|
On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss.
Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense.
Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units.
|
On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units.
The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots.
The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units.
|
On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units.
Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv.
|
Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units?
Your looking at this the wrong way. What you are doing is looking at Robo units and associating that with Immortal + Collosus --> Boring --> Bad solution.
Instead, the correct approach is to look at it this way: Robo units --> Relies on standard production--> Higher defenders advantage --> Therefore is more cost-effective than warpgate units --> Could be fun with well-designed units.
|
On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv.
Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time?
The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy.
If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now.
|
On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units.
Once again - any of those suggestions hardly relate to gateway all-ins in the first place. None of those would buff any form of gateway all-in with the exception of a blink stalker all-in, and given warp-in time coupled with double damage are in effect, you could hardly argue even that will be any stronger than prior.
On November 28 2014 02:40 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +
Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units?
Your looking at this the wrong way. What you are doing is looking at Robo units and associating that with Immortal + Collosus --> Boring --> Bad solution. Instead, the correct approach is to look at it this way: Robo units --> Relies on standard production--> Higher defenders advantage --> Therefore is more cost-effective than warpgate units --> Could be fun with well-designed units.
It has nothing to do with boring. It has to do with dependence. The reason BW did so well with all 3 races - the higher tech were ancillary support. Same with how Terran and Zerg work in SC2. Protoss is the only exception, because of total reliance on higher tech units and inability of the lower tier units to fight on their own.
|
On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy. If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now.
The problem people have complained about for a long time is how Warpgate has no disadvantage; It is frontloaded and units spawn where you want them to.
There's been discussion about making the gateway more efficient, warping in without shield/energy, etcetera.
I hope something gets done about it.
|
On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy. If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now.
Gateways were originally not intended to even be in the game according to Dustin Browder. It was just too hard to balance 2min warp-ins he said, so they made Warp Gate an upgrade. Everything about the gateway (like production times, it's mere existance, etc) is probably just an easy balancing solution.
|
On November 28 2014 02:14 -Celestial- wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 01:48 TedCruz2016 wrote:On November 28 2014 01:07 Freeborn wrote:
The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution? It's just a counter-tank and counter-roach unit, nothing more. Poor design. Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge... I think the problem is that zealot's and stalker's upgrades in twilight council come too late, much much later than T's stimpack and Z's zergling speed. Without the aid of sentry and MSC, it's very hard for P to push back early attacks and harassments. When you have to warp in a couple of sentries to help, the gas cost inevitably slows down your tech. Largely because in the case of the Stalker, as I mentioned earlier, faster blink just means overpowered blink all-ins. In the case of the Zealot I'm pretty sure its because Stim MM vs Gateway units without charge is just about holdable through the use of force fields, highly defensive positioning and rushing to AoE; largely because Zealots are nice and tanky so you can keep them alive. Zerg things like speedlings are also holdable for the same reason. But the flip side isn't true, Terran and Zerg badly need to be able to run away from Zealots to a certain extent because Zealots are hard to take down and deal a boatload of damage if they can get into range; which means T and Z need those speed upgrades to finish first.
Hard to balance isn't it. Zealots and stalkers have no chance to defeat MM or speedlings in equal supply, but with FF they just need to fight half of the enemy while the other half is zoned out. It's for a reason that P's the only race that's got such a supportive caster in early game, and that's not enough, as MSC is added to help defend the bases in HotS and it's criticized as one of the poorest designed units.
|
It has nothing to do with boring. It has to do with dependence. The reason BW did so well with all 3 races
BW toss had standard production units. Warpgate is all about "either you commit or you turtle".
The reason BW did so well with all 3 races - the higher tech were ancillary support.
BW PvZ was also quite dependant on AOE units, so your incorrect here. The only real differences are (a) unit deisgn, (b) weaker macromechanic relative to zerg/terran and (c) no reliance on instant warp in anywhere on the map.
|
On November 28 2014 03:00 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy. If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now. The problem people have complained about for a long time is how Warpgate has no disadvantage; It is frontloaded and units spawn where you want them to. There's been discussion about making the gateway more efficient, warping in without shield/energy, etcetera. I hope something gets done about it.
Yeah, well I always see people suggest that Gateway should be superior in some way (which I do agree with), but I've never seen the specific idea that warping in should just take the regular amount of time that it takes to make the unit. It seems like you have.
