|
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?
Collosi attack faster, from range, more reliable, less expensive, harder to pick off, no Friendly Fire,
|
On November 28 2014 04:28 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 04:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. 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) 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.
You still don't want to buff Gateway units TOO much.
More importantly, it isn't very similar to Zerg morphs. Zerg morphs are extremely cheap and happen much more quickly than what you are proposing.
I think either an increase in time (that isn't up to full production time) or some kind of limit on where you can warp units in is the best choice of action in changing Warp-Ins so Gateway units can be buffed.
|
On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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? 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?
Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels. You can challenge this assumption or find a superior implementation within the existing framework, but can you stop with the passive aggressive protoss hate?
|
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.
Sure if you just buff robo straight up. But the point is to redesign robo units, so protoss actually gets more "normal" (from normal production facilities) units that are more mobile and more microrewarding.
|
On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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? 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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels
In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending.
That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage.
I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin.
You can challenge this assumption or find a superior implementation within the existing framework, but can you stop with the passive aggressive protoss hate?
Which part of my post do you find objectionable?
|
On November 28 2014 04:41 SC2Toastie 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? Collosi attack faster, from range, more reliable, less expensive, harder to pick off, no Friendly Fire,
Collossi die if you can't hold the front line. I'm pretty sure 1 disruptor explosion is worth more than 3-4 colossus swipes before it dies.
|
On November 28 2014 05:11 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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? 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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending. That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage. I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin.
I don't see the point of making them "less superior while still without any disadvantage". I mean, that's just nerfing warpgates for the sake of nerfing warpgates. Which may be OK (if we want Warpgates to be straight up weaker), but I don't see the point why you make a comparison to a gateway. Still noone is going to use the gateway unless it has actually an advantage.
|
On November 28 2014 04:41 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 04:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 Stratos_speAr wrote: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. 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. More importantly, it isn't very similar to Zerg morphs. Zerg morphs are extremely cheap and happen much more quickly than what you are proposing. I think either an increase in time (that isn't up to full production time) or some kind of limit on where you can warp units in is the best choice of action in changing Warp-Ins so Gateway units can be buffed.
Another option is to make Warp In take full production time, but cut the process into two halves: for the first half, the unit's silhouette appears but the unit can't be targeted by abilities or attacked. For the second half, the unit can be attacked. This still gives a defender full time to scout and prepare against pressure builds, which I think is the more important goal. (It could even be 2/3 vs 1/3 instead of 1/2 vs 1/2)
For Stalkers, that would mean a 15-21 second window where they can be attacked, which is less than/equal to Baneling's 20 seconds morph. Zealots would be less than Banelings. High Templar would be the most vulnerable with 27 seconds, but that's still less than Brood Lords' 34 seconds.
On November 28 2014 05:36 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 05:11 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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? 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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending. That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage. I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin. I don't see the point of making them "less superior while still without any disadvantage". I mean, that's just nerfing warpgates for the sake of nerfing warpgates. Which may be OK (if we want Warpgates to be straight up weaker), but I don't see the point why you make a comparison to a gateway. Still noone is going to use the gateway unless it has actually an advantage.
Well, as you can see, I was responding to Grumbels. His claim is that Blizzard wants Warp Gate to be strictly superior to Gateway (I've read similar things from them, so I believe it). If Blizzard remains as obstinate in this in LOTV, then we might as well cut our losses and focus on what might still be changed - the degree to which Warp Gate is better than Gateway. Nerf that and you can buff Gateway units.
|
Blizzard did nerf warpgate by increasing production time, which is your suggestion, but oddly enough you argue about it as if Blizzard did no such thing.
|
Another option is to make Warp In take full production time, but cut the process into two halves: for the first half, the unit's silhouette appears but the unit can't be targeted by abilities or attacked. For the second half, the unit can be attacked. This still gives a defender full time to scout and prepare against pressure builds, which I think is the more important goal.
Nerfing protoss production and buffing the cost efficiency of warp tech units is imo counterproductive as it only reinforces the issue protoss currently has; thus protoss will become more of this:
(1) Better deathball (since its gateway units are stronger --> maxed out army better)
(2) Somewhat weaker in midgame since its production speed is nerfed.
