EPTHonestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is".
Balance Patch Coming Soon - July 22 - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
Honestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is". | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9417 Posts
Honestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is". I think it's mainly problematic against zerg because toss has a lot of timings that are just really damn hard to deal with and not fun to play against at all. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On July 24 2014 17:59 Hider wrote: That's pretty interesting actually. So when I look at your suggested ability, it would seem to me to be a requirement that the enemey should have a realistic chance of escaping with his units that is being targetted by PA + at the same time it should be something that is actually practical and efficient to do. It shouldn't just be a theoretical type of micro that noone ever does. From my experience, counterbased action can be hard to create in theory. Rather, it's more about going into the Starcraft-editor and refining stats over and over untill you have satifisied two conditions; 1) A penalty to the enemy for remicro'ing 2) Made it practical/efficient to remicro So I can't really tell whether it's gonna work or not. But if I was going to remove one protoss unit from LOTV, it would probably have to be the Void Ray. While I admit it can be relatively interesting if it get's a good spell, the unit it self is very difficult to make micro-intensive. The Tempest on the other hand can at leat get a better moving shot which the control of that unit feel better. And if you come up with a super interesting ability, then the Tempest (or another unit) could get that as well. The Void Ray doesn't have to exist. Well, yes I agree that it is hard to tell if it would work or not just by looking on paper. It should definitely be tested and tweaked in editor. Counterbased micro might be hard to achieve for some units that are just slower than VR's - broodlords come to mind. On the other hand I believe that it would be still easier for zerg's to micro against reworked VR than tempest in it's current form which counterd BL/infestor strat too much. Of course it's not like I want to come back to glorious days of bl/infestor but It would be nice to see some diversity, bl/infestors from time to time in PvZ instead of SH...  What you say about control of tempest vs VR it's true. Tempest are able to be micro'ed in traditional way: shoot - reposition - shoot. However their attack and movement speed is so slow that for me at least doesn't feel nice to micro them in other way that just target fire. Also there is already a lot similar micro (shoot - reposition/move - shoot) in sc2 that I would like to see something new. and btw I always liked the model and animations of VR  | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't get why all people shit on warpgate. Sure it can sometimes be frustrating to play against, but this is what makes Protoss production different and interesting. When I first saw casts of the game -didn't play it at the time- and caught a glimpse of this ability, I was like : "Teleporting units ! That's fucking awesome !" and this is part of why I chose to play Protoss (this plus the fact you don't lose a worker, temporarily or definitely, when building a structure) at a time when Protoss was really not considered overpowered at all. Honestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is". It makes the macro "unequal", meaning toss produces units faster than their counterparts. If the macro is this unequal then its probably hard to make zealot/stalker have a pretty solid strength versus their counterparts: Terran: marine. marauder, medivac etc zerg: roach, zergling, hydra etc So these races then either needs a super macro themself or some other unit that are really strong initself, like the widowmine. I want the warpgate gone from a normal macro protoss, perhaps add it to another unit for a spell or something so it can still be used but more in a strategic way~ Now the counterparts doesnt need a super strength unit or a supermacro themself so imo this would make it easier to have a micro war + a macro war against each other. If you look at protoss, they always get their tier3 units because they are so strong, in a nutshell it means gateway units cant hold in strength over the curse of the game so it never ever becomes a macrowar between x race vs protoss. Now if it becomes here a macrowar and microwar, then imo its easier to make better unit interactions against each other. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't get why all people shit on warpgate. Sure it can sometimes be frustrating to play against, but this is what makes Protoss production different and interesting. When I first saw casts of the game -didn't play it at the time- and caught a glimpse of this ability, I was like : "Teleporting units ! That's fucking awesome !" and this is part of why I chose to play Protoss (this plus the fact you don't lose a worker, temporarily or definitely, when building a structure) at a time when Protoss was really not considered overpowered at all. Honestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is". People shit on warpgate because it denies the "defender" advantage and as a result of this mechanic protoss has shitty tier 1 units for the biggest price. Where is the thought that Protoss has the most expensive units and the strongest for the price?!