EPTYou might also read the other Thread where problems with the warpgate mechanic are explained in detail and wether you agree with that or not, you could at least explain your opinions instead of just being hostile to the op.
Design, Balance and Warpgates - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Shorty90
Germany154 Posts
You might also read the other Thread where problems with the warpgate mechanic are explained in detail and wether you agree with that or not, you could at least explain your opinions instead of just being hostile to the op. | ||
|
LookNaph
Canada59 Posts
Since this is about design, I would also like to say that how good of a player you are does not influence the credibility of your opinions. | ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
Example 1: PvT. - Protoss is a-move race. - Terran is difficult to control, but more rewarding if you manage to play properly. So we have Dilemma: - If you make terran stronger, PvT is ok on casual level but Terran-favored on pro level. - If you make protoss stronger, PvT is ok on pro level but Protoss-favored on casual level. Game doesn't work with casuals and pro-scene at the same time. Example 2: Early game favors terran, late game favors Zerg and Protoss. Game is asymmetrical. It forces terran to cheese or allin. Example 3: Blizzard designs units according to rock-paper-scissors principle, then puts a unit which literally counters 90% of units in the game (marines). Thats just bad. And these are only obvious flaws. | ||
|
Eps
Canada240 Posts
Once Warpgate is researched, there is no benefit to having Gateways at all. If Gateways offered some sort of advantage, then they wouldn't just be seen as the prerequisite of Warpgates anymore. On September 09 2011 12:54 bokeevboke wrote: Its quite simple to justify why SC2’s design is bad. Example 1: PvT. - Protoss is a-move race. - Terran is difficult to control, but more rewarding if you manage to play properly. So we have Dilemma: - If you make terran stronger, PvT is ok on casual level but Terran-favored on pro level. - If you make protoss stronger, PvT is ok on pro level but Protoss-favored on casual level. Game doesn't work with casuals and pro-scene at the same time. Example 2: Early game favors terran, late game favors Zerg and Protoss. Game is asymmetrical. It forces terran to cheese or allin. Example 3: Blizzard designs units according to rock-paper-scissors principle, then puts a unit which literally counters 90% of units in the game (marines). Thats just bad. And these are only obvious flaws. We really don't need balance discussion in here. We're talking about the Design of Gateways/Warpgates. | ||
|
ImmortalTofu
United States1254 Posts
On September 09 2011 12:09 Knee_of_Justice wrote: Yes, that is a good point, about being behind in terms of understanding their race. We have to assume that any radical changes (which I personally think are rather unlikely) would not be thrown into the game without careful testing, first in Blizzard's design meetings, then in a type of Beta or PTR, finally culminating in release. There will be a moderate version of this problem anyways, with the expansions, as you said, but I am inclined to favor long term development over short term tournament successes. Obviously, an ideal situation would be no balance changes, only metagame shifts. Gateway unit strength is a very important thing to consider when making any changes. Very generally, I think that some protoss lategame strength should be redistributed towards gateway units. If you want my (uninformed, non-terran) opinion of terran, i think that some MM power should be redistributed to make mech more viable. Protoss has the tools for success, I think, but it needs to be carefully redesigned and rebalanced, Ex: vikings are good against colossi, warp prism/HT and Carriers. The thing with your last point is, I dont think that Blizzard is making any effort towards using individual balance changes to gradually implement a grander vision, shifting balance and design slowly rather than monumentally. They are just fixing things that are a perceived problem now. Think of renovating a house: you dont just rip up the foundations and start from scratch, you carefully do the roof and exterior, then move inside and take out the (non-weight bearing) walls etc etc. It is a gradual process and the structural integrity of the whole is at no point in danger. But changes are being made. The residents will experience discomfort, not only during the building phase, but afterwards too. However, in the long run, the result is worth it. Blizzard is just fixing the roof when it leaks, which leads to a patchwork of fixes instead of the unified changes that we should want. You have good points. My response is a very general: "long term over short term" and "gradual over abrupt, where possible." Hope you find that useful. Thank you for that explanation of your point. It is a very good explanation, but I still would like to ask one thing. What do you think a change like this would do to Esports, and would THAT be worth it? Because esports is the main reason I've played SC as long as I have. | ||
