reduces the potential DPS that could've/should've been dealt.
|
On September 15 2011 20:00 Jayme wrote:
It forces you to play one way, because playing defensively as Protoss isn't the most efficient way to play the game. It's not even a very viable option at the top level because the entire warp in mechanic doesn't lend itself to that.
thats funny, because terran is much more forced to be agressive than p.
|
On September 15 2011 19:45 kinglemon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 18:29 17Sphynx17 wrote:On September 15 2011 17:54 kinglemon wrote:On September 15 2011 15:54 Bleak wrote:On September 15 2011 15:46 Carmine wrote:I can tell you put a lot of work into your post, but I think your reasoning is not sound. The warp mechanic, by its very nature, crosses "short rally" off of the defender's advantage list for Protoss. An attacking Protoss army and a defending Protoss army will be reinforced just as quickly. You made it sound like this is a weakness for Protoss. Even if Protoss did not have Warp gate mechanics they would reinforce at about the same rate in a defending battle. It only strengthens them offensively. The other player still has a longer rally distance when attacking the Protoss player. This is the point you glossed over when you used your PvP example, using that to validate your points and then dismissing it as automatically balanced. I don't think the game was balanced in the nature that you think it was. I also think it is bad practice to look at a localized imbalance (differences in race mechanics) and claim a net imbalance. The presence of an imbalance must be determined by a lot of games being played, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support your claim. Is anyone actually reading? He is saying that because of the warpgate, it is possible to traverse distances instantly and reinforce at your opponent's doorstep. Because of THIS, they have to make gateway units weaker. And he is saying, that this ruined Protoss. but gateway units aren't weak. they are the best units compared to t and z's early units (without updates). sure stim can change a lot, but blink can also change a lot. and to kill a toss with early agressive builds he needs to either be really greedy or just lack in scouting. same can be said for terran and zerg, if they dont scout or be to greedy, they will die to a good timing attack. the important thing is: protoss units are the best and most resistant units out of the 3 races, and they have shields which regenerate very fast. p does not need defensive structures (that much) because the units are aleready pretty strong and defensive in their own way. z and t need defensive structures because their units are so weak in the early game. . Well you have to consider two things when making your analogy. One you mentioned stim comparing to blink, but blink is not a readily accessible at the tech level you are comparing them. well it's only one building, and therefore u have a nice tech tree open up for u once u go for blink. you can go dt, ht, archons or chargelot afterwards. it's not like u would go in an one-way-street, like for example cloak banshee is most of the time. Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 18:27 Brotocol wrote:
They are absolutely weak inherently. Warp-in offense compensates for this, in an offensive context.
A stalker costs more than a marauder and loses to it. A stalker costs 125-50 and does slightly less dps than a 50min marine. A zealot costs twice as much as marines, and does less dps than 2 marines, while spending most of its time trying to get in melee range.
Stalkers, at range 6, can't even kite marines properly because they have (1) a slow attack animation and (2) a missile, which has transit time. Watch any pro using stalkers against marines, the stalkers always get hit when they take a shot.
This is not a whine; I think it's fine for Protoss units to have reduced stats so long as it balances warp-in. But P also needs a better option for non-offensive situations. lol, u completely ignore the biggest benefit, their health and shield 1. of course they dont do much damage, but they are tough, and stalkers can shoot air, and they are faster than t units.
Stalkers are tough? Marauders eat Stalkers for breakfast. Even roaches are super cost effective versus Stalkers.
|
mmm i wonder if it would have been warpgate in bw as well, when i read this thread surely it would have. T1 and 1.5 units are all super weak. But we can buff them :3. The toss buffs though are really damn strong compared to the other races ones. (Sorry stim take health that doesn't regenerate, so its not as stong as the toss abilitys) Thats why they are a bit more expensiv and take a lil longer. In bw everything was about getting those gateway buffs out as soon as possible. And they weren't as strong there as in sc2.
Warp gates are actually there to enable a toss to attack before they have their upgrades out. And not the other way round. So the units are weak because their upgrades are the strongest.
