|
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. The goal is that it 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)
General Poll: In the context of how the Mothership Core and its abilities interact with the Warp Gate functionality, Protoss basic unit strength and army mobility (esp when defending bases).
Poll: WG should be changed to improve gameplayI agree (63) 81% Disagree (10) 13% Partially Agree (4) 5% Partially Disagree (1) 1% Neutral (0) 0% 78 total votes Your vote: WG should be changed to improve gameplay (Vote): I agree
(Vote): Partially Agree
(Vote): Neutral
(Vote): Partially Disagree
(Vote): Disagree
WG specific suggestion polls from the discussion to gauge what direction could be a good place to start testing from:
Poll: Delaying access to WG tech to the Mid or Late GamePartially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (25) 42% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (17) 29% Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (14) 24% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (2) 3% Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1) 2% 59 total votes Your vote: Delaying access to WG tech to the Mid or Late Game (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Energy units (High Templar, Sentry) can only be built via Gateway modeDisagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (31) 56% Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (10) 18% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (7) 13% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (6) 11% Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1) 2% 55 total votes Your vote: Energy units (High Templar, Sentry) can only be built via Gateway mode (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Only Gateway units start w shield & energyDisagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (35) 70% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (8) 16% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4) 8% Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (2) 4% Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1) 2% 50 total votes Your vote: Only Gateway units start w shield & energy (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: WG upgrade also speeds up Gateway production timesNeutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (15) 33% Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (12) 26% Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (12) 26% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (4) 9% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3) 7% 46 total votes Your vote: WG upgrade also speeds up Gateway production times (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Longer WG cooldown when warping to pylons instead of Prism/NexusDisagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (22) 48% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (13) 28% Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (6) 13% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (4) 9% Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (1) 2% 46 total votes Your vote: Longer WG cooldown when warping to pylons instead of Prism/Nexus (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
Poll: Improve Tier 2 unit strength and cost/functionality instead (Robo/SG)Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem (35) 81% Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves (3) 7% Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem (3) 7% I agree. This should be tested in the Beta! (1) 2% Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes (1) 2% 43 total votes Your vote: Improve Tier 2 unit strength and cost/functionality instead (Robo/SG) (Vote): I agree. This should be tested in the Beta!
(Vote): Partially agree. It can be part of a solution if combined with other changes
(Vote): Neutral. The change brings as many problems as it solves
(Vote): Partially disagree. There must be a better solution for this problem
(Vote): Disagree. This change is bad or does not target the right place or problem
As always around the time of an expansion, the dynamics of the Gateway/Warpgate relationship and since HotS also the role of the MsC are being discussed. I will get to the point right away.
The way I see it the following discussions take place all the time and the following problems are revealed:
1) There is no conscious choice to be made between the Gateway and Warpgate. The answer is always: Warpgate is better. Whether it be the frontloaded extra production cycle upon transforming, the build times or the potential of warping in units everywhere as long as a pylon is present. Gateway cannot compete.
2) The strategic choice and risk concerning warp ins is very limiting. It eliminates having to think about army movement and positioning as much in favor of just warping in units at the right place, at the right time provided a pylon can be placed or a warp prism moved to the spot. By this I mean mostly travel time of reinforcements and their vulnerabilities, and leaving forces behind to defend: the strategic thought has less variables to it. One of the biggest complaints is the ability to do a sort of remax directly on top of the battlefield location. This takes away from defenders advantage (reinforcement travel time difference) and eliminates options like intercepting reinforcements strategically or having a more balanced battle flow.
3) The problem of Protoss: defending bases and mobility. The Mothership Core was created to solve this problem by allowing Protoss units to be recalled to a base, next to having a Photon Overcharge option to increase the defenders advantage. Not the most elegant solution, as we can now see that everything Protoss is being designed around the functionality of the MsC as is happening in the LotV Beta. The most recent proposed change: 50 energy Recall.
Goal to achieve with the proposed changes:
To make Warpgate a more impactful, strategical choice that has an effect on your play throughout the game and to reduce the dependance on the Mothership Core. It has to be linked more closely with the economy of Protoss, and subsequent balancing of production versus tech versus defensive and offensive warp capabilities. In short, to make it more of an interaction with consequences and strategic depth.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An improved iteration of my suggestion after a first wave of discussion and feedback can be found when clicking the spoiler below:
+ Show Spoiler +After many arguments as to why offensive warp-ins should still be part of the game, even crucial to the identity of the game, I made the following suggestion on my own idea:
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
Now for the solution I have been thinking about. It is a combination of ideas inspired by multiple discussions and the recent idea that Liquid`Snute proposed with Mini Recalls on the Nexus. The following synergy of ideas came up..