|
lambchops
United States63 Posts
Edit// I guess I'm just wondering if anyone actually read that thread which talked about the design of the warpgate compared to the production facilities of the Terran/Zerg. It actually makes perfect sense design wise. I'd just like to emphasis, because of the offensive warp-ins, that is the reason why Protoss gateway units are so much more flimsy in comparison to others. (That is, when facing units of equal value with proper micro.) | ||
|
indigoawareness
Slovakia273 Posts
| ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
For the OP: (I know there's no TL;DR) What do you believe is flawed about the warpgate design? | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On September 09 2011 10:47 xlava wrote: I don't know why these threads keep flaring up, but let me tell you something as a Master Protoss. Removing warpgate from the race would break us completely. You should say goodbye to any of our timings, because our ONLY and I repeat: ONLY offensive abilities early game come from forcefields, and our TIMELY reinforcements. Making any more changes to the offensive capabilities of Protoss warpins would break not only PvP and the entire dynamic of the matchup, but also neuter us offensively versus all the races. There is a reason why Terrans don't really reinforce when doing something like a 2 medivac timing, because if they could reinforce instantly, their cost effectiveness would spiral COMPLETELY out of control. Theres a reason Zerg don't get warpins, because the race uses the larvae mechanic and creep spread for almost instantaneous reinforcement anyway. If Protoss was to be nerfed in this fashion it would render 3 gate pressure and 4 gate rushes nonviable. As well as timings such as the 5 gate pressure off 2 bases versus Zerg as well as the 6gate. Any kind of early game pressure would be impossible. Essentially what I'm getting at is that ANY change to the offensive capabilities of Protoss would mean a completely disastrous metagame shift, we would be come the turtle race, because we were forced to, and we simply do not have the units and structures to do so. The fact that the gateway is useless after warpgate is researched isn't a design flaw. Its the way our race works. You can't compare apples and oranges, every race is different, and I am absolutely STUNNED that posts like this are surfacing (and flourishing) in a time when Protoss is doing terribly. All in all, nerfing warpgate and thereby Protoss is not the answer. There is nothing wrong with the mechanic, as it is a staple of the mechanics of our race. I would love to hear more specific criticism as to why it is actually overpowered (like what rush, for example). In my opinion, it is the only thing that makes Protoss even close to balanced. Also a quick note: I say "remove" in the first part of this post. Let me clarify that. ANY change. I say again. ANY nerf to the warpgate mechanic will render the fragile Protoss early game units and timings impossible to use and execute, respectively. Warpgate doesn't have to be removed to destroy our race, it just has to be nerfed to destroy our race. The problem isn't just that Warp-in is too powerful. The problem is that Warp-in is so powerful that basically every other aspect of the Protoss game had to suffer significantly for it to be balanced, and it's left the race in a pretty pitiful state. | ||
|
Morphling_
87 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:12 Zorkmid wrote: So I've read the entire OP and I don't see any part of it that described WHY he/she believes that the warpgate is flawed. The OP asserts that it is flawed and proposes, then argues against, solutions to the problem that I don't see articulated. For the OP: (I know there's no TL;DR) What do you believe is flawed about the warpgate design? I thought that at first too, but if you read the article linked at the top, you can assume the OP follows the same conclusion that the first author does. | ||
|
Render
United States249 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:12 Zorkmid wrote: So I've read the entire OP and I don't see any part of it that described WHY he/she believes that the warpgate is flawed. The OP asserts that it is flawed and proposes, then argues against, solutions to the problem that I don't see articulated. For the OP: (I know there's no TL;DR) What do you believe is flawed about the warpgate design? This was what I saw as his in-depth discussion of why the warp gate was poorly designed: 2) Warpgates vs Gateways This is such an obvious mechanic I was shocked when they didn’t include it. There ought to be some kind of interaction between these two structures. Whether that be delaying warpgate tech to make gateways more valuable early game, or allowing for some strategies/reasons for shifting between them, the gateway is a totally useless building after warpgate research, which is terrible design. ... and then