|
On June 13 2012 18:29 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +There are positions where you can't warp in on creep to attack an early third without a low ground pylon. low ground pylons add a lot to the makeup of what someone has to be wary about when playing vs protoss. To remove options from protoss is bad.
To remove options from any race is bad. Low ground pylons powering upper ground cannons is also useful defensively vs roach rush on maps that have part of the main overlooking the nat. I don't know why you quoted me for this one. I didn't even say anything about warping in on thirds, or removing options, or the use of low ground pylons to defend roach rushes. Although I'll remind you that this isn't coming in until HotS; the metagame will be sufficiently messed with by that transition that who knows whether that situation will still be significant. Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 14:56 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 14:42 ChristianS wrote:On June 13 2012 14:08 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 12:02 Protosnake wrote:On June 13 2012 12:00 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 DeCoup wrote:
I'm Protoss and I agree with this change. The Warp Prism should be a more vital element in warp-in in general and I believe this is a step in the right direction. If it is considered to be too big a nerf then I hope the fix involves further buffs to the Warp Prism instead of a reversal of the change, however I don't think this will be required. Warp prism use won't be affected by this regardless of whether or not it gets removed. Don't know why people keep bringing them up. All this does is remove an aggressive mechanic which will kill a few builds relying on it. There are 2 way to warp on high ground, Pylon powering high ground and WP The first is removed and you dare say that it wont affect the second ? They're two COMPLETELY different things. One is a mechanic, the other is a transport unit requiring tech. Getting rid of high ground warp only removes the timings that aren't possible with Warp Prism, and also indirectly nerf stargate/hallucination. Warp Prism builds operate independently. It won't affect warp prism use...at all...LOL. Somehow a perfectly civil post making fairly reasonable points can be turned into something completely dickish just by adding a "...LOL." at the end of a point. What a curious phenomenon. I believe his point was that in some situations people use a pylon and high ground vision to warp to the high ground where they could use a warp prism, e.g. DT builds that warp into the main using hallucination to skip robo tech. Now if someone wants to go DT, they'll have to use a warp prism to get into the main instead of using hallucination and a well-placed pylon. Nothing operates completely independently in the game space, unless they're separated by relevant times so that they will never co-exist in the same game at the same moment (e.g. 6 pool exists entirely independently of hive tech timings, because the timings that are relevant to a 6pool and the timings that are relevant to an ultralisk cavern are entirely separate). High-ground warp-ins are relevant any time after warpgate is researched, and warp prisms are relevant for any time after robo completes. As it happens, those timings have a significant overlap, thus not independent. On June 13 2012 13:22 Danners933 wrote:
Protoss players that rely on gimmicky strats are the only ones mad at this change. Much needed in every matchup. Why do you care whether or not Protoss players rely on gimmicky strats? Fairly bold assumption that anyone arguing against flat out illogical balance changes (that aren't fixing anything) turns them into a gimmicky Protoss. Correction, not a balance change, it's a game design change. Not changed based on a perceived imbalance, but rather based on a perceived problem in game design. Apparently Blizzard is of the opinion that high-ground warp-in all-ins do not make for fun gameplay. They operate completely independent in the game space. Literally all of the builds that rely on this mechanic hit faster than a robo and/or can't afford it. Which is why they're called timings. If theres a reason to warp into their base later on it will be a warp prism 99.9% of the time. Warp prisms aren't affected nor are they an alternative. They're just killing various PvP all-ins and voidray/gateway timings which were never a problem. There is no overlap. Warp prisms will NOT see any more use because of this. Pretty much no cheese is fun for gameplay, so why would it justify disturbing the meta game now? Everyone deals with various cheese builds. None of them are fun. All they've done is removed variety in builds that aren't imbalanced. Let's say MC decides to cheese IdrA. In fact, he decides to make DTs. At this point he hasn't chosen a build, just has a general game plan. In the current state of the game, there are a number of DT builds, each a unique snowflake that "exists independently" of the others in that you can only do one of them at once. Some of these builds involve warp prism-ing the DTs into the main of IdrA. Some just run the DTs into IdrA's natural and hope he doesn't have detection. And some of them use the high ground warp-in mechanic to get the DTs into the main without building a robo or running up the ramp. And MC might choose any of these builds. Now suppose the game is patched so that all the high ground warp-in builds simply don't exist. MC still wants to cheese IdrA, and he still has cheese available to him, but he cannot warp in from low ground to high ground to make his DTs. But his game plan is still the same: he wants to make DTs and go kill IdrA. So MC is now more likely to build a warp prism to get the DTs into IdrA's base, because he still wants to get DTs, and the high-ground warp-in builds are now not available, so he'll have to go with a warp prism build instead. In other words, removal of high-ground warp-in increases the likelihood that a warp prism will be used. As for "disturbing the metagame," this change is planned for the HotS expansion. Compared to introducing NEW UNITS, adjusting pylon warp-in mechanics will barely nuzzle the metagame. That's like complaining your roommate's breathing is disturbing your sleep while 100-decibel party rock is blasting outside.
