|
On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time.
If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted.
About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all.
|
On March 08 2010 19:14 squ1d wrote:
I posted this in another thread, and I believe it is the most elegant solution.
All they have to do is make it that power-fields from different Protosses cannot overlap. If two pylons are in each others' power-fields, neither could be used to warp-in units. That would mean that having some pylons around your base and mineral line would be enough to kill the rush strategy.
It also prevents a lot of the problems created with the workarounds above. Furthermore, Blizzard is doing the balancing based on Warp Gates and the only problem we found with them arises is in PvPs, the only Matchup the mentioned solution would have an effect.
The less it changes the mechanics with other races, the better in my opinion.
This seems like a really cumbersome hard counter... and it entirely depends on you finding his pylon and building yours basically within 5 seconds of him starting his. I don't believe this solution is very practical and it won't counter the vast majority of warp gate rushes.
|
I hope an elegant solution is implemented that doesn't nerf Protoss even more than they already have been.
|
On March 09 2010 15:32 0rbit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2010 19:14 squ1d wrote:
I posted this in another thread, and I believe it is the most elegant solution.
All they have to do is make it that power-fields from different Protosses cannot overlap. If two pylons are in each others' power-fields, neither could be used to warp-in units. That would mean that having some pylons around your base and mineral line would be enough to kill the rush strategy.
It also prevents a lot of the problems created with the workarounds above. Furthermore, Blizzard is doing the balancing based on Warp Gates and the only problem we found with them arises is in PvPs, the only Matchup the mentioned solution would have an effect.
The less it changes the mechanics with other races, the better in my opinion. This seems like a really cumbersome hard counter... and it entirely depends on you finding his pylon and building yours basically within 5 seconds of him starting his. I don't believe this solution is very practical and it won't counter the vast majority of warp gate rushes.
Usually the warp in build is only REALLY strong when they put the pylon right in your minerals which means it would be very easy for your own pylon to counter it
|
On maps with backdoors or large ramps this idee changes very little because the rusher will proxy outside of the starting position anyway. You can't really mess with warp-in times because it would unbalance the other match-ups so the best solution is to push warpgates up in tech. Templar archives for example.
|
As mentioned, the pylon idea does little to deter rushes in many situations. Thus, I feel that either Warp Gate tech needs to be pushed back, or the Nexus should be given the shield battery ability. IMO, giving the Nexus a shield battery is the superior choice because it adds greater strategical depth, whereas simply delaying warpgates does not make the game more complex and can even make it simpler. Also, the Shield battery idea will not have as large of an impact on the other matchups. Changing warpgates immediately warps the timings for every single protoss matchup, whereas the shield battery doesn't change any timings and would be easy to balance.
|
On March 09 2010 16:03 wintergt wrote:
On maps with backdoors or large ramps this idee changes very little because the rusher will proxy outside of the starting position anyway. You can't really mess with warp-in times because it would unbalance the other match-ups so the best solution is to push warpgates up in tech. Templar archives for example.
And that wouldn't change the other match-ups how? There is no problem with doing a proxy pylon outside the defender's base, because that is actually easy to counter. The hard to counter strategy is when the proxy pylon is IN THE MINERAL LINE.
And the only match-up that is a problem is PvP. Delaying the tech would affect EVERY match-up in the game.
|
10387 Posts
In case anyone missed this, I think this is a more "elegant" solution, which doesn't need any additional mechanics like overlapping pylon fields
On March 09 2010 15:01 ArvickHero wrote:
I think a better solution would be to lengthen the warp-in time for a Warp Gate'd unit and shorten the cool-down period, so that the time to build a unit is roughly the same, but a unit being warped in would be vulnerable for a longer period of time. This gives the defender an advantage and timing opportunity, and would make this sort of cheese less viable.
I don't have the beta so I wouldn't know how much this would impact PvT and PvZ, but I don't think it would impact it that much.
|
A problem that may arise if you put the Warp tech on the templar archives, for example, is that players will begin favoring that tech-branch, to the exclusion of others, like robo bay or stargate.
An alternative could be to put Warp tech on an entirely new building, that is not on any of the three traditional tech branches, but is available after the cybernetics core.
|
On March 09 2010 15:07 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time. If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted. About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all.
Do you honestly think that running an army from one base to another and up a ramp into a waiting army and warping an army directly into the mineral line are the same if the timings are similar? The point is to discourage cheese using a proxy pylon to warp-in units inside of the opponent's base, especially into the mineral line. Also, proxy gateways force players to commit more to the cheese than simply using a proxy pylon with warp gates.
