|
On September 09 2011 15:49 mordanis wrote:
I honestly disagree with the concept that warp-gate is bad design(admittedly the lack of benefits for a gateway is somewhat weak.) I think that part of why SC2 is so interesting is the fact that all 3 races have interesting, non-standard mechanics. I think that, design-wise, giving one race the ability to negate defenders advantage, but also giving that race weak "Tier 1" units, is an amazingly complex and fascinating design concept. I think this is what you are unhappy with, but you don't really explain what the problem is in the section about "The problem of warp-gate mechanic".
It's a problem because negating defender's advantage screws with the basic principles of RTS gameplay, with the basic principles of any strategy game even. You need to be really clever if you want to play around with that, and the SC2 designers clearly weren't clever enough. Brood War wasn't revolutionary, and neither is SC2, they're both fairly conservative games. Except for a few stupid decisions, like Warpgate or Spawn Larvae. If you're going to design a game as a prospective e-sport, you don't put in weird, experimental stuff, and try to balance it by tweaking numbers.
This is something a lot of SC2-only people, with no BW experience, simply do not understand. BW was such a good game because it had extremely conservative core gameplay mechanics. On a very basic level, the races are surprisingly similar, their production costs the same, their core units are equally effective in any given matchup, their economy grows at a similar pace. Everyone can do good drops, everyone has units that force detection, everyone has late-game spellcasters with area damage, everyone has a siege unit, and so forth. That's why the game is so good, because everyone has tons of options which interact with each other in cool ways.
On the other hand, it feels like SC2 designers looked at the races as if they were WoW classes or something. Classes in WoW have pronounced strenghts and weaknesses, and this is fine, because in any important situation you have a lot of them present, so they complement each other. In an RTS, it makes for terrible design. For example:
1. Terran is the harass race. Let's give them Hellions, Reapers, Dropships that heal, Banshees, you name it. Other races don't too much of that, cause they're not harass races.
2. Zerg is the macro race. Let's give them infinite larvae.
3. Protoss is the race with cool tech, and they already warp buildings in from somewhere else. Warpgates!
And so forth. It's cosmetics over substance. I would be shocked if anyone actually thought whether these would make for good gameplay in practice.
|
I will try to address some of the main themes I've been seeing in your comments:
1) What is the point of this thread (a really good question, as it turns out, since I really didnt do a good job of explaining my main thesis)? This is just an OP whine thread in disguise.
2) Just what do I think is wrong with warpgates?
3) How will it affect esports?
4) If we redesign warpgates ("nerf") the game will be broken! Warpgate is too essential to the game to change.The Protoss will be too much like Terran. Too many changes!
Ill address 1) first.
My original point was to pick apart bad suggestions for fixes, to debunk suggestions thrown around on the forums all too frequently and repeated in threads all the time. Then I realized that to do that, I had to explain how I felt about design and balance. Then I wanted to suggest what I thought were good ideas based on those beliefs. Now it is something much larger and more intimidating than I wanted it to be.
My purpose can be summarized as this:
1) To remind people that design influences balance, and that something may be balanced, though not well designed. Balance often takes precedence to design on these forums and its a problem.
2) To give my own conception of design and balance
3) To specifically apply them to warpgates, and what their problems are
4) To discredit bad ideas and suggest what I think are better ideas. More than anything, I want my discussion of design and balance to take paramount importance in the discussion. My specific "fixes" are not meant to be the final word on the subject.
Let me try to address some of the other points by responding to various comments. I will also try to edit the OP for posterity's sake. This thread is reminding me how difficult it is to make a good post online: its like writing an essay, but unfortunately, my essay got too bloated and I guess I rushed it too.
On September 09 2011 15:11 HypertonicHydroponic wrote: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.
What do I specifically dislike about warpgates? Why do I think they are poorly designed?
Well, I agree with many points raised in the thread that I linked at the start:
1) How cheap it is vs how powerful it is
2) How it negates the need for gateways (but theres still an option to switch back)
3) How long it takes due to various nerfs
4) How it gives you two effective production cycles of units for one, allowing very powerful pushes (the article talks about this more)
5) How early it comes (early game is the most volatile part)
As HypertonicHydroponic points out, I dont actually do a good job of explaining why it is poorly designed, not just what the symptoms of this poor design are. I will now attempt to explain myself.
