EPTThe Warp Mechanic and How It Broke Protoss - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
labbe
Sweden1456 Posts
| ||
|
movac
Canada494 Posts
On September 08 2011 19:07 MCMXVI wrote: Good read, and I agree. Not only is it easier for terran to macro than for protoss and zerg (warp in and larva injects instead of queue queue queue), but to your question; how should they make offensive warp-ins weaker? Units spawn with less shields or armor or something? if you're bad at warp in, then that's your own problem, but if you're warp ins are bad to the point that you're missing a full 10 seconds, you might as well just not make them warpgates and just queue from gateways yourself. | ||
|
Xaoz
Germany146 Posts
| ||
|
Kogan
Germany84 Posts
| ||
|
Rob28
Canada705 Posts
Shield battery is a good idea, it satisfies the much needed "healer" role for protoss. If other races want to cry about that, tough break... It's not even mobile, stop being such babies. How would terran like it if medivacs were just drop ships? They wouldn't. How would zerg like it if they didn't auto heal? They wouldn't. Toss only half auto-heal, lose half health to EMPs, and require two upgrades for their armor rather than just the one. I've always said shields are a liability, not an asset. Batteries would fix that. As for warp-ins, I like the notion of penalizing the further away you warp in, but benefitting the closer you warp in. I propose this: make all gates warpgates by default. If the rally point is set at or next to the gate, then the build is instant, like any other unit producing building (I know you don't need to wait out a build time with warps, but you do need to wait out a cooldown, so instead of having the wait on the front end, you have it on the back end... it's still waiting for units either way). For proxy warps, have the warpgate send out a signal that travels across the map at a certain speed, and then warps the units there. The further it is, the longer the signal takes to reach its destination. I dunno, my suggestion anyways. | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On September 08 2011 19:43 Velr wrote: I think the only thing truly missing is a "choice" between Warpgates and Gateways. Why do Gateways even exist? Except for Blizzard rather having a "Warpgate research" instead of a "Warpgate range research". I was thinking, the advantage to having warpgates is that you can warp in anywhere, so how about the warpgate cooldown being slightly longer than the gateway buildtimes? This way, if you wanted to use them offensively you would have to deal with fewer units over time, but you could get them anywhere you wanted. This would also more or less completely fix all the PvP silliness, since the defender building his units out of gateways would simply have more units than the guy on offense. That would also give you an actual choice, and a mix of the two sorts of buildings would be viable. If you played a defensive kind of play you'd have mostly gateways, where as an aggressive player would have more warpgates. | ||
|
syrupychinadian
112 Posts
| ||
|
Toadvine
Poland2234 Posts
The only one where I haven't done this yet, is where there's no Warpgate Research, and you can change a Gateway into a Warpgate for 50/50 and a 30 second morph time, if you have a Core up. It would still run into the Khaydarin Amulet problem a bit, but it wouldn't be anything insanely broken. | ||
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 Posts
So who ever builds their warpgates closest to a Nexus builds units fastest? Please no. I think they should decrease gateway build times by 5 seconds and increase the warp in length of a unit by 5 seconds. Still builds in the same amount of time but now 5 seconds of that build time goes towards a longer warp in. | ||
|
JAN0L
Poland207 Posts
| ||
|
syrupychinadian
112 Posts
On September 08 2011 23:50 Rob28 wrote: As for warp-ins, I like the notion of penalizing the further away you warp in, but benefitting the closer you warp in. I propose this: make all gates warpgates by default. If the rally point is set at or next to the gate, then the build is instant, like any other unit producing building (I know you don't need to wait out a build time with warps, but you do need to wait out a cooldown, so instead of having the wait on the front end, you have it on the back end... it's still waiting for units either way). For proxy warps, have the warpgate send out a signal that travels across the map at a certain speed, and then warps the units there. The further it is, the longer the signal takes to reach its destination. I dunno, my suggestion anyways. Nice ideas. Another might be to have each pylon have a "warp-in limit." IE, you can only warp in 4zealot/sentry - 3 stalkers or something for each pylon. I dunno what that would do to the game engine, but that would limit the offensive nature of warp ins and allow the basic units of all races to be a little more even -- I'm looking at you marauder and roach | ||
|
Deltablazy
Canada580 Posts
As a defensive Terran from BW, I always liked defenders advantage, and was always pissed at warp in mechanic for nullifying defenders advantage. I always thought that removing warp in and buffing gateway units to be on par with their BW counterparts would make the game more balanced for all races, on a defender's advantage point of vue. And I still do. Sadly, it's too late for such changes because if warp in mechanic were to be changed in a later expansion, it would create a different game. Already that there will be 3 different ladders for sc2, so the sc2 community will be divided. But if the core mechanics of races were to be changed, it would be another WC3 vs FT. | ||
|
SnuggleZhenya
596 Posts
