EPTBlizzard: Gateway/Warpgate only a lowlevel issue? - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
MateShade
Australia736 Posts
On October 13 2012 08:49 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Holy fucking shit how insulting. I am a VERY low level player but a very very large consumer of pro games, I watch hours and hours and hours of matches. I don't want warpgate changed for me, I couldn't care less for me. I want warpgate and gateway changed because it is illogical. Why should the more convienient option (warpgate) have a better cooldown than the gateway? Why not just make them fucking warpgates to begin with? No, I want them flipped so that there's a tradeoff, a risk / reward. I want more exciting games to watch. I want to see players have to balance between gateways and warpgates and make a tactical decision if they have all gates, all warps or a mix of both. It could make for more exciting battles. They just don't get it, just fucking remove the gateway and be done with it. This is why there is seperate opinions of high and low level players. if you dont understand why having warpgate available from the get go is an issue than why are you commenting on it. It's these really strong opinions like yours from players that don't really get the game anyway that are just plain silly, and it can be really frustrating for blizzard having to read through all of them. What you 'think' would make an exciting game actually would not. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
We have said on repeated occasions that we will be addressing Swarm units before we look to address WoL units. Please keep that in mind. We are paying attention, even if it doesn't seem that way to you. -Cloaken http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6864316601#11 | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On October 13 2012 11:26 MateShade wrote: What you 'think' would make an exciting game actually would not. The early game can be addressed, the mid to late game having warp as the only choice is where they could improve the game with a tradeoff decision. If you can't see how this could be more interesting then IDKWTF. Also, I got the idea from a few posts here and agreed with it, it's been an idea pushed on TL by many, many experienced players for a very long time. The blanket post by Blizzard that it's something only the newbs are requesting is clearly insulting to many high skilled players. Trying to rope my lack of skill into it as if it's my idea is ridiculous. Argue with the rest of the thread, don't take the easy pickings because I'm honest enough to admit my skills. | ||
|
MateShade
Australia736 Posts
On October 13 2012 11:32 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: The early game can be addressed, the mid to late game having warp as the only choice is where they could improve the game with a tradeoff decision. If you can't see how this could be more interesting then IDKWTF. Also, I got the idea from a few posts here and agreed with it, it's been an idea pushed on TL by many, many experienced players for a very long time. The blanket post by Blizzard that it's something only the newbs are requesting is clearly insulting to many high skilled players. Trying to rope my lack of skill into it as if it's my idea is ridiculous. Argue with the rest of the thread, don't take the easy pickings because I'm honest enough to admit my skills. I'm not trying to have a go at you personally. But I actually dont believe that a high % of high level players want warpgate changed. Sure people have been vocal about it but in reality, most of the top players think its quite okay and would rather many other things be changed first before that is looked at. I'm not looking at your skill to say your idea is rediculous. Your idea is just rediculous. Warp gate available straight away would compeltely break the game. The fact that youre a low level player simply provides an explanation as to why you have such a bad idea. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On October 13 2012 12:19 MateShade wrote: I'm not trying to have a go at you personally. But I actually dont believe that a high % of high level players want warpgate changed. Sure people have been vocal about it but in reality, most of the top players think its quite okay and would rather many other things be changed first before that is looked at. I'm not looking at your skill to say your idea is rediculous. Your idea is just rediculous. Warp gate available straight away would compeltely break the game. The fact that youre a low level player simply provides an explanation as to why you have such a bad idea. I don't want warp gate straight away, that's a ridiculous suggestion. I'm being facetious when I say thatperhaps it's not obvious enough? It's very obvious why it shouldn't be there right away. The issue is that the gateway becomes utterly irrelivant after about 5 minutes and it becomes a warpgate only game. I'm posing the idea that having gateway units building faster (not slower) than warpgate units, adds a different dynamic to the game and how it plays out. As I stated earlier,.. a trade off. | ||
|
Cheekio
United States34 Posts
| ||
|
BeeNu
615 Posts