(gone, because WG) Also "we cannot hold" phrase... dafuq? ... OK, that's OT a little And the biggest problem - it is not a strategical decision, it is just an upgrade decision where - WG is just better, that's it. Which is wrong. There should be some disadvantage in using WG over GW, not otherwise. Then if you are 3/4gating the defender who doesn't use WG has an advantage... now think about it... then we can reduce nexus overcharge, buff wg units(so you can defend against phoenix/muta harass(possibly +light dmg for stalkers)) etc. So MSC can be redesigned(still a problem with retreating in PvZ with the army without recall, but we can return the recall to WoL status - therefore MSC stays at home with awesome time warp  ). But noone from Blizzard wants to play with correct settings of WG/GW, so we have just one correct decision. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Squat
Sweden7978 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:32 [PkF] Wire wrote: I don't get why all people shit on warpgate. Sure it can sometimes be frustrating to play against, but this is what makes Protoss production different and interesting. When I first saw casts of the game -didn't play it at the time- and caught a glimpse of this ability, I was like : "Teleporting units ! That's fucking awesome !" and this is part of why I chose to play Protoss (this plus the fact you don't lose a worker, temporarily or definitely, when building a structure) at a time when Protoss was really not considered overpowered at all. Honestly I don't see a lot of issues with warpgate nowadays. Introducing a gateway/warpgate duality that's not just "warpgate is better, what are you thinking ?" could be interesting but it needs to be because it introduces some interesting ideas or dynamics rather than just "huh, warpgates so broken, need to make toss noobs think". I haven't seen such ideas yet and always feel the underlying statement is "I hate playing against warpin rounds, so let's make it less good than it is". Mostly because it creates a situation where the defender's advantage is almost irrelevant, and missing or catching a probe can mean the difference between a safe third and just straight up dying. It makes the game feel random and arbitrary. It also means the basic protoss units have to be pretty bad for their cost since being able to warp in something like BW quality zealots and dragoons would be completely broken, further compounding the extreme dependence protoss has on their big scary gas units. I think there should be some kind of trade-off, there should be some incentive to use regular gateways over warp gates. Maybe templars and sentries coming from gateways can start with extra energy, and if you warp them in they start with very low or even no energy. Maybe try limiting warp ins by making each round increase the cooldown until you stop warping in to let it "cool down" for a minute or something. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:45 SatedSC2 wrote: Marine build-time is 25s. Zergling build-time is 24s. Zealot cool-down after a warp-in is 28s. Walking distance Two units the first round What i meant is either its a faster/better macro than their counterpart or slower Like if its different strength in the macro(either better or worse), then it doesnt become a war. | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
If all races produced units like Terran does then this game would be a lot more boring. Why? Isnt this a bit to much black and white thinking? If the units behave differently with really great unitinteractions i take that every day in the way over "zealots cant micro" "stalkers suck" | ||
|
[PkF] Wire
France24238 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4139 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:45 SatedSC2 wrote: Marine build-time is 25s. Zergling build-time is 24s. Zealot cool-down after a warp-in is 28s. Marine 25s + rally, ling 24s + rally, zealot 5s norally. That's the thing with warpgates neglecting defenders advantage, especially at 200/200. | ||
|
lifecanwait
96 Posts
★ ° ☾ ☆ ¸. ¸ ★ :. . • ○ ° ★ . * . . ¸ . ° ¸. * ● ¸ . ...somewhere ° ☾ ° ¸. ● ¸ . ★ ° :. . • ° . * :. .in a parallel universe* ● ¸ ° ☾ °☆ . * ¸. ★ ★ ° . . . ☾ °☆ . * ● ¸ ..Protoss...° ☾ ★ °● ¸ . ★ ° :. . • ○ ° ★ . * Isn't OP ★ ° ☾ ☆ ¸. But the change itself seems strange to me. It doesn't change the strong protoss armies in a huge way. Ok lategame is affected a little bit (storm/colossi/timewarp combo), but the firepower itself wasn't reduced by much and was very strong itself in combination with forcefields, even before timewarp was invented. User was warned for this post | ||
|
SatedSC2
England3012 Posts
| ||
|