1) Warpgate is too early in the game. By pushing it back, we can diminish some of the powerful early game pushes that happen because there is a lack of support units for the other team. If you give the other player a chance to get, for example, medevacs/vikings, mutas or colossi out, warpgate pushes are suddenly a lot less scary, just by changing the timing. This is what Blizzard has been trying to do by increasing the research time. Ive made this point a lot, but I should reiterate: warpgate hits at a particularly vulnerable part of the game.
2) Eliminates the need for gateways. The problem that particularly stands out to me here is that while some people insist that blizzard designed the game with the expectation that warpgates replace gateways, the troubling fact remains that warpgates are still allowed to switch back. If this is undesired, why is it still there? Blizzard has said that they are fine with some units not being used (akin to the scout in BW), but this is not a useless unit: it is a useless building, which is different because while there may be certain situations in which "useless" units, like the BW queen can be used to good effect, this has no utility whatsoever after warpgate research.
But why is this? Well, it is because warpgates are literally better in every way than gateways.
a) They give you the ability to turn minerals into units immediately
b) They do it faster overall, too (the cooldown + warp in time is still faster than a gateway)
c) They allow you to reinforce anywhere on the map, instantly, as long as there is a pylon there (pylons are cheap and build quickly)
d) There is no cost (besides a brief transformation) for transforming individual gateways into warpgates
Why is this a bad thing? Because it eliminates a fundamental aspect of RTS, which is rush distance/travel time. It was exceptionally bold to include this mechanic for that reason alone, not even taking into account the instantaneous nature of it and the buildtime discount. The fact that one race can instantly get reinforcements on the battlefield really influences the rest of the design of the game.
When you consider too the variety of units that can do this (two are basic warriors, one is a cloaked assassin with huge attack, and another is a frail caster with the ability to deal massive AoE damage or instakill other casters), the problems are compounded. You have to ensure that the base units arent so strong that instant reinforcements will overrun the enemy easily, that the cloaked assassin cannot appear *anywhere* too early or for too little cost, and that warp-in storms are not too powerful (which they probably were, but IMO, KA removal was a rushed decision).
In addition, the upgrade itself is cheap (50m/50g) and only really serves to make it so that it isn't present from the beginning of the game. This upgrade should objectively (as probably the best upgrade in the game) be harder to research. If you had never played this game, and I told you the points above, and then I told you the cost/accessibility of the upgrade, you would likely be skeptical and demand to know the downside.
3) With 2) in mind, we have to consider the effect on the rest of the race. Feel free to disagree here, but gateway armies have a lot of trouble engaging similar armies of Z and T at equal cost. Protoss really does rely on their forcefields and AoE to survive and come out evenly. This is the "deathball effect" and I dont really want to talk about it too much. Protoss tends to be very strong when they can get a good amount of sentries, templar/archons/voidrays and colossi supporting a big zealot/stalker ball. It is the powerful lategame units that allow the protoss to strike fear into the hearts of their adversaries, not the gateway units.
The commonly suggested Gateway/Warpgate split allows racial variety in that protoss will still have the ability to make strong pushes, but their overall production will be slowed down if they do so, whereas an all-gateway player will have faster unit producing structures, but will have to walk across the map. There is a lot of potential with this idea: warpgates dont necessarily have to be "second class citizens" to gateways; it would be better for them to be equally good, but for different situations, so that the player has a real and difficult choice to make. That is at the heart of a good macro mechanic, IMO.
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.
Lets look at a simple example: rock, paper, scissors is balanced: each faction has an equal chance to win. But there is little (if any) skill. It isn't that fun or interesting to watch either. We want to maximize these two things, and part of that process is ensuring that the person with more skill, practice and the better strategy comes out on top. We also want to maintain the balance. The opportunity for many viable strategies is important: just because there are a few viable strategies doesn't mean it's well designed. There should be a relationship between the various strategies that any race can do, such that one strategy/build may be inappropriate in "x" circumstance, but very powerful against the opponents "y" build. As I said, something can be balanced, but not well designed (ex: immortal). RPS is actually fairly well "designed," but it doesnt have the same responsibilities as an esport, so it isnt the best example.
