|
After reading MorroW's thread about a fundamental problem with forcefields (MorroW's thread), there seems to be some consensus on TL that forcefields are too polarizing - good forcefields leave zerg with no response and zerg is helplessly crushed, poor forcefields and zerg simply overruns protoss' weak gateway units with little more than a-moving and/or flanking.
However, a lot of people expressed concern that if forcefield were to be changed, Protoss gateway units would have to be completely re-designed because of the interplay between forcefield, warpgates and gateway unit strength. I think a simple form of the argument goes like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
- Forcefield is so strong that gateway units must be weaker than other races' respective units for balance to exist
- Forcefield is gameplay polarizing (as above) and inherently bad design regardless of balance. We should change it.
- If forcefield is changed (nerfed), gateway units must be made stronger to compensate otherwise Protoss will plainly die in the early-mid game to mass roach/ling and bio.
- Making gateway units stronger would imbalance protoss in the early game using gateway strategies like 4,5,6-gate, largely due to the warp in mechanic ignoring defender's advantage.
So i came up with a possible change to Warp gates that would set the groundwork for changing forcefield and buffing gateway units.
+ Show Spoiler +
- New concept: disconnected pylon – a pylon further than a certain distance from nearest Nexus will be disconnected and glow a different color than blue.
- Old Warp gate research removed. By default, gateways can warp in units and can no longer ‘build’ units. Default gateways can only warp in at pylons within a certain distance from closest Nexus. When warp in is used, gateway goes on cooldown (call this Gateway Cooldown)
- New Warp Gate Research: Allows gateways to warp in units at a disconnected pylon. Warp in at a disconnected pylon triggers both Gateway Cooldown and Warp Gate Cooldown. Warp Gate Cooldown is twice as long as Gateway Cooldown. The gateway can use regular warp in as long as Gateway Cooldown is available, even if Warp Gate Cooldown is not. However, the gateway cannot use Warp Gate Cooldown if Gateway Cooldown is not available.
Simplified: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.
Example map:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cg9rl.jpg) Yellow circle = nexus radius for placing a regular blue pylon (shown for main,nat, third only) Blue triangle = blue pylon, doesn't trigger warp gate cooldown Red triangle = disconnected pylon, triggers warp gate cooldown Of course, you can increase the yellow circle radius. The principle is what matters - a pylon outside of the base that is intended to be used for warping in units, not just supply/powering buildings, is meant to trigger warp gate cooldown.
Thoughts :
- Fast researching and cheap. The aim here is to make it less of a necessity and more of a choice if Protoss wants to apply pressure early on. Should not define Protoss builds, but rather an enabler for a tactic (warp gate harassment/pressure).
- Allows using gateways for light pressure with single-round warp in attacks (eg early pressure on Zerg third with gateway units, warp prism plays) and restores defender’s advantage to the opponent after first round due to drastically lengthened Warp Gate Cooldown.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Some ideas that have popped up in this thread:
Other suggestions for warp gates made by people in this thread
- Warp in by default can only occur around a nexus, warp gate upgrade required to warp in at any pylon. Upgrade would presumably be available later than currently available.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- a similar idea to disconnected pylons except further limits protoss' ability to pressure or use warp prisms. Also might just cause all ins to be delayed, instead of addressing the real issue of defender's advantage. The same reasoning would apply to any suggestion that merely delays or increases the cost of acquiring warp gate tech, while leaving warp gate mechanic (once acquired) intact - including suggestions that warp gate tech should require TC, robo or stargate etc.
- Warp in can only occur around a nexus's 'power grid', extendable by pylons (like placing creep tumors).
+ Show Spoiler +
<- essentially just a removal of warping in at long distances from your base, because it's hard to imagine protoss placing a line of exposed pylons outside of their base so they can warp in more closely to the battle.