talks about his ideas piece by piece. Seemed pretty clear to me. As has already been pointed out, I think a lot of people are missing the point of his thread. If the thought running through your head right now is "OMG I'M UNDER ATTACK HE WANTS TO STEAL MY WINS", then you have not read enough of the OP or thread. To OP: This is a recreation of of the conversation I had when I first learned about Warp Gate tech in beta: Friend: "Ya so, like, you can warp in units anywhere there is pylon power" Me: "Oh sick! Like anywhere?" Friend: "Ya, you can build pylons across the map and warp in straight there." Me: "Holy crap that's awesome. So like, units take longer to warp in than build from gateways, right?" Friend: "No" Me: "Oh, well they cost more to warp-in, though, right?" Friend: "No" Me: "Uhhh..." I chose protoss. I completely agree with you about the confusion on this. It seems so ripe for interesting game play. I can imagine a protoss who leaves a bunch of his gateways to macro up an army at home, while microing around the map with just a few warp gates to reinforce for harassment. The game would feel so much more dynamic, IMO. The best part is it just creates a new set of decisions without taking any choices away. A few posts ago someone mentioned the decreased build time for gateway units, and talked about how it failed in PTR because of too safe expansions behind solid pressure. I'm curious how this tension could be ultimately balanced after the design change. What do you think? I know the adjusting of cool down/build time was just one of your ideas, but I think it's the one that seemed the most intuitive and interesting to me, which is why I'm asking specifically about that one. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
Well to defend blizzard, I would say that they never intended for map to be big as they are now compared to blistering sands and steps of war. So honestly, it was never made to be as powerful as it is on small map as well as big maps. | ||
|
HypertonicHydroponic
437 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:12 Zorkmid wrote: So I've read the entire OP and I don't see any part of it that described WHY he/she believes that the warpgate is flawed. The OP asserts that it is flawed and proposes, then argues against, solutions to the problem that I don't see articulated. For the OP: (I know there's no TL;DR) What do you believe is flawed about the warpgate design? This. I do not recall seeing a definition of what the OP thinks is actually flawed about the warp gate design -- I just skimmed it again to make sure -- please point me to this if it is there. What I do remember seeing is a list of likes and dislikes for fixes to the problem. That is fine, and I find it useful in itself as a discussion point especially since it is a list after all and makes it easy to point to all of the different opinions on how to fix the warp gate design in the other thread. But it only hints at what the OP thinks might be wrong with the design -- I'm not sure he knows what he thinks IS actually wrong with it. The thread accredited as the starting point for this thread outlines some symptoms of the problem of the warp gate design. I think that a definition of the problem of the design could be stated something like the following: "the problem with the warp gate design is that allows for overwhelming offensive capability too early in the game." Then the symptoms of units being weakened, the warp gate upgrade being lengthened, the lack of defenders advantage in an attempt to balance, etc. can all hint at how to fix the design problem, but the core problem itself needs to be identified first. In my response to the thread accredited in the OP ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=11296125 ), I talk about how the warp gate mechanic is not flawed in design per se, but rather a dumbed down, bastardization of the recall mechanic in Broodwar. Recall, however, was a tippy top tier ability (and still is in the form of mass recall from the mothership). With this in mind Blizzard has already designed weaknesses into the dumbed down version: requiring the power field, having the money to spend, having enough supply, waiting for cooldown, limited to number of warpgates, requiring an upgrade... did I get them all? It may be in all of this that the ability is still too powerful despite the best efforts to balance it with other parts of the game and other parts of the game around it. That I cannot say. What I can say is that I do not think warp tech needs to be removed from the game as some sort of imbalanced mechanic. The mechanic is there in the game's history all the way back to pre-broodwar. It does however need to be balanced somehow and to have its place be justified as a tier 1.5 ability in such a way that does not make it overpowered, yet makes it the trademark Protoss mechanic it is. And so, I think your "design" argument at this point really boils down to balance, particularly, how do we make sure that its power scales properly as the game goes on. If this is true ( http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=11296230 ), then it really doesn't matter what we think about whether warp gate "should" be in the game. It is, Blizzard wants it there, AND there is still the historical precedent. So simply trying to say this isn't a balance issue is silly and you are fooling yourself. Balance IS the issue. The *design* of the balance is the issue. The mechanic was not design, it was recycled from a game changing ability to a staple macro mechanic. Fine. What are you going to do about it to not be a game changer/closer? This is balance at this point. Sure you are "designing" the balance, but the mechanic of instant transport is already there. Anyway, onto the OP's lists. 