Changing the Warpgate:
*Transforming a Gateway to a Warpgate now costs 150 minerals and 150 gas (Placeholder numbers for now).
*The Warpgate still has a normal production cycle and spawns units on location just like the Gateway.
*The Warpgate gains an ability: Recall
Recall has a cooldown of 240 seconds and affects a slightly smaller area than the current MsC Recall ability. You can only recall units to the proximity of a Nexus. (I decided not to give energy to the Warpgate nor make Recall cost energy)
This additional part was added in after some feedback and discussion in the thread.
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
How does this idea tackle the problems listed above?
Adding a heavy cost to Warpgate makes it a very conscious and weighted choice that cannot be made lightly. The cost prevents it from being spammed in the early game. It is impossible to have 4-5 recalls without heavy repercussions on your production and tech development. The later the game goes the more the incentive grows to invest into a couple of Warpgates to be able to defend better. It makes it a strategic choice: Do I want that upgrade earlier, or do I want to be able to recall twice to defend this multipronged harassment better or to prevent a base race?
This change also eliminates the option to warp in offensively and to bolster the frontline mid battle in order to gain momentum. In short it brings back the defenders advantage and removes the almost non-strategic "choice" of warping in offensively. Protoss units are produced and spawned at the production facility at all times just like other races. They still get to teleport around, especially in the later stages of the game in order to compensate for mobility, but it will only be defensive.
Obviously the role of the MsC would be heavily impacted by this change, much to the point that it becomes the question if it should even remain in the game. And if so, in what fashion? No more Recall but still a nerfed version of Photon Overcharge while keeping Time Warp? A complete removal of the so called "bandaid fix unit"? That is something that should be discussed heavily.
Are there further problems or tweaks that need to be made based on this change?
One of the current problems is the relative strength of gateway units compared to lower tier units of the different races, especially during later stages of the game. The speed change to the Zealot as suggested by Blizzard, combined with the suggestion of the 60 shield Zealot in a post here on the Team Liquid forums would be a start in increasing the viability of such units (Gateway units) later in the game. It would justify the cost of Warp Gates more. Of course the Adept needs to be balanced out as well but I am quite confident in its development stages going the right way.
Another problem may be the late game stacking of Warp Gates (being able to afford 10 Warp Gates in the late game). While it would give the Protoss an incredible defensive mobility, it would also cost a lot of resources which in itself should be a weakness to army strength or tech or late game unit production structures. There is an argument to be made for exploiting windows in which Protoss chooses to invest into this over other things. In the most severe case the cost can either be balanced to make it near impossible to reach a ridiculous amount of Warp Gates without being so far ahead that you should win by default. Otherwise an artificial cap could be looked into, maybe 4 Warpgate maximum I don't know.
Concluding words
I do not want to add in every thought I have regarding this suggestion, otherwise the post will become too long and my point will get lost among the sea of words. I would love to have a good, open discussion and am eagerly awaiting feedback on this synergy of ideas.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
Protoss gateway units are the weakest tier 1-2 units in the game in the open areas. Deleting the ability to warp them into the battlefield directly will literally kill any early aggression from protoss. That will make it "never attack" race which is very boring design.
It will also transform warp prism to just a shuttle which will never be used in Starcraft 2 game.
Results:
Protoss can't attack anymore.
Protoss can't harass anymore.
Protoss can't win anymore.
|
If you're going to propose a massive nerf to protoss, you need to give them a massive buff somewhere else. I'll take your cost prohibitive warpgates in exchange for gateway units that don't melt to bio balls.
|
On May 12 2015 18:34 sh1RoKen wrote:
Protoss gateway units are the weakest tier 1-2 units in the game in the open areas. Deleting the ability to warp them into the battlefield directly will literally kill any early aggression from protoss. That will make it "never attack" race which is very boring design.
It will also transform warp prism to just a shuttle which will never be used in Starcraft 2 game.
Results:
Protoss can't attack anymore.
Protoss can't harass anymore.
Protoss can't win anymore.
it obviously have to be balanced after the change <.<
|
I assume gateway units would have hp/shields buffed and maybe other things as well.
|
On May 12 2015 18:34 sh1RoKen wrote:
Protoss gateway units are the weakest tier 1-2 units in the game in the open areas. Deleting the ability to warp them into the battlefield directly will literally kill any early aggression from protoss. That will make it "never attack" race which is very boring design.
It will also transform warp prism to just a shuttle which will never be used in Starcraft 2 game.