- Heavily increase warp gate cooldown, and decrease time taken to swap between gateways and warpgates. So Protoss can use regular gateway 'building' of units until they want to attack, and can swap back to gateways to remax after the battle.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- issues with using warp prisms (have to swap to warp gate then swap back just to perform some harrass?). Also seems clunky in situations where protoss might choose to have some warp gates (for quick defense at far expansion) and some gateways - managing regular building of units as well as warp ins at the same time?
- Increase duration of warp in animation and/or make warp gate tech not available until later, when 2 base all ins are less threatening.
+ Show Spoiler +
If increased slightly (eg 10 sec instead of 5) will it be enough of a change to restore defender's advantage? If increased a lot (eg 15 sec instead of 5), might make warp prisms useless because you could kill the warp prism easily in that time and make protoss lose a lot of resources.
- Re-implement high ground advantage to counteract warp gates negating defender's advantage.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm thinking indirect ways of addressing warp gates' problem re defender's advantage aren't the best approach. This would limit map makers, and might introduce RNG which is bad. Also would have unpredictable effects on ZvT as well.
Concerns
- Idea is just too complex.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- Not much to say here, depends on how you look at it. The disconnected pylon idea is motivated by a desire to keep the warp in mechanic, keep early game attacks and warp prism plays relevant, but negating the issues associated with warp in avoiding defender's advantage. Many of the less complex suggestions (can only warp in at nexus, upgrade required to warp in at pylons, for example) proposed don't address what makes 2 base gateway all ins too strong (lack of defender's advantage) directly. They indirectly solve the problem by making all ins weaker by increasing cost/time required to acquire warp gate tech. The problem i see with this is that you have less room to buff gateway units because the moment the gateway unit buff outweighs the additional time/cost to acquire warp gate tech (compared to the current state of the game) , 4 to 8 gate attacks will see a resurgence.
Also, I don't think it's that complex on the level of the player. A newbie protoss player will just know if they place a pylon far away from their bases, it will be red instead of blue. If they warp in at a red pylon, it will trigger a longer cooldown. Range from nexus should be sufficient to make accidental placement of red pylons impossible.
edit: Guess i did have much to say, lol.
- Late game gateway units may be too strong if they are buffed and when protoss has enough gateways and a bank that 1 round can essentially remax.
- Proxy gateway strategies too strong if gateway units buffed.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- not an issue with disconnected pylons idea, because gateways can no longer build units and can only warp in at a far pylon (disconnected) with upgrade first. The pylon powering the 2 proxy gates will be disconnected. So 2 proxy gate won't even be possible.
|
I think it might work, although the design team might not like the complexity of distance-based production mechanics. Also, it is utterly dependent on the rebalancing of FF and gateway units. Protoss currently needs to hurt Zerg before Inf/BL hits, and the N-gate all-ins and pressure builds they use are incredibly fragile. Making essentially half their production unavailable to the attack increases the odds of their entire army getting crushed and overrun. That fundamental redesign is a much bigger hurdle to clear with the designers than this change.
|
Get rid of warp gates all together I don't really like them as a Protoss player Forcing you to look away to macro sucks when you have to deal with ghosts/infestors.
|
Cool idea, I've been actually thinking about something similar for a long time.
What if nexus gave the power matrix and pylons extended that (the same way zerg creep works)?
With this kind of simple change, the race would lose all of it's most annoying features in a single swing:
1. No more proxy production or tech strats.
2. No more cannonrushes.
3. No more WG rushing all-ins in the early game.
4. No more having to spend 90 to 270 minerals on every new expansion just to get power for warp-ins and cannons.
5. No more annoyingly small power grids where you have to warp 24 gates worth of units to.
6. Harder process of taking new expansions, but easier time defending them once they finish.
7. Easier time defending against ling run-by and you wouldn't have to lose the game because your units got stuck in your own sim-city.
Also, a lot of the tech trees would have a more clear and distinct speciality over each other.
- With Robo, you would have slow moving units but good scouting (obs) and the ability to reinforce on the spot.
