|
On November 20 2012 17:56 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:49 contv wrote:On November 20 2012 17:35 Deckkie wrote:
This has pretty much been my argument for the reason that they have FF in the first place.
There can however be other complications. Something like a blink stalker all-in could become increadibly strong when Stalkers get buffed. This is one example, but I think we should look further than just the 4-gate.
@Razorspine, I dont think that pylons at connected to gateways would be the best solution. If you consider how easy it is for a Terran to proxy two rax. What is stopping the Protoss from a similar proxy, and if they can do this with stronger gateway units, a Terran pretty much straight up looses if they dont scout/destroy the proxy gate before the 5 min mark.
Looking at the implications that I posted above (I am not sure how much these have effect, but they should be taken into serious consideration), I think the solution may lay in replacing the FF. Maybe the Sentry can be a buffer from which the effect works comparible to Stim. The actual implimetation would be definatly different, because the buff is done through a spell caster, creating a different weakness, resulting in different gameplay. Is blink stalker all-in really that strong if the subsequent rounds of warp ins take twice as long? There are not many all-ins that I know of that simply instantly kill zerg without at least a few rounds of warp ins. Keep in mind we are also considering a FF change which would balance out some/most/all of the additional power of gateway units. In any case, if the stalker all in is super strong, it can be scouted because protoss will have to pre-make stalkers in their base. The aggression switch won't be as sudden as currently, where zerg thinks it's just stalker pressure but then 8 gates of stalkers warp in outside zerg's third. Instead, protoss will want to warp in before moving out, because they know they only get 1 warp in cycle at the proxy pylon, which allows zerg to scout the stalkers moving out. A lot of theorycrafting but I think it makes sense overall. This could definatly be a solution. My first thought however is: what would stop the Protoss from going 5-gate instead of 4? With a fifth gate, the Protoss can still get the same strength as when the gates would build as fast as they do now. So, would this fifth gate be a sufficient investment to counter the damage increase of the gateway units? edit: investment, not infestment.
Well I think if the disconnected pylon warp in is as drastic as 2x the default cooldown, then it would actually take 8 gates to match the current 4 gate production rate. That cost alone I think is enough to provide disincentive for Protoss to 4 gate, even if gateway units are buffed. An additional effect is that the warped in units will be less constant (instead of warp in 4, 30 sec, warp in 4, it will be warp in 8, 1 min, warp in 8) which I think disadvantages protoss in the all-in because it's more likely that the protoss army will fall below critical mass and the all-in successfully defended.
|
On November 20 2012 18:06 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:56 Deckkie wrote:On November 20 2012 17:49 contv wrote:On November 20 2012 17:35 Deckkie wrote:
This has pretty much been my argument for the reason that they have FF in the first place.
There can however be other complications. Something like a blink stalker all-in could become increadibly strong when Stalkers get buffed. This is one example, but I think we should look further than just the 4-gate.
@Razorspine, I dont think that pylons at connected to gateways would be the best solution. If you consider how easy it is for a Terran to proxy two rax. What is stopping the Protoss from a similar proxy, and if they can do this with stronger gateway units, a Terran pretty much straight up looses if they dont scout/destroy the proxy gate before the 5 min mark.
Looking at the implications that I posted above (I am not sure how much these have effect, but they should be taken into serious consideration), I think the solution may lay in replacing the FF. Maybe the Sentry can be a buffer from which the effect works comparible to Stim. The actual implimetation would be definatly different, because the buff is done through a spell caster, creating a different weakness, resulting in different gameplay. Is blink stalker all-in really that strong if the subsequent rounds of warp ins take twice as long? There are not many all-ins that I know of that simply instantly kill zerg without at least a few rounds of warp ins. Keep in mind we are also considering a FF change which would balance out some/most/all of the additional power of gateway units. In any case, if the stalker all in is super strong, it can be scouted because protoss will have to pre-make stalkers in their base. The aggression switch won't be as sudden as currently, where zerg thinks it's just stalker pressure but then 8 gates of stalkers warp in outside zerg's third. Instead, protoss will want to warp in before moving out, because they know they only get 1 warp in cycle at the proxy pylon, which allows zerg to scout the stalkers moving out. A lot of theorycrafting but I think it makes sense overall. This could definatly be a solution. My first thought however is: what would stop the Protoss from going 5-gate instead of 4? With a fifth gate, the Protoss can still get the same strength as when the gates would build as fast as they do now. So, would this fifth gate be a sufficient investment to counter the damage increase of the gateway units? edit: investment, not infestment. Well I think if the disconnected pylon warp in is as drastic as 2x the default cooldown, then it would actually take 8 gates to match the current 4 gate production rate. That cost alone I think is enough to provide disincentive for Protoss to 4 gate, even if gateway units are buffed. An additional effect is that the warped in units will be less constant (instead of warp in 4, 30 sec, warp in 4, it will be warp in 8, 1 min, warp in 8) which I think disadvantages protoss in the all-in because it's more likely that the protoss army will fall below critical mass and the all-in successfully defended.