Results:
Protoss can't attack anymore.
Protoss can't harass anymore.
Protoss can't win anymore.
Like I mentioned in my post, there would need to be a relative increase in strength of gateway units and staying power later in the game in order for Protoss to not be dependant on what they have now. This is pretty much the main conclusion the majority of forum posters here on Team Liquid tend to arrive at every single time when discussing the problems of Protoss design. And from what I am seeing now, Blizzard may just be open for that as they are currently working on the adept (to increase gateway unit strength) and on Zealot buffs.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On May 12 2015 18:48 Masayume wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 18:34 sh1RoKen wrote:
Protoss gateway units are the weakest tier 1-2 units in the game in the open areas. Deleting the ability to warp them into the battlefield directly will literally kill any early aggression from protoss. That will make it "never attack" race which is very boring design.
It will also transform warp prism to just a shuttle which will never be used in Starcraft 2 game.
Results:
Protoss can't attack anymore.
Protoss can't harass anymore.
Protoss can't win anymore. Like I mentioned in my post, there would need to be a relative increase in strength of gateway units and staying power later in the game in order for Protoss to not be dependant on what they have now. This is pretty much the main conclusion the majority of forum posters here on Team Liquid tend to arrive at every single time when discussing the problems of Protoss design. And from what I am seeing now, Blizzard may just be open for that as they are currently working on the adept (to increase gateway unit strength) and on Zealot buffs.
It will make protoss a mech terran with different unit models. Right now protoss design is based on a tight aggressive style which includes strong highground defence, strong all-in attacks to an unprepared opponents with possible recall->transition afterwards (if the solid damage was done), warp prism harass and close contact aggressive play based on position advantage of your army. Its somewhere between landzerg frontal attack and bio terran sucker punch multitasking.
Making it more defence-based, harassless and stronger in direct fight will eliminate all the options but 3-4 base deathball plays. It is a very bad design and no one will like it.
|
I think it would be better if one unit could only be built from the gateway, like the adept/immortal.
|
I also hate early warpgate for 5 years...
I am fine if it is possible after 10min ingame. It is just a horrible design and gameflow in the first 10min. Put the warpgate reseach to robotics council or templar archives, everything else is too early imo.
|
Russian Federation93 Posts
On May 12 2015 19:36 Dingodile wrote:
I also hate early warpgate for 5 years...
I am fine if it is possible after 10min ingame. It is just a horrible design and gameflow in the first 10min. Put the warpgate reseach to robotics council or templar archives, everything else is too early imo.
What can you purpose but early warpgates to counter 4 bases before pool play in PvZ? Every race must have a strong early game attack to prevent your opponent from being too greedy. In current design its not possible without a warp.
You have to make zealots and stalkers twice stronger and faster to compensate warp elimination but it will totally break the game.
|
On May 12 2015 19:14 sh1RoKen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 18:48 Masayume wrote:On May 12 2015 18:34 sh1RoKen wrote:
Protoss gateway units are the weakest tier 1-2 units in the game in the open areas. Deleting the ability to warp them into the battlefield directly will literally kill any early aggression from protoss. That will make it "never attack" race which is very boring design.
It will also transform warp prism to just a shuttle which will never be used in Starcraft 2 game.
Results:
Protoss can't attack anymore.
Protoss can't harass anymore.
Protoss can't win anymore. Like I mentioned in my post, there would need to be a relative increase in strength of gateway units and staying power later in the game in order for Protoss to not be dependant on what they have now. This is pretty much the main conclusion the majority of forum posters here on Team Liquid tend to arrive at every single time when discussing the problems of Protoss design. And from what I am seeing now, Blizzard may just be open for that as they are currently working on the adept (to increase gateway unit strength) and on Zealot buffs. It will make protoss a mech terran with different unit models. Right now protoss design is based on a tight aggressive style which includes strong highground defence, strong all-in attacks to an unprepared opponents with possible recall->transition afterwards (if the solid damage was done), warp prism harass and close contact aggressive play based on position advantage of your army. Its somewhere between landzerg frontal attack and bio terran sucker punch multitasking. Making it more defence-based, harassless and stronger in direct fight will eliminate all the options but 3-4 base deathball plays. It is a very bad design and no one will like it.
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.
The idea is to have an economy set up which heavily encourages small amounts of aggression, with heavy defenders advantage so that big maxed-out fights don't work. This is either the current LotV model with many bases around the map so it's easier to harass and lower risk, or the DH model where a player who doesn't harass ends up with a huge econ disadvantage as his opponent takes many bases.