Your programming solution still results in forcing both players to be unable to use those pylons to warp units in. That's why my solution places the nerf on the Pylon warp-in, so that Pylons that already have warped in don't have to be altered in any way.
Also, considering the number of times warp-in could be used in a game, it's unwise to allocate additional CPU power to checking every single pylon for overlap for every warp-in just to balance this early game PvP cheese strategy.
|
On March 09 2010 16:13 ArvickHero wrote:In case anyone missed this, I think this is a more "elegant" solution, which doesn't need any additional mechanics like overlapping pylon fields Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 15:01 ArvickHero wrote:
I think a better solution would be to lengthen the warp-in time for a Warp Gate'd unit and shorten the cool-down period, so that the time to build a unit is roughly the same, but a unit being warped in would be vulnerable for a longer period of time. This gives the defender an advantage and timing opportunity, and would make this sort of cheese less viable.
I don't have the beta so I wouldn't know how much this would impact PvT and PvZ, but I don't think it would impact it that much.
Remember that sometimes you're being attacked and have to warp-in defenders in your base too - which would mean that it would be a lot harder to defend once someone is in your base.
|
Warp gates are one of the major things that make P good and fun to play. Moving them up the tech tree just to get rid of this one PvP strategy would be horrible and shows an utter lack of creativity. The mechanic simply needs to be changed so that in-base proxies can't be done to another Protoss.
|
On March 09 2010 16:03 Tinithor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 15:32 0rbit wrote:On March 08 2010 19:14 squ1d wrote:
I posted this in another thread, and I believe it is the most elegant solution.
All they have to do is make it that power-fields from different Protosses cannot overlap. If two pylons are in each others' power-fields, neither could be used to warp-in units. That would mean that having some pylons around your base and mineral line would be enough to kill the rush strategy.
It also prevents a lot of the problems created with the workarounds above. Furthermore, Blizzard is doing the balancing based on Warp Gates and the only problem we found with them arises is in PvPs, the only Matchup the mentioned solution would have an effect.
The less it changes the mechanics with other races, the better in my opinion. This seems like a really cumbersome hard counter... and it entirely depends on you finding his pylon and building yours basically within 5 seconds of him starting his. I don't believe this solution is very practical and it won't counter the vast majority of warp gate rushes. Usually the warp in build is only REALLY strong when they put the pylon right in your minerals which means it would be very easy for your own pylon to counter it
Granted the warp rush is more devastating the closer you can get the pylon to their minerals, but by no means is it ineffective if the proxy is further away.
You can just as easily put the pylon just outside the base. I've seen more than enough games to know that you can get through the choke against an equally matched player when the proxy is just outside the base. By the time the probe is dispatched to find the exterior proxy, it will be too late.
If you put the proxy in the base then you have a situation where the only counter is to build a pylon next to an enemy pylon within a very brief window of time...
Personally, I think there are better ways to solve this match up that don't involve a whole new game mechanic - such as limiting warp-in to Warp Prisms only or tweaking resource cost/timing values of the Warp Gate itself.
I think warp in is a very powerful mechanic that may be coming into play too early into the game as it is... I wouldn't have a problem seeing this tech pushed back a little further into the game.
|
On March 09 2010 16:15 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 15:07 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time. If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted. About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all. Do you honestly think that running an army from one base to another and up a ramp into a waiting army and warping an army directly into the mineral line is the same if the timings are similar? The point is to discourage cheese using a proxy pylon to warp-in units inside of the opponent's base, especially into the mineral line. Also, proxy gateways force players to commit more to the cheese than simply using a proxy pylon with warp gates. Your programming solution still results in forcing both players to be unable to use those pylons to warp units in. That's why my solution places the nerf on the Pylon warp-in, so that Pylons that already have warped in don't have to be altered in any way. Also, considering the number of times warp-in could be used in a game, it's unwise to allocate additional CPU power to checking every single pylon for overlap for every warp-in just to balance this early game PvP move.
1) It may not be the same, but it would discourage the use of proxy pylons EVERYWHERE, which is why I said it was the problem. Proxy pylons are useful because they are quick to reinforce attacks, if they stop being useful as that they could be scrapped and nothing would change.
2) It wouldn't be CPU intensive at ALL. Actually, it would probably be less CPU intensive than moving a unit around, if you know how Direct3D works.