- With TC, you would get map control through blink and charge and fast moving units, but no ability to reinforce on spot.
- With SG, you would get great scouting options, the way to shut down opponents scouting, light harassing options and some support (phoenix lift).
|
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)
|
I feel like for the warp gate thing there is a very simple answer.
Warpgate research stays the same however you can only warp in in the pylon power field that also contains a completed, functional warp gate, thus completely removing proxy pylons but leaving cannon rushing intact. This way Protoss cannot warp in easily for all in's and they are finally able to be punished for being out of position for defending their bases provided they did not make canons to defend it rather than how it is right now where you are just praying that their warp gates are currently on cool down so that you can do soome damage.
I feel like FF is providing skill for protoss to use but removing skill for the defending player/attacking player. It is imo very dependant on if you are watching, how good your ff are and how good your opponent is. If any of these is bad then the battle ends up being very 1 sided.
|
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.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On November 20 2012 17:01 ledgerhs wrote:
Cool idea, I've been actually thinking about something similar for a long time.
What if nexus gave the power matrix and pylons extended that (the same way zerg creep works)?
With this kind of simple change, the race would lose all of it's most annoying features in a single swing:
1. No more proxy production or tech strats.
2. No more cannonrushes.
3. No more WG rushing all-ins in the early game.
4. No more having to spend 90 to 270 minerals on every new expansion just to get power for warp-ins and cannons.
5. No more annoyingly small power grids where you have to warp 24 gates worth of units to.
6. Easier time with general sim-city. Harder process of taking new expansions, but easier time defending them once they finish.
1. Good thing, adds variance
2. Good thing, adds variance
3. Good thing, adds variance
4. Everyone needs to defend an expansion, why should Toss not have to?
5. Deal with it, you have the fastest reinforcement and to any place on the map basically, you should be able to find some space or at least plan in advance with attacks, it can't be all easy going.
6. When has Toss ever wanted to have harder expansions to take? Toss already has quite hard bases to crack with cannons, no need to make them harder.
|
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same.
|
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 because of these, I think we should make further consideration about the impact of the change, than just looking at 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.
|
4. Everyone needs to defend an expansion, why should Toss not have to?
I for T and Z they can just plant down a bunker or spine wherever their expansion completes. Toss has to plant down pylons just for the power and then cannons. It's just more expensive and it doesn't have to be.
6. When has Toss ever wanted to have harder expansions to take? Toss already has quite hard bases to crack with cannons, no need to make them harder.
I guess I'm more conservative and like the RTS101 type design where you have to spend money on either static defense, map control or scouting to expand safely. I never really liked the idea that you can spend on infrastructure that works as defence to expand. It creates a too binary type asymmetric balance and forces the gamedevs to design gateway units with a clear weakness (like the requirement of FF to trade efficiently).
|
On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same.
I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that.
|
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.
|
The problem with a range based limit on WG is that it creates a fair bit of confusion for players on both sides as to where protoss can and cannot warp in units. "Am i 75 range from the nexus,or am I 76?". A tiny misplacement and suddenly your strat is broken for a minor error.
You could start adding in range indicators from nexus but then the map just get messy, the opponent can't see it (can protoss flank with warpins here?) and its just poor game design.
On/Off polarization like that is not good for a game, even a misplaced Nexus can still mine.
The best "fix" to warpgate I've seen posted several times is to simply increase the cooldown for warpgates so that they're good for a one-time reinforcement but bad for macro (WG can buff standard gate build times after research so that toss production can still keep the same pace it has now). This would also give players a reason to use "Turn Warpgate back to Gateway" (the least useful ability in the game, bar none).
|
On November 20 2012 17:23 contv wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Russian Federation216 Posts
i think better add flexibility to this like:
all protoss structures is connected through pylon field and using nexus like some kind of "nydus network"
so if you want to warp on your pylo, his power field should:
- be connected to gateway
OR
- be connected through other powerfields to gateway
OR
- be connected to nexus (may be through other pylonfields)
where nexuses serve as ultimate point, which doesn't needs connection to gateways and etc
|
On November 20 2012 17:49 contv wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that.
