|
Right now it seems at top level x2/x3 proxy pylon warpgates is the undisputed best thing to do. If the game remains like this, Blizzard will of course have to "fix" the match-up.
A problem though is that pvz/pvt top level balance is also based off of warp gate production, not normal gateway unit production (at top level).
essentially, imo, they should try to "fix" pvp without touching much of how pvt/pvz are.
I have too suggestions:
1. Fiddle with warpgate research time/pre-requisites
This makes warpgates come in at a later timing during the game, which would fix pvp as the proxy pylon making probe would be out of your base, and other pylons would be pointless as you would no longer have warp-in capability that early in the game.
Or Blizzard could move the warp-gate tech a later building in the tech tree, or make it require another prerequisite to be researched, which also naturally pushes warpgates to slightly later in the game fixing PvP, but this affects current pvz/pvt balance.
2. Re-introduce the dark pylon they had in previous builds as a "warp-in pylon."
The idea here would be all normal pylons do not allow warp-ins in their power grid, but the "warp-in pylon" would be built and specifically have it's pylon power grid for use of the warpgates. The warp-in pylon would cost 200 minerals. Pre-req of cybernetics core.
This idea makes proxy pylons for use with warp-in more economically damaging if it does not succeed, as well as would use up funds. It keeps proxy pylon strategies themselves just as powerful as they are now, but a higher set-up cost so you cannot spam pylons in the other protoss's base.
And it does not touch current pvz/pvt balance.
|
I don't see where this argument that PvT and PvZ are balanced around warp gate functionality. Just make it so the only place it can be done is on a warp prism grid, and let it work as a drop mechanic.
|
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.
|
I would like for units not to auto-attack probes/workers when fighting combat units it would make the whole early game a lot more dynamic/interesting and help defending against warp gate rush.
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. 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 is a good idea as well I don't think you have enough pylons to cover your base so maybe it should be when two shields of enemy pylons overlap nothing can be warped in to either. The difference here is that when he puts down a pylon you can counter it by putting yours next to it.
Also warp taking longer the further you are from your closest nexus is a good solution.
|
|
|
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. 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 is actually a really good idea
|
No its not.. Just move your pylon some inches on the screen back and youve gonearound it. Or do you mean that warping in enemies "mountain" is the OP thing?
Anyways, boost stalkers = more gas needed to compete in army = slower rush.
Also, the units on the hill above the ramp should have advantage
|
On March 08 2010 19:28 _EmIL_ wrote:
No its not.. Just move your pylon some inches on the screen back and youve gonearound it. Or do you mean that warping in enemies "mountain" is the OP thing?
Anyways, boost stalkers = more gas needed to compete in army = slower rush.
Also, the units on the hill above the ramp should have advantage
The problem exists mostly when the pylon is behind the mineral lines. If it's not, it's a lot easier to defend. And even then, I can simply plant a pylon next to yours negating your energy field.
Imagine it as disabling the pylon because both fields are interfering with each-other. Sure, it could make people plant a pylon right next to yours in order to stop it from working, but that's a lot easier to deal with than having Zealots warping into your mineral line.
Edit: Nazgul's idea of only interfering with the warp capabilities of the Pylons involved is more specific, and probably better way to implement this solution.
|
Hmm.. You could still never cover his field entirely with one pylon, if his pylons field is 100% and not on a map edge or something.
Still, I think the warp gates themselves are a bit.. hmm.. noobly designed? These "features" is what makes many new games imbalanced and more of luckbased, even in mirrors. The only suggestion I have for this is a new pylong(I believe they had something called dark pylon?) and make it really low on HP. Enough low so 1-2 probes alone can kill it cost effectively.
Another solution I guess would be adding a tech on Ccore that enables your pylons to warp in their field. A really cheap one but that takes aounrd 60-90 seconds to research.
|
On March 08 2010 19:39 _EmIL_ wrote:
Hmm.. You could still never cover his field entirely with one pylon, if his pylons field is 100% and not on a map edge or something.
Still, I think the warp gates themselves are a bit.. hmm.. noobly designed? These "features" is what makes many new games imbalanced and more of luckbased, even in mirrors. The only suggestion I have for this is a new pylong(I believe they had something called dark pylon?) and make it really low on HP. Enough low so 1-2 probes alone can kill it cost effectively.
Another solution I guess would be adding a tech on Ccore that enables your pylons to warp in their field. A really cheap one but that takes aounrd 60-90 seconds to research.
We don't mean the fields overlapping literally. We mean, for instance, if we have two Pylons inside each other's force fields (if I put a Pylon next to yours), neither you nor I would be able to use those Pylons to Warp units.
Edit: Even though what you're saying was my initial implementation idea, such that it would only avoid warping in in a certain area, the guys have changed it in a way that I think would work better.
|
Well, that brings another problem.. Pylon rush lol. It would mean its costeffective to build a pylong next to every pylon in your opponents base that are close to the gateway(s). If your opponent doesnt do this to you it would mean you can make zealots but he cant.
|
Yes, you'd piss off all your money away and he would still be able to build gateways without warp and kill all of your pylons.
|
What? I must come to the conclusion that in your idea with two pylons next to eachother means that the pylon still givespower to the gateway? If so, then sorry for misunderstanding lol. I was thinking the gateway would be "unpowered" if someone puts a pylon next to the pylon supporting your gw.
|
Again, the easiest way to not affect balance and nerf in-base proxy pylons is to make warp-in units take more bonus damage or warp-in time longer so probes and regular gateway units more effective in defense
|
On March 08 2010 19:56 _EmIL_ wrote:
What? I must come to the conclusion that in your idea with two pylons next to eachother means that the pylon still givespower to the gateway? If so, then sorry for misunderstanding lol. I was thinking the gateway would be "unpowered" if someone puts a pylon next to the pylon supporting your gw.
