|
After reading how much of a conflict there is between wanting warpgate and gateway dynamics vs pure warpgate vs no change and everything inbetween, I feel like the solution lies in the production times and cooldowns.
If Warpgate research is completed, perhaps it could do the following:
-Give the ability to transform Gateways into Warpgates and back and warp in like you can since SC2 release
-Increase the cooldown on warping in units from Warpgates by 5 seconds on every unit that can be produced via the Warpgate
-Decrease the production time of units from the Gateway by 5 seconds
-Reduce the Gateway to Warpgate transformation time to 5 seconds, down from 10 seconds
Impact?
*Early game remains untouched: Gate units can be buffed by midgame upgrades to make them more of a staying power
*You can still warp in like before, its only mildly more punishing on unit production per minute than it is now
*You can produce units from the Gateway slightly faster. You spend more resources per minute on less gates with equal production to a larger amount of Warp Gates. You can potentially save 150-300 minerals on production facilities to expand or do other things earlier, more options.
*There is this cool dynamic where you balance between producing more faster to claim and defend expansions slightly easier (economy wise), transform into Warpgates whenever you feel like you want to go offensive, or everything inbetween the extremes. Screwing up this balance can be punishing but executing it well can be more rewarding than it ever was.
Perhaps this can even be combined with the suggestion of making T2 units more accessible or the "certain units can only be made from Gateway" type change.
The only thing that I am still wondering about is the role of the Mothership Core in LotV if gateway units do end up being buffed. That is why the original idea tied Warpgate to Recall functionality as well. Maybe we can put Recall on the Nexus like Liquid`Snute said instead (without the "Mini" functionality), but with a heavy cost (100 energy or something) that makes you choose and balance between chrono and extra defensive mobility.
Original quote from Snute on Recall:
+ Show Spoiler +On May 12 2015 04:56 Liquid`Snute wrote:I had one idea recently for recall. 1. Remove Recall as we know it from the MSC 2. Put a SMALL radius "Mini Recall" as a 25 energy ability on the Nexus. This way, it will strategically compete with Chrono Boost. For extra versatility: 3. allow Protoss to perform mini recall to any pylon power field somehow, not only to nexi. Great defensively, offensively, and limited by Nexus energy. The more nexi, the more opportunities. Obviously recalling a bunch of units offensively is still dangerous if they're stunned/vulnerable  i think this would make for a better strategy game rather than essentially designing the entire race around the mothership core 
Whatever may eventually come out of this for LotV, I feel like the discussion has been really good so far with a lot of productive perspectives and input for future directions. Really loving the TL community.
|
Maybe we can put Recall on the Nexus like Liquid`Snute said instead (without the "Mini" functionality), but with a heavy cost (100 energy or something) that makes you choose and balance between chrono and extra defensive mobility.
Starbow has had this for over 2 years. While that's a clear improvement over Msc-recall, it's still a band-aid fix. A real fix is to make it possible for protoss to move out on the map with a core army and rely on a "skillbased" (read: something that isn't guaranteed/instant) escape mechanic. E.g. what terran does with speedmedivacs vs zerg.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On May 13 2015 18:50 Pino wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Which can be easily solved by using upgrades like Khaydarin Amulet to work only if the unit comes from gateway. We can have plenty buffs to use on units which will be tied to gateway tech, so you actually can make the choice.
For non-energy units you can have shield upgrade. Basically stalkers-zealots gain + 30 shields(e.g.) and if they are made using gateway, they start with full shields, if they are warped in some energy field(because technically gateways warp in units from homeland. In sc2 is warp in and warp in  ) using pylon or warp prism they start with 30 shield less(standard value). Which is useful for defending and this upgrade can be in cyber core, so you delay warpgate AND you can defend more easily until the delayed research is done.
