EPTRight now there is no downside to warping in units wherever the protoss player's army is because they're going to warp them in somewhere anyway, so why not? There isn't much of a decision to made here as the right answer is always pretty obvious. Making warp-ins more limited and costly, but also more rewarding, would make it a much more interesting mechanic.
Solving the Warpgate - Page 6
| Forum Index > Legacy of the Void |
|
ApBuLLet
United States604 Posts
Right now there is no downside to warping in units wherever the protoss player's army is because they're going to warp them in somewhere anyway, so why not? There isn't much of a decision to made here as the right answer is always pretty obvious. Making warp-ins more limited and costly, but also more rewarding, would make it a much more interesting mechanic. | ||
|
Lexender
Mexico2648 Posts
WG is balanced atm, the problem is that with LotV changes, protoss is unable to keep up without having big issues, blizzard is addressing this with very innefficient ways (50 energy recall) so whatever changes are mades should allow protoss to solve its issues with their units instead of with gimmicks. | ||
|
Clear World
125 Posts
Well, I will simply tell you this, "there already exist a Gateway unit that can reduce a lot of these issues of the Protoss early game if that unit just became viable earlier. It's call a Zealot." I know Zealots are usually never thought about as a possible solution within the community since they have been nearly useless during the early game all throughout SCII lifetime (other than for all-in situations), but if you actually look at how good they are when they can actually land hits, they trade nearly cost effectively against every non-tier 3 unit in the game. They don't need any health, shield, or damage buff. All they need is simply one thing, and that is the ability to get close to the enemy to dish out damage. So many of Protoss early woes will be vanish because Protoss will be getting back their very cost efficient unit. This is the purposed changed: Move the Charge Upgrade to the Cybernetic Core. The benefits on this change is that, Protoss now has access to a cheap, mobile unit, that as long as they aren't completely out-number will trade cost efficiently against an opposing enemy force. I would like to use this link, 60-shield Protoss, as my evidence to show that Zealots can trade cost efficient. Actually take the moment to calculate how much resources is being lost on both sides (not just supplies), and you will see that even when the Zealot loses the battle, the difference in lost is not huge. And this is all within the early tech tree, before the split occurs, which should also enable easier transition to any tech route desired. And this has almost zero late game impact as Zealots do get phased out, but that is fine since by then, Protoss should have higher tech to off-set this. The best part about of this improvement would be that, the Zealot all-in potential is not that good since, every race has means to deal with them rather well. Terren for example have Maraduar slows, Widow Mines, and Hellbats. Protoss has MSC, Photon Cannon, other Zealots (because non-Charge Zealots are exactly the same strength in direct combat as Charge Zealots), and Adepts. And these two race can simply wall-in to stop any possible form of aggression without having heavy loses. The only race that could suffer the most from early Zealot pressure are the Zergs, but here are the reasons why I don't see this as a huge issue.
But if Zealots early pressure is too much, here's a simple solution to deal with the issue. Give Baneling a passive that deals damage to a Biologic unit's health instead of their shield. This passive will simply just make Baneling better against Zealots, Adepts, DT, HT, and Nothing else. Now back to the topic, this here Zealot buff should then enable taking away Sentry Force-fields and not requiring Mothership Core being this band-aid since Protoss would finally have a cost efficient unit that can hold their ground. And before I end this, I just want to remind people that, even if there are things that the Zealot still cannot cover, there do exist Adepts, Stalkers, and Sentires to help cover those flaws. 1 unit does not need to cover everything. | ||
|
usethis2
2164 Posts
On May 13 2015 05:32 DinoMight wrote: 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. Likening Warpgate upgrade to concussive shells is not a fair analogy. Given the spirit of the topic, a fair analogy would be Barracks with techlab or Barracks with reactor. Warpgate as something like Barracks with techlab, Gateway as Barracks with reactor, for example. Giving Gateways purposes other than becoming Warpgates. Having said that, I do not think this discussion is anywhere. Warpgate is the defining feature of the Protoss race since the SC2 is introduced. Blizzard will not change it at this stage. This discussion has been around since the day 1 of Wings of Liberty. Protoss race will keep annoying traditional RTS fans while being loved by casuals. I think we need to learn to live with it. | ||
|
Axeltl
Finland48 Posts
| ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
More options without losing the identity of Protoss would be nice. | ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On May 21 2015 03:24 Masayume wrote: There should be ways to slightly improve the game design behind WG without completely abandoning its concept. That's the aim, to see if there are ways to improve the current system and its connection to the MsC spells (Overcharge/Recall) within the vision of Blizzard. To increase strategic depth even more and to help improve the biggest issue the Protoss matchups are facing: The inability for proper map presence without high tier AOE units vs stronger low tier units from Z and T who remain more relevant through gated upgrades, which makes turtle into deathball or strong timings the default way to play for Protoss. More options without losing the identity of Protoss would be nice. People have talked about making Warpgates inferior in production speed or efficiency (take longer, longer cooldown, spawn without shields, I don't know all the stuff you could make up). Warpgates give you mobile production, but Gateways are more efficient. There you are. Defenders advantage (bye bye Overcharge), cheaper expanding (less gateways needed), room to buff Protoss T1.... | ||
|
pure.Wasted
Canada4701 Posts
On May 20 2015 23:47 Axeltl wrote: Abandon the thought. Warpgate will not be changed ever. It is too woven into the current way the game handles not to mention protoss would be completly unable to do anything. The change would be far too drastic and it would mean that so many other things would have to be changed for protoss etc. Simply put, blizzard would not be up to the task. There's no way that Blizzard does not do a lot of work on the Protoss race in LOTV, unless they scrap the new economy. The only question is whether they want to take the opportunity to give the race some solid fundamentals, or just pile band-aids on top of duct tape, which is how they've been dealing with the Protoss race since WOL. Warp Gates actively reward qualities I find antithetical to good RTS design: blind plays, unscoutable plays, lack of map awareness, lack of map presence, bypassing defender's advantage, instant defenses where you need them just add water, and of course all the dumb spells it forces onto the Sentry and MSC to keep Protoss alive in the meantime. I don't care what solution Blizzard tries, as long as they try something. | ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
On May 21 2015 04:04 SC2Toastie wrote: People have talked about making Warpgates inferior in production speed or efficiency (take longer, longer cooldown, spawn without shields, I don't know all the stuff you could make up). Warpgates give you mobile production, but Gateways are more efficient. There you are. Defenders advantage (bye bye Overcharge), cheaper expanding (less gateways needed), room to buff Protoss T1.... That is one of the solutions that came up in this discussion and was added as a poll in the OP. The more votes there are the more data we have on how people on this forum perceive some of the potential changes that could be made to possibly improve the dynamic. | ||
|
DemigodcelpH
1138 Posts
| ||
| ||