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On July 24 2014 19:09 [PkF] Wire wrote: It's probably because I didn't play BW, but to me warpgate is so much of Protoss identity I'd feel betrayed if I couldn't warp in units any more. When I talk about SCII with friends or family and explain them the different races and try to describe them in a nutshell, the ability to teleport units anywhere you have vision of the battlefield is always one of the things I speak about first and I can tell how awesome it sounds. So I'm pretty adamant the game should be balanced around warpgate for the races to keep their distinctive traits, but that's probably just a matter of taste ! I understand and ypu can! It just requires wg to have a drawback (warp in with no shields, more expensive, takes longer, spells on cooldown, take extra damage while warping, etcetera) just so getting wg is an actual decision and gateways are better. Thua, defenders advantage - better pvp - ff/po can get nerfed - tons of options open up - game more fun and diverse. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On July 24 2014 18:59 Foxxan wrote: Why? Isnt this a bit to much black and white thinking? If the units behave differently with really great unitinteractions i take that every day in the way over "zealots cant micro" "stalkers suck" But can't you just have both? It's not really different creating fun unit interactions for a unit relations like 2:1 than it is for 1:1. At the end of the day, you are never going to have "perfect fights", in which the armies do have the perfect cost/supply/power-even unitcounts anyways, so your interactions have to be created robust against "number imbalances" anyways. Also, people that say stalkers suck have no clue about the game. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9417 Posts
I think there should be some kind of trade-off, there should be some incentive to use regular gateways over warp gates. Maybe templars and sentries coming from gateways can start with extra energy, and if you warp them in they start with very low or even no energy. Maybe try limiting warp ins by making each round increase the cooldown until you stop warping in to let it "cool down" for a minute or something. So I kinda see this as the "naive" game-designers dream. This dream consist of wanting to create tradeoffs everywhere in order to create as many decisions as possible into the game. The warptech/gateway-tradeoff reminds me a lot of the debate when Speedmedivacs were introduced as people wanted to have a cost to the usage of the speed-boost. The reason why I called this line of thought naive is that it ignores whether the added "decisions" makes gameplay more fun over the longer haul. The main question that should be asked for Speedmedivac was whether restricting terrans from using the speedboost would make the game more fun to play. I always spoke against that as would be a nerf to dropplay + a nerf to pickup units after a battle and then escape them. Overall that would lead to more passive play. And while making Starcraft more decisions-based (at the expense of mechanics/gameplay) perhaps can make the game interesting for a week or two, the optimal usage of the "decisions"-based abilities will be figured out quite quickly and then the game will be quite unfun. So add decision into the game if it will create new dynamics and interactions that have potential to be fun even when the game is figured out. But don't add decisions at the exepense of gameplay. The parallels I draw here to warptech and gateway is that I do not think it's fun at all to switch back and fourth between WG and Gateways. If that really was the case every protoss player in Starbow would just do that all the time. But noone really seems to be willing to learn that even though it theoretically has clear advantages. Further, it doesn't even add any unique mechanics to protoss. Protoss already has the decision behind a normal productionfacilitiy in the Robo and the "instant" production facility in WG. WG's doesn't need to have a "normal" option as well - That will just make it overlap more with the way Robotics Facility works. Rather, I suggest to make the Robo cheaper and then create a real decision behind how many robo's you want relative to warpgates. While this suggestion mainly is due to gameplay reasons, it does also create a more interesting tradeoff as well. | ||
|
Foxxan
Sweden3427 Posts
On July 24 2014 19:16 Big J wrote: But can't you just have both? It's not really different creating fun unit interactions for a unit relations like 2:1 than it is for 1:1. At the end of the day, you are never going to have "perfect fights", in which the armies do have the perfect cost/supply/power-even unitcounts anyways, so your interactions have to be created robust against "number imbalances" anyways. Also, people that say stalkers suck have no clue about the game. Ye? Sure. But getting x and y vs x and y beeing "equal" would be easier. Getting it 1:1 in one versus one is probably hard, yes. But getting 1:1 in two versus two or three versus two etc is probably easier. Atleast closer with "equal" macro against each other. My opinion is that stalker is a pretty weak unit, yes. I know about this supply effecient versus zerg but that comes later, much later. Versus terran however, he is plain bad overall in fighting power. And i cant care less if stalker is strong later in the game, its still a shitty boring unit for me with his boring blink. Yes, my opinion, boring ability yet its a strong ability initself. Also, you truly believe a warpgate like this is possible to get it "right"? Two units the first round, no walking distance, can morph from a pylon which can be built anywhere. 28sec cooldown on the zealot+5sec warpin. CB can reduce the cooldown by 10sec~ . Maybe you are clueless about the game? | ||
| ||
