|
On October 15 2012 05:37 CYFAWS wrote:
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.
It 100% is revertable, it costs 10 minerals.
NO ONE DOES IT, because once you have warpgate, it's stupid to use gateways.
Longer build time and the lack of convienience building units anywhere.
This is why people like me think it should be made that gateway = shorter build time, warpgate = longer build time, the tradeoff in build time is more logical.
|
On October 13 2012 08:40 ledarsi wrote:Alright time for an essay. Why Warp Gate breaks Protoss endgame + Show Spoiler +
In the extreme late game, protoss has the option of building more warp gates. This is HUGE. With a large bank and 50 warp gates on standby, the Protoss now has 100 more supply available than they actually have in play. After, or even during a battle, the Protoss can immediately warp in more units.
Every warp gate effectively builds a unit, and then keeps it in reserve. These units in the warpgates do not cost supply to maintain, and they don't even cost resources until you actually want to put the unit on the board. Which you can do in any location you please, including directly into the battlefield to reinforce your army.
The effect of gateway units being "stored" in warpgates on top of your maxed army should not be underestimated. It gives protoss armies incredible momentum in maxed army confrontations. Even if Protoss and their opponent are both largely destroyed in the confrontation, the warped-in reinforcements hit immediately.
For Terran and Zerg, you pay for your units and then wait for them to build. Zerg can massively parallelize their production across larvae and hatcheries, so this cost is not as great. But for Terran, production facilities simply cannot compete with warp gates. Both sides are maxed, armies clash, both sides suffer casualties. Terran BEGINS production of their new units, while Protoss warps new ones in immediately. This difference in production is the NUMBER ONE REASON why mech does not work against protoss- because losing units against a protoss is an immediate loss due to inability to replace those units fast enough, even if you have the bank and production facilities to do so. You simply cannot wait one or two tank or thor build times without losing the game.
I can't really agree with you here. Zerg can make building and cancel them to go to 250/200 supply when they have a huge bank, et terran can replace vcs by mules with a lot of orbital command. (And when it's 130 protoss army supply vs 180 terran army supply you really need these 50 gates
|
So...
What if the further away you are from your gateways, the longer the warp-in would be?
Gives defenders advantage, possibility to all-in still, and some cool choices between mixing warp vs normal gateways.
Also, Warp Prisms could be an exception to the rule which would be more of an incentive to use.
|
On October 15 2012 08:35 vman44 wrote: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
These kind of huge changes are madness, Blizzard simply won't go for it, it's going to be hard enough to push for them to 'flip' the build times from warpgates / gateways (which in my opinion, is pretty much all that's needed) maybe an even longer 30s more build time on the warpgate research, maybe - but I'd just like to see that to begin with.
I mean you would see a significant impact in the army size if the Protoss player insisted on using warpgates with a longer build time, vs gateaways with a shorter - that tradeoff decision would be really interesting 
|
On October 15 2012 08:59 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 05:37 CYFAWS wrote:
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. It 100% is revertable, it costs 10 minerals. NO ONE DOES IT, because once you have warpgate, it's stupid to use gateways. Longer build time and the lack of convienience building units anywhere. This is why people like me think it should be made that gateway = shorter build time, warpgate = longer build time, the tradeoff in build time is more logical.
Come on implement this right here blizzard can't believe they haven't even tried this out yet, this beta is the time for this cool ass change
|
Everyone seems to want this "tension" of choosing between gateway and warpgate. However, this is a completely different issue.
For example, what does concussive shells do? It makes marauders better because they can slow units. It doesn't make them worse in any way, and it doesn't have any tension between using it and not using it. The only reason someone may not get it early on in TvP is if they don't want to spend that 50/50 right then. That's what warpgate is. It's an UPGRADE! It costs resources and time, and gives the protoss player something, in this case better unit production and deployment.
Asking for a tradeoff between warpgate and gateway is missing the problem entirely. Instead we should be looking at what the warp gate upgrade does, and how available it is. Then consider how that affects the balancing of gateway units.
There are two main options if you want to nerf warpgates to make gateway units better:
1. If you want to keep the ability as it is, it would make sense to make it harder to get. Move the upgrade and/or make it more costly.
2. Otherwise, you can change the warpgate ability to include the normal gateway build time before you are allowed to warp in.
|
On October 15 2012 09:15 PVJ wrote:
So...
What if the further away you are from your gateways, the longer the warp-in would be?
Gives defenders advantage, possibility to all-in still, and some cool choices between mixing warp vs normal gateways.