3) We don't need a nerf to the PROTOSS RACE AS A WHOLE, we need a nerf to the STRATEGY. Your point is that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, Protoss should be nerfed.
While I'm saying that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, the specific STRATEGY should be nerfed. My solution involves little else than putting a pylon next to someone else's pylon. While yours involves changing the mechanics of the game, and the need to rebalance everything, because the current form of the Protoss race has been balanced in the current form of the Warp Pylon. Change the Warp Pylon, you have to change everything.
On March 09 2010 16:20 0rbit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 16:03 Tinithor wrote:On March 09 2010 15:32 0rbit wrote:On March 08 2010 19:14 squ1d wrote:
I posted this in another thread, and I believe it is the most elegant solution.
All they have to do is make it that power-fields from different Protosses cannot overlap. If two pylons are in each others' power-fields, neither could be used to warp-in units. That would mean that having some pylons around your base and mineral line would be enough to kill the rush strategy.
It also prevents a lot of the problems created with the workarounds above. Furthermore, Blizzard is doing the balancing based on Warp Gates and the only problem we found with them arises is in PvPs, the only Matchup the mentioned solution would have an effect.
The less it changes the mechanics with other races, the better in my opinion. This seems like a really cumbersome hard counter... and it entirely depends on you finding his pylon and building yours basically within 5 seconds of him starting his. I don't believe this solution is very practical and it won't counter the vast majority of warp gate rushes. Usually the warp in build is only REALLY strong when they put the pylon right in your minerals which means it would be very easy for your own pylon to counter it Granted the warp rush is more devastating the closer you can get the pylon to their minerals, but by no means is it ineffective if the proxy is further away. You can just as easily put the pylon just outside the base. I've seen more than enough games to know that you can easily get through the choke against an equally matched player when the proxy is outside the base. By the time the probe is dispatched to find the exterior proxy, it will be too late. If you put the proxy in the base then you have a situation where the only counter is to build a pylon next to an enemy pylon within a very brief window of time... Personally, I think there are better ways to solve this match up that don't involve a whole new game mechanic - such as limiting warp-in to Warp Prisms only or tweaking resource cost/timing values of the Warp Gate itself. I think warp in is a very powerful mechanic that may be coming into play too early into the game as it is... I wouldn't have a problem seeing this tech pushed back a little further into the game.
You really don't think that delaying that tech would mean changes across the Protoss race? Really?
|
On March 09 2010 16:22 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 16:15 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 15:07 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time. If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted. About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all. Do you honestly think that running an army from one base to another and up a ramp into a waiting army and warping an army directly into the mineral line is the same if the timings are similar? The point is to discourage cheese using a proxy pylon to warp-in units inside of the opponent's base, especially into the mineral line. Also, proxy gateways force players to commit more to the cheese than simply using a proxy pylon with warp gates. Your programming solution still results in forcing both players to be unable to use those pylons to warp units in. That's why my solution places the nerf on the Pylon warp-in, so that Pylons that already have warped in don't have to be altered in any way. Also, considering the number of times warp-in could be used in a game, it's unwise to allocate additional CPU power to checking every single pylon for overlap for every warp-in just to balance this early game PvP move. 1) It may not be the same, but it would discourage the use of proxy pylons EVERYWHERE, which is why I said it was the problem. Proxy pylons are useful because they are quick to reinforce attacks, if they stop being useful as that they could be scrapped and nothing would change. 2) It wouldn't be CPU intensive at ALL. Actually, it would probably be less CPU intensive than moving a unit around, if you know how Direct3D works. 3) We don't need a nerf to the PROTOSS RACE AS A WHOLE, we need a nerf to the STRATEGY. Your point is that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, Protoss should be nerfed. While I'm saying that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, the specific STRATEGY should be nerfed. My solution involves little else than putting a pylon next to someone else's pylon. While yours involves changing the mechanics of the game, and the need to rebalance everything, because the current form of the Protoss race has been balanced in the current form of the Warp Pylon. Change the Warp Pylon, you have to change everything.
Did you read my post? Read it again.
Pylons take double the time to build, NOT warp-in UNITS, when the power grid overlaps an enemy Pylon's power grid. The PYLON ITSELF. NOT the UNITS. Proxy Pylons are still possible and will function normally in every way possible, except building it (the Pylon) will take double the time if its power grid overlaps an opponent's Pylon's power grid.
In NO WAY does this nerf ANYTHING in the Protoss race as long as you don't have an insatiable need to overlap Pylon power grids with your opponent's Pylons.