So theoretical if they would remove the warpgate, they would have to buff the t1 units, but nerf their t2 upgrades. So charge wouldn't give the passive speed bonus anymore or only would last 2 seconds and blink cooldown would be doubled. Probably better for weaker players, since they wouldn't have to use skills anymore.
PS: dps might be a factor in games where you have to do 100+ hits to kill something. But in games were its unusual to go above 20 hits it says nothing. (a unit can have 2000 dps, but a unit with 20 dps might kill 10 units while the 2000 dps unit kills 1, and the 5 dps unit kill only 2 but doesn't receive damage while doing so)
It might have been a mistake by blizzard not to force a toss to tech like crazy. (in bw you got the robo + observatory just for obs, while getting the citadell for speed, unimportant if you went ht or reaver, you got both prereqs anyway since you needed them and they were way more expensiv)
edit: to the person above :3 you know why marauders eat stalkers alive, because zealots eat marauders alive. I wouldn't mind if the marauder had no bonus damage (50% of that to normal damage), since I wouldn't need marines against zealots anymore, which are eaten quiet easy by aoes. And no roaches aren't cost effectiv at all. Its more like endless amounts of roaches against 0 stalkers.
Well with upgrades its a different thing. But stalkers still poke roaches quiet well with blink vs roach speed.
Single units are worthless to compare unless they are only psy and have no bonus damage.
|
I was wondering if some mapmacker could do the trick. Like i don't know.
Invert building time between warpgates and gateway.
We could try it out ourselves and see if it's doing the trick. If not we are a bunch of idiot.. And if it works. You can send thousands replays to blizzard. Or ask em test the map
Maybe that's just silly but why not ? TL have a lot of good players romaing there. And in fact... a lot of players total.
But maybe i'm just being silly.
|
You do realise that Protoss got a big defenders advantage against drops because of the warpgates. And they also can indefinitely stop armies from coming up a ramp for nothing but thin air (energy).
It's fine the way it is and picking on it by considering only a partial aspect of the game is nonsense. See the whole picture.
|
The OP really has a point about the results the WarpGate Mechanic has had on Protoss. How its the ability to instantaneously reinforce that gives the Protoss is power.
Personally I believe we don't see enough Warp Prisms. Often the Protosses attempt to establish forward pylons, but as the pace of the game speeds up, it becomes increasingly difficult to hold a position, resulting in Protoss losing that pylon position.
I would like to see the Warp Prism replace the Forward Pylon during the Mid to Late Game. This will allow Protosses to have a forward pylon anywhere they go.
|
Why was Protoss even given the Warp Gate mechanic? Were Blizzard so desperate to make changes from Brood War to appear original that they implemented it without thinking of the long term consequences or do they actually have some master plan?
|
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.
Sorry but what you said about protoss expands is pretty funny. Protoss have the most EXPENSIVE expands. Orbitals are 550 but they pay for themselves so they are free if you can keep it up for one mules time, also they can be lifted/ made in the main so that you cannot easily lose them unlike a nexus that is just sitting there taking hits in the open without the ability to flee. Hatcheries do require the queen to function more efficiently but when you first make a expand you will not need that queen asap because you cannot actually fund 2 hatches worth of inject that early on. When you take your third and forth etc... you will have queens premade for spreading creap anyways. Queens are also the swiss army knife of defense and can spread creep to boot.
tl;dr.
Nexus sucks. it costs 400
Orbitals are free.
Hatches cost 300. the queen is a bonus since it does stuff, unlike the extra 100 spent on the nexus.
|
On September 15 2011 21:48 gkts wrote:
You do realise that Protoss got a big defenders advantage against drops because of the warpgates. And they also can indefinitely stop armies from coming up a ramp for nothing but thin air (energy).
It's fine the way it is and picking on it by considering only a partial aspect of the game is nonsense. See the whole picture.