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.)
Shield battery actually makes the most sense of all the "bad" ideas, IMO. What I was referring to with chronoboost was if you made it an ability on the nexus (thereby sharing energy with chrono). Im not inherently opposed to shield batteries (ie, in the expansions), it just seems like a temporary fix that overlooks the greater flaws of the warpgate mechanic.
On September 09 2011 16:15 Brotocol wrote:
The reason people think this is a sealth "WG OP" whine is that the suggestions given are all WG nerfs, and there is no mention of any compensation.
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.
As I said, compensation is assumed. I don't want to redesign the race myself (I am not blizzard, they wont listen to me anyways), hence why I did not get into that. I am not suggesting breaking the Protoss race (why bother even thinking Im saying that?)
We have to know what to fix first before we suggest changes. My suggestions are very general and not at all meant to be comprehensive or final in any way. I am suggesting ways of thinking about the problem, ones that I find useful and instructive instead of rashly thought out. As it turns out, I think this mechanic needs a major overhaul, which is why it looks like I'm tearing the walls down, but sometimes, it is best to start over from scratch, keeping as many positive aspects as you can (warpgate has several).
Its not really possible to know for sure how to redesign stuff after you make one change because it would require redesign/rebalancing on many many other things, perhaps of the entire game. It probably sounds more dramatic than it is: they are releasing two expansions, so there is an opportunity for radical change if that is what they want. I think it is easier to say what is a generally bad idea, and then try to come up with better ideas.
On September 09 2011 17:37 susySquark wrote:
I think Warpgate is too deeply ingrained in SC2 to ever be taken out or significantly changed. It's not necessarily a bad design choice - its just that the full set of consequences have not been accounted for. I wrote my article in the hopes of addressing the problems it creates so those can be balanced instead.
I don't have a firm opinion on whether or not warp is good for the game, since I haven't seen what happens with the alternative (a defensive option).
Yes, I think that is a superb point. They are too ingrained in the game to be redesigned without major overhauls. I think they did have quite a few unforeseen consequences, or at least unforeseen since beta warpgate pushes. I think your general ideas are good, and probably the safest for Blizzard and esports: ideas like the shield battery (if it is tested and works). Again though, this is merely a band-aid solution, for without a true redesign, the problems that warpgates have now will always be present, possibly muted by balance patches, but possibly not. I think they have a few chances to get to the root of the problem and fix it, but if they dont take these opportunities, the weaknesses of the warpgate mechanic may cause problems later down the road.
|
On September 09 2011 11:23 Knee_of_Justice wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:14 Zarahtra wrote:On September 09 2011 11:07 xlava wrote:On September 09 2011 11:03 Navillus wrote:
The most annoying thing about these threads is how spur-of-the-moment they are, I remember when there were like 4 threads saying that FORCE FIELD was OP because Idra lost to 1 person because a bunch of roaches were out of position and trapped with force fields, really people if Blizzard listened every time someone was sure that an aspect of the game was totally broken then we probably wouldn't even have the same races from one week to the next. Oh my god a voice of reason... Cruncher versus Idra TSL 3. Yeah I know that game. Everyone cried OP because Cruncher had some sick forcefields. Are we going to cry op when Demuslim crushes a Protoss @ MLG with a nasty stim timing and nerf stim again? Are we going to cry op when NesTea comes up with a devastating new ZvT build? Of course not, because this game is balanced. All crying op does is bring needless attention to something that should have never seen the light of day. I'm afraid I'm going to get banned for all my ranting, but understand how serious this is that Protoss Warpgate is not nerfed OR changed. Its why most of us play Protoss, and its balanced. No change is necessary. You are just being shortsighted. The point is not about if it's balanced, but if it offers good game play. Balance is totally irrelevant to that, since Blizzard is actively seeking balance(and map makers too). The question shouldn't be "Will toss be to weak if we change WG mechanic" but rather "Is there a reason to change WG mechanic, is it going to make the game better?"(and if so, is it going to make it better enough to warrant the change in the first place). Right, balance is not the issue here. Balance is a mindset that has infected this forum, taking the discussion away from design, which is equally as important. It is what made Broodwar so successful: each unit fit into a larger puzzle, so effectively that with few balance patches, it was relatively "balanced." It has its flaws, to be sure, but it also allowed the game to remain decently balanced, even through accidental "tricks" like muta stacking. Of course there are other factors, like maps. SC2 has a difficult job of emulating the predecessor while also striking out on its own. I think theyve done quite well but not perfectly. As Zarahtra says, design and balance combine to influence gameplay: we want to maintain balance, but change design so that it improves gameplay. People act like the way the game is *now* is the only way the game can or should be and that Blizzard is some omnipotent god who created SC2 from the swirling mists of chaos. They are a company composed of individuals who are just as flawed as everybody on these forums, including me. They created the game, they can fix it. This thread will be quickly lost, but the game will not be, especially if they take care to improve the game where it stands to be improved.