Yes I know it takes very little CPU power to check, I know that every time you select a unit the game compares the click with every units' bounding box on the screen. I'm just saying it's a very general sacrifice made for a very specific fix.
|
On March 09 2010 06:02 D10 wrote:
I dont think protoss needs to be nerfed because of this, if they added a shield battery hability to the nexus to compete with the chrono boost I think it could work to make these proxy pylon warpgate rushes less overwhelming and could also help defend against muta harass without being a I WIN button.
While this buffs P however slightly against T and Z, it sounds awesome. It's always nice to see shield battery usage. I wonder how much shield recovery each point of energy should be though. Medivacs heal at 3hp/energy. Of course, it should be better than to boost gateways/warpgates to get additional zealots.
|
So, to explain it a little differently, at least for me, it seems like the idea is that you cannot warp into another P's power field, even if you have a power field in the same spot. This seems like it might be a workable solution to me. If you want to protect your most vulnerable areas from proxy warp-in, you just need to put a pylon in that area and no other P will be able to warp in to the area that you are covering with your pylon. You don't have to scout his first and then react, you can simply put yours in the vulnerable spot preemptively.
This makes it a strategic choice because then you might have to change your wall, or you building placement, or just leave that area open and hope that he doesn't do it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. It means there are some offensive uses as well, where you place an offensive pylon (almost like electronic warfare) to disrupt his warp-in, but then its exposed and you'll probably lose those minerals. I definitely think it's a workable idea, both in gameplay and lore (competing power fields scramble the warp signal too much to be safe for transport) and it doesn't affect any of the other matchups.
|
On March 09 2010 16:40 LunarC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 16:22 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 16:15 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 15:07 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time. If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted. About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all. Do you honestly think that running an army from one base to another and up a ramp into a waiting army and warping an army directly into the mineral line is the same if the timings are similar? The point is to discourage cheese using a proxy pylon to warp-in units inside of the opponent's base, especially into the mineral line. Also, proxy gateways force players to commit more to the cheese than simply using a proxy pylon with warp gates. Your programming solution still results in forcing both players to be unable to use those pylons to warp units in. That's why my solution places the nerf on the Pylon warp-in, so that Pylons that already have warped in don't have to be altered in any way. Also, considering the number of times warp-in could be used in a game, it's unwise to allocate additional CPU power to checking every single pylon for overlap for every warp-in just to balance this early game PvP move. 1) It may not be the same, but it would discourage the use of proxy pylons EVERYWHERE, which is why I said it was the problem. Proxy pylons are useful because they are quick to reinforce attacks, if they stop being useful as that they could be scrapped and nothing would change. 2) It wouldn't be CPU intensive at ALL. Actually, it would probably be less CPU intensive than moving a unit around, if you know how Direct3D works. 3) We don't need a nerf to the PROTOSS RACE AS A WHOLE, we need a nerf to the STRATEGY. Your point is that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, Protoss should be nerfed. While I'm saying that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, the specific STRATEGY should be nerfed. My solution involves little else than putting a pylon next to someone else's pylon. While yours involves changing the mechanics of the game, and the need to rebalance everything, because the current form of the Protoss race has been balanced in the current form of the Warp Pylon. Change the Warp Pylon, you have to change everything. Did you read my post? Read it again. Pylons take double the time to build, NOT warp-in UNITS, when the power grid overlaps an enemy Pylon's power grid. The PYLON ITSELF. NOT the UNITS. Proxy Pylons are still possible and will function normally in every way possible, except building it (the Pylon) will take double the time if its power grid overlaps an opponent's Pylon's power grid. In NO WAY does this nerf ANYTHING in the Protoss race as long as you don't have an insatiable need to overlap Pylon power grids with your opponent's Pylons. Yes I know it takes very little CPU power to check, I know that every time you select a unit the game compares the click with every units' bounding box on the screen. I'm just saying it's a very general sacrifice made for a very specific fix.
But that wouldn't change anything, because as long as I put the pylon first away from your fields there would be no way you could create a power field before my Pylon is up. It wouldn't change the strategy at all.
|
On March 09 2010 16:54 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 16:40 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 16:22 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 16:15 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 15:07 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:53 LunarC wrote:On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 14:48 LunarC wrote:
Inability to overlap Pylon power fields would mess with two allied Protoss players. Even making this mechanic specific to enemy Protoss players would not work, because in the situation where a player wants to unally another Protoss player, the Pylon power grids may have already been overlapped. How do you handle that?
