|
On May 13 2015 03:04 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:57 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:52 404AlphaSquad wrote:On May 13 2015 02:46 DinoMight wrote:
I'd be okay with the CURRENT Warpgate time and then ALSO faster regular gateway speed... who doesn't want a free buff? But the reality is that most people in this thread proposing changes simply don't like Warpgate as a concept and want to see it used less. I think that will reduce the diversity of play styles that we've seen.
But seeing Gatways from time to time , without changing how the warpgate works, wouldnt that allow for more instead less? Thats more diverse than: Warpgate superior in every way and no other style possible. Not really, because it only rewards one style... the style where you produce your stuff at home and stay there. Regular gateways are never going to promote aggressive styles because even if the cooldown is way shorter, the units still need to walk across the map and that will always take longer. Warpgate on the other hand gives you the flexibility to put the unit anywhere. That doesnt make any sense: Warpgates are not changed. You add another strong protoss unit to the gateway. (for example) How this removes diversity is beyond me because all you do is add another option for protoss.
Because there are several styles of Protoss and none of them benefit from this:
1) The style that sits at home with observers and a Stalker at the watch tower making minimal units until it needs to while teching and expanding... doesn't benefit from queueing Gateway units faster. The front loaded production cycle of Warpgate is beneficial here.
2) The style that wants to be aggressive isn't going to produce a unit 5 seconds faster.. only to then take 30-40 seconds to walk across the map and attack. You're going to Warp in units where you need them. For 3-4 production cycles, thats 15-20 seconds which is still less than it takes to walk across the enormous maps we have nowadays.
3) The style that waits for the other race to move out and then backstabs them while expanding and teching... needs units at a particular time in a particular place. Unless you want to pre-make units and then mass shuttle them over, you need a Warp Prism and WG research.
There's only 1 situation where faster Gateway times are useful.... The style where you sit at home turtling and massing a giant army to attack. And I'm pretty sure this is the style that everyone hates the most.
That and proxy gates, but I personally don't think proxy gates need a buff.
|
sc2 is not your lovely BW, face it and forget how to touch warpgates, instead of this u'd focud on economic model
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D
I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve.
Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything.
|
I'm a bit confused by this post, and considering that I understood the DH post perfectly, that's a bad sign for your idea. Blizzard is very loath to implement any ideas they consider confusing. There really doesn't need to be anything more than simple, universal buffs to Gateway units and setting the Warpgate cooldown to something like 1.5x or 2x that of the Gateway build times.
|
On May 13 2015 02:46 DinoMight wrote:
Guys
I think the warpgate design is fine, and I think it's fine that Protoss early game units are a bit weaker. The race in general plays differently.
For anyone who's played Magic the Gathering, Protoss is like playing Blue (and we all know everyone hates Blue players). It just plays differently. Because Blue doesn't just make a 5/5 Bear and walk over and attack you. Blue counters your spells, steals your creatures, and does other obnoxious things that can make someone who wants to just fight straight up really mad.
I think it's fine to have weak gateway units offset by the ability to warp them in anywhere. It can lend itself to many styles (we we've seen.. everything from Rain to Parting to sOs). You can either play really defensively to high tech powerful units or you can play really aggressively to try and end the game quickly or set your opponent back enough to buy time.
I'd be okay with the CURRENT Warpgate time and then ALSO faster regular gateway speed... who doesn't want a free buff? But the reality is that most people in this thread proposing changes simply don't like Warpgate as a concept and want to see it used less. I think that will reduce the diversity of play styles that we've seen.
Personally I really enjoy watching creative Protoss players come up with new ways to use the technology. Let's allow for that? The same way that Terrans can pick up and float to a Gold base or swap addons etc.
100% agree, the warpgate hate is too strong now.
I think it is fine. If they want to buff gateway units and are afraid of new 2 base all ins, they could just move it to twilight tech with long research time to delay it.
Actually, I think the best way to buff gateway units, Is moving one of the gateway units upgrade (charge, blink or + shield... probably charge) to the cybernetics core or making them cheaper/faster to research. Zerg and Terran gets their T1 upgrates too early compared to protoss.
|
On May 13 2015 04:21 rpgalon wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:46 DinoMight wrote:
Guys
I think the warpgate design is fine, and I think it's fine that Protoss early game units are a bit weaker. The race in general plays differently.
For anyone who's played Magic the Gathering, Protoss is like playing Blue (and we all know everyone hates Blue players). It just plays differently. Because Blue doesn't just make a 5/5 Bear and walk over and attack you. Blue counters your spells, steals your creatures, and does other obnoxious things that can make someone who wants to just fight straight up really mad.