There are plenty ways, but warpgate is IMO fine and it creates the Protoss as unique race. Otherwise it is just Terran with different skins and lasers >< (and more "ballish"(spheric would be the right word I guess) desing )
Edit> Because in the end you use those units as mass not as few key units like templars or colossi. And every protoss prefers to have these units right here right now even if they are weaker, because that's the way we like it
|
On May 13 2015 22:35 deacon.frost wrote:There are plenty ways, but warpgate is IMO fine and it creates the Protoss as unique race. Otherwise it is just Terran with different skins and lasers >< (and more "ballish"(spheric would be the right word I guess) desing ) Edit> Because in the end you use those units as mass not as few key units like templars or colossi. And every protoss prefers to have these units right here right now even if they are weaker, because that's the way we like it
But then you have problems like there are right now in LotV, just because is UNIQUE way its not a good way, if protoss players like their WG so much don't complain you can't take bases, WG creates this shitty deathball colossus dependant play we have right now, and even if some protoss players like things protoss-y the majority of player base does not.
|
WG creates this shitty deathball colossus dependant play we have right now, and even if some protoss players like things protoss-y the majority of player base does not.
Your confusing the design of Robo units (Immortal, Colossus) with the impact of Warptech. Warptech in itself certainly doesn't encourage deathballing. Rather it reduces the defenders advantage which in this context is something completely different.
|
Just throwing an idea out there, why not adjust the warp gate to be an extended drop mechanic? Buff up the tier one units so they can feel like protoss again (big, tough and expensive, as originally imagined) then change how to warp gates work.
1) Warp Gates can no longer produce units.
2) Instead, you can load up gateway units similar to a nydus worm.
3) You can warp them into where ever there's a power radius
I think this will create more unique and interesting play that also encourages more protoss aggression but not the unfair kind(for example the kind where you just warp in sentries and instantly have them forcefield the ramp for as long as you can keep warping in sentries). Warp ins will require planning because you have to turn off some your gateways in order to warp in making it a strategic choice rather than a "warp gates are better always" situation. It encourages more spread out aggression with a max army as well because, if you're 200/200 might as well turn all those gateways into warp gates and attack all over the map with the gateway portion of your army. It becomes a balancing act of how much production I need and how much movement I need.
The best part of this idea is that it invites storm drops back into the game without making it as crazy unfair as before. You could "warp in" templars to mineral lines but they would have to be built back at the home base and wait for the energy giving ample time to scout them.
One restriction that's important to highlight is that it's only gateway units, and you can't recall them back (unless you somehow sneak a warp gate into their base).
|
I think one of the bigger design problems stem from the fact that Protoss may be defined by their warpgates, but then that would mean that they're hamstrung by their stargate and robo facilities for being Terran-esque in production; to me, it seems like a contradiction of production processes that exists only because the warp gate mechanism is currently so strong. We have seen in the campaign that the capacity (i.e. animation, mostly) to warp in robo or stargate units is there, but we don't see it in multiplayer.
|
As usual, some incoherent people deplore the effects of which cause they cherish, clinging to the “critical” innovation whose catastrophic implementation single-handedly stomps their own race for 5 years. Seizing an expensive midgame/lategame mechanic carefully contained in the highest branch of the tech tree, only to enforce it on the standard production at Core level for free—of course it won't trigger any effect on the race itself. Naturally, you can launch devastating proxy attacks for the derisory cost of 50/50 + 100/0 Pylons, and not have a huge backlash effect with the efficiency collapse of certain gate units later on, which then will have to be compensated by all-or-nothing, deathbally units fueling the universally loved hardcounter logic. 50/50 Warpgate at Core tech + 120-160s is fine, 5 years of PvX history in SC2 are testimony to that… It's so fine that initially, Warpgate was to completely supplant Gateways; unfortunately, as it turned out, 60s Warpgate was a tad violent, and even 140s had to be again shifted… which resulted in other problems. This is the annoying thing with time in RTS. It just won't go away.
Other races are merely jealous. PvP never suffered from Warpgate and its by-products. 4g mirrors? Colossi wars? Never heard of that. All-in or deathball? A lack of creativity from Protoss players, who for 5 years refused to craft the fabled Sentry drop into Zealots/Storms raids into 3-pronged Colossi/Carriers pushes.
