| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
Korakys
New Zealand272 Posts
Is it necessary to switch back and forth between  warpgates and gateways? How about after WG is researched all gateways automatically switch to warpgates and stay that way, but Multi-Building Selection still functions (after all warpgates are on their own hotkey [W]). Using MBS would give a ~20% reduced cooldown over warp-ins (or, heck, maybe even 50% longer cooldown for warping over MBS).Also, yeah, moving WG research to Templar Archives or Robo Bay sounds like a good idea to me. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 14 2015 20:27 ejozl wrote: It's not the timing that Warp Gate come at that is the 'problem.' It is, because it makes Warpgate the default/standard method of production by design, while Gateway should be the default/standard and Warpgate the choice coming with associated bonus/malus. egrimm's post above gives very good lines of thought for that. Ideally, Protoss players should be able to stick with Gateways the whole game if they want! Whatever system is chosen, Warpgate should also 100% allow queueing too, and production before cooldown should come with a cost since it breaks the normal pay-wait-get model. + Show Spoiler + The “it would be confusing” arguments do have some point, but are mostly excuses considering how convoluted the Hellion/Hellbat stuff was/is (among other things). Making macro more complex is also much needed in SC2 anyway to fill the void created by automation, instead of further bulldozing macro with bad ideas like auto-Warpgate morphing, etc. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote: It is, because it makes Warpgate the default/standard method of production by design, while Gateway should be the default/standard and Warpgate the choice coming with associated bonus/malus. egrimm's post above gives very good lines of thought for that. Ideally, Protoss players should be able to stick with Gateways the whole game if they want! Whatever system is chosen, Warpgate should also 100% allow queueing too, and production before cooldown should come with a cost since it breaks the normal pay-wait-get model. + Show Spoiler + The “it would be confusing” arguments do have some point, but are mostly excuses considering how convoluted the Hellion/Hellbat stuff was/is (among other things). Making macro more complex is also much needed in SC2 anyway to fill the void created by automation, instead of further bulldozing macro with bad ideas like auto-Warpgate morphing, etc. While I agree, I want to note something: Every race gets permanent structural upgrades to production (Raxes, Injects) so I think that Warpgates might be okay as permanent structural upgrade, but better balanced in the lategame. Maybe the important fact is when to favor that switch. Don't consider production times: Gateways and Warpgates should have the same production capabilities (obviously delaying a bit CB in time) It is not the same to have a 50/50 for a global upgrade to Warpgate at CyberCore requirement, than to have a 200/200 upgrade +50/50 per Warpgate cost at Twilight Council or Templar Archives/DarkShrine. I think that considering how strong the Zerg and Terran production gets in the mid-lategame (+ the cost efficiency of their basic units), it's not bad to have Warpgate as main production building in mid-lategae if it's costly enough. Obviously, we want a midgame based on basic Gateway play, introducing a slow switch towards warpgate. That would solve many all-in problematics in the early-midgame, which is the most urgent complaint regarding Warpgate. Protoss is very tech dependant in compositions and introducing big additional costs for having Warpgate available relatively early would hurt that capability a lot, and would open space to buffs to Gateway units and reduction of costs and times for Blink, Charge, and the Adept Upgrade. Just compare a 7 gate all-in: CyberCore + Warpgate: 200/50. All Warpgates morphed. 7 gates all-in Twlight: 150/100 Blink: 150/150 Total TECH cost: 500/300 200/200 Warpgate at Twilight: Cybercore: 150/0 Twlithg: 150/100 Warpgate:200/200 50/50 x7gates: 350/350 Blink: 150/150 Total TECH cost: 1000/800. (x2 on minerals, x2.5 cost on gas) | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3402 Posts