I think it's fine to have weak gateway units offset by the ability to warp them in anywhere. It can lend itself to many styles (we we've seen.. everything from Rain to Parting to sOs). You can either play really defensively to high tech powerful units or you can play really aggressively to try and end the game quickly or set your opponent back enough to buy time.
I'd be okay with the CURRENT Warpgate time and then ALSO faster regular gateway speed... who doesn't want a free buff? But the reality is that most people in this thread proposing changes simply don't like Warpgate as a concept and want to see it used less. I think that will reduce the diversity of play styles that we've seen.
Personally I really enjoy watching creative Protoss players come up with new ways to use the technology. Let's allow for that? The same way that Terrans can pick up and float to a Gold base or swap addons etc.
Actually, I think the best way to buff gateway units, Is moving one of the gateway units upgrade (charge, blink or + shield... probably charge) to the cybernetics core or making them cheaper/faster to research. Zerg and Terran gets their T1 upgrates too early compared to protoss.
Remember singularity charge? You could bring back an altered version of that to bump up Stalkers' vs everything damage, and maybe their range by .5 or 1.
|
On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything.
A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively.
But we know that already.
Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way.
Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to.
If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out.
I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that.
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 13 2015 04:45 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything. A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively. But we know that already. Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way. Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to. If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out. I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that.
I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'm saying that a mix of both warp gates and gateways is probably the most effective route to go at this point (race redesign would be better if we could away with it though), so maybe there are a slight bit of changes necessary to balance things out, but nothing needs a significant buff or nerf to make up for the fact that you can't just sit on all warp gates all game. This does not diminish Protoss's ability to move out (any more than it is already diminished), but prevents them from self-sustaining with energy unit warpins.
Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system.
|
I honestly can't believe people are still complaining about Warp Gate. Is this 2010?
|
On May 13 2015 04:56 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:45 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything. A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively. But we know that already. Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way. Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to. If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out. I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'm saying that a mix of both warp gates and gateways is probably the most effective route to go at this point (race redesign would be better if we could away with it though), so maybe there are a slight bit of changes necessary to balance things out, but nothing needs a significant buff or nerf to make up for the fact that you can't just sit on all warp gates all game. This does not diminish Protoss's ability to move out (any more than it is already diminished), but prevents them from self-sustaining with energy unit warpins. Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system.
My question is simple. "Why."
What do you hope to accomplish with this change? Why is the game better if you can only build Sentries/HTs from Gateways?
I think resoundingly the answer is just "oh, we don't like Protoss all-ins." To which I would say that I don't think it's possible to design a game where there is no cheese or allins. These will always be part of the game.
|
On May 13 2015 05:05 wongfeihung wrote:
I honestly can't believe people are still complaining about Warp Gate. Is this 2010?
People will stop complaining when it stops being bad design. Blizzard will have to listen to us at some point, right? RIGHT?!
|
On May 13 2015 05:05 wongfeihung wrote:
I honestly can't believe people are still complaining about Warp Gate. Is this 2010?
It is a good sign imo. People also wont stop complaining about it. Do you think people will suddenly think its good design when they complain enough?
|
United States4883 Posts
On May 13 2015 05:05 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:56 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 04:45 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything. A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively. But we know that already. Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way. Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to. If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out. I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'm saying that a mix of both warp gates and gateways is probably the most effective route to go at this point (race redesign would be better if we could away with it though), so maybe there are a slight bit of changes necessary to balance things out, but nothing needs a significant buff or nerf to make up for the fact that you can't just sit on all warp gates all game. This does not diminish Protoss's ability to move out (any more than it is already diminished), but prevents them from self-sustaining with energy unit warpins. Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system. My question is simple. "Why." What do you hope to accomplish with this change? Why is the game better if you can only build Sentries/HTs from Gateways? I think resoundingly the answer is just "oh, we don't like Protoss all-ins." To which I would say that I don't think it's possible to design a game where there is no cheese or allins. These will always be part of the game.
???
You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity
Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system.
I'm not against all-ins or using warp gates. The "warpgate problem" is basically that the gateway has no use versus the warpgate; in short, they are redundant structures in which one is just clearly superior in every way for the nominal cost of an extra 10 seconds. Like I said previously, changing it to a system where certain units can't be warped in differentiates the two buildings somewhat and creates a more dynamic playing field. In some ways it curbs all-in power to some extent, but does not really eliminate them in any way.
