|
On October 13 2012 15:00 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
But they are still warped in from the Gateway, thus they are called Gateway units. By your logic we shouldn't call Carriers Stargate units either because they are tier 3 as well.
|
I can't say if gateway units are too weak, but I will say that their effectiveness is closely tied to the warpgate mechanic.
|
On October 13 2012 15:09 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 15:00 KrazyTrumpet wrote: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. But they are still warped in from the Gateway, thus they are called Gateway units. By your logic we shouldn't call Carriers Stargate units either because they are tier 3 as well.
When you are discussing the relative strengths of t1/1.5 units, you cannot include T3 units in the discussion...
|
Gateway units are quite in the right spot, maybe a little too Forcefield-reliant (mostly against roaches and zerglings).
The thing is, people want Stalkers and Zealots to be strong on their own, which may give Protoss a little more noncommital combat strength - but also makes Warpgate and Blink allins imbalanced.
There is also a basic problem with Gateway Units: There are 6 of them, people only talk about 3 of them and only 2 of them are units that can really be used for early pressure (and even that's not really true; TvP and PvP we sometimes see offensive forcefields outside of allins).
It's quite impossible to strongly buff the Stalker and the Zealot, even if there were no Sentries or Warpgates, simply because the Gateway still has Stormtemplar and Archons on its techpath and would probably be overpowered in its T3 stage, if Stalker/Zealot could already stand up to bio and roach/ling cost for cost.
Outside of PvZ (were Protoss cannot really get on the map at all), Stalkers also provide a lot of mapcontrol and early pressure - which is quite a good indication that this unit isn't that bad. All it needs is a little bit of room and a blink upgrade to be quite a powerful tool against Terran.
|
On October 13 2012 08:53 Mistakes wrote:
As a Master+ Zerg and low Master Terran I feel that gateway units are too strong (coupled with sentries) when used properly against Z. However when I play Terran I laugh at gateway units. Blink all you want, it won't do anything! Lol.
That's somewhat true. But the reason why they seem to be too "strong" in PvZ can (to a very large extend) be attributed to Warpgate. If Protoss couldn't instantly reinforce its army right in the battlefield, then this would be much less of an issue. This would not even mitigate Protoss itming pushes, it also allows to Zerg to catch reinforcements and gain time. So in the end, the true problem is Warpgate, not Gateway units.
|
I don't think gateway units are weak, I think they can become weak if you 1) don't have the right composition, e.g. lots of stalkers against terran bio or too many sentries, 2) don't upgrade them appropriately and at the right times, e.g. there is a certain point in PvT where you need charge on your zealots and double forge upgrades going, or 3) don't support them with tech in various mid to late game situations, e.g. immortals/colo against 3 base roach, or colo or templar once medivacs kick in in PvT.
The one exception I would make to these rules is PvP, because lategame PvP is infamously stupid with mass colossus being the most powerful unit composition in just about every situation. Perhaps the new Tempest will resolve this, as stalkers will become viable against tempest, and charge lots trade decently well with stalkers, but time will tell in this regard.
Also I personally like the fact that gateway units are partially balanced against the warpgate mechanic, it is an example of asymmetric balance, and is no different to zerg units being balanced around the larva mechanic.
I will add that I think the suggestion that gateway units are too weak may be because of the high level of micro required by the Protoss in the early to mid game, things like keeping your stalkers alive while target firing marauders against terran, using forcefields within your Simcity at your natural against Zerg, using forcefield defensively on the 'stalker side' of your army when engaging Zergs, and then there's blink micro which every player can work on until their GM. These may be difficult for more casual/low level players, and would make gateway units seem more fragile than they are.
|
This is pathetic. Blizzard is attempting to ignore all the threads and complaints that protoss players have vocalized by claiming that it is only lower level players who harbor these complaints.
Let me assure you that this is not the case. With every single balance patch, and with every single response that Blizzard posts, it becomes obvious that there is a massive disconnect between the game makers and the game. They clearly do not understand what we are complaining about.
I understand their point. The qualm comes from the fact that a high level player can still make our cost inefficient units work by utlizing things like force field efficiently and teching to T3. No one is saying that Protoss is not capable of winning vs the other races. We are simply saying that the Protoss style that is necessary to do so is frustrating for both players, and frankly, I am pissed off that they're trying to disregard our complaints by saying that these concerns are coming solely from low level players.
I have never tooted my own horn or posted y rank on this forum, but I will now. I am a high masters Protoss player who has even been lucky enough to beat the likes of Destiny, Stalife, ajtsl (back in the day) and played (but lost) to CatZ and Kawaiirice. I am not a pro, but I am not bad either.
These concerns are not coming from "low level players." This is simply an attempt for Blizzard to brush their mistakes under the rug.
It's time we scream even louder. This is simply offensive.