I, too, see this kind of attitude/belief. blizzard can do no wrong. IT messed up the game and needs more money for its expansion to fix what it failed to do in the first place? Well suuuure, here you go bliz, no need to actually produce quality the first time around, just make it flashy and we'll buy it. market it as the successor to brood war and we'll buy it, hype it like crazy and we'll buy it.
this is why Thomas Jefferson and other people warned against monetary giants.
|
On September 10 2011 09:13 Truedot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 11:23 Knee_of_Justice wrote:On September 09 2011 11:14 Zarahtra wrote:On September 09 2011 11:07 xlava wrote:On September 09 2011 11:03 Navillus wrote:
The most annoying thing about these threads is how spur-of-the-moment they are, I remember when there were like 4 threads saying that FORCE FIELD was OP because Idra lost to 1 person because a bunch of roaches were out of position and trapped with force fields, really people if Blizzard listened every time someone was sure that an aspect of the game was totally broken then we probably wouldn't even have the same races from one week to the next. Oh my god a voice of reason... Cruncher versus Idra TSL 3. Yeah I know that game. Everyone cried OP because Cruncher had some sick forcefields. Are we going to cry op when Demuslim crushes a Protoss @ MLG with a nasty stim timing and nerf stim again? Are we going to cry op when NesTea comes up with a devastating new ZvT build? Of course not, because this game is balanced. All crying op does is bring needless attention to something that should have never seen the light of day. I'm afraid I'm going to get banned for all my ranting, but understand how serious this is that Protoss Warpgate is not nerfed OR changed. Its why most of us play Protoss, and its balanced. No change is necessary. You are just being shortsighted. The point is not about if it's balanced, but if it offers good game play. Balance is totally irrelevant to that, since Blizzard is actively seeking balance(and map makers too). The question shouldn't be "Will toss be to weak if we change WG mechanic" but rather "Is there a reason to change WG mechanic, is it going to make the game better?"(and if so, is it going to make it better enough to warrant the change in the first place). Right, balance is not the issue here. Balance is a mindset that has infected this forum, taking the discussion away from design, which is equally as important. It is what made Broodwar so successful: each unit fit into a larger puzzle, so effectively that with few balance patches, it was relatively "balanced." It has its flaws, to be sure, but it also allowed the game to remain decently balanced, even through accidental "tricks" like muta stacking. Of course there are other factors, like maps. SC2 has a difficult job of emulating the predecessor while also striking out on its own. I think theyve done quite well but not perfectly. As Zarahtra says, design and balance combine to influence gameplay: we want to maintain balance, but change design so that it improves gameplay. People act like the way the game is *now* is the only way the game can or should be and that Blizzard is some omnipotent god who created SC2 from the swirling mists of chaos. They are a company composed of individuals who are just as flawed as everybody on these forums, including me. They created the game, they can fix it. This thread will be quickly lost, but the game will not be, especially if they take care to improve the game where it stands to be improved. I, too, see this kind of attitude/belief. blizzard can do no wrong. IT messed up the game and needs more money for its expansion to fix what it failed to do in the first place? Well suuuure, here you go bliz, no need to actually produce quality the first time around, just make it flashy and we'll buy it. market it as the successor to brood war and we'll buy it, hype it like crazy and we'll buy it. this is why Thomas Jefferson and other people warned against monetary giants.