No warp ability in the force fields of both pylons involved. As simple as that.
|
nerfing a race due to it's mirror match seems rather stupid as it would just come as an even bigger nerf during other match ups
|
How many Zerg and Terrans have you seen build pylons?
|
On March 08 2010 20:06 dustdust wrote:
How many Zerg and Terrans have you seen build pylons?
Saw a Zerg do it once with neural parasited probe.
|
You could always just change the warp in times in relation to ground attack / air attack ratio, that way it nerfs zealot warp ins.
|
On March 08 2010 20:07 Fester wrote:
You could always just change the warp in times in relation to ground attack / air attack ratio, that way it nerfs zealot warp ins.
the issue is that would be an overall nerf for toss in all match ups when the problems is only in the mirror match, the overlapping pylons seems to be the most reasonable so far as to not effect toss outside of the mirror match
|
Yes overlapping pylons is nice..
If energy field circles are touching it causes interference so its not safe to warp units to that pylon but you can still power buildings. It works
|
Give Protoss a new pylon working like the sensor tower terran has.It negates the warping at an area around the building.For example bring back Obelisk and give them this spell and chronoboost and make it like 125-125 at expenses.
|
On March 08 2010 19:17 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
I would like for units not to auto-attack probes/workers when fighting combat units it would make the whole early game a lot more dynamic/interesting and help defending against warp gate rush.
.
they don't if the workers are spamming move/stop
|
I still like my pre-beta suggestion: to use pylon's warp field you should use probe. If player moves probe away from pylon or it gets killed pylon loses it's ability to warp
|
I would say keep all like it is ...
BUT once you get your warp gate tech you get circle of power spreading / increasing in diameter from your nexus slowly untill it gets to full map ... map lost temple 4 to 5 minutes to get from one spawn point to next ... pilon power that is in that circle then it is viable for warp in from warp gate.
This would prevent early rush but will not fuck up with balance.
|
So possible fixes are:
1 Moving the warpgate tech to a higher tier (Twilight Council, Dark Shrine or Templar Archives)
2 Increase costs (can be the CyCore, the tech or the morph itself)
3 Increase build times (same as 2)
4 Rehaul the mechanic (enemy pylon field mechanic, etc.)
5 Hell, all of the above.
|
6. make units extremely fragile while warping
7. make units warp longer if far away from closest nexus like Nazgul suggested (I like this)
8. make the canceling of pylon more expensive
There are so many options to subtly solve this thing, it's almost a non-issue the moment Blizzard decides to tweak it.
|
On March 08 2010 22:13 niteReloaded wrote:
8. make the canceling of pylon more expensive
Wouldn't this break the SC tradition of refunding 75% only? (ex: Canceling the Pylon gives back 75 minerals only.)
IMO, the least Blizzard can do to fix this change is take 100% of the original build time into the warp-in. I don't get over the fact that you can get units much more faster with warpgates.
|
Increase the cooldown of the warping in ratio to the distance the units have to travel. If someone proxy pylons all the way to the other map the cooldown is increased by say 5 secs. I think exponential (at short distances no effect on the cooldown, half map: a couple secs, whole map: lots of secs) is the best choice.
|
Personally I'd prefer warp-in time to be longer, like 8-10s (Warpgate cooldown time would need to be adjusted accordingly in that case) and units taking double (or maybe even triple) damage while warping in.
Would make Warpgates worse when your base is being under attack and would stop these very aggressive offensive pylons.
|
I refuse to admit this strat is impossible to beat without leaving you in a disadvantaged position. The last thing I want is another unneeded nerf to Protoss because no one could figure out how to beat a powerful build.
I'll be testing timings along with my friend today to try to figure out a way to counter this build.
A few thoughts are, if I get out early units, would it force him to build pylons earlier which he cannot support economic wise until later? Can I get a stalker out with 1 gate to kill the probe/force it to build pylons before warp tech is finished? (Giving more time to take them down with 1gate units)
Can I do all this while positioning my units in areas where the enemy will warp in damaging them as they warp in giving me an advantage in the fight and more time to take down the pylon?
If ultimately nothing works, I think the only solution that would not disadvantage Protoss or make things weird is a slight increase in warp gate research time. Perhaps a little while longer would give the opponent enough time to build said units to defend this rush with.
|
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.
|
Posting from the other thread. Here's my idea for fixing this problem: add the shield battery ability to the Nexus. This has the benefit of both preventing early rushes and adding strategical depth. Now players must balance using chrono boost a lot versus having a stronger base defense. And both proxy 2 gate and 3 warp gate rushes will be much less effective since the defender now has a strong advantage.