I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
|
On November 20 2012 17:57 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that. I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
Not only that, but if you would make the gateways produce faster, you would get the same problem as seen in early WOL beta. Protoss could just go two gate zealot every game and destroy his opponent.
|
On November 20 2012 17:57 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that. I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
If you are afraid of getting caught with your pants down at 4th/5th bases, then keep your gateways as warpgates. Hell, at that stage in the game, you could just build additional gateways that you will SOLELY use as warpgates in case of an emergency. It's really not a problem if you think about it.
Not only that, but if you would make the gateways produce faster, you would get the same problem as seen in early WOL beta. Protoss could just go two gate zealot every game and destroy his opponent.
I don't really think this will be an issue anymore lol, even if gateway units were slightly buffed to compensate for the loss of utility with warp tech. If it were causing an issue though, it would just require increasing gateway build time a tad. Again though, I don't think this would be an issue even with slightly buffed gateway units. Proxy 2gate is pretty easy to stop.
|
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?
|
On November 20 2012 21:00 Zihn wrote:
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.
Yeah, this the idea I like, as well.
Alternatively, make Warp Gates spawn units locally, but allow one Warp Gate to spawn units from all the other Warp Gates. So, you have 5 gates in your main, 1 at your natural and 1 at your third and you can spawn 7 Zealots at any one of your bases. The main change here is that Protoss players do not have to look away from their armies to macro.
|
On November 20 2012 17:01 ledgerhs wrote:
Cool idea, I've been actually thinking about something similar for a long time.
What if nexus gave the power matrix and pylons extended that (the same way zerg creep works)?
With this kind of simple change, the race would lose all of it's most annoying features in a single swing:
1. No more proxy production or tech strats.
2. No more cannonrushes.
3. No more WG rushing all-ins in the early game.
4. No more having to spend 90 to 270 minerals on every new expansion just to get power for warp-ins and cannons.
5. No more annoyingly small power grids where you have to warp 24 gates worth of units to.
6. Harder process of taking new expansions, but easier time defending them once they finish.
7. Easier time defending against ling run-by and you wouldn't have to lose the game because your units got stuck in your own sim-city.
Also, a lot of the tech trees would have a more clear and distinct speciality over each other.
- With Robo, you would have slow moving units but good scouting (obs) and the ability to reinforce on the spot.
- With TC, you would get map control through blink and charge and fast moving units, but no ability to reinforce on spot.
- With SG, you would get great scouting options, the way to shut down opponents scouting, light harassing options and some support (phoenix lift).
I LOVE this post. This literally fixes everything! 
|
Or just make warp gates only compatible with warp prisms?
|
On November 21 2012 12:52 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 21:00 Zihn wrote:
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. Yeah, this the idea I like, as well. Alternatively, make Warp Gates spawn units locally, but allow one Warp Gate to spawn units from all the other Warp Gates. So, you have 5 gates in your main, 1 at your natural and 1 at your third and you can spawn 7 Zealots at any one of your bases. The main change here is that Protoss players do not have to look away from their armies to macro.
I like it!
It's simple, 150 minerals extra isn't a crazy amount that'll completely stop proxy play, but it is obviously more of an investment. And it's much easier to spot, further discouraging hidden pylons in favor of defended advance positions.
|
Some recomendations:
FF should have life bars like 400 or so.
buff protos gate units.
buff bunkers to help hold 4gate.
limit the number of units u can warp in per pylon in long distance locations(not so sure about this one)
|
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things.
|
On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things.
Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh.
|
proxy nexus purify contain vs zerg? With gateway buff this will be imba.
|
On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh.
compared with terran's sacking of scvs for mules, or zergs larva pool + mass spine cancel for 220+? come on, the races are just different in these ways... the warpgate is an awesome mechanic, however i wouldn't mind if it came a little later in the tech tree.
|
On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh.