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote: It is, because it makes Warpgate the default/standard method of production by design, while Gateway should be the default/standard and Warpgate the choice coming with associated bonus/malus. egrimm's post above gives very good lines of thought for that. Ideally, Protoss players should be able to stick with Gateways the whole game if they want! Whatever system is chosen, Warpgate should also 100% allow queueing too, and production before cooldown should come with a cost since it breaks the normal pay-wait-get model. + Show Spoiler + The “it would be confusing” arguments do have some point, but are mostly excuses considering how convoluted the Hellion/Hellbat stuff was/is (among other things). Making macro more complex is also much needed in SC2 anyway to fill the void created by automation, instead of further bulldozing macro with bad ideas like auto-Warpgate morphing, etc. Sure, the same way you have a choice to stay on naked Barracks the entire game. By design they want Warp Gate tech to be the standard for Protoss, something that is uniquely theirs. The same way Zerg has Larvae for production. That too is a mechanic that is not completely flawless, but people don't complain about it, because it's been there since Brood War and because it's a fun mechanic that is very unique and brings strategic diversity to the game. That is the vision they had with Warp Gate tech. | ||
|
Spect8rCraft
649 Posts
A radical solution would be: When warp gate is researched, all gateways, stargates and robo facilities permanently fall under the warp gate mechanic. Warp-ins should be under a power field emanating from production buildings (i.e. gateways, stargates, robos). Bring back the obelisk as a twilight council tech, slightly more expensive version of a warp-in pylon that doesn't require pylon power to place. Total hit points is about the same as a pylon. Smaller field than a pylon to avoid massive units abuse. (Costs 100/100? Maybe more?) How to balance the warp prism... I haven't quite decided yet. Warping in gateway units is the same; how to implement that with the robo or stargate can be debated. Maybe setting to non-massive units only is a fair balance. And of course, warp-in time and cooldown will have to be readjusted for most all units, especially the bigger and bulkier ones. | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 14 2015 21:24 ejozl wrote: Sure, the same way you have a choice to stay on naked Barracks the entire game. By design they want Warp Gate tech to be the standard for Protoss, something that is uniquely theirs. The same way Zerg has Larvae for production. That too is a mechanic that is not completely flawless, but people don't complain about it, because it's been there since Brood War and because it's a fun mechanic that is very unique and brings strategic diversity to the game. That is the vision they had with Warp Gate tech. Adding a Tech Lab or a Reactor does not change the pay-wait-get model (and creates a strategic downtime before the access to the higher tech level or the production boost). The larva mechanic is indeed explosive by nature regarding tech switches, which should be addressed with less available resources overall (larva volume per minute, larva stacking, mineral, gas) so brutal transfers of thousands of resources in lategame are nuked instead of being the forced standard. Tech switches and faster remax should remain, but not 40 mutas or 120 supply at once. Then we'll still have the originality of the model without the SC2-induced degeneration. It's exactly the same thing with Warpgate: teleportation is a very Protoss thing—so no problem on that part as far as I'm concerned. But since it is so powerful, it must come with restraint straps. MULEs/Reactors should of course follow that global movement and be toned down accordingly. Then we'll still have the spirit of all SC2 additions, but tightly tamed. | ||
|
Talaris
Switzerland753 Posts
On May 12 2015 20:06 StalkerFang wrote: I think what most people want out of protoss, at least on TL, is: -Nerf to gateways or, more specifically, protoss all-ins -With all-ins nerfed, gateway units can become stronger in straight-up fights -Now that gateway units are stronger, high-tier tech can be weakened (collossi removed, HT have delay on storms or something) or put into more of a supporting role. Also, force fields can be nerfed or removed. Just toss'ing in an (oldish) idea: Why not make warped-in units have no shields ? This would: - weaken WG-all-ins, as units would come into battle with ~1/2 (adept) - 2/3 (Stalkers, Zealot) of HP only, thus dieing more easily if used hypre-aggressivly. - weaken "easy" defensive warp-ins due to the same reason - not punish players building up a normal army via WG - as the shields are regen'ed back after ~30 second = approx 1 production cycle. - and especially: it would be close to Blizzards Idea of making warped-in units more vulnerable - but instead of an arbitrary "gets double dmg during warp.in"-rule you'd have a natural one - and while a zealot losing it's shields does not exactly die twice as fast, but more like 1.5 times as fast, it's a disadvantage that would decay slower and gradually (over 30 seconds instead of 8 seconds) - heck, you could even explain it in lore that due to the sensitive nature and finely-calibrated settings blabla you can't warp units with shields active, those must be activated once the warp is complete and thus it