TvZ is kind of the idea matchup in this regard. There are relatively few 1 or 2 base all-ins, plenty of action all around the map, one single engagement rarely decides the entire game. Ideally you would try and emulate this overall game flow while still keeping the flavor and interesting unit interactions of each matchup.
On a different note, I personally feel like people underestimate the role of creep spread in this regard. Basically, a terran who does not poke out with their units fairly early on in the game will end up with a huge wave of creep over the map which gives zerg a huge advantage. On the other hand, zerg trades nowhere near as cost-effectively off creep. This encourages constant low-risk pokes by the terran to gain position on the map, while making it so that terran can rarely push far into zerg territory to end the game in one big attack. This doesn't happen in PvZ because there just isn't that large a difference between fighting on and off creep against a protoss player, partially due to forcefield I believe.
|
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod.
|
> It eliminates having to think about army movement and positioning as much in favor of just warping in units at the right place, at the right time provided a pylon can be placed or a warp prism moved to the spot.
I just stopped here. Sorry.
|
Solving the Warpgate: ban T whiners.
Game fixed 
Seriously, I don't think there is much issue with warpgate. We can try to make it different, yes, but nerf it? No way.
|
On May 12 2015 20:22 Salteador Neo wrote:
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod.
Funny you mention Starbow. In Starbow the warp-gate is on templar tech. Each unit warped in have 10 sec longer cooldown compared to build-time from gateway and the warp-in itself is about 8 seconds. That's one way to make it a choice and not something to get asap.
|
It is good to see this kind of feedback. I can see a clear divide between the additional gameplay options and role of Warpgate versus the pros and cons of a Protoss race without it.
Perhaps Warpgate could be further down the line with a cost attched to it, or with a slightly longer cooldown at first versus the standard cooldown later in the game via an upgrade that would be available around the time most 2 base all-ins normally hit.
Mid game type buffs to the gateway units being better like the Adept upgrade, something next to Blink for Stalkers and perhaps something extra for zealots could also make it so Gateway based armies can keep up later on but it requires as much of an investment than teching for other tiers of units. The only scary part is then being able to warp in even stronger units in the late game at the battlefield. This would also still require the MsC to be weaker since stronger base units with Recall might be a bit much.
In the end it may also be nice to keep the cooldown and current design I proposed for the Warpgate, with the cooldown also being for offensive warp ins, limited to the amount of gateways + warpgates you have. For example having 7 gateways and 1 Warpgate would mean you can warp in 8 units once every 240 seconds, or recall them once every 240 seconds.
Really good discussion points so far!
*Added the following to the main post after considering the feedback and discussion:
The 240 second cooldown per Warpgate is not only for recall, but also for offensive warp-ins. The cooldown will be shared and you have to choose whether you will Recall forces, or warp-in offensively. The Warpgate allows you to warp in the amount of units equal to the amount of Gateways + Warpgates you have, and trigger the normal build time cooldowns on these structures. This makes it more of a strategic choice and the cost for transforming a Gateway into a Warpgate can be balanced accordingly. Keep in mind the cost I mentioned is a placeholder value (150/150).
Example:
You have 6 Gateways and invested into 2 Warpgates next to that, in total that's 8 Tier 1 producing structures.
*This means you have 2x Recall / Offensive Warp in available on two seperate 240 second cooldowns
*This means you can warp in 6 Tier 1 units at once for the cooldown, and trigger normal build time cooldowns on all gateways + Warpgates. Obviously you cannot warp in while producing units so it requires a bit more pre-emptive planning and good decision-making.
|
On May 12 2015 22:01 Xiphias wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 20:22 Salteador Neo wrote:
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod. Funny you mention Starbow. In Starbow the warp-gate is on templar tech. Each unit warped in have 10 sec longer cooldown compared to build-time from gateway and the warp-in itself is about 8 seconds. That's one way to make it a choice and not something to get asap.
Changing the cooldown on Warpgates is such a no-brainer I'm baffled why they didn't just change that. It's ridiculous how the cooldown for Warpgates is 10 seconds shorter than Gateways' production time (or 5 seconds for Sentries).
|
On May 12 2015 22:25 Roadog wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 22:01 Xiphias wrote:On May 12 2015 20:22 Salteador Neo wrote:
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod. Funny you mention Starbow. In Starbow the warp-gate is on templar tech. Each unit warped in have 10 sec longer cooldown compared to build-time from gateway and the warp-in itself is about 8 seconds. That's one way to make it a choice and not something to get asap. Changing the cooldown on Warpgates is such a no-brainer I'm baffled why they didn't just change that. It's ridiculous how the cooldown for Warpgates is 10 seconds shorter than Gateways' production time (or 5 seconds for Sentries).
