On June 21 2012 14:25 ScoSteSal wrote: 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.
But it does encourage creativity and dynamism to have cheese in the game. The feeling for SC2 was supposed to be that you can die at any point in the game. This has been scaled back to an extent, but a cheese-free game would be quite boring. At any rate, good map design (neutral depot blizz...) can stop 100% of unstoppable cannon rushes. And if cheese is less complicated, then should there be a 10 minute no shooting rule? I really don't get the logic here. If toss loses most of its early game allins, then either it needs to have a much stronger late-game (if P never wins early games, either it loses more often than wins, or wins more in mid/late game), or the other races must lose most of their cheese. Again, things get really boring when there's no action until 10 minutes.
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.
DT example is irrelevant? Please, teach me your esoteric starcraft logics. If I want to go DTs, and I'd like to warp them into the main, but I can't without a warp prism. Doesn't that make me more likely to use a warp prism than if there were two ways to warp into the main?
And don't try to tell me that DT plays with warp prism don't exist. Parting used one against Thorzain recently in Group D Ro32 (knocking him out, in fact). "Specific timings" won't change what is true even from "broad generalities:" a DT warp-in to the main is an effective strategy which Protoss likes to use to seriously damage opponents who might not have detection just yet. As of the current state of the game, that can be done in two ways. If one of those is removed, Protoss players who would have liked to use that way will have to either a) use the other way, or b) use another strategy entirely. And since out of thousands of Protoss players some will choose a) and some will choose b), that makes a non-zero number of Protoss who are using warp prisms when they previously would not.
As to being obviously false to me and me "alone," I think that statement is also obviously false — to both of us. I'm sure if you just look through this thread you'll find a few other people who think warp prisms will be used more often as a result of this change. I suppose you were being hyperbolic, but it's worth pointing out the falsehood of that claim.
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: [quote]
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.
DT example is irrelevant? Please, teach me your esoteric starcraft logics. If I want to go DTs, and I'd like to warp them into the main, but I can't without a warp prism. Doesn't that make me more likely to use a warp prism than if there were two ways to warp into the main?
No, again, some people actually just don't understand. A halluc DT warp in is significantly cheaper and is significantly faster than a prism drop DT, at the pro level, this ABSOLUTELY matters. You can't just make a warp prism, it doesn't work like that, or it would be a completely different build.
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: [quote]
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.
DT example is irrelevant? Please, teach me your esoteric starcraft logics. If I want to go DTs, and I'd like to warp them into the main, but I can't without a warp prism. Doesn't that make me more likely to use a warp prism than if there were two ways to warp into the main?
No, again, some people actually just don't understand. A halluc DT warp in is significantly cheaper and is significantly faster than a prism drop DT, at the pro level, this ABSOLUTELY matters. You can't just make a warp prism, it doesn't work like that, or it would be a completely different build.
My claim from the beginning was just that removing high-ground warp-in from pylons would increase warp prism play. The example I gave was going DTs: If there are two ways to warp into the main, I might do either, but if warp prism is the only way, I have to do that. So warp prism usage is increased.
Obviously the warp prism and robo cost time and money; otherwise no one would use the hallucination+high ground warp-in builds right now. As an analogy, if I can buy a meal for $10 or a meal for $15, I might prefer the $10 meal. But if I'm told that the $10 meal is no longer available, and the $15 meal is my only option, then I am much more likely to buy the $15 meal. So sales will increase for the $15 meal.
I never said this change wasn't a nerf to DT play; it is. I never said this change was balanced, or warranted, or a good idea; those issues are irrelevant to my claim. I only said that warp prisms are more likely to be used as a result of this change, which I'm fairly certain doesn't contradict anything you said.
Part of me wants to say good riddance, but then I dont see it as being that big of an issue now, and this wont change much even if it is an issue.. Protoss warp prisons will still make this warp-in strat good.
Personally I think about this one in a "Why bother getting angry about the change?" way because the new units in HotS are sooo "cheesy" that it almost cant be described in words.
A flying Protoss unit which can lock down EVERY mineral patch on an expansion and it only requires a Stargate. This means you can have it early enough for the Zerg to not have any significant countermeasures at the time ... at ALL his bases. Terrans would have to have his Marines at the back of his bases instead of guarding the front, which is generally bad for defense. Resource gathering is quite critical around the 8-12 minute mark and this can easily be interfered with without any reasonable countermeasures. Not even "build a bunch of queens" will help, because the spell is an instant cast and the flyer cant be shot down that fast. If Blizzard changes that and creates a paper airplane it becomes useless instead; at only 100 total health it is close to being a paper airplane though and I feel the flyer armor upgrades will become more useful. (*1)
The usefulness of the Oracle doesnt stop there, but it can stay useful as a mobile cloaking unit and this forces every opponent to get early detection for his army. In combination with the Mothership Core even the energy of the Oracle doesnt seem that big of a problem. Since you can recharge the energy on several units you can always have Sentries with full energy and thus even the cost for the Oracle (200 gas) wont be a problem. You dont need as many Sentries!
