|
On October 19 2012 03:41 Blackfeather wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 15:49 Big J wrote:On October 18 2012 07:12 Blackfeather wrote:
@Big J They obviously did it when they designed the units, because that's the way every person with a brain would do it. Btw it is the way e.g. DoW did it with the eldar. If you watch gateway and compare it to bw you will immediately notice that the units became weaker than their counterpart, while marines were buffed and zerg got a new t1.5 ground fighting unit (roach). the whole colossus and sentry design makes only sense in combination with that.
edit: bringing back the reaver wont change much. toss still has no map control and the reaver in a way also has the air weakness. zealot BW: 18.8dps dragoon BW: 8.3 (12.5 vs med, 16.6 vs large) dps zergling BW (without adrenalin glands): 15.625 dps hydralisk BW: 8.3 (12.5 vs med, 16.6 vs large) dps marine BW(pre stim): 10dps firebat BW(pre stim): 4.54 (9.09 vs medium, 18.18 vs small) dps (real seconds, fastest speed)+ Show Spoiler +zealot SC2: 13.3 dps
stalker SC2: 6.9 (9.7 vs armored) dps
zergling SC2 (without adrenalin glands): 7.2 dps
roach SC2: 8 dps
marine SC2(pre stim): 7dps
marauder SC2(pre stim): 6.7 (13.4) dps
(blizzard seconds, fastest speed) zealot SC2: 18.354 dps stalker SC2: 9.52 (13.39 vs armored) dps zergling SC2 (without adrenalin glands): 9.94 dps roach SC2: 11.04 dps marine SC2(pre stim): 9.66dps marauder SC2(pre stim): 9.24 (18.49) dps (real seconds, fastest speed)No, I don't see what you are saying. There have been a few shifts, marines have more health but stim is also only 50% more damage instead of 100% compared to BW, zerglings have been nerfed hugely. Roaches and Marauders are a factor, so is pathing. In the end its a different game - and that's the crux. BW bio was not playable vs Protoss for several reasons, therefore it didn't matter all that much that marines wreck basic gateway units. BW hydrabusts? Of course they were a thing. Pretending the roach is the problem is just wrong, hydras also had the potential to destroy pure gateway units. And it's a simple myth that you have to nerf gateway units to introduce warpgate. You can just nerf warpgate over and over again if there is a problem with timings. Oh, wait, that's what they did. Now Protoss has to sit in his base for a while before a warpgate rush and then move his initial army over the whole map, just like any other race. Reinforcement distance is just a small part of the package that is defenders advantage and only influences the amounts of units you have to stockpile to move out initially and to reinforce with. marines got 1 of their upgrades for free (150/150 before), and 5 health +10 with an upgrade, which is essentially an increase by over 1/3. Therefore stim now also costs less. How is that not being buffed? Zergling got nerfed, but since zerg got a faster production creating roach-armies is way easier and roaches need less upgrades to be effective. While you compare the dps of these units, you completely ignore that zealots had 10 and dragoons 20 health more, zealots and dragoons scaled better with upgrades and zealots didnt have multiple attacks that scale down against armor and have a slower attack animation. There's nothing mythical about it. if toss has to move the whole army over the mapi dont see how you can say that warpgate was a success. the reason of my wish for a buff of gateway units (which results in the need for a nerf for warpgate) with warpgate is that it potentially could make warpgate a harass tool, something i would have created it for. If you ask the average viewer he will tell you that he hates toss. Not because toss is bad by art design or something, but because toss mu are turtle into deathball into one big battle that decides the game. Even the other two races mirrors are more interesting in terms of action and harass than every single toss mu. The reason is that toss lacks the possibility to harass, because the "cheap" units are slow and have low dps. And the only reason i could imagine for that is warpgate. In hots blizz obviously tries to bring in more harass options because they recognized that. That's the reason for the oracle to give a lot of harass/cost and why the tempest is tweaked into what blizz thinks could become a harass unit with a late game upgrade. And why the msc gets recall to give warp ins a way to get back. Btw the bad thing about sentry into colossus is that both units are 100% deathball units.
yeah, I know that. But stim is only +50% now, not +100% like in BW.
But that's not the crux. The point is that everything is quite close to each other in terms of stats. So close that you absolutly can't say whether it has been a buff or a nerf, just with the overall new gameplay in SC2.
Just take pathing. The pathing alone is probably a huge "buff" for zerglings. The removal of the selection cap is a huge buff to every playstyle that focuses on many cheap units (like MMM; zergling/roach).