Oh I see. Yeah, in that case it should just be removed. I wouldn't mind seeing that and larva inject and mules and even chrono boost all removed from the game. I don't think they really add much to it .
|
they could give pylons and prism energy and make warp in cost some like 20 or 25. Protoss would have to add extra proxy pylons if they really want to commit to a push. It would really affect offensive warps but not defensive since you should have enough energy capped pylons in base
|
Just Increase warp gate cool down , doesn't really effect balance and not hard to adjust, normal gates produce faster anyways.
|
Posted this in other thread but feel it could be useful here.
They could do something else with warp gate tech such as moving it to Twilight council, make it so once it is researched Gateways build units faster, can morph to warp gate, which enables warp ins, but the cooldowns are a lot longer. So there are adv for and against. Would have to adjust unit stats/build times accordingly so it isnt too strong/weak.
- Edit: I see it's already been suggested
|
- Edit: I see it's already been suggested
Protoss gateway units can't be prouced cost efficiently in a linear fashion while expanding. Moving WG to TC would kill PvT. :/ You would also have to buff gateway units and then have problems with proxygates, etc.
|
Protoss needs to have fast reinforcements becoz their units are so weak.
|
On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh.
But protoss have 150-160 army supply vs 190 army supply. Even now TvP +30mins is heavily terran favored (70% winratio) and removing warp gate would just make situation much worse. If warp gate removes, you must remove mules, nerf larva alot ja nerf somekindly terran army.
|
Just make forcefields use abit more energy. so sentry doesnt come with a forcefield into battle.
|
On November 23 2012 05:16 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh. But protoss have 150-160 army supply vs 190 army supply. Even now TvP +30mins is heavily terran favored (70% winratio) and removing warp gate would just make situation much worse. If warp gate removes, you must remove mules, nerf larva alot ja nerf somekindly terran army.
Got sources to back that up?
Because good players will never let a game go past 30 minutes. The statistics could actually be from bronze leagues where no one knows what they are doing.
|
On November 24 2012 00:56 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2012 05:16 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh. But protoss have 150-160 army supply vs 190 army supply. Even now TvP +30mins is heavily terran favored (70% winratio) and removing warp gate would just make situation much worse. If warp gate removes, you must remove mules, nerf larva alot ja nerf somekindly terran army. Got sources to back that up? Because good players will never let a game go past 30 minutes. The statistics could actually be from bronze leagues where no one knows what they are doing.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=351786
Master/GM: 69% TvP
|
10387 Posts
On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things.
the most elegant solution
|
On November 21 2012 12:52 M.R. McThundercrotch wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 21:00 Zihn wrote:
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. Yeah, this the idea I like, as well. Alternatively, make Warp Gates spawn units locally, but allow one Warp Gate to spawn units from all the other Warp Gates. So, you have 5 gates in your main, 1 at your natural and 1 at your third and you can spawn 7 Zealots at any one of your bases. The main change here is that Protoss players do not have to look away from their armies to macro.
It is relatively easy to proxy a building (look at proxy rax).
If you do this together with stronger gateway units, you gate has the potential to become very prominent again, and most possibly broken.
On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things.
When gateways produce as fast as warpgate every Protoss can two gate mass zealot all in every game. (WoL Beta)
|
On November 24 2012 01:07 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 00:56 GARcher wrote:On November 23 2012 05:16 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh. But protoss have 150-160 army supply vs 190 army supply. Even now TvP +30mins is heavily terran favored (70% winratio) and removing warp gate would just make situation much worse. If warp gate removes, you must remove mules, nerf larva alot ja nerf somekindly terran army. Got sources to back that up? Because good players will never let a game go past 30 minutes. The statistics could actually be from bronze leagues where no one knows what they are doing. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=351786Master/GM: 69% TvP
#1. The statistics are half a year old and is only a part of the EU and NA servers.