Actually if you look at it from a concept perspective, it is true. But in the implementation of said design, how many can you really warp in to defend your base if you've moved out? Because of the inherent "weakening" of the gateway units, you have a lower chance to fend off the drop play with just the warp in, in actual play.
The OP's point was in considering a partial aspect when it pertains to survivability of the race itself. The Toss gateway units have been weakened and it is a fact because of the warp in design incorporated to it. As such, the whole death ball concept applies whenever the warp in is to be intergrated into that deathball army. But in cases where it is separate, especially to the defend, the weakening causes the overall vulnerability. It may allow you to have warping units onto the defense zone, but warping in is not immediate and you are not really defending but simply either delaying/blocking or just absorbing the damage throughout the warp in stage.
This is considering the whole picture I believe. We are not saying we make the toss units stronger overall but we as toss users are considering an adjustment to the design aspect to allow for a balanced game where toss doesnt have an overwhelming attackers advantage just because we need to raise our defender's advantage.
I think how we are proposing this to be done clearly shows that we are considering balance issues if ever there is a redesign, albeit not radical like removing warpgate altogether from the game.
The shield battery concept is also a valid arguement in that bunkers can be repaired, spine/spores can be healed by the queen and only toss has no "repair/heal" option in battle unlike the other two races. This might help but again we haven't a way to test it out yet so we are theorizing and giving ideas how the said addition won't be abused in the game to cause the race to be IMBA.
|
On September 15 2011 22:40 fighter2_40 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. tl;dr. Nexus sucks. it costs 400 Orbitals are free. Hatches cost 300. the queen is a bonus since it does stuff, unlike the extra 100 spent on the nexus.
That's not entirely true. First of all, you forget the cost of the drone in making a hatchery, bringing the total cost to 350. One could argue that the 50 mins required to build the next, or replacement, drone - assuming the first one was mining - equals the cost of the two structures on its own. The queen's 'effectiveness' is another 150 on top of that, or 500.
Also, Nexii may suck but the Chronoboost ability easily accounts for the 50 mineral difference between hatch and Nexus by itself. Protoss don't have to spend 150 mins, or even 50 mins, for the Nexus to immediately start collecting energy. I know Chronoboost is sparsely used, if not misused, especially in the mid to late game. However, Protoss do not have it roughest when it comes to expanding.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 15 2011 22:53 Xivsa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 22:40 fighter2_40 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. tl;dr. Nexus sucks. it costs 400 Orbitals are free. Hatches cost 300. the queen is a bonus since it does stuff, unlike the extra 100 spent on the nexus. That's not entirely true. First of all, you forget the cost of the drone in making a hatchery, bringing the total cost to 350. One could argue that the 50 mins required to build the next, or replacement, drone - assuming the first one was mining - equals the cost of the two structures on its own. The queen's 'effectiveness' is another 150 on top of that, or 500. Also, Nexii may suck but the Chronoboost ability easily accounts for the 50 mineral difference between hatch and Nexus by itself. Protoss don't have to spend 150 mins, or even 50 mins, for the Nexus to immediately start collecting energy. I know Chronoboost is sparsely used, if not misused, especially in the mid to late game. However, Protoss do not have it roughest when it comes to expanding.
Zerg's economy builds faster, and he typically has more workers available than protoss past the very early game. Thus, he has more resources overall available to him than protoss, thus can more easily afford to spend 400+ minerals on an expansion. It's easier for zerg to expand because zerg has more money.
This is a dumb argument anyway.
|
with shield battery and warp ins i think protoss early pushes and contains would be nigh unbeatable, or at least a lot harder to break, its like a 2 rax rush with medivacs and the rax are at ur ramp
|
On September 15 2011 23:07 alisru wrote:
with shield battery and warp ins i think protoss early pushes and contains would be nigh unbeatable, or at least a lot harder to break, its like a 2 rax rush with medivacs and the rax are at ur ramp
Yes, it is possible, so from a design perspective, what limitation can be imposed on the shield battery.