The clumping is quite a buff for ranged units when fighting low ranged units, smartcast is a buff for anything involving casters etc.
I don't believe that gateway units were made weaker because of warpgate. I think that the intention of keeping the basic units similarily strong statswise and then balancing everything around those basic units is quite clear in SC2.
|
On October 19 2012 00:49 Fenris420 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2012 16:51 aZealot wrote:
Actually, it's not obvious. It's especially not obvious when the developers say that this is not the case. Yet the myth continues. Big J articulates the numbers well above, so I don't need to elaborate the point. Simply put, Gateway units are not weak.
(To be honest, I have no idea how you came by the notion that Protoss is high HP and low DPS. We are the manly race.)
The numbers are fairly obvious to me. Cost comparison:100 minerals and 2 supply of zealot is: 13.3dps. 150 hp 100 minerals and 2 supply of zerglings are: 28.8dps, 140 hp(no armor) 100 minerals and 2 supply of marines are: 14dps(21 with stim), 90 hp(no armor) Stalker is harder to compare since it is significantly more gas heavy than its counterparts. But if we count 1:1 conversion, which is very favorable to the stalker, these are the numbers: 1 stalker = 175 res, 1 roach = 100 res, 1 marauder = 125 res. 4 stalkers are: 640 hp and 27.6 dps(38.8 to armor) 5 stalkers are: 800 hp and 34.5 dps(48.5 to armor) 7 roaches(4 stalkers) are: 1015 hp and 56 dps. If you count 6 roaches and 1 overlord due to extra supply, it is 870 hp and 48 dps. 7 marauders (5 stalkers): 875 hp and 46.9 dps(93.8 to armor, 70.35/140.7 with stim). 6 marauders and supply depot is 750 hp and 40.2dps (80.4 to armor) Conclusion:Protoss units have a significantly lower dps per cost, even taking into account the fact that stalkers are very supply efficient. Im not even talking about the fact that stalkers scale less well than their counterparts from upgrades. The zealot has the highest hitpoint / cost ratio in the game, according to this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317592 . The stalker has 80hp / supply, which is more than zealots and zerglings and before T3, more than anything in fact.
Those are interesting numbers, but I was responding to the claim that basic Toss unit design (see the second post in the page) is high HP low DPS (i.e. all of Protoss). I was not referring specifically to the 3 core Gateway units. In any case, that would be an incorrect way to view it in any case as the Sentry is a support unit (by definition low DPS), and the Stalker has issues already aforementioned. As a race, I fail to see how Protoss can credibly be argued as high HP and low DPS.
Also, arguments about the cost efficiency or inefficiency of units are context dependent and situational. Therefore, for example, a Zealot may be cost efficient against a Marauder without Concussive Shell, but the moment the Marauder has Concussive shell, the Zealot becomes so cost inefficient as to be almost worthless. More to the point though, I don't see how any of this relates to arguments about the weakness of Gateway units because of Warpgate. Something that is simply false.
Show nested quote +
Think hard about when and in what context Gateway units appear weak. Against Terran, by and large it is when Terran production and research has kicked in (typically stim or especially, stim and medivacs). Against Zerg, by and large it is when Zerg production kicks in (along with research like speed on lings). This is complicated by the hard counters implemented in the game. In this instance, it is that the Roach counters the Zealot and the Marauder hard counters the Stalker.
Stim only increases an already existing difference. Bio gets even less health and even more damage compared to gateway units. There are two reasons why bio gets better as the game progresses. First it is because they are all ranged with much better damage to cost ratio. Meaning you can kill stuff before it gets close, and that means the fight is skewed from the get go. Melee units always get worse in larger numbers because of this and the ultralisk is suffering from this exact issue. Secondly, you can chose when to fight with bio. In fact, against protoss, both races can pick their fights. The issue is that there is a considerable speed difference in the mid game. Look at these numbers: Speed baseline:Marine/Marauder/Zealot/Sentry/Roach: 2.25 Stalker/Zergling: 2.95 Speed upgraded:Sentry: 2.25 Zealot: 2.5 Stalker: 2.95 Roach: 3.0 Marine/Marauder(counting stim): 3.3 Zergling: 4.7 Thats not even including creep. On creep, both roaches and lings are as fast or faster than stalkers even without speed upgrades. What does speed cost?Lings: 100/100 Roach: 100/100 Stim: 150/150 +50/25 for tech lab Blink: 150/150 +150/100 for TC Charge: 200/200 How long does it take?Ling: 130s Roach: 110s Stim: 180s +25s TC: 50s Charge/Blink: 140s Not only is it significantly slower to research speed upgrades for protoss, even compared to stim. It also costs more than much more. I know it is not fair to consider stim a permanent 3.3 movement speed, but as far as mobility in combat goes, it has a pretty good uptime. I also chose to not include CC at all since it complicates things a fair amount. Cyber core and roach warren are considered trivial in their cost since you want them anyway. Technically speaking the tech lab falls under the same cathegory, but I wanted to make a point with the stim research. Cost for cost, roaches destroy stalkers in a straight up fight. Blink is good, but on creep against speed roaches, you are at an almost 1.0 difference. Even without medivacs, bio rolls over gateway units if there are no force fields. And how exactly do you catch these units when you are travelling 1.05 speed slower than them?