On October 13 2012 10:19 ledarsi wrote: Three stalkers and a zealot costs 475 minerals and 150 gas. You would be hard pressed to find a composition of terran or zerg units of the same cost which is actually beaten by this protoss force. A terran can get 5-ish marauders for that, depending on how you want to equate the value of minerals to gas. And a zerg can get 6-7ish roaches. I myself am a masters terran. I think gateway units should be more effective against bio, and mech should be more effective against gateway units. Higher cost per supply should be stronger than lower cost per supply, and gateway costs more than bio, and mech costs more than gateway units. lol I could make that same comparison for every race, what a joke. Durr for the cost of 6 roaches a terran can get like 5 marauders and just kite them endlessly! Omg for the cost of 10 marines 2 banelings and a few lings can just kill them so clearly zerg and terran tier 1 units are too weak as well blizzard seriously needs to fix this shit. making silly little comparisons like that do not strengthen your argument. Also for people who think Gateway units are weak...just stop. The real lesson here is that you simply don't know how to use your units properly. Now, some say "gateway" units and only really mean Zealots/Stalker...which is retarded because there are another 4 whole units you can bust out of your gateway at the drop of a hat and if you only are crying about Stalker/Zealot then say Stalker/Zealot. I guess all I really want to say is that Protoss players in general are still really bad in the strategy department, they lied to the community a while ago and said they were getting better and they stopped crying about "stephano style" mass roach [a hilariously easy strat to beat when any common ladder player attempts it] but in reality most Toss players have not really evolved much at all. Like, do you Toss players even realize you have a thing called a Warp Prism which is basically an incredibly inexpensive flying Nydus which allows you to push your "weak" gateway units into incredibly favorable and cost effective positions? No, I doubt you did know that since most Protoss players think the only use for Warp Prism is to pull off a cheese build where they drop Sentry in the main and FF the ramp. | ||
|
GARcher
Canada294 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Zergrusher
United States562 Posts
| ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
It's more the Sentry dependence. Stalkers need their Guardian Aura to trade well, Zealots need their Forcefields to reach things. Stalkers get Blink eventually so they overcome their dependence, but Charge doesn't really fix things nearly as well. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On October 13 2012 13:29 Plansix wrote: Are we still talking about warpgate as if it was a thing that would ever change or go away. Its nearly 2013, I think that ship has sailed. Go away, ship has sailed - but change? We still have hope. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
On October 13 2012 12:57 BeeNu wrote:which allows you to push your "weak" gateway units into incredibly favorable and cost effective positions? This is the whole point. Warp gate (including with warp prisms) lets the protoss put their units into favorable positions. Most importantly, in or around the opponent's base instead of their own, requiring time to reinforce. Let me put this another way. As soon as the warp gate research finishes, and the protoss finishes a production cycle, converts their gateways, and immediately warps in, would that not be an excellent time to attack? And after that point, all their units build 10 seconds faster. This is why the 4gate, as the leanest fast warp gate build, has been such a sticky, recurring problem. Because the basic principle of "research warp gate, attack" is fundamentally a good idea. If you think this has had no effect on the nature of gateway units, you are a fool. And I wasn't naming the compositions that do work against gateway units. I was challenging the reader to come up with any way to spend those resources that would lose. There are not many of them, which is odd considering the cost of gateway units. Due to forcefield, these units have the option of fighting very favorably, and the option of not fighting at all if there is a choke to block. These factors are also very significant. Especially as it allows protoss to defend regardless of early game military strength; force field ignores unit strength, map design permitting. And then there is the fact that warp gate front-loads the production time of the gateway. The protoss pays for their production at the end of the production cycle, not the beginning. In terms of economic efficiency gain, this is marginal. However in terms of logistical strength in a maxed-army situation, it is invaluable. Each warp gate with warp ready can throw in another unit onto the board in 5 seconds flat. The opponent has to start producing units after they sustain casualties. The protoss' production keeps going regardless of whether they can pay for it, in resources or supply, and consequently when they can pay for it they have no need to wait. What I suggest is to balance Protoss production around Gateways, and have Warp Gate be a useful technique that is strictly less efficient for mass production, and significantly less efficient that you are paying for the convenience each time you use it. I don't think it is unsalvageable or inherently an unworkable idea, but the way the numbers are right now it is ridiculous, and has a serious effect on the usefulness and utility of gateway units. | ||
|
BeeNu
615 Posts
On October 13 2012 14:16 ledarsi wrote: This is the whole point. Warp gate (including with warp prisms) lets the protoss put their units into favorable positions. Most importantly, in or around the opponent's base instead of their own, requiring time to reinforce. Let me put this another way. As soon as the warp gate research finishes, and the protoss finishes a production cycle, converts their gateways, and immediately warps in, would that not be an excellent time to attack? And after that point, all their units build 10 seconds faster. This is why the 4gate, as the leanest fast warp gate build, has been such a sticky, recurring problem. Because the basic principle of "research warp gate, attack" is fundamentally a good idea. If you think this has had no effect on the nature of gateway units, you are a fool. And I wasn't naming the compositions that do work against gateway units. I was challenging the reader to come up with any way to spend those resources that would lose. There are not many of them, which is odd considering the cost of gateway units. Due to forcefield, these units have the option of fighting very favorably, and the option of not fighting at all if there is a choke to block. These factors are also very significant. Especially as it