Teleporting units to a hidden Pylon is bad enough for defender's advantage, but getting units out faster than the opponent while teleporting them seems like it would lead to all sorts of ridiculous nonsense... which I'd argue we see in the sheer prevalence and power of relatively easy to execute Protoss all ins and high pressure builds. The rest of the design issues seem to just naturally follow from this premise.
On November 28 2014 03:02 TedCruz2016 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:14 -Celestial- wrote:On November 28 2014 01:48 TedCruz2016 wrote:On November 28 2014 01:07 Freeborn wrote:
The immortal will still be cost inefficient vs anything but armored. How can that be a solution? It's just a counter-tank and counter-roach unit, nothing more. Poor design. Adding a new gateway unit that helps with toss early game weakness and lessens the dependance on robo play would not only help balance but simply be more fun. Protoss has nothing new early game and still only has the stupid unique msc for defence - now with a ground only photon overcharge... I think the problem is that zealot's and stalker's upgrades in twilight council come too late, much much later than T's stimpack and Z's zergling speed. Without the aid of sentry and MSC, it's very hard for P to push back early attacks and harassments. When you have to warp in a couple of sentries to help, the gas cost inevitably slows down your tech. Largely because in the case of the Stalker, as I mentioned earlier, faster blink just means overpowered blink all-ins. In the case of the Zealot I'm pretty sure its because Stim MM vs Gateway units without charge is just about holdable through the use of force fields, highly defensive positioning and rushing to AoE; largely because Zealots are nice and tanky so you can keep them alive. Zerg things like speedlings are also holdable for the same reason. But the flip side isn't true, Terran and Zerg badly need to be able to run away from Zealots to a certain extent because Zealots are hard to take down and deal a boatload of damage if they can get into range; which means T and Z need those speed upgrades to finish first. Hard to balance isn't it. Zealots and stalkers have no chance to defeat MM or speedlings in equal supply, but with FF they just need to fight half of the enemy while the other half is zoned out. It's for a reason that P's the only race that's got such a supportive caster in early game, and that's not enough, as MSC is added to help defend the bases in HotS and it's criticized as one of the poorest designed units.
I'm not sure how what you said is a response to what I said. If Warp In was designed differently, Gateway units could be balanced differently.
|
On November 28 2014 03:00 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy. If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now. The problem people have complained about for a long time is how Warpgate has no disadvantage; It is frontloaded and units spawn where you want them to.
But why is this a problem? The race is balanced around it.
|
On November 28 2014 03:19 Stijn wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 03:00 SC2Toastie wrote:On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? The Protoss already has the advantage of them being warped in. Not only are they warped in though, they come into play an entire cycle ahead of the defender's units. Imagine all of that Blink Stalker nonsense we had throughout the first half of 2014 if Stalkers took 42 seconds to warp in (their Gateway production time) instead of 5 seconds. That's another 4 Marauders the Terran would have to defend, easy. If Gateway units took 100% of their build time to warp in, and could be attacked for regular damage while they did so (not 200%), that might open up an avenue for them to be buffed without making Protoss all ins more powerful than they are now. The problem people have complained about for a long time is how Warpgate has no disadvantage; It is frontloaded and units spawn where you want them to. But why is this a problem? The race is balanced around it.
A game can have balanced races and still be shitty, that's why it's a problem. Not everyone agrees that Protoss should be this master all-in/turtling race that struggles to play a mechanically demanding macro game (see: Rain, Zest).
|
On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time?
1. Warpgates are supposed to be an upgrade to gateways
2. Gateways have the advantage of allowing you to queue units. Weak players can more reliably build units by queuing than by warping in at precise timings. Blizzard wants you to upgrade to warpgates (see #1), therefore they need to be unequivocally stronger.
It's only in the community's mind that there should be a trade off to warpgate. Most community implementations just make warpgate useless and remove it as a core protoss macro mechanic. Which might be fine, but it hugely changes the game design and Blizzard would never accept it. Blizzard just wants it as a cool mechanic that makes protoss unique.
|
On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units.
No it isn't. Deathball play comes from three things.
1) Protoss armies are unable to fight in anything but deathball engagements due to the incompetence of Gateway armies past the early game, and
2) Pathing (clumping/tiny hit boxes on units) allows individual units to squeeze together so much that they are ridiculously efficient in a small space.