Also, Warp Prisms could be an exception to the rule which would be more of an incentive to use.
Your suggestion is effectively what I'm promoting,............... and it's difficult for Blizzard to manage - my solution is better (sorry)
Gateway = builds at home, short build time, less convienient.
Warpgate = builds anywhere, longer build time (cooldown) - more convienient.
So that instantly gives a defenders advantage for the player using gateways and an attacker disadvantage for the player using warpgates for harass, it's all about the build timings.
|
You don't fix warp gate by creating bizarre rules based on distance from nexus and such. If Blizzard wants to change warpgate they can move the research to twilight council and make it a bit more expensive. They won't, because they want it to feel like a very powerful macro option for all of protoss - not as a stylistic choice - right from the start. If you don't address this argument and convince Blizzard otherwise, then there never is going to be any chance to it outside of some very minor tweak to build or research times.
This issue illustrates why the community as a whole is bad at game design. They look at the current metagame and come up with fixes based on that, without thinking of new players and without thinking of how the game will be played a year in the future.
|
On October 15 2012 09:35 Grumbels wrote:
You don't fix warp gate by creating bizarre rules based on distance from nexus and such. If Blizzard wants to change warpgate they can move the research to twilight council and make it a bit more expensive. They won't, because they want it to feel like a very powerful macro option for all of protoss - not as a stylistic choice - right from the start. If you don't address this argument and convince Blizzard otherwise, then there never is going to be any chance to it outside of some very minor tweak to build or research times.
This issue illustrates why the community as a whole is bad at game design. They look at the current metagame and come up with fixes based on that, without thinking of new players and without thinking of how the game will be played a year in the future.
This is my ideal solution as well. One of the best (if not the best) upgrade in the game should not be at the first tech structure and cost only 50/50. Balancing around that is a nightmare.
|
isn't that zealot building time was increased and shield was decreased in earlier WOL because how strong they were in early game pressure even though the original stats was the same as in BW but i can't remember if they are stronger because of wapgate (nullified the time to travel to the enemy base and instant back up army) or because of the size of the map at that time which is still can be nullified by the warpgate.. and this is happen in all league and not just lower level eh?
|
On October 13 2012 10:20 Zergrusher wrote:
Fixing warp gate is so Easy
Make each type of gate way unit have a seperate warp in time.
instead of all gateway units currently having 5 seconds.
warp in time really isn't the issue, thinking that it is shows how little you know.
The issue with warpgates is the fact that toss can reinforce so fast in the late game. If you have 15 warpgates you just have to wait until they are all off cooldown before you engage and you can have almost another full army during that fight and another almost full army right after the fight finishes. Changing how long it takes to warp in a unit won't fix that. Changing the cooldowns on warp-ins is the only change that would make any difference.
I'm fine with warpgates as they are, gateway units seems plenty powerful but i'm no pro and so what I think is not relevant anyhow.
|
On October 15 2012 09:43 hisoga wrote:
isn't that zealot building time was increased and shield was decreased in earlier WOL because how strong they were in early game pressure even though the original stats was the same as in BW but i can't remember if they are stronger because of wapgate (nullified the time to travel to the enemy base and instant back up army) or because of the size of the map at that time which is still can be nullified by the warpgate.. and this is happen in all league and not just lower level eh?
Here's the Zealot history:
Patch 1: 60shield/33second(23 warpgate)
Patch 3: 50shield/33second(23 warpgate)
Patch 16: 50shield/38second(28 warpgate)
Patch 17: 50shield/33second(28 warpgate)
Patch 1.1: 50shield/38second(28 warpgate)
The shield nerf was at the start of beta. Then they kept toying around with the build time.
|
I was under the impression that virtually all protoss players would initially build more warpgates than they could support, then leave them largely idle while powering tech / eco. Flipping warp gate / gateway build times would definitely hinder warpgate all-ins by forcing protoss players to build extra gates in preparation, but how would it change a macro game?
You'd have stronger early-game pressure (you'll have to give the barracks treatment to the Gateway to keep proxies from becoming too powerful, although they'll still be more powerful), but I can't see the change doing anything for the deathball situation without making Gateway units somewhat threatening when not accompanied by sentry / colossus / templar past the 8 minute mark.