Also, this makes sense if you think about it because each of the other races has some other ability along with their macro mechanics, like Scan and Creeep Tumors. This way, Protoss players won't have to only use Chrono Boost and can make some deeper decisions. Some other ability could be added also since the other races have 3 total options to choose from.
|
MrMoose
Canada176 Posts
On March 08 2010 20:07 Jyvblamo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2010 20:06 dustdust wrote:
How many Zerg and Terrans have you seen build pylons? Saw a Zerg do it once with neural parasited probe.
Can you build stuff with neural parasited workers? If so, perhaps the stove can live on:
Neural parasite -> Nexus -> Mothership -> Ultralisk Recall!!
You'd need to be in a FFA to get siege tanks though
|
i think bringing back dark pylons might get too complicated
but making the upgrade cost more and be in the twilight concil is better than in the cybernatics core
all tosses i play against and i mean literally ALL 100% warpgates
i suspect changing the warp pylon isnt gonna change pvz too much compared to the other mus(?)
"Also warp taking longer the further you are from your closest nexus is a good solution."
i dont like nazguls idea, its unrealistic. the thing about toss is that they warp units from their homeland, the nexus is just a simple building like the gateway. it doesnt help the units warp :/
thats like saying raxes should build slower when they r far away from cc. sure it might help gameplay but its not fun if it doesnt base on realistic theory (not saying this game is realistic but u know what i talk about, it should make sense)
|
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. 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.
Yeah, I think this is the most elegant solution. The Dark Pylon idea is horrible, the warping-slower-away-from-base one is workable, but also irritating, and moving it up to a higher tech building, while workable and maybe even eventually necessary, would significantly change the face of most matchups negatively. This idea, on the other hand, would only affect PvP, and would make for some interesting tactics. I like it.
|
Moving warp gate to twilight council seems like the most reasonable suggestion. Aside from fixing this particular problem it make getting warpgates optional. Maybe as a compromise blizz could un-nerf gateway build time.
|
What about reducing the health/shields of the Pylon? This would only make proxy pylons easier to kill and otherwise would only be a significant difference when there is an army/harassment inside your base but that can be overcome with better Pylon placement.
|
On March 09 2010 01:31 xBillehx wrote:
I refuse to admit this strat is impossible to beat without leaving you in a disadvantaged position. The last thing I want is another unneeded nerf to Protoss because no one could figure out how to beat a powerful build.
I'll be testing timings along with my friend today to try to figure out a way to counter this build.
A few thoughts are, if I get out early units, would it force him to build pylons earlier which he cannot support economic wise until later? Can I get a stalker out with 1 gate to kill the probe/force it to build pylons before warp tech is finished? (Giving more time to take them down with 1gate units)
Can I do all this while positioning my units in areas where the enemy will warp in damaging them as they warp in giving me an advantage in the fight and more time to take down the pylon?
If ultimately nothing works, I think the only solution that would not disadvantage Protoss or make things weird is a slight increase in warp gate research time. Perhaps a little while longer would give the opponent enough time to build said units to defend this rush with.
However, that is what I like about enemy pylon field mechanic ("knocking out Pylon's warp capability") since it only affects PvP and do not affect any other matchups. In turn, it cannot truly be considered as a nerf.
|
IMO bring back Dark Pylons, make it cost more than a Pylon and push warp gate back to Twilight Council.
That way whoever wants to use warp-in has to commit a fair amount of resources and time. Right now even if your enemy sees the pylon and destroys it, you don't really care that much since its only 100 minerals.
On a side note: I thought Z was supposed to be more mobile than toss, how come toss can get this warp tech for only 50/50 + upgrade gates for free + faster unit production + available right after core, and zerg needs to get a lair + nydus canal + nydus worm (like 350/300? cant remember) + hope opponent hasn't covered his entire main with depots/pylons/ovies so you're strategy can work.
|
On March 09 2010 08:12 DeA wrote:
IMO bring back Dark Pylons, make it cost more than a Pylon and push warp gate back to Twilight Council.
That way whoever wants to use warp-in has to commit a fair amount of resources and time. Right now even if your enemy sees the pylon and destroys it, you don't really care that much since its only 100 minerals.
On a side note: I thought Z was supposed to be more mobile than toss, how come toss can get this warp tech for only 50/50 + upgrade gates for free + faster unit production + available right after core, and zerg needs to get a lair + nydus canal + nydus worm (like 350/300? cant remember) + hope opponent hasn't covered his entire main with depots/pylons/ovies so you're strategy can work.
Did you actually read the topic?
There is no need to change the mechanics of the warp gates against all other races. If they do that, they'll be creating a lot of other problems - how will that affect PvZ or PvT?
Meanwhile, if we do the Pylon Interference solution, it would only affect PvP leaving everything else unchanged.
|
I don't know if this would be a good solution or not, but how about adding a 15 second delay before you can use a pylon's power field to warp units in?
|
On March 09 2010 08:21 Camilus wrote:
I don't know if this would be a good solution or not, but how about adding a 15 second delay before you can use a pylon's power field to warp units in?
That would, once again, change the mechanics in PvZ and PvT. That's the problem with nerfing something, you have to make sure it will have the intended consequences.
|
On March 09 2010 08:17 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 08:12 DeA wrote:
IMO bring back Dark Pylons, make it cost more than a Pylon and push warp gate back to Twilight Council.