3) Warp-in's are so good that it's impossible to buff Gateway units from horrible (lose to other T1 armies) to "good enough to win small engagements" without completely breaking the game and making Protoss early game god-like.
Increasing the effectiveness of Robo units so Protoss are more dependent on them is an absolutely horrific idea that will make everything we hate right now even worse.
But why is this a problem? The race is balanced around it.
The problem isn't Warpgate being good. The problem is that Warpgate is so damn good that you simply can't make Gateway units too good or you'll ruin the game.
|
disruptor is a big circle... colossus was a line of damage... gateway armies can probably be more effective with 1-2 disruptors than they can with 1-2 colossus... this makes it so they dont have to ball up around many colossus as much?
|
On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. Maybe blizz fix the allin nonsense in lotv. Legitimate question that I never see get asked: why are Gateway units warped in faster than their production time? 1. Warpgates are supposed to be an upgrade to gateways 2. Gateways have the advantage of allowing you to queue units. Weak players can more reliably build units by queuing than by warping in at precise timings. Blizzard wants you to upgrade to warpgates (see #1), therefore they need to be unequivocally stronger.
They need to be unequivocally stronger for pros, which they already, unambiguously are on the basis of warping + warp cooldown being lower than Gateway production already, making up for imperfect Warp Gate macro. Or are we balancing the game around Bronze league, now?
It's only in the community's mind that there should be a trade off to warpgate. Most community implementations just make warpgate useless and remove it as a core protoss macro mechanic. Which might be fine, but it hugely changes the game design and Blizzard would never accept it. Blizzard just wants it as a cool mechanic that makes protoss unique.
Warping would still be a cool mechanic if it had drawbacks attached to it. And I'd argue that the unit taking its regular length of time to build, instead of frontloaded 5 seconds, isn't a drawback at all, it's making Warp Gate more similar to Gateway. Not an advantage or a disadvantage. A little bit more equal.
Blizzard has opened pandora's box when it comes to huge design changes, because they want 4-5 base economies in LOTV. There is a possibility, being discussed here, that Protoss is not capable of defending 4-5 bases at the same time due to their over-reliance on Colossus).
If this is true, then these two goals of theirs are about to come to a head. Either Blizzard will have to scale back their changes for LOTV and settle for 3 base turtling, or they will probably have to change Gateway units which probably means changing Warp Gate.
|
On November 28 2014 04:05 mishimaBeef wrote:
disruptor is a big circle... colossus was a line of damage... gateway armies can probably be more effective with 1-2 disruptors than they can with 1-2 colossus... this makes it so they dont have to ball up around many colossus as much?
We have no idea if Disruptors will actually be more effective in small numbers (therefore letting Protoss use multiple small armies centered around a couple Disruptors) because we don't know if the Disruptor will be effective at all. Many people get the impression that it's either going to be really good or absolutely useless if the opponent knows how to micro.
It also still doesn't solve the problem of relying on a Robo splash unit. Disruptors are high up on the tech tree and cost a lot, so best case scenario you'll still see a Protoss deathball until late game.
Warping would still be a cool mechanic if it had drawbacks attached to it. And I'd argue that the unit taking its regular length of time to build, instead of frontloaded 5 seconds, isn't a drawback at all, it's making Warp Gate more similar to Gateway. Not an advantage or a disadvantage. A little bit more equal.
Blizzard has opened pandora's box when it comes to huge design changes, because they want 4-5 base economies in LOTV. There is a possibility, being discussed here, that Protoss is not capable of defending 4-5 bases at the same time due to their over-reliance on Colossus).
If this is true, then these two goals of theirs are about to come to a head. Either Blizzard will have to scale back their changes for LOTV and settle for 3 base turtling, or they will probably have to change Gateway units which probably means changing Warp Gate.
Changing Gateway units DEFINITELY means changing Warpgate. The problem with your suggestion is that it's a pretty huge nerf. Gateway units taking their full time to Warp in and being able to be killed during that entire period is a huge liability and one that would cause most Protoss to just choose to keep Gateways instead in a large number of situations. Furthmore, it would require a very drastic buff to Gateway units.
|
On November 28 2014 04:03 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 02:33 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 02:28 FabledIntegral wrote:On November 27 2014 23:20 Hider wrote:
@ buffing warpgate units
You can't do this. It essentially just further nullifies the defenders advantage and creates a stronger snowball effect. It is of highest importance that protoss can not just win the game straight up if they have a small advantage.