I don't mean to intrude, but I don't think that logic is quite right. Yes each statement you made was correct, but I think you're looking at it backwards. When we confine ourselves to a specific strategy (DT rush in this case), you're right in assuming that the probability of MC choosing to use a warp prism is higher. The problem arises, however, when you consider a couple additional factors. First, while warp prism use might be higher for certain strategies that require warping in on the enemy high ground, the viability of that strategy as a whole has decreased - why attempt to warp DTs on the high ground when it's so much harder to do due to this potential change? So while the warp prism might be used more within the confines of this strategy, the overall use of this strategy ought to decline. Second, because the warp prism is of a different tech than some of the "gimmicky" strategies, it is not entirely reasonable to say that people will simply switch from using x strategy with low-to-high ground warp ins over to using that same strategy with a warp prism. The timings or ways to achieve the strategy would have to be different because of the increase in cost to effectively utilize said strategy.
So to simply say that the warp prism will be used more simply as a substitute for this change is rather ignorant. In doing so, you ignore the additional costs of the substitution that inherently weaken the strength and timing of the attack. Will the warp prism, however, see more use simply due to development in strategies now that low-to-high ground warp ins no longer work? Possibly. But within the confines of specific gimmicky builds, not as likely.
|
Not to balance whine... But in light of the requirements of:
- Supply depot --> rax
- pylon --> gateway
And now no high/low ground pylons
All are to prevent cheesy/gimmicky player, I really have a hard time accepting zerg players can still 6pool. How come the didn't make it so the spawning pool requires 2 overlords on the field... or something similar?
On topic:
I can accept this change - as long protoss can keep 50% win I guess it's okay. But removing options is not a good idea imo. They shouldn't change it unless they buff something else - or at least offer new options. To all the Warp Prism arguements: Sure, you can still warp in like that. But it's horrible to be forced down the robo path. I think this limits the options of a protoss more than anything
|
I do not agree with this change, I like these cheap cheesy elements in the game, if Terrans can pull off so much cheese, then the other races need something too.
|
On June 20 2012 17:11 Mentalizor wrote:
Not to balance whine... But in light of the requirements of:
- Supply depot --> rax
- pylon --> gateway
And now no high/low ground pylons
All are to prevent cheesy/gimmicky player, I really have a hard time accepting zerg players can still 6pool. How come the didn't make it so the spawning pool requires 2 overlords on the field... or something similar?
On topic:
I can accept this change - as long protoss can keep 50% win I guess it's okay. But removing options is not a good idea imo. They shouldn't change it unless they buff something else - or at least offer new options. To all the Warp Prism arguements: Sure, you can still warp in like that. But it's horrible to be forced down the robo path. I think this limits the options of a protoss more than anything
I think to your earlier point about six pools it has to do a lot with the fact that you can defend a six pool with drones unlike super early marines or zealots.
|
On June 20 2012 16:22 humanimal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 13 2012 18:29 ChristianS wrote:There are positions where you can't warp in on creep to attack an early third without a low ground pylon. low ground pylons add a lot to the makeup of what someone has to be wary about when playing vs protoss. To remove options from protoss is bad.