That's why I believe that the solution is the straight opposite. Looking at warpgate units as comparable to gateway units in BW doesn't make sense. Instead, Robo units should be looked at as gateway units in BW. Warpgate units shold instead be seen as either (a) support units (b) harass units. Warpgate units therefore shouldn't be massable. At least not if you attempt to play a style where you are more cost efficient than your opponent.
|
On November 28 2014 05:44 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 05:36 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 05:11 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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:
[quote]
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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending. That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage. I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin. I don't see the point of making them "less superior while still without any disadvantage". I mean, that's just nerfing warpgates for the sake of nerfing warpgates. Which may be OK (if we want Warpgates to be straight up weaker), but I don't see the point why you make a comparison to a gateway. Still noone is going to use the gateway unless it has actually an advantage. Well, as you can see, I was responding to Grumbels. His claim is that Blizzard wants Warp Gate to be strictly superior to Gateway (I've read similar things from them, so I believe it). If Blizzard remains as obstinate in this in LOTV, then we might as well cut our losses and focus on what might still be changed - the degree to which Warp Gate is better than Gateway. Nerf that and you can buff Gateway units.
Ok. I guess what I don't get is why you keep bringing up the gateway comparison all the time. As the powerlevel of gateway to warpgate in comparison is irrelevant for that idea.
|
On November 28 2014 05:51 Grumbels wrote:
Blizzard did nerf warpgate by increasing production time, which is your suggestion, but oddly enough you argue about it as if Blizzard did no such thing.
There's nothing odd about it. Their nerf does absolutely nothing to offset an aggressive Protoss's ability to have an unreasonable amount of units in the early game, and that is what's holding people back from proposing solid Gateway unit buffs. The 200% damage won't make a significant difference if the warp ins finish before engaging, and right now the warp in time went up from 5 seconds to 8 (that's, what, 2 seconds in game time? That might be a big deal if there's some epic Stalker pressure vs. hold situation going on for 5 minutes straight, those 2 seconds will add up, but it won't do a thing for the all ins and pushes that just auto-win.) I'm aiming to give Terran/Zerg/defending Protoss another full cycle of unit production before an attack can materialize, and thereby increase defender's advantage vs. Gateway pushes in the early game.
I'm not that attached to my idea. I just thought it was interesting that I've never seen it come up despite all sorts of talk about nerfing WG and buffing Gateways. I think that it's a reasonable way to nerf the aggressive power of WG (all ins) so that a Gateway-heavy Protoss army can be effectively split up in the midgame to defend 3+ bases. This is not the only possible solution, it is a solution that I think would be worth testing.
|
On November 28 2014 05:51 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +Another option is to make Warp In take full production time, but cut the process into two halves: for the first half, the unit's silhouette appears but the unit can't be targeted by abilities or attacked. For the second half, the unit can be attacked. This still gives a defender full time to scout and prepare against pressure builds, which I think is the more important goal. Nerfing protoss production and buffing the cost efficiency of warp tech units is imo counterproductive as it only reinforces the issue protoss currently has; thus protoss will become more of this: (1) Better deathball (since its gateway units are stronger --> maxed out army better) (2) Somewhat weaker in midgame since its production speed is nerfed. That's why I believe that the solution is the straight opposite. Looking at warpgate units as comparable to gateway units in BW doesn't make sense. Instead, Robo units should be looked at as gateway units in BW. Warpgate units shold instead be seen as either (a) support units (b) harass units. Warpgate units therefore shouldn't be massable. At least not if you attempt to play a style where you are more cost efficient than your opponent.
I never stated it outright, but implicit in all of my suggestions has been the idea "kill the Colossus. Kill it with fire."
So a maxed out Protoss army would be weaker. But split up groups of Stalkers would be stronger in the midgame, both at fending off aggression and at putting on pressure by themselves.
And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression.
That makes sense, right? I think that makes sense.
On November 28 2014 05:59 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 05:44 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 05:36 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 05:11 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels 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:
[quote]
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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending. That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage. I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin. I don't see the point of making them "less superior while still without any disadvantage". I mean, that's just nerfing warpgates for the sake of nerfing warpgates. Which may be OK (if we want Warpgates to be straight up weaker), but I don't see the point why you make a comparison to a gateway. Still noone is going to use the gateway unless it has actually an advantage. Well, as you can see, I was responding to Grumbels. His claim is that Blizzard wants Warp Gate to be strictly superior to Gateway (I've read similar things from them, so I believe it). If Blizzard remains as obstinate in this in LOTV, then we might as well cut our losses and focus on what might still be changed - the degree to which Warp Gate is better than Gateway. Nerf that and you can buff Gateway units. Ok. I guess what I don't get is why you keep bringing up the gateway comparison all the time. As the powerlevel of gateway to warpgate in comparison is irrelevant for that idea.
I only brought it up in response to Grumbels, and in my response to you explaining my response to Grumbels.