Edit: our entire argument is that our units are weak without warpgate and forcefield. This is not fun. I don't want to rely on putting myself in a golden position during a timing attack and effectively making all of my zerg opponent's units useless with FF. If I don't? Zreglings and roaches will decimate my army that costs 2x as much. This is not fun. Protoss is becoming more and more gimmicky, and if the most stale race by far, because we absolutely need to turtle with FF and get to the death ball while protecting our T3 units.
Fuck the colossus. Fuck FF. Fuck warpgate. Protoss sucks, and they refuse to admit it, instead saying "oh, only low level players think so."
Fuck blizzard.
|
On October 13 2012 13:58 Cloak wrote:
Masters here, but I consume pro games mostly these days. Warpgate doesn't affect much with unit balance. Defender's advantage has always been circumventable, so it's not really a fundamental balance issue.
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.
As opposed to marines and marauders requiring medivacs to trade remotely well as well as concussive shell and stim.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in BW gateway units were relatively strong, and thus were the `core' of your army, not just in a meatshield sense like they are now, but also in the sense of damage output.
I prefer this dynamic because it spreads out the damage dealing, allowing for more reward for multitasking. Also, If you don't rely on the sc2 style of protecting your heavy hitters with low damage meatshields/anti-air (stalkers), it becomes an anti-deathball mechanism.
If gateway units were more powerful then collosi could be tuned differently. It wouldn't need to be a sustained dps unit to counteract low damage of gateway units. Perhaps it could be a high burst damage unit instead of spread DPS, and would then be used more tactically (rather than 'a-move' strategically). In any case it gives it room to become a more exciting unit than the unit it is now, which few people would disagree is a little dull.
I think I'm just recreating BW here though (reaver back anyone?)
|
Lower level players are the ONLY people complaining that they're losing games because gateway units are weak. High-Master Protoss here... Gateway units when used properly are absolutely amazing as core units for Protoss. However, they are much harder to use than their Terran/Zerg counterparts. Marine/Maruder and Ling/Roach are pretty A-movey.
What high level players are arguing, is not that gateway units are too weak and that they are losing games because of this weakness, but rather that specifically the Stalker doesn't do the job well of being a robust defensive unit. Thus requiring Protoss to be overly reliant on FF and thus requiring maps to have easy to access 3rds, 1wide ramps into the main, and a secondary choke at the natural to allow for FFE. Any map that does not have all 3 of these features is an immense hindrance to Protoss because the stalker does such a little amount of damage and is unable to abuse its mobility very well on defense. Often times your nexus will die while you're trying to chip down an army with stalkers.
High level players would like to see an SC2 where these currently required map features are unnecessary. A world where the Stalker can be a robust defensive unit allowing for a Protoss army which is able to exist outside of the "ball" for the early-mid game. Stalkers are great for their mobility, they're a balanced unit, but mobility does not provide a defensive advantage, only an offensive advantage.
|
On October 13 2012 15:00 KrazyTrumpet wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I am a masters protoss, and I regularly win PvZs and PvPs with only zealots and stalkers.
In my opinion, the problem with gateway units is stim. Gateway units can absolutely hold their own against pre-stim bio, and we regularly see very effective PvT gateway all-ins. Terran T1 just gain insane damage and mobility at the start of the midgame. Coupled with the fact that marines have the smallest collision radius in the game, zealots and stalkers just don't have a chance. I believe stim is, balanced, but the balance is dependent on Colossi and HTs making up the damage difference that stim gives to a bio ball.
|
On October 13 2012 08:49 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:
...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.
This is definitely the most obvious problem with warp gate.
ANY DESIGN THAT YIELDS A DOMINANT STRATEGY I A FLAWED DESIGN.
The fact that making warp gates is an automatic decision makes the game more boring. To make things worse, in this case, the dominant strategy ruins the game by forcing the weakening of gate units and relying on very few, specific and not fun strategies (warp ins, ffs, vortex).
There are a few possible solutions to this. I really don't know which will work best but I am certain that the direction is to make warpgate a tradeoff to gateway and not an auto decision:
1. Buff gate units and have warped in units warp with only 75% shields. (number is just an example, could be 50% or what ever will be balanced)
2. Buff gate units and have Warp in units warp with a Warp Sickness debuff that lowers their stats abit (maybe to how they currently are) for 60 seconds. (at the end of which their stats return to normal.)