Hey man, that's the optimistic scenario, where they've actually learned something from making SC2 and then patching it for a year. I'll gladly pay for an expansion that makes the game significantly better.
The alternative is that they've learned nothing, the expansion adds more unbalanced crap, and we spend the first 6 months of HotS watching Zerg win everything, and the new stuff they got slowly getting patched out and nerfed.
|
On September 10 2011 06:38 Knee_of_Justice wrote:Show nested quote +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. Lets look at a simple example: rock, paper, scissors is balanced: each faction has an equal chance to win. But there is little (if any) skill. It isn't that fun or interesting to watch either. We want to maximize these two things, and part of that process is ensuring that the person with more skill, practice and the better strategy comes out on top. We also want to maintain the balance. The opportunity for many viable strategies is important: just because there are a few viable strategies doesn't mean it's well designed. There should be a relationship between the various strategies that any race can do, such that one strategy/build may be inappropriate in "x" circumstance, but very powerful against the opponents "y" build. As I said, something can be balanced, but not well designed (ex: immortal). RPS is actually fairly well "designed," but it doesnt have the same responsibilities as an esport, so it isnt the best example.
I feel like there is an important point here that you wanted me to get, but I'm stuggling to see how what you said responds to the quoted section. I'm going to give it my best shot though. I think you want me to see that the design of warp gate is flawed. You want me to see that by saying that in its current *form* it causes problems (like causing less strategy, etc.). What I was saying is that the "design" as you rightly want to separate from "balance" (to a degree, since at a certain point it becomes semantics), is not flawed. The "design" is simply: we want units to go from here to there instantly. Call it recall, call it warp gate tech, call it mass recall, call it drop pods, the design of the ability is not flawed. It is just an ability. And it has appeared in other games besides SC2, whether or not they were implemented well. What you are talking about being flawed, is really the implentation or the "balance" based around a certain goal. What I was saying, and maybe I didn't say clearly enough, is that you still "design" that balance part, and this is where you start to get semantics confusing the issue. All of the parts that I think have been rightly pointed out as symptoms of the problem with the "warp gate" implementation of the "here to there quick" ability can be dealt with in such a way as to preserve the goal of having a more accessible, less powerful version of BW's Recall. The implementation may look different after tweaking it to be balanced and clear up the issues generated, but that does not make the design of the "here to there quick" ability in its essence a flawed design. Are you saying that you do not think the "here to there quick" ability is at all possible to make more accessible and less powerful than a game changing(/ending) ability like in BW? I don't think you are. I think you are saying that the _insert semantic word here_ of the current implementation is flawed, to which I agree. Now the question is, what do we do to fix it.
I like the idea of having warpgate/gateway serve different tactical purposes, and I am all for having warpgate have some cost associated with it besides research time and cost like a greater cooldown, but I think that warpgate tech should still be better and *almost* always used over gateway with some perhaps important exceptions. The reason I say this, and do not see this as the most important point to fuss over when considering the flaws of the implementation is the fact that there really are no other upgrades in the game that you would want to revert back from. Once you have an orbital, would you not want to use it? Once you have Hive, would you just want a Lair? Once you have storm, would you not want to use it? I agree that it does not make much sense to have gateways be able to flip back and forth if there is no advantage in doing both at different times for different reasons (and maybe this is simply what needs to be changed, removing the gateway after warpgate tech), but neither does it make much sense to me to say that you would want to research a tech not to use it as much as possible.
On September 10 2011 06:38 Knee_of_Justice wrote:Show nested quote +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.) Shield battery actually makes the most sense of all the "bad" ideas, IMO. What I was referring to with chronoboost was if you made it an ability on the nexus (thereby sharing energy with chrono). Im not inherently opposed to shield batteries (ie, in the expansions), it just seems like a temporary fix that overlooks the greater flaws of the warpgate mechanic.
