EPT---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Poll:
WG should be changed to improve gameplay
Specific change suggestions from the discussion in the thread:
1) Delaying access to WG tech to the Mid or Late Game
2) Energy units (High Templar, Sentry) can only be built via Gateway mode
3) Units warp in without shields or energy, but spawn from Gateway mode with shields and energy
4) WG upgrade also speeds up Gateway production times
5) Longer WG cooldown when warping to pylons instead of Prism/Nexus
6) Improve Tier 2 unit strength and cost/functionality instead (Robo/SG)
General Poll: In the context of how the Mothership Core and its abilities interact with the Warp Gate functionality, Protoss basic unit strength and army mobility (esp when defending bases).
Poll: WG should be changed to improve gameplay
I agree (63)
81%
Disagree (10)
13%
Partially Agree (4)
5%
Partially Disagree (1)
1%
Neutral (0)
0%
78 total votes
Disagree (10)
Partially Agree (4)
Partially Disagree (1)
Neutral (0)
78 total votes
Your vote: WG should be changed to improve gameplay
(Vote): I agree
(Vote): Partially Agree
(Vote): Neutral
(Vote): Partially Disagree
(Vote): Disagree
WG specific suggestion polls from the discussion to gauge what direction could be a good place to start testing from:
Poll: Delaying access to WG tech to the Mid or Late Game
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (25)
42%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (17)
29%
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (14)
24%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (2)
3%
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
2%
59 total votes
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (17)
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (14)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (2)
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
59 total votes
Your vote: Delaying access to WG tech to the Mid or Late Game
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Energy units (High Templar, Sentry) can only be built via Gateway mode
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (31)
56%
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (10)
18%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (7)
13%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (6)
11%
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
2%
55 total votes
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (10)
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (7)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (6)
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
55 total votes
Your vote: Energy units (High Templar, Sentry) can only be built via Gateway mode
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Only Gateway units start w shield & energy
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (35)
70%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (8)
16%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4)
8%
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (2)
4%
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
2%
50 total votes
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (8)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4)
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (2)
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
50 total votes
Your vote: Only Gateway units start w shield & energy
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: WG upgrade also speeds up Gateway production times
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (15)
33%
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (12)
26%
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (12)
26%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (4)
9%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3)
7%
46 total votes
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (12)
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (12)
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (4)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3)
46 total votes
Your vote: WG upgrade also speeds up Gateway production times
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Longer WG cooldown when warping to pylons instead of Prism/Nexus
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (22)
48%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (13)
28%
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (6)
13%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4)
9%
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
2%
46 total votes
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (13)
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (6)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4)
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1)
46 total votes
Your vote: Longer WG cooldown when warping to pylons instead of Prism/Nexus
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Improve Tier 2 unit strength and cost/functionality instead (Robo/SG)
Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (35)
81%
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (3)
7%
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3)
7%
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (1)
2%
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (1)
2%
43 total votes
Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (3)
Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3)
I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (1)
Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (1)
43 total votes
Your vote: Improve Tier 2 unit strength and cost/functionality instead (Robo/SG)
(Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
As always around the time of an expansion, the dynamics of the Gateway/Warpgate relationship and since HotS also the role of the MsC are being discussed. I will get to the point right away.
The way I see it the following discussions take place all the time and the following problems are revealed:
1) There is no conscious choice to be made between the Gateway and Warpgate. The answer is always: Warpgate is better. Whether it be the frontloaded extra production cycle upon transforming, the build times or the potential of warping in units everywhere as long as a pylon is present. Gateway cannot compete.
2) The strategic choice and risk concerning warp ins is very limiting. It eliminates having to think about army movement and positioning as much in favor of just warping in units at the right place, at the right time provided a pylon can be placed or a warp prism moved to the spot. By this I mean mostly travel time of reinforcements and their vulnerabilities, and leaving forces behind to defend: the strategic thought has less variables to it. One of the biggest complaints is the ability to do a sort of remax directly on top of the battlefield location. This takes away from defenders advantage (reinforcement travel time difference) and eliminates options like intercepting reinforcements strategically or having a more balanced battle flow.
