EPTThis would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in.
Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 24
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
bigbadgreen
United States142 Posts
This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 21 2014 04:25 bigbadgreen wrote: An idea I've been thinking of to change the warpgate mechanic a bit would be to increase the amount of time it takes a unit to warp in based on how far it is from the gate that it is warping from. You could buff warpgate units a bit to offset the disadvantage of not being able to reinforce their army as quickly. This would allow for a nice defenders advantage. Toss could potentially use this offensively but it would add a lot more risk. There would be a choice between having less units to reinforce or being punished more if you were to proxy gates to get them closer, for a quicker warp in. I think Blizzard stated they did not like how easy it was to defend against ling run bys, etc. and that it felt as if other races struggled at punishing toss. Cant' remember where I read that as I still think they are damn useful, but I don't think they'd particularly like your decision. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15956 Posts
On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal. That seems like a severe abuse of logic. You can't just equate warpgate with harassment options and then harassment options with anti-deathball play and conclude that removing warpgate will ruin the game. It's a very spurious causal chain with multiple badly defined statements which seems to ignore potential other changes to protoss. I can use your logic to argue for a super harassment unit that can teleport all over the map and if some people dislike it I'll just paraphrase Charoisaur: "do you want to go back to deathball play??" | ||
|
-Kyo-
Japan1926 Posts
On December 21 2014 09:12 Grumbels wrote: That seems like a severe abuse of logic. You can't just equate warpgate with harassment options and then harassment options with anti-deathball play and conclude that removing warpgate will ruin the game. It's a very spurious causal chain with multiple badly defined statements which seems to ignore potential other changes to protoss. I can use your logic to argue for a super harassment unit that can teleport all over the map and if some people dislike it I'll just paraphrase Charoisaur: "do you want to go back to deathball play??" It's actually a pretty good deduction. Why would I want to make a WP and risk losing a ton of warping in zealots that take 8 seconds and 200% damage when I can just build a stronger main army and send zealots around the map instead? Although I do not agree deathball is going to be mainstream after playing lotv customs so much but it definitely something to consider. I certainly am in the same camp that I do not like the 200% 8 second thing, it really is kind of overkill imo. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On December 21 2014 09:36 -Kyo- wrote: It's actually a pretty good deduction. Why would I want to make a WP and risk losing a ton of warping in zealots that take 8 seconds and 200% damage when I can just build a stronger main army and send zealots around the map instead? Although I do not agree deathball is going to be mainstream after playing lotv customs so much but it definitely something to consider. I certainly am in the same camp that I do not like the 200% 8 second thing, it really is kind of overkill imo. You can still use blink stalkers, zealot run-by's, oracles, phoenixes, dark templar, void rays to harass besides the warp prism, which btw received a buff in lotv and now has better synergy with immortals. Then there are the two new protoss units (both of which have harassment capability). There is the intended increased base spread which also strengthens harassment. Nerfs to the colossus and forcefield and time warp (all 3 of which have deathball-ish synergy). And for the other races, a nerf to warpgate is an increase in defender's advantage which allows you to devote more units to harassment and get more bases (which in turn promotes protoss harassment), and the nerf is also a decrease in defender's advantage for protoss which promotes zerg/terran harassment. etc. picking out one change and saying that death ball play now reigns victorious is one of the more ridiculous things I've read (although Charoisaur's posts are always bad tbh). Also, if your zealots are caught by enemy troops then leave phasing mode and afaik the zealots will cancel and you won't lose any resources(?). That way there is still zero risk. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. On one hand he changes the economy to allow for more small skirmishes and discourage deathball play but at the same time he is nerfing warpgate which is essential for protoss harassment. As the lead balance designer he should know that weaker harassment encourages deathball-play because you get less rewarded for great multitasking so this is completely counter-intuitive to his goal. The point being that Protoss gets different options in the form of very strong regular drop/pick up play with the huge buff to the warp prism, the Oracle gets buffed and the disruptor looks like a great option for drop-play. On top of that, they are thinking about adding an additional harassment focused unit to the gateway/warpgate tech (harassment-focused without relying on warp-ins that is). And we don't know if there is more to come or if the metagame will allow the new carriers or tempests to be used in harassment as well. Hence, what Protoss loses in harassment play from the Warpgate, they try to add back in in other ways. On another note, warpgate play as harassment tool comes in pretty late in the current metagame, hence, in the 90% of games that are decided (decided, not ended) before the lategame