3. As Sanchez stated above, make warp gates have longer cool downs than gateways.
I will end on a pessimistic note, the fact the David kim makes statements like "I want mech play to revolve around the Widow mine" shows how little he understands about balancing a game. What he should want is players having a really hard time deciding which tech path to take since they are all so cool and viable. Only after the tech paths of a race are balanced between them should he balance between the races.
|
On October 13 2012 23:43 Kaw wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 15:00 KrazyTrumpet wrote: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. I am a masters protoss, and I regularly win PvZs and PvPs with only zealots and stalkers. In my opinion, the problem with gateway units is stim. Gateway units can absolutely hold their own against pre-stim bio, and we regularly see very effective PvT gateway all-ins. Terran T1 just gain insane damage and mobility at the start of the midgame. Coupled with the fact that marines have the smallest collision radius in the game, zealots and stalkers just don't have a chance. I believe stim is, balanced, but the balance is dependent on Colossi and HTs making up the damage difference that stim gives to a bio ball.
Yes and if it weren't that way, bio would not be a playable style.
Barracks are more limited than hatcheries and gateways/warpgates in amount of units and in support roles and the units on it have their own upgrade path and barracks+addons cost considerably more than gateways and hatcheries+queens.
On top of that, those units still require support units (medivacs, tanks, vikings) to really work well.
Stop comparing Terran "T1" to Protoss "T1". One of them needs a setup that is a complete techpath on its own, the other one doesn't and therefore is weaker in the longrun, yet other techpaths give you the support needed.
|
On October 13 2012 23:39 DarkblueRH wrote:
What high level players are arguing, is not that gateway units are too weak and that they are losing games because of this weakness, but rather that specifically the Stalker doesn't do the job well of being a robust defensive unit. Thus requiring Protoss to be overly reliant on FF and thus requiring maps to have easy to access 3rds, 1wide ramps into the main, and a secondary choke at the natural to allow for FFE. Any map that does not have all 3 of these features is an immense hindrance to Protoss because the stalker does such a little amount of damage and is unable to abuse its mobility very well on defense. Often times your nexus will die while you're trying to chip down an army with stalkers.
I am far from a high level player, but I have always thought that Stalkers are just right balance wise and Immortals are too weak. I never understood why they have less range than stalkers. Can someone highlight what will get broken balance-wise if ever Immortals got the same range as Stalkers? Immortals should be the robust defensive unit the Stalkers are not right?
I think a change to Immortals can greatly influence how effective the Gateway units are.
|
On October 14 2012 00:28 Don.681 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 23:39 DarkblueRH wrote:
What high level players are arguing, is not that gateway units are too weak and that they are losing games because of this weakness, but rather that specifically the Stalker doesn't do the job well of being a robust defensive unit. Thus requiring Protoss to be overly reliant on FF and thus requiring maps to have easy to access 3rds, 1wide ramps into the main, and a secondary choke at the natural to allow for FFE. Any map that does not have all 3 of these features is an immense hindrance to Protoss because the stalker does such a little amount of damage and is unable to abuse its mobility very well on defense. Often times your nexus will die while you're trying to chip down an army with stalkers.
I am far from a high level player, but I have always thought that Stalkers are just right balance wise and Immortals are too weak. I never understood why they have less range than stalkers. Can someone highlight what will get broken balance-wise if ever Immortals got the same range as Stalkers? Immortals should be the robust defensive unit the Stalkers are not right? I think a change to Immortals can greatly influence how effective the Gateway units are.
Immortals have had the same range as Stalkers since September 2011.
|
The speed of which discussion degenerates in these threads makes me lose more and more hope in the future of SC2. At least in ItWhoSpeeks thread we had some rationality and objective support from other races.
|
On October 14 2012 00:41 CikaZombi wrote:
The speed of which discussion degenerates in these threads makes me lose more and more hope in the future of SC2. At least in ItWhoSpeeks thread we had some rationality and objective support from other races.
I think many of the people replying in this thread are, ironically, missing the point when they state that gateway units can be strong in warpgate timing attacks. The question was whether T1 gateway units are relatively weak (compared to BW or just in general) because the warp gate mechanic would make them too strong otherwise. It's not a coincidence that Protoss rely on timing attacks so much when their core units are balanced around warpgate.
|
Gateway units are weak early on but after twilight upgrades they become pretty deadly with proper control and support, similar to the other races early units.
|
Its pretty simple to me, if you miss your timing are you behind?
The answer is always gonna be 'hell yea', so gateway units have a problem.
And any other unit that is only balanced during timing attacks, also has a problem.
I don't mind timing attacks, they're inevitable! But better that timing attacks be discovered than be expected.
|
I always thought if the warpgate cooldown was about 3 times as large as it is now for units but that the cooldown will keep going when the structures are in gateway mode would be a good way to balance. You can use warpgates still, just not as often. Sure there will be a rush of units from time to time but it will only happen if the player has good macro as they still have to transform gateways to and from warpgates.
Things like exactly how much longer the warpgate cooldowns need to be and how fast you can transform from gateways to warpgates might need to be adjusted but it would at least help in the early/mid game troubles.
Not sure if it would balance out with end game armies though. If you have 20 gateways that's still 40 supply very quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