Well, it's easy to understand that gateways cooldown is longer to nerf proxy gate. But then after the very first minutes of the game it is just too long. This is why warpgate is actually a research that costs money and takes time :o.
|
On May 12 2015 23:55 SChlafmann wrote:Show nested quote +On May 12 2015 22:25 Roadog wrote:On May 12 2015 22:01 Xiphias wrote:On May 12 2015 20:22 Salteador Neo wrote:
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod. Funny you mention Starbow. In Starbow the warp-gate is on templar tech. Each unit warped in have 10 sec longer cooldown compared to build-time from gateway and the warp-in itself is about 8 seconds. That's one way to make it a choice and not something to get asap. Changing the cooldown on Warpgates is such a no-brainer I'm baffled why they didn't just change that. It's ridiculous how the cooldown for Warpgates is 10 seconds shorter than Gateways' production time (or 5 seconds for Sentries). Well, it's easy to understand that gateways cooldown is longer to nerf proxy gate. But then after the very first minutes of the game it is just too long. This is why warpgate is actually a research that costs money and takes time :o.
Wait you mean there is a logical answer to this?
Nerf warpgate is so 5 years ago. The game is fine with it. If you're dying to warpgate allins, scout better. If you think there should be a choice between Warpgate and regular Gateway, then you're overthinking it. You should spend some time thinking about whether an Orbital Command should produce SCVs slower than a naked CC or if a PF should only be able to have minerals delivered to it (and not gas). Because that's basically the same faulty logic.
Thinking there should be a choice is one thing but stating it as fact is another. I built a cybernetics core, paid my 50/50 and researched Warpgate tech... I feel like I've earned the right to use Warpgates. The same way that you research consussive shells and JUST HAVE CONCUSSIVE SHELLS from that point forward. Nobody asks you to have to pick what kind of shot you want to shoot each time a Marauder fires.
Let me remind everyone that units being warped in DO take a few seconds to warp in during which they can be attacked. This is in comparison to units that pop out of a Gateway ready to fight immediately at full health.
|
I always thought the best solution would be moving Warp-gate to twilight tech then lowering unit production times on the gateway to sync them up more with T and Z production times personally. Then put Blink or Zealot charge (or change charge into a speed upgrade a la Brood War) on Cyber Core so that P still have the ability to be relatively mobile early on.
|
I've always liked the idea of allowing a warp gate to produce normally like a gateway, and warp in as an option, but the warp in has a much longer cooldown OR costs more money. I think we can all agree that warping in should be a choice with pros and cons and not just a delayed tech.
However sadly Blizzard will never even consider changing it at this point. They're too in love with their own design. If they refuse to do anything new with the forcefield, and are adamant that they will not use the proposed economy, then they really have no intention of listening to the community at all, just like they haven't listened for 5 years.
|
On May 13 2015 00:31 SetGuitarsToKill wrote:
I've always liked the idea of allowing a warp gate to produce normally like a gateway, and warp in as an option, but the warp in has a much longer cooldown OR costs more money. I think we can all agree that warping in should be a choice with pros and cons and not just a delayed tech.
There is no way i agree with this 
The only ok change i can see is lowering gateway production time so that it is faster than warpgate. But still dont change warpgate cooldown.
|
On May 12 2015 20:22 Salteador Neo wrote:
If warpgate were to be removed and the units buffed, people would love it for the first couple days and then move on to complain about how strong gateway units are (dumb strong zealots, no skill a-move crap race) just like it happened in BW and with the Collossus.
I for one like the warpgate tech. It makes the protoss race feel kinda unique even if the core units are weakened to compensate. If i wanted to play BW with SC2 graphics I'd play the Starbow mod.
Unique =/= fun
People complain about it because it creates bad game play, its just bad design all around.
Since warpgate overrides so many of the core principles of RTS Blizzard has been putting band aids over band aids only because they are so adamant that WG is good design, it is not.
WG due to the short production time and capacity to denegate defenders advantage makes it so protoss units have to be balanced around this, they can't be too strong or gateway all ins would be too strong, in response gateway units have to be weaker, but since having weaks units would mean protoss can't fight the other races blizzard gave them tools to "work around this", to name a few:
FF: Since protoss gateway units are weak, they have a harder time fighting early game units, specially of zerg, so they are given the FF that allows to fight a bigger zerg army and gives them defenders capability.