To be honest, I am not sure what your claim is here. Core Protoss gateway units can't be too fast because that would give them greater potency in the very early game. And bio can roll over Protoss without medivac true, but only if they have honed in on production (specifically reactors) at that specific timing or have stim. In both cases, if Protoss holds, he usually wins and it wont even be close. If the Terran wants to take a risk like that against an equal opponent, then fair play to him.
Also, given Protoss has the advantage in the late game vs Terran, Protoss does not have to catch these units. All we have to do is make them run away (waste stim, medivac energy etc). Against Zerg, the production of larvae injected units is the issue. I am not sure why Protoss should be fast enough to catch Zerg. The onus is on Protoss to attack more often in this match-up, so if I attack and the Zerg runs away from my FF, so be it. I just kill the hatchery and go home. Zerg speed here, especially on creep, also goes with the feel of the races. Zerg is fast and weak, while Protoss is strong and slow.
Show nested quote +
At these times, Protoss require higher tech to compete in the form of Colossus and High Templar. And so the game goes.
So many touted changes to Protoss ignore the fact that Protoss design is not isolated, and is part of a greater game design (i.e. inclusive of Terran and Zerg). Any substantive changes to "fix" Protoss must also consider changes to the other races those "fixes" would necessitate; and therefore, probable wholesale changes to the basics of the game itself.
Simple wish-lists that "solve" Protoss won't achieve anything.
Protoss is always the first to go for tech in almost every game. From the start you know you are going to expand and get colossus or templars. The matchup doesnt even matter in that regard. You can do a 6-7-8 gate allin, but frankly people stopped doing it for two reasons. Reason number 1 is that when scouted it gets stopped. Reason number 2 is that it is a dead end. You leave yourself with almost no option if you agression fails. A terran or zerg can at least fall back and rely on a stronger T1 to catch back up. Obviously people are aware that the races are not isolated. By pointing out that they want gateway units to become stronger, they mean precisely that. Stronger compared to everything. Even PvP will stand to benefit from stronger baseline units, as colossus wars will be much less prominent. The only hitch is that with every change to gateway units, warp tech becomes stronger as well. Hence they suggest warp tech be changed to have less of an impact, at least in the early and mid game. Late game remaxes are still an issue but not at all as big as the early game issues would be.
No, they want Gateway units to be stronger because Protoss does not allow as efficient and effective play in phases of the game as these players would like. If so, they should switch race to Terran or Zerg and play more they want to play rather than wanting to contort Protoss to fit their desired play style. Like it or not, Protoss has to usually defend in the mid-game.
In respect of WOL at least, Protoss gateway units are fine as they are.
As I pointed out above, the main concerns are 3 fold:
1. The Hard counters in the game which means that the basic Protoss army is lacking its other half in 2 of the P match-ups.
2. The production boosts that all races have in terms of CB/WG, larvae inject, and reactored units.
3. Terrible terrible damage so that, at certain times, core Gateway units will just evaporate. But, again, this is not specific to Protoss, but part of the overall game. You only have to hear Terran complaints when a bioball melts to Colossus/Archon.
As the discussion has become broader than just WG vs Gateway, I really don't believe that Protoss needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Given the sunk costs of the game, thus far, I also believe this is highly unlikely to occur. My own thoughts on improving Protoss are a small buff to SG tech, some way to pressure in the midgame (in return for which Protoss late game strength must be decreased - perhaps by a Colossus nerf), and a way to scout reliably in the early to midgame.
|
I agree with a lot of what you say, just a few things:
1.