This could indeed be a solution (like I said before).
I wish we could test it. And wonder what the role of Sentry should take in this situation.
|
too complicated for a blizzard game
|
On November 20 2012 18:41 TheDraken wrote:
too complicated for a blizzard game
My description of it may have seemed complicated but only because I was explaining the mechanics. All it really is is - if you make a pylon far away from your nexus it glows red instead of blue. Warp in at this pylon, you won't be able to warp in at any other red pylons for a long time, but you can still warp in at your blue pylons at home like normal.
|
the problem of stronger gateway units is not only warpgate in early game stages. imagine stronger chargelots and blinkstalker that get warped in in lategame as fast as right now. they would simply be completely broken. if you buff chargelots and blinkstalker (which both are already really strong: the problem of gateway units lies in the early game. once toss has charge or blink both zealots and stalker are really strong and dont need FF anymore) you will need to change the mid and lategame warpin mechanic. for example increase the warpin time from 5 seconds to 15 seconds.
|
On November 20 2012 18:54 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 18:41 TheDraken wrote:
too complicated for a blizzard game My description of it may have seemed complicated but only because I was explaining the mechanics. All it really is is - if you make a pylon far away from your nexus it glows red instead of blue. Warp in at this pylon, you won't be able to warp in at any other red pylons for a long time, but you can still warp in at your blue pylons at home like normal.
This is too complicated indeed. Either you can only warp in around the Nexus (it having its ownwarp in area), and you get an upgrade later in the game to warp in at pylons. Or you just keep it as it is. making distances where you can and cannot warp in would make it weird. But who knows, maybe Rocks likes the idea.
|
My thoughts on FF from Morrow's thread
+ Show Spoiler +
FF is T1 primarily because
1. Gateway units are relatively expensive
2. Gateway abilties (Blink, Charge) are farther up the tech tree
3. Protoss needs Hallucination (ability and the energy) or T2 for vision (observer, phoenix)
These 3 reasons make controlling the map, harassing, and defending more significant investments for Protoss.
So going back to my earlier post, if you want to remove FF without nerfing T or Z in some ways
1. Give Sentries a "sensor tower" like passive ability; then you will know when to hallucinate, warp in, or pull back units.
2. Give Zealots the Charge movement speed off the bat (not the ability, just movement speed) so they can react.
3. Put Charge and Blink on the Cyber Core, stick air upgrades on the Forge or Twilight.
If you do these 3 things, at the very least it will be harder to execute cannon rushes and proxies;
but I think the overall early/mid/late games will improve as well.
I forgot two pretty important reasons for having T1 FF and FF in general
4. Terran can raise supply depots and other structures, and Zerg can move Spine and Spore crawlers for wall-ins
Protoss would need something like phasable/warpable photon cannons to prevent harass;
hellions, lings, especially banelings would be "gg"
5. So many banelings....
You would definitely need Blink Stalkers ASAP or Sentries with enough Hallucinations to absorb damage.
Or you would need enough warp prisms for your units and amazing micro.
I can see removing FF for micro and high ground warp ins but I don't think the warpgate design is that big of a problem since T and Z can proxy as well if it is such an advantage. T and Z currently have more of a defender's advantage with bunker/supply depot/wall in with structures and spines/spores that can be moved around, while P has to rely on sentries' energy to FF if they want to wall in and photon cannons can't be salvaged or moved.