Therefore the solution is not to buff warpgate units, but instead to increase the microness of robo units and make them have a larger importance for protoss. Defenders advantage would be significantly less relevant by the time these upgrades even kick in. Defenders advantage is moot after midgame. Trying to state buffing them via a templar upgrade of higher passive speed on a chargelot or a better forge upgrade for the stalker is nonsense. Your solution is the absolute worst thing that could possibly happen to the game - further increase dependence on robo units? They're already the crux as it is. All this does is reinforce deathball play due to dependence on the expensive units. The deathball play comes from robo-units being as boring as they are now. His idea is great, it makes immortals less dependend on being protected by a thousand stalkers, sentries and zelots. The last thing Protoss needs is their gateway allins being buffed with stronger units. No it isn't. Deathball play comes from two things. 1) Protoss armies are unable to fight in anything but deathball engagements due to the incompetence of Gateway armies past the early game, and 2) Pathing (clumping/tiny hit boxes on units) allows individual units to squeeze together so much that they are ridiculously efficient in a small space. Increasing the effectiveness of Robo units so Protoss are more dependent on them is an absolutely horrific idea that will make everything we hate right now even worse.
I'm also against increasing the effectiveness of Robo Units...
|
On November 28 2014 04:09 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 04:05 mishimaBeef wrote:
disruptor is a big circle... colossus was a line of damage... gateway armies can probably be more effective with 1-2 disruptors than they can with 1-2 colossus... this makes it so they dont have to ball up around many colossus as much? We have no idea if Disruptors will actually be more effective in small numbers (therefore letting Protoss use multiple small armies centered around a couple Disruptors) because we don't know if the Disruptor will be effective at all. Many people get the impression that it's either going to be really good or absolutely useless if the opponent knows how to micro. It also still doesn't solve the problem of relying on a Robo splash unit. Disruptors are high up on the tech tree and cost a lot, so best case scenario you'll still see a Protoss deathball until late game. Show nested quote +Warping would still be a cool mechanic if it had drawbacks attached to it. And I'd argue that the unit taking its regular length of time to build, instead of frontloaded 5 seconds, isn't a drawback at all, it's making Warp Gate more similar to Gateway. Not an advantage or a disadvantage. A little bit more equal.
Blizzard has opened pandora's box when it comes to huge design changes, because they want 4-5 base economies in LOTV. There is a possibility, being discussed here, that Protoss is not capable of defending 4-5 bases at the same time due to their over-reliance on Colossus).
If this is true, then these two goals of theirs are about to come to a head. Either Blizzard will have to scale back their changes for LOTV and settle for 3 base turtling, or they will probably have to change Gateway units which probably means changing Warp Gate. Changing Gateway units DEFINITELY means changing Warpgate. The problem with your suggestion is that it's a pretty huge nerf. Gateway units taking their full time to Warp in and being able to be killed during that entire period is a huge liability and one that would cause most Protoss to just choose to keep Gateways instead in a large number of situations.
I might be overlooking something, but I don't see how that's true. The only advantage Gateways would have over Warp Gates is keeping a unit safe during production. Yeah, that sounds like a big deal, but Zergling>Baneling and Corruptor>Brood Lord morphing already works that way, and that hasn't stopped Zerg from morphing their units all over the map despite the risk for four years now. Sometimes Banelings die mid-morph, c'est la vie. Don't morph them right outside the enemy's nat if you don't want to risk them getting sniped. Do morph them outside the nat if you want to maximize your potential damage with them. I mean, it's Tactics 101. That's how aggression should work. The balance comes later. (You can always warp in inside your own base to be extra safe, yeah a few units could die to a drop or a Mutalisk harass, but that's no different from a Zealot runby intercepting some Terran reinforcements, or a Muta flock camping Terran production, I think)
Furthmore, it would require a very drastic buff to Gateway units.
Well isn't that the point? They're trying to phase out Colossi and make Protoss playable on 5 bases. That's tough to do by giving Stalkers +1 damage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