I think production is closely tied to cost efficiency of a unit. I mean, if you could produce out of 5 warpgates on one base, the actual cost of the infrastructure is rather low compared to the units. The first colossus pays for the robo bay itself, for example. If the units in a building are worth building, you make enough buildings to spend all your money, simply put.
2.
I wanted to point out discrepancies in movement speed because I feel that when all protoss units are slower than all other T1 units across the board rather early in the game, it further reinforces defensive play. If you don't know for sure you can win an engagement you either want the option to retreat or you won't move out at all. In some ways, the MSC helps a great deal with this, but I would prefer if you could have at least one unit over 3.0 movement speed which isnt harmless in an engagement (phoenix and oracle). I don't want all protoss units to be fast, just one is enough, so that you can be more mobile on the map beyond 10 minutes. Maybe DTs are intended to fill that gap, but I don't know.
As you said "Like it or not, Protoss has to usually turtle in the mid-game". I dislike this situation since the options are limited.
3.
I think we can both agree that there is a point in the game where warp gates hit and protoss has a short but noticable surge in production. 1 and 2 base warp gate timings have been very common and as much as I like them, they tend to be suicidal. Some warp gate timings would be completely unstoppable with stronger gateway units, and at the same time, without warpgate research we would likely see no gateway agression at all. Without warpgates, you could have stronger gateway units and the timing would still not be as strong.
I agree cost efficiency is more than just numbers, but when you start to take into account those other factors, I think the vast majority benefits the faster army. Getting flanks, spreading to avoid splash or simply just getting to the better position on the map. Thats why protoss has the sentry and I love the sentry. There is just much more defensive potential in the sentry than there is offensive potential.
|
On October 19 2012 09:12 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2012 00:49 Fenris420 wrote:On October 18 2012 16:51 aZealot wrote:
Actually, it's not obvious. It's especially not obvious when the developers say that this is not the case. Yet the myth continues. Big J articulates the numbers well above, so I don't need to elaborate the point. Simply put, Gateway units are not weak.
(To be honest, I have no idea how you came by the notion that Protoss is high HP and low DPS. We are the manly race.)
The numbers are fairly obvious to me. Cost comparison:100 minerals and 2 supply of zealot is: 13.3dps. 150 hp 100 minerals and 2 supply of zerglings are: 28.8dps, 140 hp(no armor) 100 minerals and 2 supply of marines are: 14dps(21 with stim), 90 hp(no armor) Stalker is harder to compare since it is significantly more gas heavy than its counterparts. But if we count 1:1 conversion, which is very favorable to the stalker, these are the numbers: 1 stalker = 175 res, 1 roach = 100 res, 1 marauder = 125 res. 4 stalkers are: 640 hp and 27.6 dps(38.8 to armor) 5 stalkers are: 800 hp and 34.5 dps(48.5 to armor) 7 roaches(4 stalkers) are: 1015 hp and 56 dps. If you count 6 roaches and 1 overlord due to extra supply, it is 870 hp and 48 dps. 7 marauders (5 stalkers): 875 hp and 46.9 dps(93.8 to armor, 70.35/140.7 with stim). 6 marauders and supply depot is 750 hp and 40.2dps (80.4 to armor) Conclusion:Protoss units have a significantly lower dps per cost, even taking into account the fact that stalkers are very supply efficient. Im not even talking about the fact that stalkers scale less well than their counterparts from upgrades. The zealot has the highest hitpoint / cost ratio in the game, according to this: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=317592 . The stalker has 80hp / supply, which is more than zealots and zerglings and before T3, more than anything in fact. Those are interesting numbers, but I was responding to the claim that basic Toss unit design (see the second post in the page) is high HP low DPS (i.e. all of Protoss). I was not referring specifically to the 3 core Gateway units. In any case, that would be an incorrect way to view it in any case as the Sentry is a support unit (by definition low DPS), and the Stalker has issues already aforementioned. As a race, I fail to see how Protoss can credibly be argued as high HP and low DPS. Also, arguments about the cost efficiency or inefficiency of units are context dependent and situational. Therefore, for example, a Zealot may be cost efficient against a Marauder without Concussive Shell, but the moment the Marauder has Concussive shell, the Zealot becomes so cost inefficient as to be almost worthless. More to the point though, I don't see how any of this relates to arguments about the weakness of Gateway units because of Warpgate. Something that is simply false. Show nested quote +
Think hard about when and in what context Gateway units appear weak. Against Terran, by and large it is when Terran production and research has kicked in (typically stim or especially, stim and medivacs). Against Zerg, by and large it is when Zerg production kicks in (along with research like speed on lings). This is complicated by the hard counters implemented in the game. In this instance, it is that the Roach counters the Zealot and the Marauder hard counters the Stalker.