1) I too dislike the warp time as a function of distance. It is too complicated and not "Protoss" enough. 2) I dislike most of the extra limitations involving changes to pylons, or lack of unit shields on warp in, etc. The only one I do like, but not in a way that anyone has mentioned to my knowledge, involves tying the ability to warp prisms. But I think if this were to happen (and if Blizzard were to have their way about it remaining a core mechanic) then warp prisms would need to become more like overlords, and that too wouldn't feel very "Protoss". (or warp prisms would just have to become weird like my idea for them, but I think you might say it is not "elegant"). 3) I do very much like the idea of a Shield Battery, either in its historical form, my revised suggested form, or some other similar form (like some cross between my idea and the original like having just a ton of shields like 500 and then just taking the shield damage of units in range. Hey! another idea!). This is *NOT* inelegant. This *IS* a simple solution that does not involve changing a ton of other things. And it is *NOT* a "new" building, it is simply recovering a building. Also, what calculation headaches could there possibly be? You plant it, it regens shields. Chrono? When does chrono effect energy? The original shield battery used energy to recharge shields. Chrono affects building shield regeneration, sure, but not energy. No headache. 4) Even with a Shield Battery I think there is room to tweak the timing/cost of the tech. Though I think that with something like a Shield Battery, having to do so becomes less of an issue, and might even allow the tech to go back to being an earlier upgrade (just the way Blizz wants). 5) I also think that it is silly to allow the gateway to simply be something that is upgraded permenantly, or at least something that has no advantage vanilla. While I don't want to make Protoss to Terran-y by making them have to mix and match and morph all over the place, I don't want to make them to Zerg-y either by having them only upgrade to something different (and "better"). I think there is room to make warp-in 5-10 seconds slower than gateway (and also to make P gateway units a bit stronger once again). One morphable building (that probably still won't be used in it's original form once upgraded) seems about right to remain Protoss-y. While I don't think Shield Battery is necessarily the only fix, I think it is the key fix. (I am not angry, but the more I think about this the more I'm convinced the answer is not in the warp gate mechanic itself but in the lack of the shield battery which actually makes a ton more sense in SC2 than it did in BW.) | ||
Falling
Canada11369 Posts
On September 09 2011 13:15 Stratos_speAr wrote: The problem isn't just that Warp-in is too powerful. The problem is that Warp-in is so powerful that basically every other aspect of the Protoss game had to suffer significantly for it to be balanced, and it's left the race in a pretty pitiful state. This is what I find attractive about any sort of proposed changes to the warpgate. If you can no longer warp-in early game, then that helps Blizzard's balance problems with really early warp-in shenanigans. However, without warp-in, it gives justification to bump up the power of protoss gateway units, which in turn would allow scaling back some late game units like the Collossus (or maybe even early game sentry.) Furthermore, I've always liked the concept of fast production gateways vs strategic warp-in reinforcements. It certainly could lead to a whole new aspect of play. (Commentators: "and Huk's changing all his gateways to warpgates! (as 15-20 gateways switch to warpgate.) He's going for the attack! Huk Waaarpiiing!) Edit Of course, the biggest issue I can see with these sorts of changes is how bad it'll mess up current Protoss strategies. As such, it would probably be better to change it for HoTS where everyone is going to have to relearn a bunch of things. Second Edit. I also disagree with the notion that getting rid of Warp Gate (or delaying it) makes Protoss too similar to Terran. BW Protoss was significantly different without wg. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
| ||
|
obidan
Romania48 Posts
| ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