3) The problem of Protoss: defending bases and mobility. The Mothership Core was created to solve this problem by allowing Protoss units to be recalled to a base, next to having a Photon Overcharge option to increase the defenders advantage. Not the most elegant solution, as we can now see that everything Protoss is being designed around the functionality of the MsC as is happening in the LotV Beta. The most recent proposed change: 50 energy Recall.
Goal to achieve with the proposed changes:
To make Warpgate a more impactful, strategical choice that has an effect on your play throughout the game and to reduce the dependance on the Mothership Core. It has to be linked more closely with the economy of Protoss, and subsequent balancing of production versus tech versus defensive and offensive warp capabilities. In short, to make it more of an interaction with consequences and strategic depth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An improved iteration of my suggestion after a first wave of discussion and feedback can be found when clicking the spoiler below:
+ Show Spoiler +
After many arguments as to why offensive warp-ins should still be part of the game, even crucial to the identity of the game, I made the following suggestion on my own idea:
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
Now for the solution I have been thinking about. It is a combination of ideas inspired by multiple discussions and the recent idea that Liquid`Snute proposed with Mini Recalls on the Nexus. The following synergy of ideas came up..
Changing the Warpgate:
*Transforming a Gateway to a Warpgate now costs 150 minerals and 150 gas (Placeholder numbers for now).
*The Warpgate still has a normal production cycle and spawns units on location just like the Gateway.
*The Warpgate gains an ability: Recall
Recall has a cooldown of 240 seconds and affects a slightly smaller area than the current MsC Recall ability. You can only recall units to the proximity of a Nexus. (I decided not to give energy to the Warpgate nor make Recall cost energy)
This additional part was added in after some feedback and discussion in the thread.
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
How does this idea tackle the problems listed above?
Adding a heavy cost to Warpgate makes it a very conscious and weighted choice that cannot be made lightly. The cost prevents it from being spammed in the early game. It is impossible to have 4-5 recalls without heavy repercussions on your production and tech development. The later the game goes the more the incentive grows to invest into a couple of Warpgates to be able to defend better. It makes it a strategic choice: Do I want that upgrade earlier, or do I want to be able to recall twice to defend this multipronged harassment better or to prevent a base race?
This change also eliminates the option to warp in offensively and to bolster the frontline mid battle in order to gain momentum. In short it brings back the defenders advantage and removes the almost non-strategic "choice" of warping in offensively. Protoss units are produced and spawned at the production facility at all times just like other races. They still get to teleport around, especially in the later stages of the game in order to compensate for mobility, but it will only be defensive.
Obviously the role of the MsC would be heavily impacted by this change, much to the point that it becomes the question if it should even remain in the game. And if so, in what fashion? No more Recall but still a nerfed version of Photon Overcharge while keeping Time Warp? A complete removal of the so called "bandaid fix unit"? That is something that should be discussed heavily.
Are there further problems or tweaks that need to be made based on this change?
One of the current problems is the relative strength of gateway units compared to lower tier units of the different races, especially during later stages of the game. The speed change to the Zealot as suggested by Blizzard, combined with the suggestion of the 60 shield Zealot in a post here on the Team Liquid forums would be a start in increasing the viability of such units (Gateway units) later in the game. It would justify the cost of Warp Gates more. Of course the Adept needs to be balanced out as well but I am quite confident in its development stages going the right way.
Another problem may be the late game stacking of Warp Gates (being able to afford 10 Warp Gates in the late game). While it would give the Protoss an incredible defensive mobility, it would also cost a lot of resources which in itself should be a weakness to army strength or tech or late game unit production structures. There is an argument to be made for exploiting windows in which Protoss chooses to invest into this over other things. In the most severe case the cost can either be balanced to make it near impossible to reach a ridiculous amount of Warp Gates without being so far ahead that you should win by default. Otherwise an artificial cap could be looked into, maybe 4 Warpgate maximum I don't know.
Concluding words
I do not want to add in every thought I have regarding this suggestion, otherwise the post will become too long and my point will get lost among the sea of words. I would love to have a good, open discussion and am eagerly awaiting feedback on this synergy of ideas.
