EPT- Remove forcefield
- Rework warp gate
Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff.
Legacy of the Void: Multiplayer Development Update - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Estancia
Korea (South)335 Posts
- Remove forcefield - Rework warp gate Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff. | ||
|
Daeracon
Sweden199 Posts
On February 18 2015 09:30 StalkerFang wrote: What if it was possible to warp in around a nexus and when you did so units warped in instantly or almost instantly? Protoss might not have to rely so much on the MSC for defense if this was the case, while all-ins using mass warpgates or warp prism harrass would be considerably weaker. Are there any big problems with this idea? I feel like Blizzard might be pretty open to this change since you're not actually changing the core warpgate mechanics. I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On February 18 2015 14:55 Daeracon wrote: I have suggested that before too, I think it is a brilliant idea, keeps the defensive strength and defenders advantage is restored against protoss. The range can be made quite big to cover the ramps. It's the exact opposite of what Blizzard has stated they want. They don't like that Protoss can simply warp in units to defend already. They also want to encourage people to harass more with Protoss via warp prisms. Would pretty much guarantee they'd completely oppose this. | ||
|
Daeracon
Sweden199 Posts
On February 18 2015 16:02 FabledIntegral wrote: It's the exact opposite of what Blizzard has stated they want. They don't like that Protoss can simply warp in units to defend already. They also want to encourage people to harass more with Protoss via warp prisms. Would pretty much guarantee they'd completely oppose this. I see, well you could still use warp prisms to drop units for harass, or make the warp prism the only other thing to warp around apart from the nexus. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On February 18 2015 16:08 Daeracon wrote: I see, well you could still use warp prisms to drop units for harass, or make the warp prism the only other thing to warp around apart from the nexus. Doesn't detract from the point it accomplishes exactly the opposite of what Blizzard wants. Less harass potential and easier defending vs. harass. | ||
|
Lobotomist
United States1541 Posts
On February 18 2015 14:24 Estancia wrote: - Buff gateway units - Remove forcefield - Rework warp gate Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff. Plz Blizzard. Plx yes. This is the change. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On February 18 2015 16:37 Lobotomist wrote: Plz Blizzard. Plx yes. This is the change. That's what they're doing: new gateway unit, forcefield nerf, warpgate nerf. They're just not outright removing stuff from the game since they have limited resources and this is the final expansion, so it would be too much to bother with a complete redesign. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
There could be for example requirement for WG to have TC or even straight move WG to TC. Additionally we may add simple nerf to warped units in form of reducing shields of warped unit to 0. Shields regenerate quite quickly, however if you would warp in units for all-in or defense they would be much weaker in first couple of seconds but wouldn't affect harass that much because when you harass you try to avoid enemy's army so no shields on harassing unit wouldn't matter that much in comparison to straight up engagement. With the before mentioned changes we could add strong core gateway unit like dragoon without the fear of imbalanced 2base all-in which would allow Protoss'es to engage army's without FF/AoE and then we can think about redesigning/removing FF/colossus. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
Eg> Khaydarin Amulet disappears when the templar is warped in, but the templar has it if he is produced(well, warped, but you know, it is confusing, right?) from gateway. Therefore you can have 75 energy templars, but you can warp only 50 energy version anywhere on the map. Warpgate is just pure goto tech, there's no choice, price or decision involved. Which is why the warpgate tech is wrong. In RTS everything is supposed to have some impact, some price or decision behind it. Warpgate doesn't fit to this. Its only price is blocking a useless building and cost is 50/50, which isn't so big deal. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
On February 18 2015 07:43 KeksX wrote: RTS unit design IS a rational thought process. If they just implemented random things and yolo'd their way through it, we'd have something like Age Of Empires 3 or Command & Conquer(funnily enough Browder worked on a title of that series, and you can see his influence on the game is actually kinda like that. C&C sometimes actually felt like a yolo-game in some regards). RTS Unit design is a complex process. Just look at the new units suggestions from Kim and Browder @ HotS and now LotV. They all justify units by stating problems they're there to solve. Initial unit design is mostly influenced, as you said, by lore and past iterations. But it's also based on gameplay goals (there was this very specific feeling they wanted to copy from Brood War, they could've gone for the Age of Empires approach as well but they didn't) ... They're a game company that designs RTS games. Creating those games is a, not completely for obvious reasons but at least partially, rational process. ... Thats why we have patches. Nobody expects them to predict the future, the problem here is that Blizzard is not willing to invest into deeper cuts and changes in the gameplay. They only play around with the mechanics currently there. I don't know, I think it's a too simplistic way of thinking. Essentially what you have done is to look at some aspect of a unit and determine whether it's a plus or a minus and then deduce that Blizzard has somehow quantified how much this aspect makes the unit differ from some norm and then they added just the right counter measures in terms of adjusting other aspects. But Blizzard doesn't always notice these things, they're not always competent, they can't always predict the future, they're often constrained by business decisions, by having to balance for various skill levels, and it's not always possible to quantify these aspects, and it's not always obvious that units need to be balanced to a certain standard because e.g. BW was perfectly fine with siege tanks being very powerful. Like, it's useful to note that warpgate makes gateway units more powerful in a certain way, so that's why e.g. it makes sense to have an early game spellcaster since that unit doesn't benefit from being warped in offensively because it lacks the energy, so that's why the sentry is a natural addition to the design of warpgate. But it's only mildly useful, it helps you understand how the game works independently of Blizzard's interventions, but it doesn't necessarily help you make sense of Blizzard's design decisions since those are more mysterious and random. I just think that too often design discussions seemingly merge the actual designers, with all their flaws, with some omnipotent design force or whatever. And specifically it leads to issues like these discussions where people come up with suggestions that simply aren't tailored to the intended respondent: Blizzard. As an example, meaningful design change has more often happened because of reddit temper tantrums than brilliant analyses of the game. | ||