(1) its cost is to be considered, (2) placement in relation to the base and forward pylon or attack group. (3) Shield battery is immovable surely like BW and therefore the investment losses other than the attack units are the pylon and now quite possibly the shield battery (undefined cost yet). (4) viability in the initial push is all about timing and warp in time for the battery could be substantial, thus you have to wait for it to finish warping in (whose cost affected your overall army count as you invested on the structure), also, the shield battery won't be filled with energy when it arrives also like in BW, the question would be how much energy does it warp in with and what is the max energy it can store/keep.
A scenario would be what if shield battery has max 150 energy but warps in with only 50 energy. If battle engages immediately after the battery warps in, the healing potential is not as substantial and the intended push might even end up becoming, defend the forward shield battery (if he did warp it in).
Figures could adjust in this scenario.
Also, the discussion shouldn't be which race expands better/efficiently as this wasn't the OPs intention. That depends on the timing of the expansion, the quicker you get your FE, the quicker you recoup your resource investment for the long term. Any race will have the immediate risk of the FE falling because of being too greedy.
|
I submit that stalkers are weak because of blink rather than warpgates.
|
On September 15 2011 22:12 branflakes14 wrote:
Why was Protoss even given the Warp Gate mechanic? Were Blizzard so desperate to make changes from Brood War to appear original that they implemented it without thinking of the long term consequences or do they actually have some master plan?
I assume the idea was that they wanted every race to macro differently, and in SC1 toss did it exactly like terran. It's a good idea in theory, it just didn't turn out terribly well.
I have to think some of the current design flaws are a result of Blizz deviating from the original design for fear of imbalance. Originally, immortals were gateway units and were our go-to ranged ground unit, with stalkers being for AA and harass, and sentries being robo units. They realized this was too strong with warp gates, and swapped the immortal and sentry. The problem with this is that it pretty much leaves us with the weakest ranged ground unit in the game, forcing us to rely more on power units.
|
On September 15 2011 19:45 kinglemon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 18:29 17Sphynx17 wrote:On September 15 2011 17:54 kinglemon wrote:On September 15 2011 15:54 Bleak wrote:On September 15 2011 15:46 Carmine wrote:I can tell you put a lot of work into your post, but I think your reasoning is not sound. The warp mechanic, by its very nature, crosses "short rally" off of the defender's advantage list for Protoss. An attacking Protoss army and a defending Protoss army will be reinforced just as quickly. You made it sound like this is a weakness for Protoss. Even if Protoss did not have Warp gate mechanics they would reinforce at about the same rate in a defending battle. It only strengthens them offensively. The other player still has a longer rally distance when attacking the Protoss player. This is the point you glossed over when you used your PvP example, using that to validate your points and then dismissing it as automatically balanced. I don't think the game was balanced in the nature that you think it was. I also think it is bad practice to look at a localized imbalance (differences in race mechanics) and claim a net imbalance. The presence of an imbalance must be determined by a lot of games being played, and I don't think there is sufficient evidence to support your claim. Is anyone actually reading? He is saying that because of the warpgate, it is possible to traverse distances instantly and reinforce at your opponent's doorstep. Because of THIS, they have to make gateway units weaker. And he is saying, that this ruined Protoss. but gateway units aren't weak. they are the best units compared to t and z's early units (without updates). sure stim can change a lot, but blink can also change a lot. and to kill a toss with early agressive builds he needs to either be really greedy or just lack in scouting. same can be said for terran and zerg, if they dont scout or be to greedy, they will die to a good timing attack. the important thing is: protoss units are the best and most resistant units out of the 3 races, and they have shields which regenerate very fast. p does not need defensive structures (that much) because the units are aleready pretty strong and defensive in their own way. z and t need defensive structures because their units are so weak in the early game. . Well you have to consider two things when making your analogy. One you mentioned stim comparing to blink, but blink is not a readily accessible at the tech level you are comparing them. well it's only one building, and therefore u have a nice tech tree open up for u once u go for blink. you can go dt, ht, archons or chargelot afterwards. it's not like u would go in an one-way-street, like for example cloak banshee is most of the time. Show nested quote +On September 15 2011 18:27 Brotocol wrote:
They are absolutely weak inherently. Warp-in offense compensates for this, in an offensive context.