takes some time to build up. Not sure if such a soft change would warrant a slight buff to gateway-units, but it would at least address alot of the problems that "old WG" used to create - by not completely destryoing them but by adding a choice. (warp in farther away or your opponent sleeping with his scouting -> get full HP/shields -- warp in more closely and attack at once, get weakened units). | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On May 14 2015 21:48 TheDwf wrote: Adding a Tech Lab or a Reactor does not change the pay-wait-get model (and creates a strategic downtime before the access to the higher tech level or the production boost). The larva mechanic is indeed explosive by nature regarding tech switches, which should be addressed with less available resources overall (larva volume per minute, larva stacking, mineral, gas) so brutal transfers of thousands of resources in lategame are nuked instead of being the forced standard. Tech switches and faster remax should remain, but not 40 mutas or 120 supply at once. Then we'll still have the originality of the model without the SC2-induced degeneration. It's exactly the same thing with Warpgate: teleportation is a very Protoss thing—so no problem on that part as far as I'm concerned. But since it is so powerful, it must come with restraint straps. MULEs/Reactors should of course follow that global movement and be toned down accordingly. Then we'll still have the spirit of all SC2 additions, but tightly tamed. Adding a reactor cuts production times in half mate, allowing 2 units per round. That significantly reduces the cost of Terran infrastructure. So it is also an interesting upgrade. That is as effective as needing half the buildings for the same production, which means lower structural cost. In fact, back in WoL beta they had to make reactors to build slow to prevent earlygame abuse from Terran. 1 Rax = 2 Barracks for marines. 2 units per round. 1 Starport for Medivacs/Vikings = 2 Starports. 2 units per round. However, there's a small cost for getting that upgrade, which is very interesting on starports and factories as that structures tend to cost significant amounts of gas. And it is also very beneficial to bio since it saves mineral from building too much infrastructure, as you are going to be floating on gas. 10 Barracks :1500 5Rax: 750/250 10 Starports: 1500/1000 5 StarportX: 1000/750 That's why I suggested to make Warpgate a 1 time upgrade for 50/50 for each Gateway. I think is not a bad solution, since effeectively the production rate for Terran is always between close to Protoss tech (usually less) and a 50% shorter. Remember that protoss is balanced around having the slowest production and econ. So even if units are warped over the field, you have much shorter production times than them while playing Terran or Zerg. Mech is also vulnerable vs Protoss for that same thing, because it's much more incompetent in terms of production, plus not having a good basic unit. Back in BW, Vultures were very interesting as the basic mech unit and were competent against Protoss units. Hellions are relatively decent against Zealots, but shit on Stalkers. And now on Warpgate, 80% of the times, Warpgate is about ignoring travel distance from base. Protoss hasn't the big production and cost efficiency that Zerg and Terran have and they have low mobility, so I think Warpgate is a good mechanic to give Protoss some offensive power, as you can only use it on basic units. Give Protoss mineral bunkers that can be infinitely repaired by workers or salvaged when danger is out and the DPS of MM inside, and take Warpgate away if you want, since Toss needs good defensive mechanisms to counter stupidly effective runbies or drops, or 27 DPS air turrets that can be repaired by workers to prevent drops, or just some universal AG and AA cheap and 1supply unit that can be left back in small groups so protoss can leave some units behind without losing much firepower. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
When you press the 'warp-in' hotkey and click to warp in the first unit, all pylons and warp-prisms become 'energised' for XX seconds. This consumes a warpgate charge and starts its cooldown. During the energised period, you can warp in units as normal. Although this would work I think it's confusing, and the concept of 'upgrading' the gateway to a warpgate no longer matches its functionality. I would rather see a dedicated 'Warp Charge' structure (like a Dark Pylon, for example, that requires a Cyber Core) that has its own separate timer. The game could then automatically morph idle gateways into warpgates (rapidly; not the current slow anim) and back again as and when warp charges are available. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote: It is, because it makes Warpgate the default/standard method of production by design, while Gateway should be the default/standard and Warpgate the choice coming with associated bonus/malus. egrimm's post above gives very good lines of thought for that. Ideally, Protoss players should be able to stick with Gateways the whole game if they want! Whatever system is chosen, Warpgate should also 100% allow queueing too, and production before cooldown should come with a cost since it breaks the normal pay-wait-get model. + Show Spoiler + The “it would be confusing” arguments do have some point, but are mostly excuses considering how convoluted the Hellion/Hellbat stuff was/is (among other things). Making macro more complex is also much needed in SC2 anyway to fill the void created by automation, instead of further bulldozing macro with bad ideas like auto-Warpgate morphing, etc. I feel like there should be choice for Protoss player how he wants to play their game especially in mid-game. It should be either: 1. have normal Gateways and queue units with pay-wait-get model as TheDwf said, and obtain tech like upgrades (blink, charge, storm) or robo/stargate units faster. So You have stronger ("techier") Gateway units allowing for more presence on the map BUT in slightly lower numbers & without the ability to teleport units into someone base, launch fast unpredictable all-in or warp-in for base defense 2. Go for fast WG tech and try to use it for harass and attacking on multiple fronts trying to harass and put a lot of pressure and later go for upgrades. Probably there should be some kind of additional trade-of to warped units like for example, already mentioned no shields for warped units or smth along these lines. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On May 14 2015 21:53 Talaris wrote: Just toss'ing in an (oldish) idea: Why not make warped-in units have no shields ? This would: - weaken WG-all-ins, as units would come into battle with ~1/2 (adept) - 2/3 (Stalkers, Zealot) of HP only, thus dieing more easily if used hypre-aggressivly. - weaken "easy" defensive warp-ins due to the same reason - not punish players building up a normal army via WG - as the shields are regen'ed back after ~30 second = approx 1 production cycle. - and especially: it would be close to Blizzards Idea of making warped-in units more vulnerable - but instead of an arbitrary "gets double dmg during warp.in"-rule you'd have a natural one - and while a zealot losing it's shields does not exactly die twice as fast, but more like 1.5 times as fast, it's a disadvantage that would decay slower and gradually (over 30 seconds instead of 8 seconds) - heck, you could even explain it in lore that due to the sensitive nature and finely-calibrated settings blabla you can't warp units with shields active, those must be activated once the warp is complete and thus it takes some time to build up. Not sure if such a soft change would warrant a slight buff to gateway-units, but it would at least address alot of the problems that "old WG" used to create - by not completely destryoing them but by adding a choice. (warp in farther away or your opponent sleeping with his scouting -> get full HP/shields -- warp in more closely and attack at once, get weakened units). I was even thinking about: Warped units have no shields and no energy That way we could bring back Khaydarin Amulet back without being it op. Protoss could normally build HT from gateway and after build time get HT with 75 energy OR warp-in HT on to the field without shield and energy but he could morph them into archons and have them much earlier than with ordinary gateways for faster reinforcements. Maybe a tad crazy idea though  | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
The Polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! Added some polls to gauge the interest in some of the recurring ideas that come up in the discussion a lot. Note that most of these suggestions do not alter the functionality of Warpgate. They may offer a good and easy to implement solution to solve the "problems" revolving WG and the MsC role/fix, the relative strength of gateway units combined with WG functionality, or at least get us a step closer to figuring something out that works for the majority and improves the enjoyability, spectator quality and depth of the game while keeping it simple. To make LotV the best it can be. 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) Once more, the polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! | ||
|
404AlphaSquad
839 Posts