#2. Only 1.68% of games reach past 30 minutes. Do you think it is logical to balance according to these statistics?
#3. 4% of the data is provided from the OP's own games
#4. Doesn't record games from across the ladder. Only from the people who actually use this tool.
|
On November 24 2012 08:05 GARcher wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2012 01:07 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On November 24 2012 00:56 GARcher wrote:On November 23 2012 05:16 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On November 22 2012 10:43 GARcher wrote:On November 22 2012 10:34 pzea469 wrote:
Just make gateways produce as fast as warpgates do currently and make warpgates have a longer cooldown. Units build slower with warpgates but you can warp them in. Switch back to gateways to build units faster but from your base. I think Starbow does that. Would mean that in PvP, the Protoss who is aggressively 4 gating his opponent would have a longer reinforcement cooldown than the Protoss that was defending with gateways. No need to over-complicate things. Still doesn't solve the problem of max army situations where protoss has another 2 x #of warpgates supply of units ready to be instantly warped in. The warpgate is a broken mechanic to begin with tbh. But protoss have 150-160 army supply vs 190 army supply. Even now TvP +30mins is heavily terran favored (70% winratio) and removing warp gate would just make situation much worse. If warp gate removes, you must remove mules, nerf larva alot ja nerf somekindly terran army. Got sources to back that up? Because good players will never let a game go past 30 minutes. The statistics could actually be from bronze leagues where no one knows what they are doing. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=351786Master/GM: 69% TvP #1. The statistics are half a year old and is only a part of the EU and NA servers. #2. Only 1.68% of games reach past 30 minutes. Do you think it is logical to balance according to these statistics? #3. 4% of the data is provided from the OP's own games #4. Doesn't record games from across the ladder. Only from the people who actually use this tool.
I don't see how his argument is in any way invalidated by his source any more than yours would be, considering you have no source. The thread in question was critisised heavily by some people because of the method in which the average MMR was calculated, but I don't know enough about statistics to judge whether it was fair critisism or not.
It is however true, that without a source, your claims about warpgate is equally speculative at best.
The point I am trying to make is that without a very good way to analyse both player MMR -and- replays from the games in question, it is very hard to make a conclusion of how warpgates can or should implicate the game. Just like larvae and swappable addons, it is the race specific reinforcement.
Having said that, I agree with you on a philosophical level. It makes no sense for a system to be in place that rewards players to stockpile money and gateways once maxed. Just as little as it makes sense to sack workers for terran or supply cheat as zerg. The underlying problem there is that there is not enough incentive to be agressive for either race so that the supply cap is not reached or at least maintained.
Mostly there are abilities like fungals, stim and vortex to blame for this. I would add force fields, but they are much less common in the late game. Without being able to "hit and run" you are better off hoarding in your base, and that is when this problem arises.
As for the topic, I think warp gates should be redesigned, no matter how much that upsets game balance. Personally I would like to see the warp prism and MSC as the only points of warp in for protoss and a limiter for how many gates each of those units can warp from. Then make warpin something that happens in parallell with regular gateway production but at a much slower pace than currently and get rid of warp gate research altogether. Possibly make MSC slightly harder to obtain than currently. Maybe let it build from forge or something to prevent ultra cheesy warp rushes.
|
I have a better idea. Make warpgate a pylon / warp-prism thing where basically you research the spell, and then you can warp units into play equal to amount of pylons you have around the map. By doing it like this you have a firm separation between gateways and warped units. This to allow for them to act as reinforcements to a push as they do now, but it`d be a novel idea and easily limited through either increased unit costs or higher cooldown.
The problem with putting limits on warpgate right now is that gateways are your only unit producing facilities and as such protoss relies on them. By moving "warpgate" to pylons you could both limit and increase its impact while having stronger tier 1 toss units.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