Stim only increases an already existing difference. Bio gets even less health and even more damage compared to gateway units. There are two reasons why bio gets better as the game progresses. First it is because they are all ranged with much better damage to cost ratio. Meaning you can kill stuff before it gets close, and that means the fight is skewed from the get go. Melee units always get worse in larger numbers because of this and the ultralisk is suffering from this exact issue. Secondly, you can chose when to fight with bio. In fact, against protoss, both races can pick their fights. The issue is that there is a considerable speed difference in the mid game. Look at these numbers: Speed baseline:Marine/Marauder/Zealot/Sentry/Roach: 2.25 Stalker/Zergling: 2.95 Speed upgraded:Sentry: 2.25 Zealot: 2.5 Stalker: 2.95 Roach: 3.0 Marine/Marauder(counting stim): 3.3 Zergling: 4.7 Thats not even including creep. On creep, both roaches and lings are as fast or faster than stalkers even without speed upgrades. What does speed cost?Lings: 100/100 Roach: 100/100 Stim: 150/150 +50/25 for tech lab Blink: 150/150 +150/100 for TC Charge: 200/200 How long does it take?Ling: 130s Roach: 110s Stim: 180s +25s TC: 50s Charge/Blink: 140s Not only is it significantly slower to research speed upgrades for protoss, even compared to stim. It also costs more than much more. I know it is not fair to consider stim a permanent 3.3 movement speed, but as far as mobility in combat goes, it has a pretty good uptime. I also chose to not include CC at all since it complicates things a fair amount. Cyber core and roach warren are considered trivial in their cost since you want them anyway. Technically speaking the tech lab falls under the same cathegory, but I wanted to make a point with the stim research. Cost for cost, roaches destroy stalkers in a straight up fight. Blink is good, but on creep against speed roaches, you are at an almost 1.0 difference. Even without medivacs, bio rolls over gateway units if there are no force fields. And how exactly do you catch these units when you are travelling 1.05 speed slower than them? To be honest, I am not sure what your claim is here. Core Protoss gateway units can't be too fast because that would give them greater potency in the very early game. And bio can roll over Protoss without medivac true, but only if they have honed in on production (specifically reactors) at that specific timing or have stim. In both cases, if Protoss holds, he usually wins and it wont even be close. If the Terran wants to take a risk like that against an equal opponent, then fair play to him. Also, given Protoss has the advantage in the late game vs Terran, Protoss does not have to catch these units. All we have to do is make them run away (waste stim, medivac energy etc). Against Zerg, the production of larvae injected units is the issue. I am not sure why Protoss should be fast enough to catch Zerg. The onus is on Protoss to attack more often in this match-up, so if I attack and the Zerg runs away from my FF, so be it. I just kill the hatchery and go home. Zerg speed here, especially on creep, also goes with the feel of the races. Zerg is fast and weak, while Protoss is strong and slow. Show nested quote +
At these times, Protoss require higher tech to compete in the form of Colossus and High Templar. And so the game goes.
So many touted changes to Protoss ignore the fact that Protoss design is not isolated, and is part of a greater game design (i.e. inclusive of Terran and Zerg). Any substantive changes to "fix" Protoss must also consider changes to the other races those "fixes" would necessitate; and therefore, probable wholesale changes to the basics of the game itself.
Simple wish-lists that "solve" Protoss won't achieve anything.