A stalker costs more than a marauder and loses to it. A stalker costs 125-50 and does slightly less dps than a 50min marine. A zealot costs twice as much as marines, and does less dps than 2 marines, while spending most of its time trying to get in melee range.
Stalkers, at range 6, can't even kite marines properly because they have (1) a slow attack animation and (2) a missile, which has transit time. Watch any pro using stalkers against marines, the stalkers always get hit when they take a shot.
This is not a whine; I think it's fine for Protoss units to have reduced stats so long as it balances warp-in. But P also needs a better option for non-offensive situations. lol, u completely ignore the biggest benefit, their health and shield 1. of course they dont do much damage, but they are tough, and stalkers can shoot air, and they are faster than t units.
- P shields are not a benefit in combat. I addressed that already. In fact, shields ignore armor upgrades the P units might have. They only regen when outside of combat for a while.
- The health advantage is not proportional to the dps/cost advantage T units have. P units lose for cost, that is the outcome.
Instant reinforcement makes Gate units viable on offense. But in any other situation, they're a bit underpowered because of this.
Shield battery would help immensely.
Although, at the same time, I can't help but feel it's a band-aid fix. There's a fundamental design problem, with FF and Warpgates. It kind of turns P balance into a crapshoot.
I could be wrong of course, but this is how I see it (agreeing with the OP's premise).
|
just throwing this out there, because it may just be retarded in the end...
But what if there was added incentive to keep gateways as gateways? Why is it that warpgates are a must in all situations for gateway tech? What if there were some change in the way the two work which allowed gateways to be more preferable for building armies within your base/defensive position and then have warpgates be used for mostly offensive reinforcement/sneaky infiltration.
I wouldn't know how to deal or approach this, but I have one idea, which could have possibilites or variations. But what if they removed the warpgate upgrade and just made the Cyber Core as the requirement to morph the building, so no research would be required to warp in units. Instead of the warpgate research, they swap it out for improved chronoboost on Gateways. Which would allow you get get faster warp ins on the short distance or maybe cut the energy cost of chronoboosting a Gateway, but nothing drastic, just intended to equalize the reinforce distance.
Or, what if they added a variable into the Warpgate cooldown. The further you warp a unit in from the Warpgate, the longer the cooldown.
Could this (or something like it) allow for more variability in protoss macro in the perspective of short v. long distance reinforcements?
Terrans can reactor swap to micro their macro, so would it be helpful or further protoss game mechanics to allow them the same thing.
|
United States7483 Posts
On September 16 2011 02:56 getter1 wrote:
just throwing this out there, because it may just be retarded in the end...
But what if there was added incentive to keep gateways as gateways? Why is it that warpgates are a must in all situations for gateway tech? What if there were some change in the way the two work which allowed gateways to be more preferable for building armies within your base/defensive position and then have warpgates be used for mostly offensive reinforcement/sneaky infiltration.
I wouldn't know how to deal or approach this, but I have one idea, which could have possibilites or variations. But what if they removed the warpgate upgrade and just made the Cyber Core as the requirement to morph the building, so no research would be required to warp in units. Instead of the warpgate research, they swap it out for improved chronoboost on Gateways. Which would allow you get get faster warp ins on the short distance, but nothing drastic, just intended to equalize the reinforce distance.
Or, what if they added a variable into the Warpgate cooldown. The further you warp a unit in from the Warpgate, the longer the cooldown.
Could this (or something like it) allow for more variability in protoss macro in the perspective of short v. long distance reinforcements?
Terrans can reactor swap to micro their macro, so would it be helpful or further protoss game mechanics to allow them the same thing.
Blizzard has said, officially, that they want warp gates to be required for all protoss players every game and they don't want people staying with regular gateways. That is their design vision.
So that's what's stopping them from implementing it: they don't want to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