I do not like the shield battery at the nexus idea. I think if they want to SC2ize the shield battery and not port it directly, they should do something else with it.
I do not think that the shield battery is the fix for warp gates, and I never meant it to sound that way. It is hard to be clear about what one means when dealing with a multifaceted issue like this one. While I think we both agree there is a relationship between the trouble with balancing warp gate tech and a certain lack of defender's advantage for the protoss race, saying I think that shield battery is the "key fix" was meant as a fix to the protoss not having a defender's advantage part of the equation -- NOT the key to fix the warp gate implementation.
And yes, I get that warp gates allow two rounds of units in 35 seconds or whatever instead of the one round that T/Z would have similarly gotten, yadda yadda, but I do not think a few extra units are an adequate justification for a lack of a defensive structure like the Shield Battery, which, being a gateway tech building in BW could make a lot of sense SC2 to fill the defender's advantage void. Let's be fair -- while an extra round of units is great and while this is *one* of the elements of the defenders advantage, is that really a substitute for a repaired bunker or a transfused spinecrawler? It's not *just* about the units.
That said, while I'm fairly convinced that that will fix the defender's advantage part of the equation. I'm not sure exactly what is appropriate to fix warp gate tech. I would like to see stronger protoss gateway units (really just stalker to be more like dragoon in terms of firepower vs. armored since to me this is the real glaring change, but blink is also a factor in this balance issue, not just warpgate), and some resolution to the gateway/warpgate issue, but one thing that should be realized is that if you push back the warpgate implementation too much, then it becomes redundant with mass recall. At that point, you might as well just bring the arbiter back, and forget the "nerfed" gateway units only implementation of the "here to there quick" ability. So yeah, I don't necessarily want to see it pushed to robo or some other tech, but I think there needs to be some drawback to the current warp gate implementation. I don't know what that is, but I would agree that most of the solutions real or speculated to date are either silly or somewhat inadequate. I will think more about what the solution should be.
|
On September 10 2011 05:40 Kimaker wrote:
Okay, went back, re-read it a few more times. I don't get it. Are you saying that the very mechanic of warpgate is flawed from a design standpoint? If that's true, is it UP or OP? Or neither? If it's neither, then I don't understand the problem.
This is exactly the problem that the OP talks about - people conflate balance with good design, and assume that if something is balanced, there must be nothing wrong with it. Imagine a scenario where every race had just 1 unit, and each race's unit had the same stats as the other race's units. The game would be boring as hell. It would be poorly designed, even though it were perfectly balanced.
The linked thread in the OP talks about how the warpgate mechanic was a major reason for the prevalence of 4-gate strategies in PvP, with the lack of defenders' advantage tipping the scales in favour of 1-base pressure builds. The OP makes the point that choosing to make warpgates is a complete no-brainer - if you don't research warpgates and convert your gateways as soon as you can, you are simply underperforming.
The argument being made is that changing the dynamic between gateways and warpgates, for example by simply making warpgates train units more slowly than gateways, would allow for far more strategic decisions (do I macro hard and produce units in my base, or do I macro fast, and have units in the field, right now?), which would make the game more interesting.
The same argument can be (and has been) applied to the colossus. Many people have complained at length about the fact that the reaver was replaced by an a-move herpaderp unit, but very few people think the colossus is imbalanced. They're complaining about the feel of the game, which is all down to design.
Any number-tweaking in terms of the power/cost/defence/build times of units and structures can be worked out after implementing the new design until things are properly balanced again. It might take a while to get the number right, but it's not a difficult process.
Actually because of how long it could take, I think HotS would be the perfect time to implement any changes like this. Every race will be undergoing changes at that time, simply due to new units, so if you're going to make players learn a slightly new mechanic, that seems an appropriate time to do it. Implementing warpgate changes during HotS beta would give people a long time to get used to them and to see how they play out.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
"This is how I would change the game" thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