And yep, if it wasn't so massively broken, Protoss would probably warp robo/Stargate units too. Queueing is so easy and archaic, it's for Terran peasants. Pay-wait-get? It reeks of dust and sweat. Protoss queued in SC1 because the technology had not been found. Fortunately, it has been rediscovered since then, along with the improved Colossus. The “boring” Gateway has been upgraded. Consequences are easily thrown aside. The Dragoon has been split into 3 pieces which still don't work? Better add a fourth to solve the squaring of the circle. Who knows: now that the Dragoon has recovered his fourth limb, perhaps he will stop being lame?
When the fourth limb does not work, no matter. Just increase its stats to nonsensical levels. A basic unit with 230 hit points after upgrade + native invincible mirror image with teleporting potential (lol) for 125/28 when the race—already the beefiest by design—had so far only access to 160 hp + upgraded teleport for 175/32. Since it already has the attack speed and the range of a Roach (the model of the ranged unit with melee stats) + Show Spoiler +On April 11 2015 06:39 TheDwf wrote:
There are a few fundamental flaws with SC2 unit design. Non-exhaustive list:
(1) Excessive bastardization
(2) Excessive inflation
(3) Excessive automation
(4) Excessive asymetric efficiency
Which can be summed up as: (1) too blurry, (2) too big, (3) too easy, (4) too harsh in its specialization. Many SC2 units lack versatility in a needed area, but are over-efficient in another given domain. The accumulation of flaws leads to the worst type of unit ever: the low-skill, over-specialized, over-expensive hardcounter.
“Excessive bastardization” is when the identity of a unit ends up being clouded and weakened with counter-intuitive attributes. Example: light infantry is typically weak regarding hit points, cheap and massable. Adding beefiness to Zerglings would for instance make no sense.
The Adept will solve everything without creating new issues, {production before cooldown allowing fail-safe greed + instant positioning allowing emergency defence + proxy attacks killing the relic known as the defender's advantage} for 50/50 at Core tech is OK, time does not exist in RTS.
All's well that ends well in the SC2 fairy tale.
|
Why give one of protoss's most powerful and interesting abilities away at tier 1? Why not a tier 3 equivalent upgrade? The whole thing smells of uninspired design.
|
Is Warpgate even the issue? If we reintroduced high ground evasion it would lessen the effect of cross-map warp-ins by still giving an advantage to the defender. And if Forcefield was removed, Gateway units would be be buffed to compensate. This I feel is a win-win. Blizz would get to keep their sacred WG and the community would be blessed with a strong, powerful foundation of tier 1/tier 2 units that is, in reverse, supported by higher tech like the other races. Sure, there is no choice in whether to create WGs or Gateways--is this a problem? I think so.
Choice is life and lack of choice is trapped. So, we water people want freedom or happiness by nature and so the argument here I'm making is that for choice and since choice is inevitable, why not embrace it and give to us in abundance?
Something that doesn't make sense to me is the non-conformity of other Protoss production facilities (i.e. Stargate, Robo). Why aren't they also warped-in? This leads me to believe that the actual problem IS in the Warpgate and that the simplest solution is to remove it and just flat buff Gateway units and remove the Sentry or at least the Forcefield and give it some other utility such as an ability that increases shield regeneration, for instance. I feel that the Sentry is there to make Gateway units stronger, but if Gateway units were stronger why would they need the Sentry (for novelty? for diversity? because Forcefields are so fun like being pushed around by someone you can't push back?).
It seems as though the real issues are not with WG. People point to WG because it negates defender's advantage--yea, when the only advantage for a defender is reinforcement distance; up-hill misses would easily remedy this plus add a layer of positional depth in army movements and thus strategies. People point to WG not having choice and this is profound in scope because of how inextricably intertwined choice is in the life of the gamer playing StarCraft. How can one experience love or happiness without choice? You chose to love. You choose to be happy. You choose to play StarCraft, but StarCraft has chosen not to please its lovers and so she suffers with eyes full of blood and money in her hand and ears deaf to the cries of the souls who have chosen. O Blizz, now you must choose! Redeem yourself and bathe in the glory of the Light.
|
Here's a couple novel ideas:
1) Remove warp gate research requirement
2) Remove pylon warp ins- only allow within X range of nexi or warp prism
3) Move warp prism production to gateway (non-warpgate)
4) Different warp in times for nexus warp-ins and WP warp-ins where WP is a bit slower
5) Activating photon over charge prevents probe production for 30(?) seconds to promote units as defense rather than skill activation
|
On May 14 2015 10:08 HewTheTitan wrote:
Why give one of protoss's most powerful and interesting abilities away at tier 1? Why not a tier 3 equivalent upgrade? The whole thing smells of uninspired design.