-Warp Gate upgrade cost bumped up slightly to 75/75, and maintains the same research time. -Warp Gate upgrade retains all current features, AND decreases Gateway unit build time by ~25% at Gateways (but not Warp Gates). -Morphing a Gateway into Warp Gate: still 10 seconds -Morphing a Warp Gate into Gateway: change to 5 seconds In a sense, it would be like putting a permanent Chrono Boost on your Gateways (but not Warp Gates). In situations when you are playing defensively, the Gateway would clearly be your best choice and allow you to have a more significant defender's advantage. Since the Gateway build times still default at their normal times prior to the upgrade, it prevents super-early Gateway pushes from being overpowered (ex. 2 Gate Zealots vs Z), but allows for better and more efficient production post-upgrade, at the cost of not being able to warp in at a given location. This improved Gateway production time, coupled with Chrono Boosts, not only makes for a better defender's advantage but could potentially unlock some cool new timings for massing up on Gateways, morphing to Warp Gate and attacking to get the best of both worlds. Granted, Protoss is my off race so my understanding of all the timings that you can be hit with in the early-mid game is not that great. | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
The OP linked a former discussion which talks about the variable of gateway unit viability, as related to WG design. The OP completely ignores this point, and only talks about toning down WG design. Honestly, this does sound to me like a stealth whine thread. I read it and I'm still unclear on what the purpose of the discussion is. The OP seems to only mention a series of nerfs, disregarding the intent of the source material which he linked. The key variable - gateway unit balance - is not included in the OP's reasoning, and yet all the points are about WG being toned down. I don't understand how he can fail to address that variable. The OP seems like a discussion of the various flavors of WarpGate nerfs. It just conveniently bypasses the entire meat of the discussion of how to fix WarpGates while keeping Protoss viable. The argumentation in this thread is platitudinous. It sounds deep, but it's ignoring the elephant in the room. | ||
|
NewteN
United States179 Posts
1) Are you certain Protoss gateway units are 'weaker' than their off-race counterparts because of WG tech? I don't remember I time when a nerf to gateway units was introduced because of of Protoss being too strong early, though I may be wrong. I DO remember a gateway/buildtime nerf. 2) The fact that WG allegedly make P harder to balance doesn't inherently mean the design is poor. Easy doesn't mean it's better. The design, frankly, adds significant depth to gameplay and is quite good. 3) I still see no direct link to P being underpowered do to WG existing (the inference being that gateway units are designed weaker b/c they can be warped). It's a pretty god damn sweeping generalization to say otherwise unless you start supplying builds that are impossible to stop and the direct reason is weak gateway units. 4) Kind of baffled that anybody thinks Blizzard was lazy/sloppy over balance. You know you're talking about Blizz right? Also, f this thread I have no idea why i'm even bothering. Why the hell did you post this without any kind of new information than the other thread. | ||
|
TheLink
Australia2725 Posts
Terran and Protoss both produce units from buildings, Zerg hatch units from a universal larva at the hatchery. The game is balanced around "cool shit, and then make the cool shit work" rather than "lets take out all the cool shit and make Age of Empires instead." SC2 design team: Browder: Hey I know, lets give all 3 races different macro rather than terran and protoss being the same like in BW! Kim: Yeah! sweet idea! terran are humans and train in the barracks, and protoss are the super aliens, lets give them some different form of macro. Browder: How about the ability to warp in anywhere? keeps up with their theme that they aren't "in" the base pre se, they're being teleported in. Kim: Sounds cool, but its stupidly broken. Browder: Ok, so how about if we only let them warp in next to a pylon like the buildings do. That both makes sense and it means you can't warp in right on top of your opponent. Kim: But what if they cheese with like their initial probe and build a pylon before the enemy can build a barracks or spawning pool? Browder: Hmmm, dunno, we might have to make it a research then so that you can't get it TOO early, put it in like the cyber core or something. Kim: That sucks though because now people will whine about how gateways are strictly worse than warp gates when we didn't want them to exist at all, it was just a necessary evil to delay warp gates. Some form of the above conversation almost certainly happened early in SC2 design. I don't think its poor design at all. If we could all stop whining about gateways and shield batteries now that would be nice. | ||
| ||