The Mothership Core can recharge energy to ALL units close by for a tiny amount of its own energy. Early Forecefield spam wont be a problem anymore ... yay? (*2)
Zerg arent free of their own "cheesy new units" either. They get a flying unit which can recharge its energy actively as well and has a "grab an enemy unit and pull it to you" spell which totally ruins any "high tech unit play". (*3) In addition to this the same unit gets an ability which eliminates the capacity of the units able to counter it (Marines, Stalkers, Hydras) by reducing their range to 1. (*4)
In addition Zerg also get yet another unit which creates "free target dummies" for other races.(*5) The Locusts are even ranged units and thus can actually support / dont interfere with Zerglings!
On June 21 2012 14:37 Mordanis wrote: But it does encourage creativity and dynamism to have cheese in the game. The feeling for SC2 was supposed to be that you can die at any point in the game.
As described above you will get plenty of "cheese"(*6) to look forward to in HotS and Protoss are using Warp Prisms more and more nowadays anyway, so the lost ability for the Pylon wont be such a big change.
For my part I would say the game design is going down a terrible route. Too many skills are uncounterable and mess with the battlefield, thus any strategic gameplay is removed from the game. Too many units are super-powerful and need you to know they are coming ... which means scouting ... which is somewhat hard for someone early on against Protoss due to their ability to hide buildings everywhere on a big map. Oh and with the Mothership Core you can just build a hidden base in a corner and just teleport over and recall your army to defend it.
(*1) The Entomb ability is a perfect counter for the Terran MULE and even though the cocoons can be actively destroyed the Terrans have no defensive anti-ground structures which cost no supply. Well there is the Planetary Fortress which would be great at killing this quickly, but basically you have to surround your minerals with turrets even before you drop a single MULE. That isnt what I would consider as "balanced". If the Protoss wants to he can even suicide in the Oracle to neutralize 3-4 MULEs being dropped at a 3rd/4th base and call it a win. (*2) I'd rather say: booooooriiinnngg! (*3) Really an extremely dumb idea to have a "perfect uncounterable counter" to all big and expensive units. (*4) Taken alone the abilities might not be so bad, but together? Who is coming up with these stupid and "uncounterable" spells? (*5) Oh how those captains of the Protoss Carriers must feel cheated, because they still have to pay for their Interceptors while the Broodlings from Broodlords and now the spawned Locusts from the Swarm Host. (*6) Cheese - in my broad definition - is anything which is very very hard or even not at all counterable. Thus the "Abduct" ability of the Viper falls into this category as much as the "Entomb" ability of the Oracle. The free Locusts from the Swarm Host can be used to counter siege Tanks for free and thus are also appliccable.
On June 21 2012 16:43 monkybone wrote: EDIT: This thread is actually about the pylon change I realize. Better stick to topic.
My rather long post was in reply to Mordanis who "complained" about this type of "cheese" being removed from the game.
I dont know if anyone mentioned already that it will also affect the defense of Protoss by being unable to power a building on high ground by a pylon on low ground ... oh and this also disables cannon rushes where you build the pylon on the low ground to require Zerglings to decide between killing the cannon on high ground or the pylon on low ground. All in all I would say it is an unnecessary change.
Lets look at it from a "scientific" (logical) perspective: If "energy" is affected by a difference in elevation we can safely assume the energy field created by a pylon is 2-dimensional and flat and horizontal. Since this is the case I would further assume that all Protoss buildings are as high as a cliff ... since they can still be powered by a pylon on high ground while being on low ground themselves. The graphics of the cannon at least should be changed to incorporate this ... oh and they all should be considered LOS blockers (as cliffs are). Its either this OR pylons on high ground dont provide power to low ground buildings either. Sure I am making fun of this decision now, but Blizzard is basically asking for it by introducing such stupid things.
I do agree with Rabiator in most of his facts. Here is a video from Husky, where he says his first impressions.
Sorry if it has already been posted.
The Oracle seems very dumb. Even the Cloak could be a really big problem for Zerg if it is combined with a delayed big gateway push. Entomb is really bad. I like it how Husky says that this ability does not allow you to mine from your own main base e.g. And it is somehow dumb to think of a PvP where no one can come out of his base because of the Oracle.