This. Just move warpgate to Templar Archives, reduce the duration, and buff gateway units to compensate. You can then actually fix the core issues of protoss while keeping warpgate in the game.
What's more, warping in gateway units around the map is more strategically diverse because you had to tech towards it rather than it being on the way to every tech protoss has.
Protoss warping in around the map would be something cool because it only happens once the game has gotten to a few bases, which is when warping in could be interesting for multiple harass. Warpgate would move (at least a little) away from an all-in tech and towards a harassment tool.
The only issue here is that it synergizes poorly with the warp prism because they're on two different techs and it would be a lot of time to get warp prisms around the map once you've already committed to templar tech for warpgate.
Maybe if something like this happened we could actually swap out the power levels of protoss tech towards the early-mid game, and finally weaken protoss late-game units.
Bad core units and really strong tier 2+3 are why protoss has to rely on deathballs and all-ins. Either protoss abuses your lack of defenders' advantage and leans on you with production, or protoss fast-techs to something it can actually fight with (colossi usually), gives up mad pressure, and builds up a big army it can walk across the map with.
tldr; move warpgate to templar archives. Fixes lots of stuff.
|
DinoMight, you seem to not understand the implications Warpgate in its current form has on Protoss. In fact, Protoss could be much stronger, better, more fun if some DESIGN changes to Warpgate were to occur.
|
I don't understand how the system described in the OP is supposed to work.
Say I have six gates, one a warp gate. I warp in five units. What happens to the warp gate timer?
Say I have two gates, one a warp gate. I warp in one unit. Then four more gates complete. What happens to the warp gate timer?
|
Poland3748 Posts
Maybe warping in should temporarily drain pylons?
|
Where is "solving the mule" thread ?
Seriously, biased threads like this are not helping.
|
On May 14 2015 18:22 Parcelleus wrote:
Where is "solving the mule" thread ?
Seriously, biased threads like this are not helping.
Feel free to open a thread and start a much, much needed campaign to tone down macro mechanics.
|
I would also like to suggest that we remove the gateway as a whole thing. It just creates imbalanced advantages for Protoss players. They can still survive in the early game with the MSC and then later tech to colossi or stargate.
|
I feel like couple of simple changes could be sufficient:
1. Postpone WG by moving it to Twilight Council or Templar archives, that way:
a) Timing attacks will occur much later, when opponent will have already taken natural and set up defences + some army
b) if WG would be on TC You would have to choose either you're going for WG timing withour blink OR you're going for blink but without WG therefore without easy reinforcements.
2. Allow to build from Warpgate "normally" so You have a option to warped them instantly OR queue them like in Stargate/Robo
3. Make Build time and cooldown on warpgate the same - the difference should be in method You choose, not in build times AND
4. Compensate if necessary with: warped units have no shields in difference to "normally" queued units.
Gateway units could be made more resilient and microable being more "core" part of Protoss army.
Additionally if chronoboost mechanic would require some easy tech (similarly to Terran's CC->OC for mules) we could decrease build time for gateway units without a fear of breaking game with too strong proxy strategies.
|
It's not the timing that Warp Gate come at that is the 'problem.'
Moving it to t3, or putting it at Twilight Council is the same as increasing the duration of the research. Early Warp Gate attacks aren't actually that strong currently, though it has been a problem earlier.
Rather the problem is the removal of defenders advantage, you bring your army to the other side of the map, lets say 100 supply.
You arrive at the opponent, the travel distance allowed the other player to gain a 20 supply advantage, but then as you arrive and have put up a pylon you warp in 20 supply and attack. Essentially evening the odds, which won't allow any greed from the opponent, because if at any time they were greedy, they COULD potentially die, if noticed by the Protoss player and if the timing is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