That way whoever wants to use warp-in has to commit a fair amount of resources and time. Right now even if your enemy sees the pylon and destroys it, you don't really care that much since its only 100 minerals.
On a side note: I thought Z was supposed to be more mobile than toss, how come toss can get this warp tech for only 50/50 + upgrade gates for free + faster unit production + available right after core, and zerg needs to get a lair + nydus canal + nydus worm (like 350/300? cant remember) + hope opponent hasn't covered his entire main with depots/pylons/ovies so you're strategy can work. Did you actually read the topic? There is no need to change the mechanics of the warp gates against all other races. If they do that, they'll be creating a lot of other problems - how will that affect PvZ or PvT? Meanwhile, if we do the Pylon Interference solution, it would only affect PvP leaving everything else unchanged.
I read the topic and replied as I saw fit. As a side note I mentioned that I just don't see how Protoss can have overwhelming mobility compared to the other races for only 50/50 + the cost of a pylon and at the same time think the game is balanced.
|
I dont see a problem at all in making a change that affects other matchups as well. Its not like the current build has the races perfectly balanced for these maps atm anyway.
|
On March 09 2010 08:32 DeA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 08:17 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 08:12 DeA wrote:
IMO bring back Dark Pylons, make it cost more than a Pylon and push warp gate back to Twilight Council.
That way whoever wants to use warp-in has to commit a fair amount of resources and time. Right now even if your enemy sees the pylon and destroys it, you don't really care that much since its only 100 minerals.
On a side note: I thought Z was supposed to be more mobile than toss, how come toss can get this warp tech for only 50/50 + upgrade gates for free + faster unit production + available right after core, and zerg needs to get a lair + nydus canal + nydus worm (like 350/300? cant remember) + hope opponent hasn't covered his entire main with depots/pylons/ovies so you're strategy can work. Did you actually read the topic? There is no need to change the mechanics of the warp gates against all other races. If they do that, they'll be creating a lot of other problems - how will that affect PvZ or PvT? Meanwhile, if we do the Pylon Interference solution, it would only affect PvP leaving everything else unchanged. I read the topic and replied as I saw fit. As a side note I mentioned that I just don't see how Protoss can have overwhelming mobility compared to the other races for only 50/50 + the cost of a pylon and at the same time think the game is balanced.
So let's remove Nydus Canal as well, because that gives even more mobility.
And the only matchup where this mobility actually makes a difference is in PvP, while in PvT and PvZ nothing can be exploited like that, pylons are used only to warp troops closer to the battle and even then, some people prefer to use warp prisms.
|
On March 09 2010 08:22 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 08:21 Camilus wrote:
I don't know if this would be a good solution or not, but how about adding a 15 second delay before you can use a pylon's power field to warp units in? That would, once again, change the mechanics in PvZ and PvT. That's the problem with nerfing something, you have to make sure it will have the intended consequences.
Give the Nexus small radius to jam a pylon's warp capability for a small amount time? That wouldn't effect the other match up, but I'm not sure how practical it is.
Perhaps, your pylon solution is the best solution. I think it's a good idea.
|
Are you trying to say that Nydus Canal = Warp-in? Cause if you are then you're totally wrong.
I would also have no problem to see Nydus in Hive tech.
|
On March 09 2010 08:45 DeA wrote:
Are you trying to say that Nydus Canal = Warp-in? Cause if you are then you're totally wrong.
I would also have no problem to see Nydus in Hive tech.
Nydus = Warp-in, and it's actually more overpowered, because a single overlord can spawn as many Nyduses it wants to and do it away from the other player's FOV.
While to warp inside someone's base, you have to send a probe over there. In fact, the only reason why this strategy is only viable in PvP is because Protoss can't kill a probe before they have either a Sentry or a Stalker out. And by then it's usually too late.
|
On March 08 2010 20:06 dustdust wrote:
How many Zerg and Terrans have you seen build pylons?
(stolen from 4chan /3/ yesterday)
|
LOL by the time Zerg gets Nydus tech + the resources + the chance to use it, toss can use warp-in + pylons like 10 times already. Don't try and argue that Nydus is equal to Warp-in cause it isn't, plain and simple.
And who said you need a pylon in their base? You know, making a pylon right outside their nat while attacking is equally powerful.
|
On March 09 2010 08:45 DeA wrote:
Are you trying to say that Nydus Canal = Warp-in? Cause if you are then you're totally wrong.
I would also have no problem to see Nydus in Hive tech.
Nydus is 10x better than warpin, stop trying to derail this thread with your nonsense.
|
On March 09 2010 08:51 Chi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 08:45 DeA wrote:
Are you trying to say that Nydus Canal = Warp-in? Cause if you are then you're totally wrong.
I would also have no problem to see Nydus in Hive tech. Nydus is 10x better than warpin, stop trying to derail this thread with your nonsense.