allows protoss to defend regardless of early game military strength; force field ignores unit strength, map design permitting. And then there is the fact that warp gate front-loads the production time of the gateway. The protoss pays for their production at the end of the production cycle, not the beginning. In terms of economic efficiency gain, this is marginal. However in terms of logistical strength in a maxed-army situation, it is invaluable. Each warp gate with warp ready can throw in another unit onto the board in 5 seconds flat. The opponent has to start producing units after they sustain casualties. The protoss' production keeps going regardless of whether they can pay for it, in resources or supply, and consequently when they can pay for it they have no need to wait. What I suggest is to balance Protoss production around Gateways, and have Warp Gate be a useful technique that is strictly less efficient for mass production, and significantly less efficient that you are paying for the convenience each time you use it. I don't think it is unsalvageable or inherently an unworkable idea, but the way the numbers are right now it is ridiculous, and has a serious effect on the usefulness and utility of gateway units. Don't get me wrong, I've always thought it was a bit silly that Gateways don't have any value aside from being the stepping stone to Warpgates and it'd be nice to be changed, but I'm more talking about the common opinion OP is referring to that Gate units are weak because of Warpin. The units are strong but obviously balanced to not be op in conjunction with warp-in and obviously if they did something like remove warp gates they would have to change and buff gate units but so what? None of this means Gate units are weak, no matter what whether you got your Gate units from a Gateway or a Warpgate they would still be relatively the same strength in the overall scheme of the game since thats how blizzard would balance it. The argument shouldn't be "wahh Gate units are made weak to compensate for warp-in blizz plz change it" but rather "Hey blizzard you have a perfectly good normal gateway mechanic which could be further utilized in conjunction with warp-in which could potentially add a lot of depth to how Protoss is played" | ||
|
hobbidude
Canada171 Posts
On October 13 2012 11:28 emc wrote: calm the fuck down everyone http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6864316601#11 That's complete bs. They say that is the exactly same patch that they changed spores and sentries. They're lieing through their teeth due to their incompetitency after alienating more than half of their players. I like many other have lost faith in blizzard game making abilities. Frankly I'd pay more you have certain staff fired than i would for hots. I've even talked directly to the development staff for hots and seen their resume; they are completely clueless and even unaware of their other staff. | ||
|
ledarsi
United States475 Posts
The way I use the term, the strength of the unit is a function of how it performs, mainly its combat stats. So when I talk about gateway units being "weak" I am not saying that their total utility is less than it should be, only that their intrinsic independent performance on the board is subpar. They are obviously useful as they are now, with the stats they have and their logistical advantages with warp gate, and the win rates suggest they are "balanced." They are used with warp gate, without gradual reinforcements, with sentry support for forcefield battle control, etc. etc. and it works, and is fair. That's not the point. I consider warp gate creating weaker gateway units a design flaw, not a balance issue. It contributes to weak protoss early game, requirements to tech, reliance on forcefield, reliance on colossi and high templar, and deathball play. Buffing zealots and stalkers in return for a warp gate and gateway time rework would make protoss stronger at all stages of the game, without relying on a one-off unit like the Mothership Core for early defense. Suitably strong gateway units would help break up the deathball as they could fight in smaller groups without reliance on sentries, or few big units (colossi), or on strength in numbers to be effective. Protoss players would choose whether they wanted more industrial efficiency from gateways, or the ability to warp in anywhere for immediate reinforcements, or for warp prism harass, etc. Protosses would have a reason to convert gateways back and forth as their needs change. Additionally, forcefield and warp gate are both big culprits in giving protoss extra power and options in pretty arbitrary and bad ways. Ideally forcefield would be changed so it is not an invincible absolute protection barrier. In conjunction with having gateway units that are the strongest and most expensive T1 units, forcefield and map chokes are not mandatory to avoid death. And destructible forcefields promote interaction between players, rather than a Protoss ultimatum that ye shall not pass. | ||
|
HumpingHydra
Canada97 Posts
Then high level players would have a mix of warpgates and regular gates, and be warping in low-shield units with warpgates, high shield units by regular building... and the game would be more exciting. Warpin times could be tweaked, or left as is. Too hard to balance? | ||
|
Kabras
Romania3508 Posts
| ||
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
On October 13 2012 14:59 Kabras wrote: how the hell are gateway units weak? i love how in every protoss qq thread everything starts with a retarded assumption. zealots destroy bio easy, if you can't use forcefields that sucks for you but don't tell me zealots, stalkers and templars are weak wtf. And you got op freakin warp gate so your "weak" units can spawn right in the middle of the fight and not have to walk all the way across the map like the dumb kids are doing. get some common sense ffs. Play Protoss for a month and see how many games you win with just Zealot/Stalker/Sentry. Stop including Templar in "Gateway" units btw as they are T3 units. | ||
| ||