The Tempest is another unit which does not need any micro. So why keep it? You just have to park one of these behind your opponents base and destroy it. In my opinion tha siege range should be the highest range in game as it was before.
The Mothership core seems to be ok but I do not understand the ability which fills up the energy of your units. How does this work? Because the way Rabiator explains it it would be able to spam Force Fields or Storms and in my opinion this would be too strong.
On the Zerg side I agree with Husky that I do not like that fact that Blizzard adds a new ability which makes it unable for the enemy to counter it with micro. Blinding Cloud seems to be less effective since it only effects biological units and costs 125 energy. I would love to see it changed back with the 75 energy cost and effect on all units. Then the abduct ability should be replaced or changed to an upgrade (like neural parasite) with energy costs of 125. The consume seems to me similar to the Mothershipcore ability so you can spam Blinding Cloud or Abduct - not that nice. Would be way cooler if you have to pay more than just some minerals for new energy. How about larvae? Like it was in SC:BW?
The Swarm Host looks really cool but I do not like the fact that he spawns free units. Of course with these units you can damage your opponent by make him using Force Fields or to force the cool down of tanks. But on the other hand these units are more units that block my Zerglings and Ultras and other units and they are cannon fodder for aoe dmg (Tanks, Colossus, Storm,...). So why not just add the Lurker? Please Blizzard do this. This would not only give the Zerg a great siege unit but also a unit that is evolved from the Hydralisk -> more Hydralisk play.
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: [quote]
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.
DT example is irrelevant? Please, teach me your esoteric starcraft logics. If I want to go DTs, and I'd like to warp them into the main, but I can't without a warp prism. Doesn't that make me more likely to use a warp prism than if there were two ways to warp into the main?
And don't try to tell me that DT plays with warp prism don't exist. Parting used one against Thorzain recently in Group D Ro32 (knocking him out, in fact). "Specific timings" won't change what is true even from "broad generalities:" a DT warp-in to the main is an effective strategy which Protoss likes to use to seriously damage opponents who might not have detection just yet. As of the current state of the game, that can be done in two ways. If one of those is removed, Protoss players who would have liked to use that way will have to either a) use the other way, or b) use another strategy entirely. And since out of thousands of Protoss players some will choose a) and some will choose b), that makes a non-zero number of Protoss who are using warp prisms when they previously would not.
As to being obviously false to me and me "alone," I think that statement is also obviously false — to both of us. I'm sure if you just look through this thread you'll find a few other people who think warp prisms will be used more often as a result of this change. I suppose you were being hyperbolic, but it's worth pointing out the falsehood of that claim.
First of all you've literally just spun a bullshit example of a PvZ where P actually tries to get a low ground DT warp in into a zerg's main. REALLY fast DT's off an FFE can warp in at 8~ish. That doesn't include at all the fact that you require vision up the main to even warp, which will add on an entire minute of a fully chronoboosted hallucination, which will come out significantly faster than anything out of stargate/robo. So the time is now 9:10~. The main issue with the low ground pylon is that it's easily scouted, most people check for it, and without the units generally accompanied by most all-ins that utilize low ground pylon warp-ins, you have no way of defending it -- subsequently meaning you're BASICALLY hoping your opponent doesn't scout it. Your chances with low ground pylons are SLIGHTLY better than simply placing a pylon INSIDE of his base, or doing what 99% of other players do and have it nearby and just running up the ramp of a zerg since nothing dictates a DT is less effective when he isn't warped into the main. Unless the zerg knows and has a spore at his natural. But then your plan was doomed from the start.
And that doesn't even begin to analyze the actual match-up, where zerg has dozens of overlords overlooking all of his bases and traveling outwards across the edges of his main: where these hidden, undefended pylons lay. The fact that every zerg will meticulously scout all possible pylon locations with his first lings, and any possible location that a scouting probe might disappear to. That just spreading creep outwards from the natural will cover the edges of your base on most maps and actually just reveal/block the pylon location before you even reach your timing. The fact that unless you try to hide the pylon/scouting probe and hope either remain entirely unscouted for the 3-4 minutes between when DT's will actually warp, the zerg will have 2-4 zerglings planted outside your wall-in to stop any probe from trying. And if you move out with units so far past a tower to defend the probe, the zerg will both see and react.