warp-in for harassment is a very minor factor. Also your argument about splitting up the deathball with warpgate play is a pretty poor one, because having pylons or a warp prism around the map does not split up the deathball. In that situation, good Protoss players will only produce (which is similar to splitting up the deathball) if the opportunity is good to do damage. Compared to a loaded dropship of any kind or just roaming units on the map which have to be away from the deathball BEFORE you know whether the opportunity is going to open up or not, this sort of warpgate harassment does much less to take away from big-army syndrome. I like the warpgate, but it's current form is way to allin friendly. I'm not sure if the changes are the best solution for what I see as the biggest problem with warpgate, but it feels like it could be a legit one. I'd hope in the light of that change they tune down stuff like boostervacs and supermutas as well (worse defensive warpins). | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
althaz
Australia1001 Posts
On December 18 2014 04:08 Estancia wrote: I think protoss don't need another harrassment unit, but a solid late game unit that can replace the a-move unit called colossus. I'm pretty sure disruptor ( is it correct? Forgot the name, the one that turns invulnuerable and explodes) can be quite effective in harrassment with the new warp prism. Also, is blizzard ever going to change the mining efficiency to be gradual slope instead of having a flat limit at 24 workers? That would encourage people to kill workers, not snipe bases THIS. EDIT: Forgot the actual post part of my post: Making killing workers better than killing bases automatically buffs multi-pronged harrassment IMMENSELY. Currently, only Terran can really do powerful harassment because a single dropship full of marine-marauder not only kills workers but threatens to kill hatches/nexuses. Mutas or zealot drops/phoenix harass can't really kill bases (except in the case of gross incompetence or having already won the game). | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 21 2014 06:23 Charoisaur wrote: DK is completely out of touch with this game. I usually translate this kind of opening lines into "I am heavily biased and unable to fairly assess any discussion that does not agree with my picture of the game".  | ||
|
Dark_Ghost
United States1 Post
| ||
|
SoleSteeler
Canada5420 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
1- The HERC is no longer cost effective? What does that mean? It sounds like it's just bad when it's worded that way. 2- A slow early game harassing unit for protoss. Whoop dee fucking doo, that'll keep the bitches coming... Don't give me any more slow shit for the love of god, I don't want your slow shit. I don't play Starcraft for slow shit. In fact I don't play starcraft at all but won't come back for slow early game harassing units I can guarantee that. 3- The immortal loses its main characteristic, just like that? So if you build a Robo and immediately build an immortal it's just a slow (sigh) hard-hitting wussy with no ability to survive any better than any other unit? How is that an immortal? I'm alright with the rest, although disappointed. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
On December 21 2014 11:32 FabledIntegral wrote: Increase in the passive speed buff to Zealots (after researching charge) would do wonders to keep Toss more mobile on the map, as well as increase their utility in fights against Terran. Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss. One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race. That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:19 SC2John wrote: Not sure Protoss ever has mobility problems in the late game. Most Protoss problems originate in the early game, and let's be fair, are centered around warp gate and forcefield (and now photon overcharge to some degree), all of which are pretty wonky mechanics. Because of the way warp gate works, there's almost no reason to get more than 3 gateway units before just switching entirely to warp gate, and the weakness of having absolutely nothing before 6:30 is made up by forcefield, which allows Protoss to survive early on with very few units. Now, in theory, this looks like a balanced model that answers itself, but what it really does is shoehorn Protoss into being a "tech" race, where they make as few units as possible while teching, and then drop down a shitton of gateways and attack. You can't just find a solution like "make gateway units stronger after upgrades" or "nerf the colossus" and expect Protoss players to not all-in or just sit back and never attack. Nothing can reliably change the way Protoss is played except by making changes to the sentry and forcefield, which are the core problems to Protoss. One thing I always tell people is that Protoss is an inherently different race from the rest. While Terran and Zerg are centered around making basic units and bolstering your forces with tech units, Protoss plays the opposite way: you make lots of tech units, and then add a bunch of basic units to support. That is to say, the best way to play Protoss is to just sit back until you can attack. The early game problems of Protoss just support this flawed gameplay more by allowing very few units to defend basically everything while still threatening deadly all-ins with warp gate. But what about zealot drops? Or stargate harass? You see those things all the time, and they aren't just "sitting back in your base and defending", right? Well...yes, and no. It is indeed a more mobile and interesting way to play, but very often it either tags along with a greedily defended base with almost no units or it is so that you can not make any units back at home while harassing, and because Blizzard has refused to touch warpgate or forcefield during