I would say rather than disallowing Pylon power grids to overlap, simply double the Pylon warp-in time should its power grid overlap with another Protoss' Pylon power grid. That way, it will gain health slower so it will be easier to kill off, and it will take a full 50 seconds to warp in instead of 25 seconds. Just make it that they must be from enemy Pylons. In your case, however, warp gates would become useless. How would warp gates become useless? The extended warp-in time only applies to Pylons and nothing else and only when the Pylon's power field overlaps with an enemy's power field. Did you read my post? What if the player wants to change alliances in a more casual game? What will become of pylons with power fields that already overlap? You can't expect Starcraft 2 to be played seriously all the time. If you increase the warp-in time, and the warp-in time is higher than the gateway production time + walking to the base of the other guy it would become useless. Doubling it would certainly make it useless. And proxy gateways would become the norm again, if cheese is wanted. About your question, if people change alliances, the warp-in in those pylons would simply stop working - programming wise nothing would need to be changed. Basically every time you try to warp-in a unit it would check to see if the fields overlap, and if they do, it would check if he's an ally or not, and if he is not, it would disallow warping-in. Not hard to do at all. Do you honestly think that running an army from one base to another and up a ramp into a waiting army and warping an army directly into the mineral line is the same if the timings are similar? The point is to discourage cheese using a proxy pylon to warp-in units inside of the opponent's base, especially into the mineral line. Also, proxy gateways force players to commit more to the cheese than simply using a proxy pylon with warp gates. Your programming solution still results in forcing both players to be unable to use those pylons to warp units in. That's why my solution places the nerf on the Pylon warp-in, so that Pylons that already have warped in don't have to be altered in any way. Also, considering the number of times warp-in could be used in a game, it's unwise to allocate additional CPU power to checking every single pylon for overlap for every warp-in just to balance this early game PvP move. 1) It may not be the same, but it would discourage the use of proxy pylons EVERYWHERE, which is why I said it was the problem. Proxy pylons are useful because they are quick to reinforce attacks, if they stop being useful as that they could be scrapped and nothing would change. 2) It wouldn't be CPU intensive at ALL. Actually, it would probably be less CPU intensive than moving a unit around, if you know how Direct3D works. 3) We don't need a nerf to the PROTOSS RACE AS A WHOLE, we need a nerf to the STRATEGY. Your point is that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, Protoss should be nerfed. While I'm saying that because PvP Strategy Proxy Pylon in Mineral Line is broken, the specific STRATEGY should be nerfed. My solution involves little else than putting a pylon next to someone else's pylon. While yours involves changing the mechanics of the game, and the need to rebalance everything, because the current form of the Protoss race has been balanced in the current form of the Warp Pylon. Change the Warp Pylon, you have to change everything. Did you read my post? Read it again. Pylons take double the time to build, NOT warp-in UNITS, when the power grid overlaps an enemy Pylon's power grid. The PYLON ITSELF. NOT the UNITS. Proxy Pylons are still possible and will function normally in every way possible, except building it (the Pylon) will take double the time if its power grid overlaps an opponent's Pylon's power grid. In NO WAY does this nerf ANYTHING in the Protoss race as long as you don't have an insatiable need to overlap Pylon power grids with your opponent's Pylons. Yes I know it takes very little CPU power to check, I know that every time you select a unit the game compares the click with every units' bounding box on the screen. I'm just saying it's a very general sacrifice made for a very specific fix. But that wouldn't change anything, because as long as I put the pylon first away from your fields there would be no way you could create a power field before my Pylon is up. It wouldn't change the strategy at all.
I see your point. Perhaps players will have to be a bit more preemptive about Pylon placement around the base. It's simply that prohibiting Pylon power grid overlap between opponents is somewhat restrictive.
|
On March 09 2010 16:22 squ1d wrote:
You really don't think that delaying that tech would mean changes across the Protoss race? Really?
I never said that delaying the tech wouldn't have greater implications than the early PvP warp rush. In fact, I would expect a domino effect of changes in every early game match-up. Delaying the tech by 1 or 2 minutes would allow any defender time to set up protection at their choke at the very least. I'm sure Protoss can handle themselves, one way or another, just fine in the early game if they didn't get warp-in until 1 or 2 minutes later. It will definitely create changes, but not terribly far reaching changes that run amok with mid-late game tactics.
On a side note.. I think you are getting a little overzealous about defending this cumbersome balance idea that you had... maybe you just need to let it go at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