IMO if you remove FF and high ground warp in, then warpgate isn't much different from any other proxy.
|
would be simpler to just split pylon fields into 2 fields
power field: blue powers buildings, spread by pylons
warp field: white powers warp ins, spread by active warp gates and warp prisms
proxy pylon into gateway = 250 minerals + 100 sec buildtime
proxy nexus + pylon = 500 minerals + 100 sec buildtime (pylon can build while nexus is building)
it's a little less costly to proxy chese but without the overly complicated disconnected pylon mecanic that OP proposed.
|
On November 20 2012 20:32 Deckkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 18:54 contv wrote:On November 20 2012 18:41 TheDraken wrote:
too complicated for a blizzard game My description of it may have seemed complicated but only because I was explaining the mechanics. All it really is is - if you make a pylon far away from your nexus it glows red instead of blue. Warp in at this pylon, you won't be able to warp in at any other red pylons for a long time, but you can still warp in at your blue pylons at home like normal. This is too complicated indeed. Either you can only warp in around the Nexus (it having its ownwarp in area), and you get an upgrade later in the game to warp in at pylons. Or you just keep it as it is. making distances where you can and cannot warp in would make it weird. But who knows, maybe Rocks likes the idea.
I don't feel it's too complicated for the compromise it achieves. Disconnected pylon idea would keep early pressure and warp prisms useful, since both of them don't need multiple rounds of warp ins to be successful. Limiting protoss to warping in around nexus in the early game and allowing pylon warp ins later on with an upgrade would make early pressure and warp prisms impossible. Of course, if the upgrade is acquirable early enough so that warp prism plays are still viable, then you risk changing almost nothing compared to the current game.
I should probably have been more concise with what I would envision the disconnected pylon range to be. Think all the places Protoss puts pylons around their main and nat, relative to their nexuses. Then double that radius from the nexus. I don't think any Protoss puts pylons randomly in the space outside their base. It's either a base pylon that is protected, or a proxy pylon that isn't. In the late game, especially if each side is taking expansions that are closer to each other, the restriction caused by disconnected pylons is relaxed (because Protoss is more likely to have a blue pylon closer to the point of engagement with the opposing army), so it doesn't affect protoss' ability to reinforce by much.
|
On November 20 2012 17:50 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:23 contv wrote:On November 20 2012 17:02 Ryder. wrote:
Makes it some arbitrary distance that isn't even immediately obvious would just add unneeded complexity, for players, spectators and especially map creators.
Something similar along that principle that is much less complicated is simply requiring a warp prism to warp in away from a nexus, or requiring each pylon be upgraded to a 'warp pylon' (with a cost and build time) if you want to use it to warp in, and then just buffing warpgate units from there.
Or just having each gateway require a cost to turn into a warpgate (as well as warp in units having longer build time). That way there leaves scope for balancing how many gateways you want (avoid the cost + faster build time but produces like a barracks) and how many warpgates (subject to cost, longer cooldown but can warp in at distant locations) While I agree it does add some complexity, I don't think it's a big issue. The range would be large enough to cover all the places that a Protoss would ordinarily place pylons around a nexus. Each expansion already has some sort of demarcation (cliffs, walls etc). The range should extend far enough that Protoss can't accidentally place a disconnected pylon, and short enough that a disconnected pylon placed can only be interpreted as an intention to use warp in aggression at that pylon. The suggestion you make about only warp prisms being able to warp in doesn't address the issue of warp gate negating defender's advantage which is the main limitation (in my mind) why gateway units can't yet be buffed. Same with requiring pylons to upgrade to be able to warp in, or imposing a cost on transforming gateways into warp gates. These are just pure nerfs to protoss (they have to spend more money/time before they can do what they can already do), instead of changing a fundamental issue so that there is room to make changes to FF and buffing the strength of gateway units. You say it isn't a big issue but your very description of the distance is vague and arbitrary. Map makers already have enough trouble with making maps due to the nature of protoss taking a natural and 3rd (need to be able to walloff natural for FFE, third can't have too many different attack paths). You say 'long enough for this, short enough for that' but that is entirely map dependant and very vague and will make the balance of PvX matchups very map dependant if you buff gateway units yet some maps still allow aggressive warpins just because the nature of the map layout.. And what do you mean my suggestions don't address the issue of warp gate negating defender's advantage? Your suggestion of disconnected pylons increasing cooldown doesn't 'negate' the issue either; they can still do aggressive warp ins. The whole point is to simply make it more costly for aggressive warp-ins so you can justify buffing gateway units. Requiring a warp prism or upgraded pylons/warpgates that cost extra does exactly that; it makes it harder/more expensive to use aggressive warp ins, so you have to think twice about whether it is actually worth it (and in the case of warp prism) need to ensure you don't lose it since losing it is much more costly to your attack than throwing up 4 pylons and losing 1 or 2 of them. Its just about adding to the cost/risk of aggressive warpins. Edit: ^^ guy above me put it very well.