Protoss is always the first to go for tech in almost every game. From the start you know you are going to expand and get colossus or templars. The matchup doesnt even matter in that regard. You can do a 6-7-8 gate allin, but frankly people stopped doing it for two reasons. Reason number 1 is that when scouted it gets stopped. Reason number 2 is that it is a dead end. You leave yourself with almost no option if you agression fails. A terran or zerg can at least fall back and rely on a stronger T1 to catch back up. Obviously people are aware that the races are not isolated. By pointing out that they want gateway units to become stronger, they mean precisely that. Stronger compared to everything. Even PvP will stand to benefit from stronger baseline units, as colossus wars will be much less prominent. The only hitch is that with every change to gateway units, warp tech becomes stronger as well. Hence they suggest warp tech be changed to have less of an impact, at least in the early and mid game. Late game remaxes are still an issue but not at all as big as the early game issues would be. No, they want Gateway units to be stronger because Protoss does not allow as efficient and effective play in phases of the game as these players would like. If so, they should switch race to Terran or Zerg and play more they want to play rather than wanting to contort Protoss to fit their desired play style. Like it or not, Protoss has to usually defend in the mid-game. In respect of WOL at least, Protoss gateway units are fine as they are. As I pointed out above, the main concerns are 3 fold: 1. The Hard counters in the game which means that the basic Protoss army is lacking its other half in 2 of the P match-ups. 2. The production boosts that all races have in terms of CB/WG, larvae inject, and reactored units. 3. Terrible terrible damage so that, at certain times, core Gateway units will just evaporate. But, again, this is not specific to Protoss, but part of the overall game. You only have to hear Terran complaints when a bioball melts to Colossus/Archon. As the discussion has become broader than just WG vs Gateway, I really don't believe that Protoss needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Given the sunk costs of the game, thus far, I also believe this is highly unlikely to occur. My own thoughts on improving Protoss are a small buff to SG tech, some way to pressure in the midgame (in return for which Protoss late game strength must be decreased - perhaps by a Colossus nerf), and a way to scout reliably in the early to midgame.
i meant gateway's design is based on high hp low dps, because that would be the relevant units for harassing with wg, and their design makes the harass ineffective. Apart from that high hp low dps works for every single toss unit except for the colossus.
i think wg in the current meta is not what it could be. Essentially wg is used to defend or to resupply fast when the player has a bank, or to resupply at the front. Sometimes we see it in pvz as mineral sunk in the late game. Imo it's kinda sad that wg+pylon failed as a harass-mechanic, because the ability alone has lots of potential in that direction, just not the units.
blizzard is currently working on the problems you see with toss. the oracle is a way to harass in the midgame and hallucination is a way to reliably scout in the eg.
@ why the viewer-experience would possibly change if toss had stronger wg-units: Current toss play is pretty static, alias turtling till being attacked or till reaching 180-200 supply and then have the battle of doom. In the time between we either see all-ins or holds, which imo dont create good games.
If toss had a cheap and effective harass mechanic like terran drop play or zerg runbys the MUs could be a lot more shifting back and forth, since the other player would be forced to find a balance between containing the toss to hard and potentially have a problem with offensive warp-ins and containing him not enough so that toss could get into a position to defend a third/fourth more easily. It wouldnt force the mapmakers to create unattackable expansions until toss is able to move more aggressively only to let them remain balanced. The way to do it is imo either give toss a reaper-like-gateway unit or buff gateway units and nerf high-tech and wg to a point where toss offensive warp-in can be cost-effective.
|
On October 17 2012 13:21 aZealot wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2012 11:38 Cabinet Sanchez wrote:
Look they may need to initially tweak the times, I admit that.
However I don't feel the current mechanic is logical in the slightest. It would be much much cooler to have a tradeoff against the advantage :/ Risk / reward. I've posted this extensively across this forum and most people seem to be in agreement.
Not that I think there's a hope in hell Blizz would pay attention but I'm quite convinced this would make for more exciting matches when spectating.
Sigh. I'm not sure I understand? What would improve, for a spectator, from swapping gateway/warpgate build times? Even with undefined 'tweaks' (whatever they may be)? Why is it cooler to have a tradeoff? What kind of tradeoff? Why? I'm not too concerned about other people's agreement. A lot of recent Protoss theory crafting has been idiotic, IMO.
The game improves in that there's another element of strategy added which the players need to be aware of and make decisions around. Furthermore it's MORE LOGICAL to do it this way. Spectators get to see players making decisions and try to figure out why they made them, if the decisions were smart - the whole point of being a specator is basically to see someone make cool, smart decisions quickly.
I know I'm clearly biased but I don't see to be honest how anyone could disagree. Warpgates and Gateways are silly. The better choice (warp) has no drawbacks. It's just illogical.
|
I read all the posts and the way i feel , there is a clear picture that the colossus must change in some way or another.
But there is no clear picture, if the protoss community wants any drastic changes in the core gameplaymechanics, beside of changing one unit.For clarification on this point, i have included another poll in my topic.
Feel free to vote, if you like and thx for all the competent posts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