Blizzard would have to completely re-tune the entire game to make anything happen, honestly. This is looking really rough 
|
Blizz wouldn't have to retune the game. Changing warp gate research to 100/100 and requiring a twilight council could be compensated by adding a little damage output to stalkers (15 to all instead of 10 +4 to armored). Further, forcefield should be a twilight council upgrade for 150/150 or 100/100. Each core unit should have a game changing upgrade in the twilight council. It makes sense, and is intuitive. Also, roach should be reduced in HP to compensate for later more expensive FF research, and later more expensive warp gate research.
|
The problem is, if you put it on the twilight council, it means that if you open other tech branches, you dont have access to that option without throwing down another building. Thats the beauty of having it on the cy core, which is the point of divergence for the toss tech tree: each tech path can access warpgates.
If you want my opinion, it should be an expensive upgrade, maybe 150/150 and a decently long build time (less than now though) on the cy core or even the gateway itself. It would be unlocked after a tier 2 structure has been built (either robo, stargate or twilight council.
Once completed, the gateway would build units at -10 second build time, just like warpgates do now, and warpgates would build units at +10-15 seconds build time, plus 8-10 seconds of actually warping in.
Benefits?
1) Takes the protoss macro advantage out of the volatile early stage of the game (one benefit: no worries about proxy zealots with reduced build times, but it wouldnt help if zeals were buffed in other ways)
2) Forces a commitment to it in terms of time and resources (expensive upgrade has to fit into build orders)
3) Ensures Gateways are still better than warpgates for pure macro.
4) Ensures Warpgates are still strong for harass and defending drops, but not too good so the toss is reliant on that.
5) Helps with concerns about huge late game warp ins. Units will now take a few seconds longer before they actually warp in allowing good players more time to snipe these units and pylons.
Frankly, if they wanted to buff gateway units, they would do something like this to gateways, and then make their twilight council upgrades significantly less expensive. Charge should not be 200/200. They could also make the units scale a bit better with upgrades, or add flat out health, range, damage upgrades to twilight council. Basically, buff gateway upgrades instead of the units themselves.
|
so Blizzard doesn't think warpgates make gateway units weak..
Imagine that the US was at war with Tajikistan and no other country got involved. Lets say that the US and Tajikistan were just as good at killing each other with their guns. Their guns cant quite shoot far enough since their on the opposite sides of the world, but they try. Suddenly, the Tajikistanians discover an ancient Tajikistanian teleporting device. The Tajikistanians start popping up right next to the white house and their guns can finally reach. The UN guys come in and say "woah woah woah, your ancient Tajikistanian teleporting device is way too good. Your guns need to be not as good at killing things, otherwise I'm going to have to step in"
"How does this apply MasterCynical?"
Well, just replace "US" with "Terran", "Tajikistan" with "Protoss", "guns" with "units", "Tajikistanian teleporting device" with "Warpgates", "white house" with "Terran base", and "The UN guys" with "Dustin Browder".
"Oh, it makes alot of sense now MasterCynical" You're welcome.
Sorry. I saw the Baller fanclub and just had to.
|
Blizzard refuse to even answer posts on this with anything more than "newbies are complaining about warpgates" instead of getting an understanding of what people are trying to ask for.
|
On October 14 2012 20:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Watch the blizcon video of the battle hellions and their reasons for creating it. it was to counter charglots specificly. they still want it used with bio as well as mech builds hence the bio tag.. but it is still not happening because the tech path is too far and costly atm.
|
i don't think gate way units are that weak but I agree with the consensus that gateways should have an advantage over warpgates.
Like many have said, make gateways produce units more frequent than warpgates.
|
On October 15 2012 14:13 DaveVAH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2012 20:36 Big J wrote: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. Watch the blizcon video of the battle hellions and their reasons for creating it. it was to counter charglots specificly. they still want it used with bio as well as mech builds hence the bio tag.. but it is still not happening because the tech path is too far and costly atm.
Oh god. When will people stop with that "counter to X" mentality, because blizzard showed a video. Guess what, if they want to show it, then they have to show it against units, else it's not interesting.
And if you really want to talk that video, ask yourself what did they show? They showed hellion/siege tank fight zealot/archon. Not hellion+bio. Not pure hellion. Hellion+siege tank, with 4 factories in the background.
And you know what Dustin Browder said: "... Hellions, ordinarily very unhappy with all the splash damage coming down on their heads from their own siege tanks..."
It's siege tanks, siege tanks, siege tanks, all the way in that video.
Yes, they are good vs zealots. But they are also good just for tanking extra hits against nearly anything. Their HP/cost ratio is roachish, zealotish.
And they created that biotag because they wanted it to get healed by medivacs, so that people can experiment with that. Whether you play those medivacs because of the presence of hellions (mech), or the hellions because of the presence of medivacs (bio) is up to you and other people, how you want to play them and how it will be figuered to be played best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