(creates awful gameplay, one of the spells with the least counter play, promotes turtle play)
Colossus: To make these weak gateway units be capable of fighting the mid game armies of terran/zerg they are too reliant on AoE, these AoE units need to be strong enough to kill these armies but not too strong to be unbeteable.
(promotes deathballs since colossus are very fragile, one of the most hard counter interactions of the game in viking/corruptor/viper vs colossus, colossus are considered bland and boring units to play and watch)
PO: Since WG makes protoss units too strong on all ins they have to be toned down, this makes them bad in low numbers
so they are given a spell to counter for this timing of weakness for protoss so that they can expand without too much risk, helps with the coin flip of PvP.
(A one-fix-all spell, responsible for making many early aggression builds dissapear, not much micro too use and doesn't offers much counter play, makes playstyles too forgiving in the early game)
Recall: Since the protoss gateway army is weak and thus dependant on robo units the protoss army becomes too vulnerable and slow so they give recall to allow protoss to move around the map
(this makes protoss not be punished for bad positioning, another spell thats too forgiving)
These are only a few of bad design moves that create bad game play.
So for all the protoss players that keep talking about "OC too strong nerf that" or "protoss so weak why more nerf" or "just T whiners"
This about desing and quality of game play.
DESIGN AND QUALITY OF GAMEPLAY NOT BALANCE
Its not aboud people dying to gatewall all ins or people talking about the power of protoss or anything like that, we are talking about how to make the game more enjoyable to watch and play, if 2/3 (wich is saying too little since protoss players also hate having weak gateway units and having to depend on colossus) think that it creates bad and frustrating games then it needs to be changed for the better of the game.
It doesn't matter how balanced the game is if its design in a way that makes people not want to play it.
PS: Just for the record I don't like OP changes nor do I think WG needs to be nerfed.
|
On May 13 2015 00:10 DinoMight wrote:
You should spend some time thinking about whether an Orbital Command should produce SCVs slower than a naked CC or if a PF should only be able to have minerals delivered to it (and not gas). Because that's basically the same faulty logic.
I was about to write this. Thank you
|
Blizzard loves their warpgate. I will eat my hat if we see any serious re-design.
|
As pointed out earlier, there is a reason that warpgate has a LOWER cooldown than gateway... it's because of proxy strategies... If naked gateways had a faster production time than warp gates it would buff proxy strategies, which to me is less interesting.
I'd rather have slightly longer production at the beginning and once we're past the proxy stage of the game, have faster cooldowns.
|
On May 13 2015 02:06 DinoMight wrote:
As pointed out earlier, there is a reason that warpgate has a LOWER cooldown than gateway... it's because of proxy strategies... If naked gateways had a faster production time than warp gates it would buff proxy strategies, which to me is less interesting.
I'd rather have slightly longer production at the beginning and once we're past the proxy stage of the game, have faster cooldowns.
Make warpgate upgrade unlock warpgates AND faster build time for gateways
|
On May 13 2015 02:14 Geiko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:06 DinoMight wrote:
As pointed out earlier, there is a reason that warpgate has a LOWER cooldown than gateway... it's because of proxy strategies... If naked gateways had a faster production time than warp gates it would buff proxy strategies, which to me is less interesting.
I'd rather have slightly longer production at the beginning and once we're past the proxy stage of the game, have faster cooldowns. Make warpgate upgrade unlock warpgates AND faster build time for gateways
This would actually be a really interesting way to solve the problem. It actually opens up more options for Protoss strategically as well as economically speaking.
If you can produce faster with Gateways, you would require less production buildings to have the same production capacity as you have now. Say 8 Gates producing is about equal to constant production from 6 Gates with this change.
This means you still spend the maximum amount of resources in relatively the same time while needing to invest slightly less into production, but to forego warp ins for a while until you feel like it is strategically better or your timing is ready / enemy timing hits at multiple places.
If you then make sure that the gateway focused buffs are baked into mid game upgrades you can completely avoid the 7/8 gate all-ins "being too strong" while still having staying power the moment you need to be mobile and taking expansions with basic units (coupled with upgrade investments).
|
So here are my thoughts about it:
Do Warpgates offer anything else to the game other than beeing a unique way for Protoss to macro?
Short Answer is no! Warpgates are in every way superior to Gateways which leads to an entire production facility of Protoss not beeing used. It actually strengthens the macro capabilities of Protoss compared to the Gateways in addition of removing yet another defenders advantage (distance). It also destroyed the early game pace of Starcraft 2 by beeing this early available and the game had to be balanced around that. To compensate for a completely broken game mechanic, the Units you warp in as a protoss player are so weak, that they Protoss has to rely on Robo and Stargate units, which all are extremely powerful, just to stand a Chance in midgame and lategame.