To remove options from any race is bad. Low ground pylons powering upper ground cannons is also useful defensively vs roach rush on maps that have part of the main overlooking the nat. I don't know why you quoted me for this one. I didn't even say anything about warping in on thirds, or removing options, or the use of low ground pylons to defend roach rushes. Although I'll remind you that this isn't coming in until HotS; the metagame will be sufficiently messed with by that transition that who knows whether that situation will still be significant. On June 13 2012 14:56 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 14:42 ChristianS wrote:On June 13 2012 14:08 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 12:02 Protosnake wrote:On June 13 2012 12:00 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 DeCoup wrote:
I'm Protoss and I agree with this change. The Warp Prism should be a more vital element in warp-in in general and I believe this is a step in the right direction. If it is considered to be too big a nerf then I hope the fix involves further buffs to the Warp Prism instead of a reversal of the change, however I don't think this will be required. Warp prism use won't be affected by this regardless of whether or not it gets removed. Don't know why people keep bringing them up. All this does is remove an aggressive mechanic which will kill a few builds relying on it. There are 2 way to warp on high ground, Pylon powering high ground and WP The first is removed and you dare say that it wont affect the second ? They're two COMPLETELY different things. One is a mechanic, the other is a transport unit requiring tech. Getting rid of high ground warp only removes the timings that aren't possible with Warp Prism, and also indirectly nerf stargate/hallucination. Warp Prism builds operate independently. It won't affect warp prism use...at all...LOL. Somehow a perfectly civil post making fairly reasonable points can be turned into something completely dickish just by adding a "...LOL." at the end of a point. What a curious phenomenon. I believe his point was that in some situations people use a pylon and high ground vision to warp to the high ground where they could use a warp prism, e.g. DT builds that warp into the main using hallucination to skip robo tech. Now if someone wants to go DT, they'll have to use a warp prism to get into the main instead of using hallucination and a well-placed pylon. Nothing operates completely independently in the game space, unless they're separated by relevant times so that they will never co-exist in the same game at the same moment (e.g. 6 pool exists entirely independently of hive tech timings, because the timings that are relevant to a 6pool and the timings that are relevant to an ultralisk cavern are entirely separate). High-ground warp-ins are relevant any time after warpgate is researched, and warp prisms are relevant for any time after robo completes. As it happens, those timings have a significant overlap, thus not independent. On June 13 2012 13:22 Danners933 wrote:
Protoss players that rely on gimmicky strats are the only ones mad at this change. Much needed in every matchup. Why do you care whether or not Protoss players rely on gimmicky strats? Fairly bold assumption that anyone arguing against flat out illogical balance changes (that aren't fixing anything) turns them into a gimmicky Protoss. Correction, not a balance change, it's a game design change. Not changed based on a perceived imbalance, but rather based on a perceived problem in game design. Apparently Blizzard is of the opinion that high-ground warp-in all-ins do not make for fun gameplay. They operate completely independent in the game space. Literally all of the builds that rely on this mechanic hit faster than a robo and/or can't afford it. Which is why they're called timings. If theres a reason to warp into their base later on it will be a warp prism 99.9% of the time. Warp prisms aren't affected nor are they an alternative. They're just killing various PvP all-ins and voidray/gateway timings which were never a problem. There is no overlap. Warp prisms will NOT see any more use because of this. Pretty much no cheese is fun for gameplay, so why would it justify disturbing the meta game now? Everyone deals with various cheese builds. None of them are fun. All they've done is removed variety in builds that aren't imbalanced. Let's say MC decides to cheese IdrA. In fact, he decides to make DTs. At this point he hasn't chosen a build, just has a general game plan. In the current state of the game, there are a number of DT builds, each a unique snowflake that "exists independently" of the others in that you can only do one of them at once. Some of these builds involve warp prism-ing the DTs into the main of IdrA. Some just run the DTs into IdrA's natural and hope he doesn't have detection. And some of them use the high ground warp-in mechanic to get the DTs into the main without building a robo or running up the ramp. And MC might choose any of these builds. Now suppose the game is patched so that all the high ground warp-in builds simply don't exist. MC still wants to cheese IdrA, and he still has cheese available to him, but he cannot warp in from low ground to high ground to make his DTs. But his game plan is still the same: he wants to make DTs and go kill IdrA. So MC is now more likely to build a warp prism to get the DTs into IdrA's base, because he still wants to get DTs, and the high-ground warp-in builds are now not available, so he'll have to go with a warp prism build instead. In other words, removal of high-ground warp-in increases the likelihood that a warp prism will be used. As for "disturbing the metagame," this change is planned for the HotS expansion. Compared to introducing NEW UNITS, adjusting pylon warp-in mechanics will barely nuzzle the metagame. That's like complaining your roommate's breathing is disturbing your sleep while 100-decibel party rock is blasting outside. I don't mean to intrude, but I don't think that logic is quite right. Yes each statement you made was correct, but I think you're looking at it backwards. When we confine ourselves to a specific strategy (DT rush in this case), you're right in assuming that the probability of MC choosing to use a warp prism is higher. The problem arises, however, when you consider a couple additional factors. First, while warp prism use might be higher for certain strategies that require warping in on the enemy high ground, the viability of that strategy as a whole has decreased - why attempt to warp DTs on the high ground when it's so much harder to do due to this potential change? So while the warp prism might be used more within the confines of this strategy, the overall use of this strategy ought to decline. Second, because the warp prism is of a different tech than some of the "gimmicky" strategies, it is not entirely reasonable to say that people will simply switch from using x strategy with low-to-high ground warp ins over to using that same strategy with a warp prism. The timings or ways to achieve the strategy would have to be different because of the increase in cost to effectively utilize said strategy. So to simply say that the warp prism will be used more simply as a substitute for this change is rather ignorant. In doing so, you ignore the additional costs of the substitution that inherently weaken the strength and timing of the attack. Will the warp prism, however, see more use simply due to development in strategies now that low-to-high ground warp ins no longer work? Possibly. But within the confines of specific gimmicky builds, not as likely.