Updated OP with a map better showing what is meant, hopefully clears things up. There isn't any limitation on map makers with my idea - maps are already large and will continue to be large (if not larger). Protoss won't suddenly start feeling adventurous and building supply pylons/powering new buildings in the middle of nowhere - a pylon intended for aggression with warp ins will be treated as such (disconnected pylon) and a pylon intended for supply/powering buildings will be treated as such (blue pylon, near a nexus).
Your suggestions didn't address defender's advantage because of this: let's say protoss needs to upgrade a pylon for a cost of 50/50 before it can be used to warp in units, then (assuming 4gate is a build that a protoss could want to perform) 4gating protoss will do the exact same thing except their attack will be delayed by the upgrade time and the 50/50 cost. Everything that happens after the attack begins will be the same - protoss will continue to warp in units, negating defender's advantage.
My suggestion fixes the issue of warp gates avoiding defender's advantage because even though protoss can still warp in at their disconnected pylon, the cooldown on warp in at the disconnected pylon is so drastically increased (doubled, for example) that any warp in after the first is basically the same as if protoss warped in the units at their base and rallied them into the fight. So if protoss wants to stay and fight, they are still using warp ins but defender's advantage is restored. I think this is a cool way to preserve the warp in mechanic (which I think Blizzard really really likes) without the complexities of avoiding defender's advantage and consequently requiring gateway units to be a certain strength (weak). I hope this makes sense.
|
Sorry but this is too messy. It needs to be a clean solution that leaves no confusion or conflict.
|
I suggest just making it simpler... Toss automatically starts with Warpgate tech but can only warp in within a radius of their Nexus... If you wanna proxy play it's gonna cost you a 400 min Nexus and also keeps the whole warp-in defend expansion mechanic. (offensive nexus :p)
|
Arg another warpgate thread, using the phrase "defender’s advantage"...let the countdown begin for post saying "Remove the colossis, add reaver = problem solved". #I'veseenthisbefore
|
Cute Idea though the punishment for offensive warpins is quiet high and the reliance on a nexus makes it quiet restricting, I think it would be better if the nearest gateway would determine it, that way you could sneak in a proxy gateway somewhere, which would allow for sneaky play.
Had an idea in that direction, that depending on the distance from the nearest gateway, the units will have different colors if you try to warp in(so noobs know whats going on). And different warpin times depending on the distance, for example 5;10;15 seconds. That way it will be easier to punish warpins directly at the front as they are longer snipeable and the opponent will notice that you sneaked in a proxy gate somewhere to reduce the warpin time as well. That way offensively used units will up the complete build time of a gateway unit (and those added 10 seconds aren't chronobostable as well).
The issue is probably the warp prism, as you could warpin a wall of Zealots over 15 seconds and just cancel them with no cost or cooldown involved. The other issue is close air positions, but hey its close air, drops are there in no time as well.
I would find it funny because of the proxy gateway being so evil. And that on high level Pylon positions could be anticipated from where the gateways are.
|
It's kinda good idea, but I can see why Blizzard would never go for it.
You could apply the same logic to offensive bunkers, which could have avoided Blizzard having to nerf defensive bunkers.
The trouble is that the distance thing is just too arbitrary.
|
That's really way too confusing for the player...in order to make a game like this work the ideas have to be simple.
That is what makes it beautiful, when simple ideas are utilized to great complexity.
|
You could keep the same principle but letting you warp in in a matrix around the nexus from the get go, but then needing an upgrade or having a cooldown nerf to warp in at any pylon. The real problem though is late game strength though and it will be horrible to balance; buffed chargelots and stalkers will be a pain to deal with, because it doesn't matter even if you increase the cooldown by double, if you are at 200/200 with a bank and can remax instantly outside their base you wont need a second round of warpins.
|
First of all let me state that I like the Warp Gate mechanic. It gives Protoss a unique production mechanic that is different from Terran's add-ons or Zerg's larva. I think it should stay in the game. But the strength of gateway units seems to be suffering at the strength of Warp Gate and FF, and with good reason.