For Protoss on the other hand it creates defences anywhere instantly available and does not punish a Protoss player for beeing out of position. Blizzard addressed the last issue in LotV though to be fair.
What has Starbow done?
Starbow uses the concept of having Warpgate a lategame instead of an early game upgrade. As Counterpart, Gateway units can be much stronger. Downside for having the Warpgate in Starbow that you actually slow down your production in Exchange for outpositioning your Opponent (positions in a BW environement is much more important compared to SC2 where Protoss can just move anywhere freely on the map and is not punished generally for beeing out of position)
and you cant warp in Dragoons in Starbow, which is pretty hefty. Nevertheless Warpin is still used in this game because you can still outposition your Opponent by using them.
Personal Conclusion:
Obviously it is far too late for the Starbow solution. The Early game and the way protoss works has been settled in Stone by now: A race which is dependant on allin or semi allin Timings with weak Gateway units that only win by abusing a game mechanic that is completely broken at its core or as an alternative relies on powerful robos/stargate tech units. Obviously Blizzard seems fine with this approach since they gave another strong unit to the robo and buffed the carrier into insanity instead of properly addressing a game-mechanic People complain about for 5 years now. People who came into RTS with Starcraft 2 probably defend also the Warpgate more, since they think warp-in is a race defining ability of Protoss (because Blizzard told them it would be so)
But I would be happy if they left the Warp-gate as it is in HOTS and at least add a unit which you could only build from the Gateway. This unit could be very strong. Hell they even could just add the LOTV immortal to the gateway. I think that is a nice compromise. The Gateway units and their (imo) complete bs mechanic it relies on, which People like would remain but it also would offer protoss more diverse playstyle and it suddenly becomes incredibly more strategic by such a simple Change:
-Do I want to begin with strong Gateway units (like the Immortal) and give up my aggressive potential early game?
-Do I want to be agressive with Warpgates and later tech to higher Tier units?
-Do I want to be agressive with warpgates and Switch back to gatway units? (like the Immortal)
-Do I want strong units instead of instantly weak available ones?
just my 2 cents
|
What about a longer warping time (with increased damage taken like they tried to implement) based on the distance from the warp gate, or distance from a Nexus ??
|
United States4883 Posts
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.
|
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.
People have been saying this since the dawn of time.
I would actually like it if adepts couldn't be warped neither but they were stronger, maybe give them another upgrade so adept all ins are not so strong, range/damage maybe, I'm not sure what they would need.
|
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.
I agree, its far too late to do any weird warpgate unit changes. The focus should be of rendering the gateway an alternative.
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
On May 13 2015 02:52 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
That its exactly what everybody is trying to get to.
You think protoss is a well designed race, the rest does not.
At the very end its very obvious that there will be people that like protoss as it is, but its only a few, the biggest part of the player base has dislike it for what it is.
At the very end its a matter of opinion, but it is what it is, the majority dislike it, including many protoss players, you are allowed to have your opinion as so we do, and none is more true than the other.
Altough I doubt it would matter anyway, we all know blizzard won't change even if the whole community asks for it.
|
On May 13 2015 02:57 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On May 13 2015 02:45 Lexender 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. People have been saying this since the dawn of time. I would actually like it if adepts couldn't be warped neither but they were stronger, maybe give them another upgrade so adept all ins are not so strong, range/damage maybe, I'm not sure what they would need.
I think splash damage is the key for the Adept and possibly for making them the linchpin gateway units need. However, there must be some sort of limitation on it while trying to avoid yet another spell/cooldown ability. They should be a move-and-shoot unit with the cool shade ability for escape/offense only. So the splash damage has to occur on the base attack with restrictions. I think the following could work:
==
- The third consecutive strike from the same adept on the same target triggers an aoe attack that only hits enemy units
- Any 3 second interruption between the successive attacks restarts the sequence (micro back the unit to counter).
- There would be a successive animation to indicate which unit it's on and how close it is to triggering (maybe the unit glows increasingly brighter or a growing concentric circle underneath the unit it's on)
==
So it's basically a combo attacking splash unit. Since it's 3 strikes, Adepts can be still effective worker killers, but their aoe can never trigger on workers (that aren't being healed) since they already 2-shot them.