That's true, the overall use of DT rushes should decline (although calling it "ignorant" is a little strong; estimating the effect on the full scope of Protoss strategy is a big project, so its pretty reasonable to estimate the use of DT plays as constant, even if its obviously not necessarily true). So within DT plays, warp prism plays increase. DT plays overall decrease, which offsets the increased use at least partially.
But the point was, the change is connected to warp prism usage, because the disappearance of certain strategies affects the whole game space. Tyrant0 was claiming that they operate completely independently, which is obviously false. This is not to say that every single old strategy that relied on low ground powering high ground can simply be done now with a warp prism. But assuming that there is some underlying strategic need to access the high ground without running up the ramp sometimes, the warp prism now has exclusive power to do that, so obviously use of the warp prism will be affected.
|
There are already enough band-aids in SC2's game design. This one is very arbitrary, makes the game more confusing for newbies and spectators, and masks real problems with the actual pylon and high-ground mechanic.
|
If I felt like this was used much in anything but cannon rushes and various other cheeses, I wouldn't like it.
But honestly, I feel like any change to the game has to be give and take.
Given that cannon rushes and 4 gates (more the cannon rush) are kind of a bleh way to play (look, let's not get in to if they are ezpz, cheese, etc., I just think they are limiting to the game), and that they can ruin a person's experience in the game, and that they aren't very constructive, I say get rid of them with this change.
The only trade off is what the OP mentioned. I don't see that a whole lot, and I tune in to MLG, GSL, IPL, etc., etc., very regularly.
With this change, we eliminate a whole bunch of BS which everyone hates, only for the price of limiting one cute tactic.
Worth it.
EDIT: After reading through a couple posts I hadn't seen, I still think I stick with my original point, but I am a bit disappointed in P's ability to cheese. I think that it's a major limiter in long-term series like the GSL, in which many strategies have to be used. I feel that Terran has always had a much greater strength in the build-versatility sector (such as MMA and Mvp), and the line between a good player and a legend relies a lot on that kind of versatility. But, obviously, that affects about .01% of the players of this game, so I still think it's worth it.
|
I find this incredibly disappointing. Blizzard is so focused on balance that they consistently kill creativity, variety, and dynamic gameplay in SC2.
|
On June 20 2012 17:11 Mentalizor wrote:
Not to balance whine... But in light of the requirements of:
- Supply depot --> rax
- pylon --> gateway
And now no high/low ground pylons
All are to prevent cheesy/gimmicky player, I really have a hard time accepting zerg players can still 6pool. How come the didn't make it so the spawning pool requires 2 overlords on the field... or something similar?
On topic:
I can accept this change - as long protoss can keep 50% win I guess it's okay. But removing options is not a good idea imo. They shouldn't change it unless they buff something else - or at least offer new options. To all the Warp Prism arguements: Sure, you can still warp in like that. But it's horrible to be forced down the robo path. I think this limits the options of a protoss more than anything
Because a pool costs 100 more minerals than a rax or gateway when you include the drone sacrifice.
|
On June 21 2012 13:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I find this incredibly disappointing. Blizzard is so focused on balance that they consistently kill creativity, variety, and dynamic gameplay in SC2.
You mean like, limiting the usage of well known, anyone can do strategy and promoting more complicated, creative and dynamic strategies such as using the warpprism more?