Maybe you want to back that up with something? BTW this thread is getting off-topic, no need to argue about this here...
|
I think warp gates should be costly just like add ons cost something on barracks/factories/port
Not something huge, but like 50/25 or 50/50
|
On March 09 2010 08:59 Fayth wrote:
I think warp gates should be costly just like add ons cost something on barracks/factories/port
Not something huge, but like 50/25 or 50/50
i like this idea. you could also make the upgrade free but you have to give up the supply it produces. pvp right now involves building only 1 pylon in your own base and start spamming pylons in your opponents base. this isnt viable if you have to give up the supply
if this doesnt nerf the problem enough you could also opt to give the upgrade for the pylon to take 10-30 sec and make the pylon extremely vulnerable during that period. this way it can be destroyed by 1 zealot or a couple probes while it changes to a warp/dark pylon. it also delays the rush a little bit
this shouldnt affect the other matchups to much since you can still proxy pylon outside the base of your opponent if you want to. just not within the line of sight of your opponent.
|
On March 09 2010 12:44 Infie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 08:59 Fayth wrote:
I think warp gates should be costly just like add ons cost something on barracks/factories/port
Not something huge, but like 50/25 or 50/50 i like this idea. you could also make the upgrade free but you have to give up the supply it produces. pvp right now involves building only 1 pylon in your own base and start spamming pylons in your opponents base. this isnt viable if you have to give up the supply if this doesnt nerf the problem enough you could also opt to give the upgrade for the pylon to take 10-30 sec and make the pylon extremely vulnerable during that period. this way it can be destroyed by 1 zealot or a couple probes while it changes to a warp/dark pylon. it also delays the rush a little bit this shouldnt affect the other matchups to much since you can still proxy pylon outside the base of your opponent if you want to. just not within the line of sight of your opponent.
He was talking about upgrading the gateway to a warpgate, not the pylon.
I say on this subject , the pylon interference thing is a good idea cause it doesn't change other matchups, but i also think it would be a good idea to up the warpgate upgrade cost (its the cheapest in the game O.o, kinda ridiculous for how good it is) and move it to the twilight council atleast.
|
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.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2010 14:49 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
10387 Posts
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.
|
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.
|
On March 09 2010 17:07 0rbit wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I didn't mean vs PvP, I meant vs PvT and PvZ, remember that the game must be seen as a whole.
|
On March 09 2010 16:14 Jyvblamo wrote:
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.
From reading the forums here I've been gathering that the correct choice is almost always robo first right now. If warp gates are powerful enough that always going twilight council/archives/whatever first becomes popular, how is that really different from now? Or am I misunderstanding the current state of PvT/PvZ (obviously this is a nonissue for PvP)?
---
I don't see why changing the mechanics so that enemy pylons interfere with your pylons in some way is necessarily a fix. I'd really hate to see the matchup remain the same except now you have both players spamming pylons to cover both bases entirely or something, while still ending up with zealots in both probe lines. Then you're just turning a horrible matchup full of 5 minute wins into a horrible matchup full of 7 minute wins or so.
Maybe it would work, I dunno. The suggestions involving pylon interference certainly feel very unintuitive to me.
|
On March 09 2010 17:15 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 17:07 0rbit wrote: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. I didn't mean vs PvP, I meant vs PvT and PvZ, remember that the game must be seen as a whole.
Man, you're not even paying attention to what people are writing at this point. I know it affects more than PvP, and that's exactly what I said already.
I said: "... a domino effect of changes in every early game match-up", and obviously that means PvP, PvZ and PvT. I just didn't think I had to spell it out for you so explicitly though....
|
On March 09 2010 17:15 squ1d wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 17:07 0rbit wrote: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. I didn't mean vs PvP, I meant vs PvT and PvZ, remember that the game must be seen as a whole.
0rbit is talking about every match-up and is seeing everything as a whole.
Perhaps placing the Warp Gate upgrade at Templar Archives is not a bad idea. Usually Protoss players opt for an early Robotics Facility or Stargate, so placing Warp Gates at Templar Archives forces them to make a committed choice between opening with Robotics Facility units, Stargate units, or Warp Gates. Of course, I doubt many Protoss players will pass up the early Robotics Facility simply because of the sheer strength of those units and the weakness of early Gateway units.
|
On March 09 2010 17:27 0rbit wrote:Show nested quote +On March 09 2010 17:15 squ1d wrote:On March 09 2010 17:07 0rbit wrote: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. I didn't mean vs PvP, I meant vs PvT and PvZ, remember that the game must be seen as a whole. Man, you're not even paying attention to what people are writing at this point. I know it affects more than PvP, and that's exactly what I said already. I said: "... a domino effect of changes in every early game match-up", and obviously that means PvP, PvZ and PvT. I just didn't think I had to spell it out for you so explicitly though....
My point is: should a nerf expand so deeply into the game as to change every match-up?
And because Gateways take longer to produce units, it would mean that in early game other races would get an even bigger advantage in the game. Nobody uses gateways except to produce one or two zealots in the beginning while the Cybernetics Core is building to avoid rushes.
After the Gateway build time increase, it has become increasingly difficult to hold fast ling rushes especially because they can walk through units on "hold". Add to that an increased difficulty in getting Warp Gate tech, Protoss could easily become the worst race.
Think about it: what prevents a Terran rush from working early game?
Sentries - they block off the choke with their fields. Without warp gates, they'd take forever to build.
And what prevents a ling rush? Zealots. Now imagine that Zealots will take longer to produce as a whole - I think it's 12 seconds per Zealot.
It's not as simple as you say it is, simply changing the warp tech and hoping that it will work in preventing PvP early proxy pylon - because it honestly does more bad than good.