Adepts also 2-shot Zerglings and marines (up until combat shields and/or medivacs), however these units are usually clumped together with a sturdy armored unit (roaches and marauders) so there would still be opportunity to trigger the aoe on those nearby units. This also presents an interesting tradeoff of either utilizing the adept's insane damage vs. light or going for the aoe on targets that can withstand more than two hits. Or you could simply target your own stalkers/immortals in some scenarios (mass ling surround?).
Having the combo sequence easily interrupted by micro could also lead to interesting engagements. The opponent has the opportunity to run the unit back, but the adept could also time the shade ability to appear behind said unit to complete the sequence.
|
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.
|
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.
|
I don't think this has been mentioned yet so I will put forward this idea.
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.
|
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.
|
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +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. Warpgate timings are of course defensible, but they still make no sense for the reasons you mention in the second part of your post.
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)
|
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +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. Warpgate timings are of course defensible, but they still make no sense for the reasons you mention in the second part of your post.
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.
|
I'm of a different opinion: I think that, if warpgate is to be a productions mechanic like larva and add-ons to queuing, then Blizzard has to go whole hog on it, and find a way to incorporate stargate and robo into the system. There's no point in arguing how "warpgate is the backbone of Protoss" when two-thirds of their production still relies on Terran queuing elements. Of course, that means that the current pylon system is wholly incompatible because it'd be too easy to abuse them for reinforcement of units like colossi and carriers.
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.
|
On May 14 2015 21:24 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote: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. Warpgate timings are of course defensible, but they still make no sense for the reasons you mention in the second part of your post. 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.
|
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).
|
On May 14 2015 21:48 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 21:24 ejozl wrote:On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote: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. Warpgate timings are of course defensible, but they still make no sense for the reasons you mention in the second part of your post. 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.
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.
|
Ok, I've answered my own question about how the OP's idea is supposed to work:
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.
|
On May 14 2015 20:49 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +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. Warpgate timings are of course defensible, but they still make no sense for the reasons you mention in the second part of your post.
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.
|
On May 14 2015 21:53 Talaris wrote:Show nested quote +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).
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 
|
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!
|
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.
|
On May 15 2015 03:02 404AlphaSquad wrote:Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
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
|
On May 14 2015 23:33 egrimm wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 21:53 Talaris wrote: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). I was even thinking about: Warped units have no shields and no energyThat 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!
|
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!
|
On May 15 2015 08:14 SharkStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2015 23:33 egrimm wrote:On May 14 2015 21:53 Talaris wrote: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). I was even thinking about: Warped units have no shields and no energyThat 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!
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:Show nested quote +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!
I support the adjusted Immortal in the Gateway too.
Thanks for the polls Masayume!
|
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.
|
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.
|
I always thought it would make more sense for warp-in to be an ability, just like mules or scans, that was used occasionally but did not replace the core functionality of the gateway. Is there anything wrong with giving gateways energy and using that energy when warping in units? Obviously this is a significant change and would likely warrant rebalancing of protoss units, but I think the mechanic would make a lot more sense then.
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.
|
I think something a lot of people forget with this discussion is that the whole point of changing WG is to allow for a better design that allow to solve the problems with protoss in a fun way.
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.
|
Improving Gateway is a tricky deal because making a unit simply better at fighting does make All-IN more dangerous. And I do concur with the notion that Sentries and MSC feels like a band-aid, and by all means, I would love to see changes to make them feel like great additions instead of units that are just attempting to masked weaknesses. Also, a mid game would be nice if Protoss didn't always have to tech up fast to survive, but that just feels impossible with weak Gateway units. And so many people say, Warp-gate is the reason why Gateway units are weak and that they have to depend on Gimmicks to survive, which causes all this issues,
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.
- Zerglings beat Protoss when equal in supply and upgrade. Charge doesn't change this outcome, and Zerg are easily able to outproduce compared to Protoss.
- Charge is an additional upgrade that cost 200 minerals & gas, which should delay any aggression long enough as they also need Weapon upgrade and Warpgate upgrade. This is at least 350 gas required and 3 upgrades that are being rushed out. This should be enough time for Zerg to prepare a defense to deal with them.
- They have banelings that are effective against them.
- Roaches can still kite them on creep. Also, if burrow is researched. Burrow roaches can tank a lot of damage with decent micro.
- You don't need speed upgrades from Zerglings or Banelings to fight Zealots.
- And if it gets late enough, Lurkers will kill them.
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.
|
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. 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.
|
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 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.
|
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....
|
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.
|
On May 21 2015 04:04 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +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....
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.
|
The best way to solve the Warpgate is to remove it. Badly designed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