Picture a Terran doing a proxy 2rax against a Zerg. If, at every point in time, the Terran had, added to their army, every marine in queue and running from the rally to attack. That would at any point in time be about four marines, give or take (less if the proxy is closer). THAT'S HUGE. Suddenly you go from having eight or so marines to twelve, because time spent in production or on rally is eliminated.
Obviously there are some problems with this analogy. Protoss has to invest in pylons, Warp Gate Research and the 2rax hits much earlier. So the 4gate comes a bit later, but you have four gates instead of two barracks and the amount of units that are immediately put into the front lines becomes much more pronounced because there are more structures producing units.
A lot of the issues I see with the proposed solutions in this thread are due to the complexity of the ideas being presented. People are throwing around the word 'simple' and then proposing relatively complex solutions. Adding an arbitrary range to the Nexus or splitting pylon fields into multiple types somehow could potentially create more problems than solutions.
So I have some changes to consider, and they are truly simple in my mind because all it takes is a bit of tweaking of the numbers or tech requirements. I'm not saying we should use all of them together, but perhaps a few in tandem could be just the solution that is needed.
Increase the duration of the Warp-In animation
Currently it takes a unit five seconds to Warp-In. This is a bit short, I'm not saying it should be much longer, just by a couple of seconds. Definitely no longer than ten seconds. Some people have proposed changes to this such that the further away it is from your spawn position/nexus the longer the animation will take. I think that's a bad idea because it needs to be predictable. Fixed is the best way to go.
This coupled with the proposed changes regarding pylon splice would make warping in units close to the enemy's base much more of a risk as the units are more vulnerable during the Warp-In.
Change the tech requirements of the Warp Gate Research
We've seen Blizzard increase the research time of the Warp Gate upgrade several times, but it still comes relatively early. Protoss still has the ability to commit to a Warp Gate rush/all-in when the difference between having units warp-in immediately versus having to wait for them to reinforce is a huge advantage. If Warp Gate research is pushed to later in the game, that advantage becomes less significant. The opponent has more time to account for it, and unless the Protoss overbuilds gateways, the reinforcement warp-ins are a smaller percentage of their overall army.
There's only so much you can increase the research time without overwhelmingly punishing players who just forget to get it. We also don't want to force players to use their chrono boost on it as well. So in my mind the obvious change is to push back the tech requirements.
In order of increasing severity, the changes I have in mind are:
-Make Warp Gate require a TC, a robo, or a SG. It would be the only tech requirement in the game with an OR clause, so I don't like it so much.
-Make Warp Gate require a TC. Twilight Council is the later tech path that adds more to gateway tech, so if it was going to be one specific path, it would have to be TC. In theory you'll want to get it for upgrades anyway.
-Move Warp Gate research to the TC. This is kind of extreme. It forces a player to choose blink, charge, warp gate, or build another TC. You'd probably have to reduce the research time on several of these upgrades just to keep things fair.
Although you can't really do any of these without making basic gateways a valid option. I'd say reduce the build time on the gateways to match the cooldowns on WG, but that would make proxy 2gate too strong. It's better to just increase the cooldowns on WG so that they build at the same rate as gateways.
More emphasis on high ground advantage
This was mentioned in several threads as a way to give more power to tanks. It serves as a good mechanism to give defenders a leg up versus warp gate attackers. The old BW mechanic of having a 30% chance to miss an attack against a unit on higher ground is a good place to start. Not being able to warp in on high ground was an excellent change.
Hopefully this in addition to a FF change would make room for stronger stalkers and zealots.
That's all ^^
Let me know what you think of my suggestions (first post though, so go easy ^^)
|
De-emphasising the need for FFs could be compensated for buffing gateway/warpgate units BUT that would introduce more problems that it would potentially fix as they are the basic units of that race.
However instead of changing that, changing the AOE abilities of Protoss (colossus/HTs storm etc) early/mid game is far more easier to implement than buffing gateway units and changing the core of how warp gates work.
|
Here's my attempt at a simple solution if you really think Warpgate needs to be nerfed:
Gateways production time is the same as Warpgate cooldown but if you warp in across the other side of the map
(past Xelnaga towers) the cooldown is as long as the current Gateway production time.
Another thing I would definitely change is units warping in should not take damage unless they can also deal damage.
But I'm not sure it needs to changed, it's just an advantage that Protoss has over T and Z. Think about it, Ventril Sacs can give you as many dropships as you have Overlords and Zerg also has Nydus which can be placed anywhere with vision. Warpgates can only warp in gateway units, is it really that OP?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