"Stronger defender's advantage + buffed Gateway units = multitasky Protoss midgame and less deathball" is the idea in full.
|
On November 28 2014 06:16 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 05:59 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 05:44 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 05:36 Big J wrote:On November 28 2014 05:11 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 04:42 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 04:09 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 03:49 Grumbels wrote:On November 28 2014 02:50 pure.Wasted wrote:On November 28 2014 02:34 Foxxan wrote:
[quote]
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? Balance of pros vs casuals has little to do with the conversation. You fail to accept that Blizzard's design goals are for warpgate to be the main protoss production mechanic, which requires for them to be stronger than gateways at all skill levels In HOTS, Warp Gates build units faster than Gateways, keep a unit safe while it closes the reinforcing distance, keep a unit unscoutable while it closes the reinforcing distance, and frontload production allowing a Protoss to be a cycle of units ahead of his opponent when pressuring or to have an emergency response when defending. That's four separate advantages. If I suggested removing three of them, Warp Gates would still have one advantage over Gateways, which means they would still be a superior production mechanic across all levels of play. My suggestion was to remove one advantage. I fail to see how this change would make Warp Gates worse than Gateways at any level of play. What it absolutely would do is make them better than Gateways by a narrower margin. I don't see the point of making them "less superior while still without any disadvantage". I mean, that's just nerfing warpgates for the sake of nerfing warpgates. Which may be OK (if we want Warpgates to be straight up weaker), but I don't see the point why you make a comparison to a gateway. Still noone is going to use the gateway unless it has actually an advantage. Well, as you can see, I was responding to Grumbels. His claim is that Blizzard wants Warp Gate to be strictly superior to Gateway (I've read similar things from them, so I believe it). If Blizzard remains as obstinate in this in LOTV, then we might as well cut our losses and focus on what might still be changed - the degree to which Warp Gate is better than Gateway. Nerf that and you can buff Gateway units. Ok. I guess what I don't get is why you keep bringing up the gateway comparison all the time. As the powerlevel of gateway to warpgate in comparison is irrelevant for that idea. I only brought it up in response to Grumbels, and in my response to you explaining my response to Grumbels.
And I only brought it up because you kept comparing them in the first place, but let's drop this line of reasoning.
|
In my opinion zerg has now the most cool units, later terran and protoss has like no new fun units. Its seems to me like blizzard dont have good idea on how too change protoss to be more entertaing race.
|
On November 28 2014 06:47 Walperin wrote:
In my opinion zerg has now the most cool units, later terran and protoss has like no new fun units. Its seems to me like blizzard dont have good idea on how too change protoss to be more entertaing race.
It's because they're stubborn and refuse to change things that need to be changed (scrap/nerf the Colossus into the ground, throw in the Reaver, nerf Warpgate heavily, change pathing/unit boxes, things like this).
|
On November 28 2014 06:52 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 06:47 Walperin wrote:
In my opinion zerg has now the most cool units, later terran and protoss has like no new fun units. Its seems to me like blizzard dont have good idea on how too change protoss to be more entertaing race.
It's because they're stubborn and refuse to change things that need to be changed (scrap/nerf the Colossus into the ground, throw in the Reaver, nerf Warpgate heavily, change pathing/unit boxes, things like this).
Well, I think it's fair to say they threw in the Reaver through the Disruptor - and, to their potential credit, possibly improved on it. We'll have to wait and see with crossed fingers and baited breath on whether they're just getting warmed up, hopefully, or if they really hope that -1 range on the Colossus will solve all of their problems.
|
And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression.
Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game).
In order to gain map control in the midgame it is important that you can produce alot of stuff fast, while late game (due to supply cap) is stronger related to cost efficiency.
|
On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game).
Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view?
|
On November 28 2014 07:24 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2014 07:09 Hider wrote:And production speed wouldn't really be nerfed, Protoss would just be permanently one production cycle of Gateway units behind starting from the moment WG is researched. That's counterbalanced by the Gateway units being better at everything but early game aggression. Yeh but then toss will have a better late game army becasue their maxed out army will be better (more cost efficienet). Balancewise, protoss must therefore be nerfed in the midgame. The reason for that is that the cost efificency of units is not as big a deal as the production speed in the midgame (as it is in the late game). Why would buffing (for instance) the Stalker and nerfing the Colossus result in a "better late game army"? Why do these things not balance one another out in your view?
They somewhat do and I don't understand Hiders comment about production time and cost efficiency in midgame.....
Those both matter, a lot.
I read somewhere of removing the sentry in favor of another gate unit. I don't really know what kind of unit to add though 0_0
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
