|
On October 14 2012 05:08 nevermindthebollocks wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2012 08:49 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:
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.
i like this idea. any time you force players to make a choice it is good. well not any time but you know what i mean. and it is logical and seeing people switch gates back and forth as a game goes one would be great. "oh why is he converting those two gates? what is he going to do now?" but the game is built to be too simple so everyone researches warp as soon as the can and make all their gates warp and that is that
It's not even about the flipping of them too though, I mean it's about deciding when to do the flip to warpgate, do they make that decision at all, why can't the regular gateway be a viable choice and the warpgate harassment behind enemy lines be more of a rare thing? I'm not saying I don't like warpgate harassment but it would be cool to have it being at least somewhat more unique.
Also defenders advantage in PvP gateway (faster build time for units) vs warpgate (slower cooldown) might make PvP far more interesting, sigh sig sigh and fuck.
|
The biggest issue is that if Warpgates were nerfed so that Protoss must respect greater map sizes. Something else must be done so that Protoss can be a threat early-game. Without warpgates, with the current design of SC2, Protoss actually just isn't a threat to anyone and would be forced into a turtle game every game. That's not proper game design.
Also, people need to understand that late-game if the cooldown time of warpgates is nerfed, Protoss will just make more gateways... Doesn't solve a problem, just increases it's cost at a time when cost is close to a non-factor and neuters Protoss's early-game.
Buffing gateway units anything above what they are now would give P almost 0 reason to make tech units since even currently P can win with gateway+immortals in every MU... Consistently...
The only problem with warpgates is that it makes Protoss not care about map sizes. Making Protoss care about map size can be done in other means, I.e. like having only HT's be a unit which cannot be warped. Or adding a debuf to gateway units for being warped in far from a gateway.
The only problem with gateway units in this current design of the game is that they force 1wide ramps, chokes at naturals, and close-by 3rds from map creators... And Blizzard disrespects this all the time. This is not a BALANCE issue, it's a game design issue. Protoss is arguably the strongest race right now because of how good gateway units are are offense. They're not as great on defense, which forces these three map design features.
|
On October 14 2012 14:29 DarkblueRH wrote:
The biggest issue is that if Warpgates were nerfed so that Protoss must respect greater map sizes. Something else must be done so that Protoss can be a threat early-game. Without warpgates, Protoss actually just isn't a threat to anyone and would be forced into a turtle game every game. That's not proper game design.
Also, people need to understand that late-game if the warp-in time or cooldown time is nerfed, Protoss will just make more gateways... Doesn't solve a problem,.
I'm not actually convinced there is a 'problem' - I want the idea because it could add more to the game, not because there's something missing or broken. Tradeoffs are cool! (Reaver, Seige tank)
|
United States1968 Posts
Warp gate is terrible. It basically makes any attack by protoss at any point in the game all in. If you dont do enough damage to were whoever you attack is crippled, you lose. If you attack and lose your army, there is no coming back which means you lose. If you are caught warping in somewhere and you get attacked, you are stuck waiting for another warp in cycle which means you probably lose.
Warpgate is just a terrible mechanic all around imho.
|
On October 14 2012 14:57 LgNKami wrote:
Warp gate is terrible. It basically makes any attack by protoss at any point in the game all in. If you dont do enough damage to were whoever you attack is crippled, you lose. If you attack and lose your army, there is no coming back which means you lose. If you are caught warping in somewhere and you get attacked, you are stuck waiting for another warp in cycle which means you probably lose.
Warpgate is just a terrible mechanic all around imho.
You just stated a problem of attacking in a place where you were unable to attack. Not a problem with warpgates. All races if they lose a ton of units without dealing crippling damage are in a bad position. Protoss is just the worst at escaping units from a bad situation. Again... not a problem with warpgates lol.
|
I think the WG mechanic is great, it allows some wiggle room for toss to delay the expensive gateway units while getting tech out faster. Or expand faster.
I think the problem is in pylons and the power matrix.
If they redesigned the power matrix so that Nexus grants the initial, very wide power field (similar to how creep works) and then pylons extend that, you would never have any problems with WG being aggressively too potent. Also all the proxy gate and cannon rush plays would vanish.
And simcitying things would be so much easier and better.
|
On October 14 2012 18:57 ledgerhs wrote:
I think the WG mechanic is great, it allows some wiggle room for toss to delay the expensive gateway units while getting tech out faster. Or expand faster.
I think the problem is in pylons and the power matrix.