And I may be zealous defending my idea, but I don't see a problem with that. Do you think defending your beliefs and ideas is a problem?
|
iNfeRnaL
Germany1908 Posts
Seriously?
5 pages of "balance" in PvP?
Just because it plays differently from SC1?
You lose in PvP?
Do the same shit you lost to.
You could always just mirror your opponent so the one with better macro and micro wins.
Crying because you can't 1-2 gate tech instead is a good solution, eh...? -_-
Won't ever get some people...
|
Posted this in another thread and some people seemed to like it.
I think a possible solution would be to make the units extremely fragile while warping. Like, I see your zealot warping and I kill it with 2shots of a probe.
The way it is now, you are putting an enormous amount of pressure on your opponent without actually sacrificing/committing to anything.
I always had this feeling in my stomach that these warp gates, cliff jumping and random nyduses would be hard to balance and fit into the game.
Also,
On March 09 2010 17:54 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Seriously?
5 pages of "balance" in PvP?
Just because it plays differently from SC1?
You lose in PvP?
Do the same shit you lost to.
You could always just mirror your opponent so the one with better macro and micro wins.
Crying because you can't 1-2 gate tech instead is a good solution, eh...? -_-
Won't ever get some people...
And if you look deeper than that, you see PvP deteriorating into a shitfest, and people care.
|
I'd just make units take more damage when they are warping in, an extra 25-50-100%(Numbers subject to balance, as always =p) would make any probes a lot more effective at stopping them warping into the mineral line at least. This could extend to buildings warping in / building / morphing too.
Building under fire shouldn't really be encouraged.
|
If you do something to balance warping, that will just throw PvZ and PvT off. My solution is to buff stalkers so that microed stalkers can beat zealots. This way you can get stalkers to defend early rushes, at the same time you cannot attack effectively. It also makes stalkers more practical in PvZ and PvT.
|
How about you put 2 workers on your choke to deny the scouting probe of your opponent entry?
|
On March 10 2010 03:28 Arikuna wrote:
How about you put 2 workers on your choke to deny the scouting probe of your opponent entry?
How do people not realize that you can mineral walk in SC2 without having prior vision of the terrain?
1. Right click on opponent's minerals
2. Proceed to scout.
|
And because Gateways take longer to produce units, it would mean that in early game other races would get an even bigger advantage in the game. Nobody uses gateways except to produce one or two zealots in the beginning while the Cybernetics Core is building to avoid rushes.
After the Gateway build time increase, it has become increasingly difficult to hold fast ling rushes especially because they can walk through units on "hold". Add to that an increased difficulty in getting Warp Gate tech, Protoss could easily become the worst race.
Just decrease the gateway buildtime and buff some units to compensate?
|
Have people tried pulling some probes from mining and attacking the warping units. I'm sorry if it has been used/discussed already just haven't seen any replies/vods where the defending protoss player attacks them.
If you have identical builds and he is warping in a zealot(at the same time you are warping in your zealot) in your base you could pull 4 probes and attack it and the zealot would have lost all his shields so it would be easier to kill.
Or would the problem be that if he has 2+ gates it would take a lot of probes to defend it.
|
Poll: Fixing PvP
(Vote): Fiddle with warpgate cost/research time
(Vote): Warp-in time increases (non)linearly with distance from warp gate
(Vote): Warp gate tech moved back
(Vote): Special pylon required
(Vote): Opponent pylon power negates the effect
(Vote): Other
|
considering the 3 warp gate "rush" strategy is one of the strongest strategies for all mu's atm, i dont think it would hurt to increase the cost of the warp gate tech... 50 minerals and 50 gas is pretty damn low.
In comparison, zerg have nydus canal for 100/100 on each exit, while the nydus costs 150/200 ? (i think?)... It doesn't make sense why the hell warp gate research is so cheap, especially since converting your gateways into warpgates is free.
Going warp gate rush build really isn't scoutable until you see those extra gateways going down, because warp gate isn't a "choice" for protoss, its just a must-do in every match-up. Who wouldn't research it for 50/50? It isn't even a choice in the game at this point, once you have your core it is beneficial to research it, it costs less than half a stalker.
|
On March 09 2010 17:54 iNfeRnaL wrote:
Seriously?
5 pages of "balance" in PvP?
Just because it plays differently from SC1?
You lose in PvP?
Do the same shit you lost to.
You could always just mirror your opponent so the one with better macro and micro wins.
Crying because you can't 1-2 gate tech instead is a good solution, eh...? -_-
Won't ever get some people...
I think it's about having a match-up that's fun for ten years.
|
I think we need to nerf zealots in pvp by about 30 shield with only 50 health and cost 120 minerals. I think that would be an awesome solution to this pvp problem!!!
|
Haven't read the entire thread in detail, but here's a set of changes I think would overall help P's tech tree development:
1. Move Warp Gate tech to Twilight Council
2. Move Blink tech to Dark Shrine
3. Buff Stalkers slightly (something like 10+5 instead of 8+6?)
4. Probably undo either the gateway or zlot nerfs (-15 build time, +10 shields, respectively)
The advantages of each are:
1. Should fix the warp gate rush.
2. Makes Dark Shrine less of a dead-end tech choice. Also I think it's more consistent with lore.
3. Makes up for later blink, makes the unit more useful overall
4. Lack of warp gate would have early game implications for other matchups. These changes are just in the general spirit of "rebalance early game," which I don't think should be too difficult. Maybe lower sentry build time instead, for instance.
