Warpgates are NOT the biggest problem of protoss . - Page 3

On October 16 2012 03:16 StandAloneComplex wrote:
0. Introduction


Nearly all Protoss players of the community, and many players of other races, like the concept of an alien high tech race which is technological superior against its enemies but are unhappy (to say the least) with the way Protoss has to be
played in WOL to be successful. But is the reason the Protoss race seems boring in WOL, which is only a shadow of the Aiur-spirit of the past, really the warpgate? Or is it something else, something even more disturbing?




I. The Warpgate


Almost all of the concerns are concentrating on the gameplay-mechanic of the warpgate. The argumentation is that warpgates allow, with their quick cooldown (and which can produce even faster with chronoboost), a reinforcing advantage against other races. In combination with a pylon, which can be placed nearly everywhere on the map with the exception of on creep, the Protoss can reinforce nearly anywhere on the map very quickly which negates the defender's advantage. Also, counterattacks can be taken care of with quick warp ins without splitting up the Protoss main army.

Following this argumentation Blizzard balanced this advantage of the Protoss race against the others by balancing the earlygame units, which are weaker compared to earlygame units of the other races, even though they cost equal amounts. So, in order to survive the earlygame, Protoss must either go all in with a timing push or rely heavily on the sentry's spell Force Field to hold the enemy out of their bases long enough to tech up to a healthy amount of expensive lategame units.





II. General design concept of the Protoss race.


The general overlaying design concept of the race is that the protoss units are very weak in the earlygame; without extensive micro and spell usage of Force Field and Blink. But if they survive long enough and are able to take 3 bases they can accumulate enough resources to build their expensive but very strong lategame-units such as Colossi, Archons, Immortals and the Mothership.

So:

Weak when not micro'd correctly in the earlygame, but strong in the lategame.

Important to know is , that this decision was not a design accident made by Blizzard, they wanted to design it that way. A race which is technological superior and has units that are stronger, but more expensive than the units of the other races. Balancing this concept so that all races have similar chances of winning, is very difficult and lead to the design toss is known for in WOL.

And that design is generally not a bad idea but the way Blizzard implemented it was not optimal because the lategame units are all strong but very boring to use because they are all non-microintensive-a-movers (Colossus, Immortal and Archon). It wouldn't be a bad idea that earlygame units are weak and must rely on support units if the lategame units are strong if the lategameunits would be more micro intensive and multidimensional. This would differ the way Protoss is played clearly form the other races. It creates a tension of surviving the earlygame and then, if you managed that, it's payback time.


So even if the warpgate would be a lategame upgrade in the twilight council or would be completely taken out of the game it would lead to the same unit composition in the lategame:


1. x Stalkers + 5-6 Colossi + Mothership against ground based armies.

2. x Stalkers + y Archons + Mothership against air based armies.


Because these two combinations are the most effective way to deal with the most unit compositions of the enemy. Only change there would be, if for instance warpgate were to be taken out and Stalker would be buffed, is that we would see more early Stalker + Sentry deathballs instead of Colossi + Stalker deathballs. But a deathball is a deathball.

Their is no reason for toss to go anything else, except maybe some immortals against a meching Terran.





III.Conclusion


And that leads to a situation in which nearly all Protoss games look the same. It's the bad and boring unit ideas, with the Colossus as a too powerful all-round unit, which hurt protoss gameplay and diversity in lategame unit compositions, not warpgates. The decision of being weak when not micro'd correctly earlygame but strong lategame would be good if the units would be more versatile and would lead to more different openings and more potent lategame compositions so that for example airplay would be an option. If i start Phoenix airplay in WOL it's a loss in most games if the enemy is on an even skill level because of the weakness of toss air units in the followup (carriers are a joke against target-firing vikings/corruptors).


Think about it. Which units of the protoss race in WOL are really fun to play ?



In my opinion only the Sentry, Phoenix, Warp Prism and High Templar are deep in design and benefit from good micro. All the lategame units are boring because they all a-move.

This leads to the conclusion that most of the protoss units in WOL need a serious redesign and NOT the warpgate in the first place.

1. Nerf the Colossus heavily (make the lasers into a cast ability and give the colossus
energy to increase its micro and lower its damage output, perhaps let the laser fire in
a straight line away from the Colossus) and add therefore a micro-intensive
lategame unit with high damage output and low HP which is very difficult to micro. It could be the Reaver but if it must
not it can also be some new unit.

2. Protoss needs more support units like a mobile shieldbattery or teleporter which can
be also used for quick earlygame harass. The Oracle would be good for that purpose
if it had useful spells, which it doesn't the way it is now.

3. Give the protoss more expensive high tech units and especially buildings , like
cloaked probes (lategame) or Mothership Core transforming into a mobile Nexus
which can be set up in an mineral field. It can mine out of it and can flee if the
enemy is coming.

Plz discuss.