On May 15 2015 02:54 Masayume wrote: Update to the thread: Added Polls to promote further productive discussion and the generation of data and public opinion. The Polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! Added some polls to gauge the interest in some of the recurring ideas that come up in the discussion a lot. Note that most of these suggestions do not alter the functionality of Warpgate. They may offer a good and easy to implement solution to solve the "problems" revolving WG and the MsC role/fix, the relative strength of gateway units combined with WG functionality, or at least get us a step closer to figuring something out that works for the majority and improves the enjoyability, spectator quality and depth of the game while keeping it simple. To make LotV the best it can be. 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) Once more, the polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! How about a poll that some units can only be built from the gateway? (Immos, Adepts etc) // not be limited to energy units. | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
On May 15 2015 03:02 404AlphaSquad wrote: How about a poll that some units can only be built from the gateway? (Immos, Adepts etc) // not be limited to energy units. I knew I missed something, thanks for highlighting it. Adding the poll right now! Edit: It's Poll #2, but maybe if there is enough voice for it I could add another poll with a suggestion for Immortals/Adepts being built from gateway as well. | ||
|
StalkerFang
Australia68 Posts
On May 14 2015 19:42 SharkStarcraft wrote: 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 really appreciate this post. Absolutely hilarious :D | ||
|
SharkStarcraft
Austria2227 Posts
On May 14 2015 23:33 egrimm wrote: I was even thinking about: Warped units have no shields and no energy That way we could bring back Khaydarin Amulet back without being it op. Protoss could normally build HT from gateway and after build time get HT with 75 energy OR warp-in HT on to the field without shield and energy but he could morph them into archons and have them much earlier than with ordinary gateways for faster reinforcements. Maybe a tad crazy idea though Great idea! I love having my sentries be absolutely useless for 50 seconds and thus never being able to take a 3rd vs Zerg at all! | ||
|
FrostedMiniWheats
United States30730 Posts
On May 15 2015 02:54 Masayume wrote: + Show Spoiler + Update to the thread: Added Polls to promote further productive discussion and the generation of data and public opinion. The Polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! Added some polls to gauge the interest in some of the recurring ideas that come up in the discussion a lot. Note that most of these suggestions do not alter the functionality of Warpgate. They may offer a good and easy to implement solution to solve the "problems" revolving WG and the MsC role/fix, the relative strength of gateway units combined with WG functionality, or at least get us a step closer to figuring something out that works for the majority and improves the enjoyability, spectator quality and depth of the game while keeping it simple. To make LotV the best it can be. 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) Once more, the polls can be found in the original post of this thread, at the very beginning! Awesome. Might I suggest a poll for trying out the immortal as a gateway only unit (with adjusted stats ofc)? edit: oh didn't see this was already mentioned above me.. <_> I'd still support the poll though! | ||
|
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On May 15 2015 08:14 SharkStarcraft wrote: Great idea! I love having my sentries be absolutely useless for 50 seconds and thus never being able to take a 3rd vs Zerg at all! In case you didn't understand, the goal is to rework Protoss' early game in such a way that they can play normally, without dedicated/cumbersome tools like the MSC or Sentries. On May 15 2015 08:15 FrostedMiniWheats wrote: Awesome. Might I suggest a poll for trying out the immortal as a gateway only unit (with adjusted stats ofc)? edit: oh didn't see this was already mentioned above me.. <_> I'd still support the poll though! I support the adjusted Immortal in the Gateway too. Thanks for the polls Masayume! | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
| ||
|
rpgalon
Brazil1069 Posts
On May 15 2015 08:56 Saechiis wrote: I feel switching blink and warpgate is a pretty straightforward change combined with buffs to gateway units and a removal of the MSC. Allow cannons to be CB'ed for additional DPS. Maybe even allow CB to speed up building construction. It's about time Protoss stops being such a coinflippy gimmick race that either stomps or gets stomped hard. I think Blink might be OP in the cyber core, but I'm all for switching Charge and Warpgate. | ||
| ||
Maestros of the Game
Group Stage - Group C
[ Submit Event ] |
|
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
RSL Revival
Cure vs Bunny
Creator vs Zoun
Maestros of the Game
Maru vs Lambo
herO vs ShoWTimE
BSL Team Wars
Team Hawk vs Team Sziky
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Monday Night Weeklies
The PondCast
Online Event
BSL Team Wars
Team Bonyth vs Team Dewalt
BSL Team Wars
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