What do you plan to do with a low ground pylon powering high ground that cannot be achieved with a warpprism?
|
So I take it this change to pylons was in the MLG version as well? Sorry I did not get a chance to play it during the event but the OP is from the blizzcon version or earlier. If that's correct then I really disagree with it. The radius change was enough imo.
|
good change, increase radius again and remove highground warpin
|
On June 21 2012 13:38 padfoota wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2012 13:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I find this incredibly disappointing. Blizzard is so focused on balance that they consistently kill creativity, variety, and dynamic gameplay in SC2. You mean like, limiting the usage of well known, anyone can do strategy and promoting more complicated, creative and dynamic strategies such as using the warpprism more? What do you plan to do with a low ground pylon powering high ground that cannot be achieved with a warpprism?
You can't just say, "Remove low-to-high ground Pylon usage so players will automatically use Warp Prisms". The question remains, "Is Warp Prism play viable?" Not only that, it eliminates creativity and dynamic play in situations where Warp Prisms cannot be used (namely, the early game, or when someone wants to go a non-Robo tech path in the mid game).
|
On June 21 2012 13:15 Nuclease wrote:
If I felt like this was used much in anything but cannon rushes and various other cheeses, I wouldn't like it.
But honestly, I feel like any change to the game has to be give and take.
Given that cannon rushes and 4 gates (more the cannon rush) are kind of a bleh way to play (look, let's not get in to if they are ezpz, cheese, etc., I just think they are limiting to the game), and that they can ruin a person's experience in the game, and that they aren't very constructive, I say get rid of them with this change.
The only trade off is what the OP mentioned. I don't see that a whole lot, and I tune in to MLG, GSL, IPL, etc., etc., very regularly.
With this change, we eliminate a whole bunch of BS which everyone hates, only for the price of limiting one cute tactic.
Worth it.
EDIT: After reading through a couple posts I hadn't seen, I still think I stick with my original point, but I am a bit disappointed in P's ability to cheese. I think that it's a major limiter in long-term series like the GSL, in which many strategies have to be used. I feel that Terran has always had a much greater strength in the build-versatility sector (such as MMA and Mvp), and the line between a good player and a legend relies a lot on that kind of versatility. But, obviously, that affects about .01% of the players of this game, so I still think it's worth it.
So things that can ruin someone's experience should be taken out of the game? Sweet no more mutalisks, marauders, proxied buildings, dt's, cloacked banshees, regular banshees, hell, I'm sure someone quit after losing to Destiny's queens, so queens should be taken out of the game, etc.
|
On June 21 2012 13:01 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On June 20 2012 16:22 humanimal wrote:On June 13 2012 18:29 ChristianS wrote:There are positions where you can't warp in on creep to attack an early third without a low ground pylon. low ground pylons add a lot to the makeup of what someone has to be wary about when playing vs protoss. To remove options from protoss is bad.
To remove options from any race is bad. Low ground pylons powering upper ground cannons is also useful defensively vs roach rush on maps that have part of the main overlooking the nat. I don't know why you quoted me for this one. I didn't even say anything about warping in on thirds, or removing options, or the use of low ground pylons to defend roach rushes. Although I'll remind you that this isn't coming in until HotS; the metagame will be sufficiently messed with by that transition that who knows whether that situation will still be significant. On June 13 2012 14:56 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 14:42 ChristianS wrote:On June 13 2012 14:08 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 12:02 Protosnake wrote:On June 13 2012 12:00 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 13 2012 11:12 DeCoup wrote:
I'm Protoss and I agree with this change. The Warp Prism should be a more vital element in warp-in in general and I believe this is a step in the right direction. If it is considered to be too big a nerf then I hope the fix involves further buffs to the Warp Prism instead of a reversal of the change, however I don't think this will be required. Warp prism use won't be affected by this regardless of whether or not it gets removed. Don't know why people keep bringing them up. All this does is remove an aggressive mechanic which will kill a few builds relying on it. There are 2 way to warp on high ground, Pylon powering high ground and WP The first is removed and you dare say that it wont affect the second ? They're two COMPLETELY different things. One is a mechanic, the other is a transport unit requiring tech. Getting rid of high ground warp only removes the timings that aren't possible with Warp Prism, and also indirectly nerf stargate/hallucination. Warp Prism builds operate independently. It won't affect warp prism use...at all...LOL. Somehow a perfectly civil post making fairly reasonable points can be turned into something completely dickish just by adding a "...LOL." at the end of a point. What a curious phenomenon. I believe his point was that in some situations people use a pylon and high ground vision to warp to the high ground where they could use a warp prism, e.g. DT builds that warp into the main using hallucination to skip robo tech. Now if someone wants to go DT, they'll have to use a warp prism to get into the main instead of using hallucination and a well-placed pylon. Nothing operates completely independently in the game space, unless they're separated by relevant times so that they will never co-exist in the same game at the same moment (e.g. 6 pool exists entirely independently of hive tech timings, because the timings that are relevant to a 6pool and the timings that are relevant to an ultralisk cavern are entirely separate). High-ground warp-ins are relevant any time after warpgate is researched, and warp prisms are relevant for any time after robo completes. As it happens, those timings have a significant overlap, thus not independent. On June 13 2012 13:22 Danners933 wrote:
Protoss players that rely on gimmicky strats are the only ones mad at this change. Much needed in every matchup. Why do you care whether or not Protoss players rely on gimmicky strats? Fairly bold assumption that anyone arguing against flat out illogical balance changes (that aren't fixing anything) turns them into a gimmicky Protoss. Correction, not a balance change, it's a game design change. Not changed based on a perceived imbalance, but rather based on a perceived problem in game design. Apparently Blizzard is of the opinion that high-ground warp-in all-ins do not make for fun gameplay. They operate completely independent in the game space. Literally all of the builds that rely on this mechanic hit faster than a robo and/or can't afford it. Which is why they're called timings. If theres a reason to warp into their base later on it will be a warp prism 99.9% of the time. Warp prisms aren't affected nor are they an alternative. They're just killing various PvP all-ins and voidray/gateway timings which were never a problem. There is no overlap. Warp prisms will NOT see any more use because of this. Pretty much no cheese is fun for gameplay, so why would it justify disturbing the meta game now? Everyone deals with various cheese builds. None of them are fun. All they've done is removed variety in builds that aren't imbalanced. Let's say MC decides to cheese IdrA. In fact, he decides to make DTs. At this point he hasn't chosen a build, just has a general game plan. In the current state of the game, there are a number of DT builds, each a unique snowflake that "exists independently" of the others in that you can only do one of them at once. Some of these builds involve warp prism-ing the DTs into the main of IdrA. Some just run the DTs into IdrA's natural and hope he doesn't have detection. And some of them use the high ground warp-in mechanic to get the DTs into the main without building a robo or running up the ramp. And MC might choose any of these builds. Now suppose the game is patched so that all the high ground warp-in builds simply don't exist. MC still wants to cheese IdrA, and he still has cheese available to him, but he cannot warp in from low ground to high ground to make his DTs. But his game plan is still the same: he wants to make DTs and go kill IdrA. So MC is now more likely to build a warp prism to get the DTs into IdrA's base, because he still wants to get DTs, and the high-ground warp-in builds are now not available, so he'll have to go with a warp prism build instead. In other words, removal of high-ground warp-in increases the likelihood that a warp prism will be used. As for "disturbing the metagame," this change is planned for the HotS expansion. Compared to introducing NEW UNITS, adjusting pylon warp-in mechanics will barely nuzzle the metagame. That's like complaining your roommate's breathing is disturbing your sleep while 100-decibel party rock is blasting outside. I don't mean to intrude, but I don't think that logic is quite right. Yes each statement you made was correct, but I think you're looking at it backwards. When we confine ourselves to a specific strategy (DT rush in this case), you're right in assuming that the probability of MC choosing to use a warp prism is higher. The problem arises, however, when you consider a couple additional factors. First, while warp prism use might be higher for certain strategies that require warping in on the enemy high ground, the viability of that strategy as a whole has decreased - why attempt to warp DTs on the high ground when it's so much harder to do due to this potential change? So while the warp prism might be used more within the confines of this strategy, the overall use of this strategy ought to decline. Second, because the warp prism is of a different tech than some of the "gimmicky" strategies, it is not entirely reasonable to say that people will simply switch from using x strategy with low-to-high ground warp ins over to using that same strategy with a warp prism. The timings or ways to achieve the strategy would have to be different because of the increase in cost to effectively utilize said strategy. So to simply say that the warp prism will be used more simply as a substitute for this change is rather ignorant. In doing so, you ignore the additional costs of the substitution that inherently weaken the strength and timing of the attack. Will the warp prism, however, see more use simply due to development in strategies now that low-to-high ground warp ins no longer work? Possibly. But within the confines of specific gimmicky builds, not as likely. That's true, the overall use of DT rushes should decline (although calling it "ignorant" is a little strong; estimating the effect on the full scope of Protoss strategy is a big project, so its pretty reasonable to estimate the use of DT plays as constant, even if its obviously not necessarily true). So within DT plays, warp prism plays increase. DT plays overall decrease, which offsets the increased use at least partially. But the point was, the change is connected to warp prism usage, because the disappearance of certain strategies affects the whole game space. Tyrant0 was claiming that they operate completely independently, which is obviously false. This is not to say that every single old strategy that relied on low ground powering high ground can simply be done now with a warp prism. But assuming that there is some underlying strategic need to access the high ground without running up the ramp sometimes, the warp prism now has exclusive power to do that, so obviously use of the warp prism will be affected.