Disadvantages:
1. Makes warp prism much less useful (need two tech buildings after Core to make full use of the prism--arguably bad, as it can also be seen like a "capacity upgrade" for the prism
(2-4) I don't think have any fundamental gameplay flaws like (1) might have in terms of tech development. They seem to be balance issues to me.
Also I think nothing as dramatic as the suggestions I made will be implemented. IMO a stalker buff and/or a warp gate research cost/time increase and/or a change in worker auto-targeting would be sufficient to solve the PvP problem itself. The other stuff were just things that bothered me (e.g. dark shrine being dead end).
Actually, fixing worker auto-targeting would be great for the game as a whole, and might by itself solve this warp gate rush situation.
edit: typos
|
I don't get why people are talking about Protoss having a tough time with the other races if you move the Warpgates back. If that happens, you just buff something else. Let it be Stalkers, build time of units, or w/e.
|
Im gonna repeat this.
Add a shield battery like hability to the nexus to compete with the chrono boost, it will give the defender the advantage he deserves in pvp, help protoss fend off banshee and muta harass without making any sort of imbalance in the greater whole.
|
I don't have a beta and I've only watched a couple of streams, so I can't be sure about the exact timings, but how fast can you get the first sentry out? I' m asking because I had an idea that sentry's unique ability (whatever it's name is) could have an added effect: it could power down a pylon for a set amount of time when you cast it. This wouldn't affect other match-ups (obviously  ), and could have an additional tactical uses throughout the game. If needed, this would require for sentry to channel the spell for effect to take place in order to prevent imbalance. It probably isn't a great idea, but I'm throwing it out there anyway This way you could actually allow your opponent to construct a pylon in your base, and then shut it down making him lose 100 minerals-and after that some kind of wall could by used to deflect attacks while getting tech. Any thoughts?
|
whats to stop people from just blocking their ramps?
|
On March 10 2010 10:58 Rice wrote:
whats to stop people from just blocking their ramps?
Probes can go through it by just being right-clicked on your minerals.
|
Planting your Pylon next to an enemy pylon won't negate 100% of the field. There are still many locations outside the base for a Pylon to hide as well.
High ground should give an advantage, as mentioned in the "A Shot in the Dark" article, the reasons for which can be found within said article.
Why not have a "Warp Grid" similar to the Pylon power grid emitted in a radius around Warp Gates, Nexus and Warp Prisms? The grid wouldn't power any buildings, and units could only be warped in within the grid radius. If you want to do proxy stuff, do it the traditional risky way and actually proxy your gateways early game -or- use the Warp Prism for late game proxies and drops. Seems like such a system would still give you all the advantages of warp-in minus the undesirable proxy Pylons.
It's so silly that the cheapest, smallest building, also available the earliest and can be placed anywhere, can be the conduit for the entire production of gateway units. Not exactly risk/reward balanced imo. Warp-in is cool, but ultra-low cost map-wide proxies are not.
|
What if they just change the Stalker to deal bonus damage to light targets? This way Stalkers will cut Zealots down much faster, and Stalkers will now also give toss better AA vs Muta. This also gives the Stalker and Immortal more defined rolls. Seems a simple fix compared to changing warp gate tech around.
|
I've had the idea of switching the blink and warpgate upgrades in the tech tree. So you could upgrade blink at cybernetics core and upgrade warpgate at twilight council. This would delay warpgates and also make stalkers better but I dont know if getting warpgates that late would hurt too much vs T and Z. Thoughts?
|
On March 10 2010 11:17 crate wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2010 10:58 Rice wrote:
whats to stop people from just blocking their ramps? Probes can go through it by just being right-clicked on your minerals.
I meant a building wall, in the games I have watched if the player had placed their first pylon/gateway/pylon properly it wouldve been a solid wall to keep the probe out completely. Am I overlooking something completely here?
|
... And you walled yourself in? Good job?
|
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.
except for then i can just build a pylon in his base and he cant warp in at all rofl owned?
|
United States47024 Posts
On March 10 2010 13:27 Rice wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2010 11:17 crate wrote:On March 10 2010 10:58 Rice wrote:
whats to stop people from just blocking their ramps? Probes can go through it by just being right-clicked on your minerals. I meant a building wall, in the games I have watched if the player had placed their first pylon/gateway/pylon properly it wouldve been a solid wall to keep the probe out completely. Am I overlooking something completely here?
You expect to have a complete wall-in of 3 buildings before an opponent's scout reaches your base?
Might work on a 4-player map if you're lucky, but it will never work on a 2-player map, and an opponent committed to the rush will always scout way early.
|
I can't be too specific, because I just know the Matchups that involve T, but here are some Ideas:
Protoss:
- Colossus is clearly too strong against Terran Bio. T basically has to go for Bio in all of the MU's and even with strong Anti-Protoss Units like Ghost with EMP, Collos are just much too strong. Not only do they negate all the positional advantages (ramps, cliffs, Building-Placement), but basically all of the Counterunits are easily countered by other Units that P has in the Unit-Mix, like Tank VS Immortal. Also, P has enough viable choices against Bio or stuff like Mass-Zerglings, like Templars with Storm or Archons. It's obvious that the Collossus needs a total revamp - it's just a boring and overpowered Unit. I mean: You just have to A-Move, but it does a HUGE amount of DMG.