And none of this even accounts for how much later you'd get DT's into a main using a warp prism, which by that point the zerg has a lair and is churning out roaches by the dozens. Removing the faster, non-existent alternative scenario in PvZ doesn't increase the strength of the latter. What stops people? Timings. You have absolutely no knowledge of them. When people randomly decide to churn out incorrect bullshit, they should be corrected. No amount of incorrect people makes it correct. It sucks because no matter how much you explain, they don't understand the game at your level and actually just theorycraft how they think it goes because they actually have 0 idea as to anything that you're talking about. Making up examples to cover for the lack of any knowledge of how this mechanic would affect prisms just makes it even more trivial seeing how much you'd like to win an argument on TL. To the point my demeanor is rapidly shifting from argumentative to annoyed.
I hate this change and I hate the pylon radius change as well. What did it even fix? Was people having trouble with 4 gate two years after the game's release? Really? They just make it more frustrating to play as toss and removes options, and has almost nothing to do with balance, just making it harder to play... But ok, why not introduce a limit to how far terran building and that makes creepspread take longer...
I don't mind removing high-ground warp-in from pylons if in exchange for disable Terran lift off ability. Terran lift off ability make it a "sure win" when come to base race situation.
People who don't like it - because it removes a ton of variety (esp the early/mid) from the game.
People who do like it - because they only like "macro" games (aka neither player attempts to be that aggressive until they have 2/3/4 additional bases/lots of supply/all their tech or whatever).
The reason the former option is really what everyone should prefer is because the latter people are impossible to please. Blizzard talked about why they left 6 pool in SC2, and didn't make the pool require a second overlord or somesuch and the reason was this. If you take out 6 pool, and require 7 drones for a pool, then 7 pool becomes the new thing complained about as being "cheesy". If you make it require 8 drones, then 8 pool is "cheesy". If it requires two overlords, then some sort of 10 pool is "cheesy". Or 11 pool. Or 22 pool. Etc. Repeat ad infinitum.
There has to be an earliest possible attack timing at some point, and the "macro" players will not be happy with it whenever it is. However, for everyone who doesn't feel they need to win every game with their "superior macro skill", delaying the earliest possible initial attack just means sitting through a boring and uneventful period at the start of EVERY game until that point of initial aggression is reached.
Edit: In addition, delaying the initial attack timing makes the skill gap between the various "macro" style players decrease, because all the ones who aren't good enough to best preserve their economy advantage while dealing with a "cheesy" opening from their opponent no longer have that edge over the macro players who cannot.
People are really overestimating the oracles power at harassing, you can destroy the goo covering the patches, actually insanely quickly... At most you'll lose like 20 seconds of mining time if you are strong enough, and since you lose no SC2's your economic hit isn't nearly as hard.
So... your argument is that DTs are just shitty in PvZ, so since no one builds them anyway, no one will build them with a warp prism either? Well that's simply false. People build DTs in PvZ all the time, although recently the metagame doesn't favor them too much. As for the timings, you criticize me for not knowing timings and then 1) don't give a timing for DTs with a warp prism, and 2) suggest that lair would be out by the time a warp prism DT drop would hit. For your information, a warp prism DT push off an FFE hits before ten minutes. A two-base zerg gets lair around 8:30-9:00, but PvZ the zerg is generally on 3-base, so lair doesn't come out until 10:30-11:00 at the earliest. A good zerg will have spore crawlers if they suspect DTs or stargate, but a bad zerg won't have spore crawlers in time for the DTs, which is why DTs are and always have been a high-risk, high-reward play.
But since nobody goes DTs these days, let's skip that matchup. Protosses definitely build DTs in PvT. And I know that PvT there's a lot of value in getting them in the opponent's main, rather than walking it up the front where there is more likely to be a wall-off/turret. And I know that Protoss would like to get the DT out as fast as possible, so sometimes a low-ground hallucination pylon would be a strong choice.
Now we're not necessarily talking a fast expand, so the DTs can come out faster (~6:30). With hallucination, let's delay that a minute and a half (~8:00) Even if we're talking a 1gate expo or something similar, the gateway isn't delayed as much as by an FFE so DTs are faster, but we'll call that a 9:00 timing. Because warp prism takes longer than hallucination, the DTs will come out later, but still before ten minutes.
So there are viable DT builds, including a hallucination+pylon warp-in to the main, and a warp prism DT drop/warp-in. Now if those involving the high-ground warp-in are removed, the players who would have done those strategies are forced to either switch to the warp prism DT build, or switch to another strategy entirely. Since at least some of them will choose a later, more expensive DT build rather than no DT's at all, the warp prism sees more use.
Good change.. finally puts an end to pathetic pylonwalloff/cannoning. Tbh this felt long time overdue to me, since most things dont with that were somehow exploits.. i know tosses wont like it, but as a terran i know how deal with nerfs and they will adapt too.
EPT