If they redesigned the power matrix so that Nexus grants the initial, very wide power field (similar to how creep works) and then pylons extend that, you would never have any problems with WG being aggressively too potent. Also all the proxy gate and cannon rush plays would vanish.
And simcitying things would be so much easier and better.
Taking away the ability to cheese is not a good thing.
|
On October 14 2012 14:29 DarkblueRH wrote:
[b]Buffing gateway units anything above what they are now would give P almost 0 reason to make tech units since even currently P can win with gateway+immortals in every MU... Consistently...
They can win with that composition because of warpgate. If protoss had to wait for their reinforcements to cross the map, those pushes wouldn't be nearly as potent, even with substantially stronger gateway units.
Unless you're not talking about timing attacks and including templar tech in "gateway", because in that case you're just flat out wrong. Sooner or later you have to build colossi, assuming things are roughly even going into the lategame. Especially in pvp/pvt.
|
Masters here as well. Toss gate way units are very strong especially late game with blink and charge.
Charged zealots shredding bio are the reasons hellbats were invented.
So ye David kim is right.
|
On October 14 2012 20:28 DaveVAH wrote:
Masters here as well. Toss gate way units are very strong especially late game with blink and charge.
Charged zealots shredding bio are the reasons hellbats were invented.
So ye David kim is right.
What? that's so wrong, hellbats are there to protect tanks from zealots, not bio.
I agree that supplywise gateway units are really strong though.
|
As I see it the issue can be explained like this:
When a probe has mined some resources, those resources can be spent to produces a gateway unit almost instantaneously right where it is needed. The consequence is that the resource value of the protoss army will (minus ifrastructure, tech and losses) be that of all resources mined up to that point in time. For zerg and terran, any unit that is on the battlefield right where it is needed would have to be built a couple of minutes earlier, so for them the resource value of the army will (minus ifrastructure, tech and losses) be all resources mined up to two minutes ago. This is of course a huge simplification, but a useful one. Assuming similar mining rates and spending rates, the protoss army will always have a higher resource value. Then game balance is applied, and to make the outcomes of battles even, the gateway units will necessarily have to be less cost efficient.
One question I would ask is that could this be changed by making gateway units stronger, but diminishing protoss income, for instance by blocking chrono boost from being used on nexuses?
|
When a probe has mined some resources, those resources can be spent to produces a gateway unit almost instantaneously right where it is needed. The consequence is that the resource value of the protoss army will (minus ifrastructure, tech and losses) be that of all resources mined up to that point in time. For zerg and terran, any unit that is on the battlefield right where it is needed would have to be built a couple of minutes earlier, so for them the resource value of the army will (minus ifrastructure, tech and losses) be all resources mined up to two minutes ago. This is of course a huge simplification, but a useful one. Assuming similar mining rates and spending rates, the protoss army will always have a higher resource value. Then game balance is applied, and to make the outcomes of battles even, the gateway units will necessarily have to be less cost efficient.
I don't think this is unclear to anyone. The problem is that protoss units cannot be produced linearly while expanding, the cost is too high. This is why WG is a great mechanic. It allows protoss to backload the production after the nexus is down. Toss can't go 2gate expo effectively the same way terran can 2rax expo.
I think the real deal here is that the power matrix need to be changed so that nexus grants the initial power grid and pylons extend that, but they have to be connected. This way all the cannon rushing, 4gating, proxygating, proxy teching, proxy stargating play is done with. And the WG units can get a slight buff to be somewhat more effective. Also, if stalker's design is gonna change to be more effective raiding unit in the early game and early midgame, the sentry can get a nerf like "can only use FF on a ground that's covered by a grid".
It also would make it easier to simcity and place cannons right to make it easier to defend against drops, mutas and banshees.
|
On October 14 2012 19:28 robopork wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 14:29 DarkblueRH wrote:
[b]Buffing gateway units anything above what they are now would give P almost 0 reason to make tech units since even currently P can win with gateway+immortals in every MU... Consistently... They can win with that composition because of warpgate. If protoss had to wait for their reinforcements to cross the map, those pushes wouldn't be nearly as potent, even with substantially stronger gateway units. Unless you're not talking about timing attacks and including templar tech in "gateway", because in that case you're just flat out wrong. Sooner or later you have to build colossi, assuming things are roughly even going into the lategame. Especially in pvp/pvt.
No, I was not including Templar in gateway units. I was speaking of early-mid game compositions before either side has splash damage and with an upgrade advantage. Gateway units + Immortals can be very potent for a very long time if you maintain an upgrade advantage. Not in PvP mostly because of your inability to break FF's rather than because of your lack of splash.