- Warp-In's are way too strong. See it that way: If P just puts a Pylon in the Middle of the Map (where it can't be scouted as easily as a very offensive Pylon) It cut's reinforcement-time during a rush/push in half as far as the travelling-distance goes and thats just ridiculous.
Zerg:
- Hydras are overpowered. As soon as Z gets Hydras, he can basically get up a third and fourth exe and Z isn't the same as in SC1, where they need to have much more Gas and Exe's in general to be able to win against the other races. If Z in SC2 has the same amount of exes than the opponent, they're totally fine, BUT it's much easier for Z to take exes and defend them against all sorts of harrassment and Hydras play a big role in that.
- This whole "walking faster on the creep" was a bad Idea. with that and the queen, early scouting is so easily denied by Zerg and they can get up exe's and defend them way too easy. In SC1, if Z wanted to get a heavy macro-game up, it was a tiny time-window, where they had to fear all sorts of rushes or later in the game be very offensive with Mutas to get the third Hatch up and defend it with Lurkers etc. In SC2, It's no problem for Z to get up a ridiculous amount of exes and be basically undefeatable macro-wise within minutes.
- Queen is too strong for rushes, macro etc. The spawn-larva HAS to be nerved and the other Queen-abilities have to be buffed/changed. Give the Queen some defensive/intel-based abilities that are worth using insted of the larvas. Like with T: Mule's are awesome, but you will use scan often as well. The third ability of the OCS is crap - I'll give you that one. ^^'
Terran:
- Vikings are practically useless. The "mode-switch" takes too long, they build and move too slow and have no real reason to be used in the first place other than surprising the opponent with them.
- Thor: It's basically the first Anti-Air Unit that's not Bio or a structure but it just takes way too long to get to them. With Thor out so late and Vikings being out late and totally crap too, you always have to go Mass-Bio to be somewhat safe against early Air-Units.
- Tanks: They are also out too late and too weak. Try defending a blocked ramp with them even against a mildly aggressive Protoss like you could in SC1 - It's not possible! once again you get forced into making a bionic-army too get raped by Collossus/Banelings+Speedlings minutes later.
- AoE-Bio: With the above mentioned points in mind, it's really hard to defend against mass-lings, because the only AoE you have early on are the Hellions, which are built in a factory, which you don't really want to build against anything else then Mass Speedlings/Banelings. Also, Maybe you wan't to get a FE, which makes it impossible to go Hellions fast enough to defend against speedlings. I don't have a solution for this problem, but something like Firebats would be crucial...
- Stimpacks: They should be cheaper and be done researching faster, here are the reasons why: The above mentioned problem could be partially reduced by stimpacks and Mass-Rines. The other point is, that Stimpacks are much weaker, because Medivacs come later than Medics, that IMHO is reason enough to make it more available early on. You need a lot of Micro to utilize it good and it's not imba, because to use it very often, you need the Medivacs.
- Bunkers should build fast to make it possible to apply some kind of early aggression against a Z-player that, in this stage of the SC2-Build, can get up an early expansion way too easy on all of the beta-maps. T should either be able to apply early aggression (which they can't), or take a FE as easy as Z on all the maps (which they can't either). Thats a huge problem because Z doesn't need to have more exe's than the T anymore, but it's far easier to get one early and get WAY ahead Minutes in the Game.
Maps
Noone talks about race-imbalances in SC1, but Map-imbalances are still heavily discussed. In SC2, the same thing is the case, even in the Beta. The Maps are heavily favouring Z and P over Terran (like Scrap Station, Desert Oasis, Steppes of war), because it's often very hard for Terran to even get up the first expansion, it heavily favours early aggression over defensive play and you can't really push forward with Tanks to get a third on most of the Maps (And I don't talk about a huge push, because thats impossible with T in SC2 if you're not ahead already, because of the lack of mines and Tanks being too weak).
So, give us more Maps and/or the option to "thumb-down" 1-2 Maps. This way, you'll get more accurate feedback about how strong the races are and not which Map favours which race. I know it looks like a bit of a bigger change, but I seriously recommend to implement those features to ensure better balancing.
|
On March 10 2010 15:38 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2010 13:27 Rice wrote:On March 10 2010 11:17 crate wrote:On March 10 2010 10:58 Rice wrote:
whats to stop people from just blocking their ramps? Probes can go through it by just being right-clicked on your minerals. I meant a building wall, in the games I have watched if the player had placed their first pylon/gateway/pylon properly it wouldve been a solid wall to keep the probe out completely. Am I overlooking something completely here? You expect to have a complete wall-in of 3 buildings before an opponent's scout reaches your base? Might work on a 4-player map if you're lucky, but it will never work on a 2-player map, and an opponent committed to the rush will always scout way early.
In the games I have watched, the players pylon gateway and second gateway have been up by the time the scout probe got to the base, the maps were desert oasis and that one jungle 2 player map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3266/terranpylon.png)