On September 08 2011 23:57 OrchidThief wrote: I was thinking, the advantage to having warpgates is that you can warp in anywhere, so how about the warpgate cooldown being slightly longer than the gateway buildtimes? This way, if you wanted to use them offensively you would have to deal with fewer units over time, but you could get them anywhere you wanted. This would also more or less completely fix all the PvP silliness, since the defender building his units out of gateways would simply have more units than the guy on offense. That would also give you an actual choice, and a mix of the two sorts of buildings would be viable. If you played a defensive kind of play you'd have mostly gateways, where as an aggressive player would have more warpgates. I think Blizzard wants the way the races macro to be distinct. Gateways as gateways are just barracks. Even if they did give you a choice, it seems like they want Protoss to have a macro mechanic that is different. It seems like warp gate research is a timing thing, not a mechanic thing. Its like marauder slow being a research thing now. Its an intended part of the Marauder, but the research simply slows the timing down because it was so powerful in the super early game. I think Warpgate research is a similar timing oriented tech, its why we've seen the research time extended several times during beta and after release, but seen the mechanic stay largely intact. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On September 08 2011 23:57 OrchidThief wrote: I was thinking, the advantage to having warpgates is that you can warp in anywhere, so how about the warpgate cooldown being slightly longer than the gateway buildtimes? This way, if you wanted to use them offensively you would have to deal with fewer units over time, but you could get them anywhere you wanted. This would also more or less completely fix all the PvP silliness, since the defender building his units out of gateways would simply have more units than the guy on offense. That would also give you an actual choice, and a mix of the two sorts of buildings would be viable. If you played a defensive kind of play you'd have mostly gateways, where as an aggressive player would have more warpgates. Many people think this is the right way to go. It's a great idea and is in line with Browder's desire for strategic variety. | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On September 08 2011 22:59 RealQ wrote: Im amazed by how many people in this thread auctually think this is about Protoss Warpins being OP. i see so many nerf protoss comments, that im thinking not many people read the OP or even thought about it. Well, this kind of topics always end up silly. I just wish we didnt get so many of them | ||
|
OrchidThief
Denmark2298 Posts
On September 09 2011 00:06 SnuggleZhenya wrote: I think Blizzard wants the way the races macro to be distinct. Gateways as gateways are just barracks. Even if they did give you a choice, it seems like they want Protoss to have a macro mechanic that is different. It seems like warp gate research is a timing thing, not a mechanic thing. Its like marauder slow being a research thing now. Its an intended part of the Marauder, but the research simply slows the timing down because it was so powerful in the super early game. I think Warpgate research is a similar timing oriented tech, its why we've seen the research time extended several times during beta and after release, but seen the mechanic stay largely intact. I think you're right that they want the warpgate mechanic as a staple, but I largely disagree with that. One of the reasons Khaydarin amulet was nerfed was because HT's could be warped in anywhere to deal with drops. Being able to warpin onto your enemy protoss' ramp has received a lot of attention lately because of PvP, and so on. I really think making warpgates vs gateways a real choice would lead to a more interesting protoss overall, and like I said, I see it fixing a lot of the PvP problems, because the guy on the defense could choose to not get all warpgates and thus have a larger number of units. He'd be able to hold with three gateways vs fourwarpgates, and the game would end up progressing into midgame. There might be issues with the deathball versus other races, but any change in design at this point would inevitably lead to a situation that'd require new tweaks to achieve balance. | ||
|
Brian333
657 Posts
Or maybe add a unit to the stargate / robotics that can fill such a role. Then, the defender would benefit from having that closer rally. | ||
|
hongo
207 Posts
| ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
Just check the stats of the dragoon in BW vs the stalker. (Shut it about the dragoon AI. It's irrelevant at the pro level.) Same cost but the stalker got a huge hit in raw stats because of warp-in and blink. It's a good trade off when making timing pushes but it's a liability when defending and in large scale late game battles. | ||
|
GinDo
3327 Posts
On September 09 2011 00:14 windsupernova wrote: Well, this kind of topics always end up silly. I just wish we didnt get so many of them Warp Ins aren't OP. And the OP at no point said they were. The issue arises that Protoss is balanced around their Warp ability and early game Timing attacks. As a result GW units a weaker in order to make it so that their timing pushes are actually defendable. The OP believes that a buff of GW units and a WG nerf is needed as not only will it allow Timing Attacks to still be viable, but make it so GW units don't get raped by MM and Roaches. This would also be a buff against crap like 4gate, roachLing all in, and Marine Tank all ins. If only GW units are buffed. That would make 4/3 gate timings extremely OP. And for all those zergs complaining that a GW buff would break the late game. Zergs have only started to dig their toes into Hive Tech(Not including BL) and infestor Tech. And as of late are really owning up the Protosses with Infestor Ling. Heck Alot of Zergs neglect NP and the crap wrecks collosi. | ||
| ||