And yes, I concede that you are correct in that this style would be much weaker in the absence of warpgates. I was moreso addressing the individuals just blanket-ly saying that "gateway units are weak". But yes, if warpgates were removed or nerfed then a buff of gateway units wouldn't obscenely buff the low-tech composition because of the lack of re-inforcements.
|
On October 13 2012 23:03 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Different dependencies. Marines and Marauders, once they have Stim/Conc at their earlier tech level, are at maximum unit potential. Medivacs only enable that further by giving them extreme survivability and airlift. That maximum achieved potential goes way beyond what Charge gives to a Zealot. I would say that Blink accomplishes an equivalent potential for Stalkers, though.
Ultimately, Zealots lost their stop micro potential since BW, and now are tanky a-movers. Their own stutter step is on par with Marine micro but you never see it used. I'm confident that with number tweaks, Zealots can have a balance of meat and some micro.
|
10387 Posts
On October 14 2012 08:25 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 05:08 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 13 2012 08:49 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:
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.
i like this idea. any time you force players to make a choice it is good. well not any time but you know what i mean. and it is logical and seeing people switch gates back and forth as a game goes one would be great. "oh why is he converting those two gates? what is he going to do now?" but the game is built to be too simple so everyone researches warp as soon as the can and make all their gates warp and that is that It's not even about the flipping of them too though, I mean it's about deciding when to do the flip to warpgate, do they make that decision at all, why can't the regular gateway be a viable choice and the warpgate harassment behind enemy lines be more of a rare thing? I'm not saying I don't like warpgate harassment but it would be cool to have it being at least somewhat more unique. Also defenders advantage in PvP gateway (faster build time for units) vs warpgate (slower cooldown) might make PvP far more interesting, sigh sig sigh and fuck.
That sounds like it'd be really interesting, never did like how Gateway is basically useless after warpgate research lol
|
I think it's more because of FF than warpgate. But yeah, gateway units are terrible for their cost.
|
Why don't we just make the change to warp gate revertable? When you want to macro as fast as possible, you build out of gateways. when you want cross map deployment, you can turn some gates into warpgates, warping until you want to change them back. it would be a mode for the building, similar to siege mode, with a conversion time.
|
CYFAWS- you can already revert them. The button is there. However warp gates are strictly superior to gateways in every way. They build all units faster, and allow warp in anywhere. So you should always use warp gates. And the game needs to be balanced around protosses always using warp gate, which is an obvious logistical advantage. Hence the entire problem.
|
Please check out my thread. This will fix warp gate and add to the strength of gateway units. Its not huge changes, but I think it would help. Essentially buff stalker damage from 10 (+4 light) to 15. In exchange, make warp gate research require twilight council and cost 100/100. Also, make forcefield researchable in the twilight council (now, 1 key upgrade for each staple gateway unit in TC, and remember hallu is now part of sentry for free). Then, reduce gateway build time to an average between the build times of warp gates and gateways at the moment. Further, reduce the roach HP from 145 to 100, and then make them only cost 1 supply:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=375409#9
|
On October 15 2012 03:18 ArvickHero wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 08:25 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:On October 14 2012 05:08 nevermindthebollocks wrote:On October 13 2012 08:49 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:
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.
i like this idea. any time you force players to make a choice it is good. well not any time but you know what i mean. and it is logical and seeing people switch gates back and forth as a game goes one would be great. "oh why is he converting those two gates? what is he going to do now?" but the game is built to be too simple so everyone researches warp as soon as the can and make all their gates warp and that is that It's not even about the flipping of them too though, I mean it's about deciding when to do the flip to warpgate, do they make that decision at all, why can't the regular gateway be a viable choice and the warpgate harassment behind enemy lines be more of a rare thing? I'm not saying I don't like warpgate harassment but it would be cool to have it being at least somewhat more unique. Also defenders advantage in PvP gateway (faster build time for units) vs warpgate (slower cooldown) might make PvP far more interesting, sigh sig sigh and fuck. That sounds like it'd be really interesting, never did like how Gateway is basically useless after warpgate research lol
I know! but people (like Blizzard and in this thread) seem to assume I hate warpgate or I think warpgate units suck or something. They don't and I don't think it's op, it could just be even better
I've tried posting it multiple times @ Blizz forums but they either dont' get it or dont' want to deal with such a fundamental change.
To be honest, it boggles my mind that they designed it the way they did, it makes no sense at all to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