Obviously false to you and you alone. Disregarding the specific timings and instead painting everything with broad generalities that ignore details to appear like they're related in anyway, doesn't make you correct. Nor is your DT comparison the least bit relevant in any form. Like, if you want, I could waste my time and explain to you indepth why you're wrong, which basically requires teaching common logic in SC2.
|
On June 21 2012 13:38 padfoota wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2012 13:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:
I find this incredibly disappointing. Blizzard is so focused on balance that they consistently kill creativity, variety, and dynamic gameplay in SC2. You mean like, limiting the usage of well known, anyone can do strategy and promoting more complicated, creative and dynamic strategies such as using the warpprism more? What do you plan to do with a low ground pylon powering high ground that cannot be achieved with a warpprism?
Not sure if people are bad or just dont understand, but the pylon change goes far beyond the scope of just 4gate and cannoning. It can be used for allins or harass for all matchups.
example 1 >harass: having a pylon up against a zergs main (taldarim best example) while you're void ray/pheonix harassing, and flying a pheonix over to gain vision to warp in zealots
example 2 >allin: warping in directly into terran main base with zealots or stalkers if you choose to go for a blink allin.
There are so many possibilities and scenarios that WILL lead to "complicated, creative and dynamic strategies" that should NOT force you into going into robo for warp prisms.
|
I don't want to see builds like HerO's 1gate expand -> hallucinaton -> high ground DT warp in vs Taeja die. This change kills too many options for creativity IMO
|
I love the irony in how blizzard took this away to make toss less gimmicky, yet gave them the most gimmicky units ever. That's blizzard logic for you ladies and gentlemen.
|
This is a very big change. I think it's really hard to speculate how it will affect the game with all the other additions. With Oracles cloaking early, early mass recall, etc. The pylon change may not end up ruining Protoss cheese/all-ins with the additions of new units. That being said, the pylon change might be really stupid, especially considering PvP will be fairly cheese proof with the new mothership core essentially shutting down early cannons and proxy 2gates. Again, it's hard to speculate with any sort of accuracy.
Two thoughts though.
1) As others have said, why limit the number of creative/complex strategies one can add? The more options in the game, the better.
2) It seems like this can be reverted pretty easily in a patch. This change may not need to be permanent. That being said I wish they would try leaving high ground warpins in first before nerfing pylons again. This is a whole new game with a lot of brand new stuff, high ground warp-ins might be way less effective in HoTS.
|
the question is not "does it enable complicated, creative, and dynamic strategies," but rather "does it make the OVERALL GAME more complicated, creative and dynamic." Since macro games are arguably more complicated, creative and dynamic than cheeses*, blizzard wants to invalidate some of the more extreme cheeses.
*cheeses involve a predetermined, exact build and almost zero deviation from that in terms of tech/econ/army timings, usually little scouting and a lot of emphasis on mind games (as much mind game-emphasis as macro games, if not a bit less), and unilateral macro (you only make units, because the attack is designed to ruin you completely if it fails) with a ton of micro, whereas macro games involve a usually predetermined build early and then very dynamic tech/econ/army decisions throughout the rest of the game, tons of scouting and mind games, and multilateral macro/macro decisions. Note that I am not saying that cheeses are less fun or easier than macro games, they may or may not be, but blizzard is trying to make a good spectator sport, and the more complicated, creative and dynamic gameplay is better for a spectator strategy sport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