most of SC2, units like oracles and DTs were buffed in order to make up for Protoss's lack of movement in the early/mid game. For instance, a single oracle in PvT can secure map control until ~9:00 and even force out turrets for only 300/300; this is by far the cheapest and strongest map control in the game. Without the buffs to oracles, DTs, and warp prism, we would not see a Protoss ever move out, but these changes don't actually solve the core problem that Protoss faces: it is inherently flawed to work backwards from every other race. That said, I still do enjoy the variety that Protoss produces compared to the other races. But I think when we talk about changes to Protoss in LotV, we need to keep that core problem in mind. Changing the resource allocations and maps or suggesting things like the reaver or special buffs to gateway units won't really affect the game too strongly, and there's no reason for Blizzard to keep holding onto a flawed version of warp gate. I really hope they will finally give in and agree to rework it a little bit, even if it's just a small change like adjusting the build times of gateways vs warp gates. I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small contingent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote: I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. You do see them send out continents ( ) of other units though, dts, zealot, oracle, phoenix, blink stalkers. Not sure if it affects your point though. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote: I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. ... Well you cannot send them because these slow units are kamikaze units in fact. They are meant to bomb the target and never return where a good Terran player returns(!!!) with their drop(ideally with all units). This is not possible with slow units and concussive shells. How are you supposed to retreat with immortals when there are 2 stimmed marauders? Or with zealots? Zerglings/roaches stops these units from retreating too. That is why we see immortal drops, because with WP you can take them back. Zerg has super mobile army(and creep spread) so they actually can retreat just with the army itself(all core units have speed buff(zergling, baneling, roach, hydra) or high speed from the start(mutalisk)), Terran has medevacs and stim. Protoss does not have anything like this. They used to have the recall from Mothership but actual version of recall cannot support 2 mobile groups(where you could, in theory, with full MS, recall 2 groups). But because MS is so stupidly overpriced and useless, nobody was using it(well, some players were using it from time to time, I remember some PvZ on Taldarim Altar where Grubby(I think) used this recall strategy). If you want from P players mobile skirmish scenarios, you need to add the option to retreat, that is why we have the recall and MSC, stupid and idiotic solution, but it works. Oracle is fast(and flies) and can retreat -> it is used for harassment, blink stalkers are fast and have blink, phoenixes = oracles, DTs have stealth. And that is it. Zealots cannot retreat(usually), templars? Sentries? Colossi? Immortals? Only in combination with warp prism and very rarely, because then these expensive(!) units miss in defense. Damn SC2 bug with turning off the ability to switch keyboard >< | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote: [...]Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins.[...] Then maybe WG should me moved to later parts of the game (mid-game?) and we could buff gateway units form the get-go? I believe that the later stage the game is, the less impact for all-in play WG mechanic brings. | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
On December 21 2014 13:57 FabledIntegral wrote: I'd disagree. Protoss lategame is almost entirely deathball status - they are the least likely to engage in multi pronged attacks, feigned attacks (unless from the single deathball), etc. You don't see a protoss sending out a small continent of units like 2 immortals, a few zealots, and an immortal at an enemy like you would a Terran send out 2 Medivacs with MM + Mines or a Zerg send a bunch of Zerglings/Banes and perhaps an Ultra or so. I don't quite share your assessment this entire dynamic revolves around FF, but rather the "core" Protoss unit is more meat fodder while other units dish the damage. Zerglings and Marines on the other hand have very high DPS themselves and can constantly deal it (zealots have high DPS, but can rarely engage, this is why passive speed buff would help engage as well as retreat). Having Protoss less reliant on Robo units and more reliant on Gateway units is a good thing. Unfortunately, due to warpgate mechanic, this "buff" to gateway units should come later in the game to avoid extremely fast all-ins. Protoss might also be weaker in straight up engagements slightly as a result (which I'm OK with) but could also be more mobile and have stronger reinforcements. Of course, just a Zealot passive speed buff isn't enough to actually do it, just a start on a rehaul of the race imo. This is so incredibly wrong, I can't even believe it. You just described EXACTLY how you're supposed to play lategame protoss. If anything, you'll see more mobility through warpins and prism drops from protoss than you would get from the other races. Good zergs will mix in rounds of lings to counter or use leftover units to trade them away, terran might do the same with their leftover bio units - but then that's it. It's all deathballs from there. Ghost/viking, Sky-Terran, Ultra/Broodlord-based deathballs with infestor/corruptor support, Swarmhost deathballs, etc. Every race deathballs in SC2. Protoss though profits from NOT purely having one deathball, but having room in supply for warpins. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3380 Posts
| ||
| ||