Again, I think you're confusing a "design fix" with a "balance fix". The goal here is not to get rid of things that people find unfair or too brutal but to create a more interesting design to the game.
|
On May 13 2015 05:28 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 05:05 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:56 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 04:45 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything. A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively. But we know that already. Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way. Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to. If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out. I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'm saying that a mix of both warp gates and gateways is probably the most effective route to go at this point (race redesign would be better if we could away with it though), so maybe there are a slight bit of changes necessary to balance things out, but nothing needs a significant buff or nerf to make up for the fact that you can't just sit on all warp gates all game. This does not diminish Protoss's ability to move out (any more than it is already diminished), but prevents them from self-sustaining with energy unit warpins. Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system. My question is simple. "Why." What do you hope to accomplish with this change? Why is the game better if you can only build Sentries/HTs from Gateways? I think resoundingly the answer is just "oh, we don't like Protoss all-ins." To which I would say that I don't think it's possible to design a game where there is no cheese or allins. These will always be part of the game. ??? Show nested quote +You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity Show nested quote +Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system. I'm not against all-ins or using warp gates. The "warpgate problem" is basically that the gateway has no use versus the warpgate; in short, they are redundant structures in which one is just clearly superior in every way for the nominal cost of an extra 10 seconds. Like I said previously, changing it to a system where certain units can't be warped in differentiates the two buildings somewhat and creates a more dynamic playing field. In some ways it curbs all-in power to some extent, but does not really eliminate them in any way. Again, I think you're confusing a "design fix" with a "balance fix". The goal here is not to get rid of things that people find unfair or too brutal but to create a more interesting design to the game.
To which I responded that the Orbital command is simply superior in every way to the naked command center. And that the Marauder with concussive shells is superior in every way to the one without.
There is no warpgate "problem." Warpgate is just another upgrade.
If the warpgate upgrade simply transformed irreversibly all your gateways into Warpgates and you could then ONLY build warpgates, would that fix your "problem?"
You're trying to force "choice and variety" into something that's fine as is with a solution that actually limits what kind of units you can warp in a certain area.
|
On May 13 2015 05:05 wongfeihung wrote:
I honestly can't believe people are still complaining about Warp Gate. Is this 2010?
Might as well be. Warp gates are still shit game design.
|
On May 13 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 05:28 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 05:05 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:56 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 04:45 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 04:06 SC2John wrote:On May 13 2015 02:50 DinoMight wrote:On May 13 2015 02:37 SC2John wrote:
I just read a post that I think is unbelievably brilliant in another thread. This idea has probably already been mentioned before, but I think the cleanest way to fix the gateway/warpgate problem is to just prevent certain types of units from being able to be warp in. In other words, only zealots, stalkers, adepts, and dark templar could be warped in, and sentries and high templar (lorewise, we'll assume they just have "too much psionic energy to be warped in") cannot. Everything could obviously still be built from gateways.
A few numbers could be balanced, but overall, that seems like the cleanest fix rather than trying to rework exactly how fast things build or doing awkward nexus leash ranges, etc. But like... why? What's the problem with warping in High Templar or Sentries? Moreover, you'dhave to keep switching from Gateways to Warpgates to make certain units which realistically would result in just more Gateways/Warpgates required overall out of convenience (also there is a change time). So all this is still a nerf. What is the buff you want to give? Do we get Amulet back ? :D I think you're mistaking "balance fix" for "design fix". By forcing specific buildings to be gateways in order to produce or set up a certain build, Protoss is kind of forced between having all warpgates and leaving a small handful open to produce important tech units. You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity -- AKA, the "warpgate problem" we're trying to solve. Whatever happens after that in terms of nerfs/buffs/number swaps, etc., is perfectly fine, and we would get to that once the initial idea could be tested to be worth anything. A Protoss with lots of Gateways/Warpgates early is trying to kill you. You should play defensively. But we know that already. Again, a lot of people are saying "there should be a choice" and I point to things like concussive shells, orbital commands, etc. which are one time upgrades with no drawbacks meant to balance the game because those abilities are broken if they come too early. Warpgate is the same way. Then a lot of people are saying get rid of it completely based on the fact that.... they don't like to scout for allins? Or because the race plays differently than Terran or Zerg. That's the point. It's supposed to. If you got rid of Warpgate, fo argument's sake, you'd need to have stronger gateway units to compensate. And weaker AoE capabilities. Your army would be based around relatively cheap, easily massable units and you'd sit at home, build and army, then move out. I think this dramatically reduces the strategic depth of Protoss. We already have 2 races that play like that. I'm not sure what you're advocating here. I'm saying that a mix of both warp gates and gateways is probably the most effective route to go at this point (race redesign would be better if we could away with it though), so maybe there are a slight bit of changes necessary to balance things out, but nothing needs a significant buff or nerf to make up for the fact that you can't just sit on all warp gates all game. This does not diminish Protoss's ability to move out (any more than it is already diminished), but prevents them from self-sustaining with energy unit warpins. Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system. My question is simple. "Why." What do you hope to accomplish with this change? Why is the game better if you can only build Sentries/HTs from Gateways? I think resoundingly the answer is just "oh, we don't like Protoss all-ins." To which I would say that I don't think it's possible to design a game where there is no cheese or allins. These will always be part of the game. ??? You also make Protoss builds easier to scout (not just by gateway numbers, but how they are configured, similar to Terran add-ons). This makes the warpgate and gateway feel like they have different purposes, and creates instances where one would be better than the other in some capacity Obviously, that doesn't "solve" every all-in, but it adds a significant layer of depth without attempting to completely rehaul the system. I'm not against all-ins or using warp gates. The "warpgate problem" is basically that the gateway has no use versus the warpgate; in short, they are redundant structures in which one is just clearly superior in every way for the nominal cost of an extra 10 seconds. Like I said previously, changing it to a system where certain units can't be warped in differentiates the two buildings somewhat and creates a more dynamic playing field. In some ways it curbs all-in power to some extent, but does not really eliminate them in any way. Again, I think you're confusing a "design fix" with a "balance fix". The goal here is not to get rid of things that people find unfair or too brutal but to create a more interesting design to the game. To which I responded that the Orbital command is simply superior in every way to the naked command center.
That's not at all a fair comparison, because the nude CC can also be upgraded into something different that is more defensively oriented. It still gives players multiple viable options, it's just that neither of them are the default. And even then, there is niche use in loading up 5 SCVs in the early game and floating to an island expansion. + Show Spoiler +Then again, the default capacity should probably be bumped up to 10 or 12 for LotV, but that's a different argument...
|
United States4883 Posts
|
My proposed solution:
Warpgate research turns all gateways into warpgates, only allows you to build warpgates going further. Gateways are no longer a thing after warpgate research.
The end.
The fact that you can transform them back or that you need to make them Warpgates once you build them shouldn't all of a sudden be grounds for inserting "choice" or limiting allins etc. Let's just have it be an upgrade like every other upgrade in the game: concussive shells, combat shield, blink, charge, etc.
|
On May 13 2015 03:50 cSc.Dav1oN wrote:
sc2 is not your lovely BW, face it and forget how to touch warpgates, instead of this u'd focud on economic model
The Warpgate issue has nothing to do with SC2 not being BW.
The fact that protoss gateway units are garbage on their own and reduced to simple support of big guns units is the problem. Actually it should be the other way around. Just like medivacs or thors complement bio for terran.
|
Like I said previously, changing it to a system where certain units can't be warped in differentiates the two buildings somewhat and creates a more dynamic playing field. In some ways it curbs all-in power to some extent, but does not really eliminate them in any way.
The problem with the "certain units can't be warped in" is the following:
(a) If you balance protoss around it only having strong units through gateways, protoss can only get a strong core army through gateways. Thus, the race becomes balanced around either switching backing and fourth between Gateways and Warpgates or having some Gateways and some Warpgates which adds an extra hotkey requirement to the game.
(b) There is a reason MOBA's got so popular, and it's just not only because of the F2P-concept, but also as they allow players to focus on the player vs player interactions rather than devoting too much time to base management.
As an example, how many terran players actually enjoy switching addons in the game? Isn't that signifciantly less fun than microing bio units? For the RTS genre to survive in the future, the focus should be on making the game simpler with better micro interactions. Forcing players to devote even more ressources into base management is a step backwards for the genre.
Instead, one should view the Warpgate as an upgrade. E.g. noone wants Marines without Combat Shield. The same concept can be applied to Warpgate here, and having extra options is only a good thing if they are fun.
A simpler solution to the "lack of core army"-problem
1. Reduce Robo cost and increase Robo Bay cost (so tier 3 cost is unchanged) --> You can build multiple Robotics in the midgame. This gives you the same type of production as from a Gateway.
2. Increase mobility, responsivenss and range of Immortal and balance it accordingly without any abilities.
With these changes, the Adept will be a strong anti-light unit in the midgame and it will be alot easier to get out more Immortals in the midgame to help vs armored units. Moreover Immortal will be more microable and easier to move around the map, and protoss will feel simpler to play and less gimmicky as a result.
Warpgate research turns all gateways into warpgates, only allows you to build warpgates going further. Gateways are no longer a thing after warpgate research.
I like this. All new gateways started after warpgate has been done should simply be produced as Warpgates instead so you should not be forced to manually transform all Gateways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