|
Heartland
Sweden24580 Posts
On February 18 2015 19:23 deacon.frost wrote: I still don't understand why there is no disadvantage of having warp gates. For example we can buff units made from gateways. Eg> Khaydarin Amulet disappears when the templar is warped in, but the templar has it if he is produced(well, warped, but you know, it is confusing, right?) from gateway. Therefore you can have 75 energy templars, but you can warp only 50 energy version anywhere on the map. Warpgate is just pure goto tech, there's no choice, price or decision involved. Which is why the warpgate tech is wrong. In RTS everything is supposed to have some impact, some price or decision behind it. Warpgate doesn't fit to this. Its only price is blocking a useless building and cost is 50/50, which isn't so big deal. Compare it to stim, it's "natural" for marines to have stim but they can't start off with it because that would make them too OP. It's the same with WG. | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On February 18 2015 14:24 Estancia wrote: - Buff gateway units - Remove forcefield - Rework warp gate Congrats, you just solved the entire protoss early game bullshit all-ins and stuff. Buff Zealots, Stalkers, HT and Archon? Poor Z and T in late game... | ||
|
Jenia6109
Russian Federation1612 Posts
On February 18 2015 13:33 Obsidian wrote: I would like a modified version of the Panther from the WoL campaign. Make it either Tech Lab Barracks or no-tech Factory produceable, with an active ability that lets them pounce for some aoe. More fun if they will be able to pounce up/down ledges. Moderately fast akin to charge-lots, but without the charge. There is already a Hellbat. | ||
|
egrimm
Poland1199 Posts
On February 18 2015 20:17 Heartland wrote: Compare it to stim, it's "natural" for marines to have stim but they can't start off with it because that would make them too OP. It's the same with WG. Exactly. That's why both upgrades takes really long to research (IIRC Stim: 170s, WG: 140s). So in a way you can "nerf" units in specific winodw of time by increasing crucial research build time. The unit gains its' whole potential later in the game. That's why I suggested few post earlier to "increase" build time of WG and compensate it by stronger Gateway units. That way gateway units become lesser threat in early game (when they are strong) and become stronger mid/late game (when they are weaker) | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch. They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now: 1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain. The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest. EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have. | ||
|
JCoto
Spain574 Posts
On February 18 2015 20:48 BluzMan wrote: Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released. Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch. They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now: 1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain. The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest. EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have. @BluzMan You just pointed the real point of Warpgate: there is no real option to go Gateway play other than 2-gate cheese (which is indeed a timing question). Warpgate should be a different level of tech (possibly at twilight level), with almost same functionality but with build times being slightly longer to warpgate units to its Gateway version, so Gateway play production > Warpgate play production, solving the all-in potential, the PvZ soultrain, the early game weakness until MSC, and solving the PvP Stalker shit (the defending player would have production advatage by using Gateway instead of Warpgate). With that, even Warpgate all-ins (Blink all-in and even some kind of Chargelot cheese) would be viable. Another added advantage would be that one could spend more Chronoboosts on tech units or upgrades considerating that WG time could be cut down. A posible downside is lategame strength and production, however that should not be a problema to Toss... In my opinion, complete dependance on an upgrade early game (WG) to simply play on par with other races is a design fail. With the new economy type in LotV, actual timings shouldn't matter to balance, so we could rethink them a bit, but I'm almost sure that Protoss would be balanced with that change (And I'm a Toss).... Close attenton to MSC though. Is not that hard to figure that out imao. Even within the actual meta, with slightly longer to build pylons (30s) 2-gate would stay in balance. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 18 2015 20:48 BluzMan wrote: Look, it's been discussed over and over from the times before SC2 was even released. Post-WoW Blizzard thought they're somehow better than anyone else at game design and didn't put a price tag on mobility. Medivacs, warp gates, viable air units (outside of their obvious harass role) are all facets of one shitty diamond. Now post-D3 Blizzard is too scared or too arrogant to admit their initial mistake, get rid of that shit and rework at least protoss from stratch. They add more and more new units when none are really needed instead of reworking the core. SC2 has three to four major problems right now: 1) Unit pathfinding AI that leads to clumping, poor balance of AoE, unit blobs (deathballs) and overly local fights (it hurts both gameplay AND spectator value as SC2 simply doesn't have epic fights that span over several screens). 2) Overly high economic efficiency which leads to fast maxouts. The game mechanics don't work well at unit caps (larva inject gives infinite larva over time, hence instant remax for zerg, mules that cost 0 supply for terran etc), and the timing windows when low eco trumps high eco are greatly reduced. 3) Hardcounter system. It leads to either one-sided mopups due to build order victories or players turtling waiting to unlock all of their tech trees so that their armies don't have glaring weakness. 4) Protoss are broken with free mobility at a lower tier that is balanced with their tier 1 units being subpar. This is turn leads to the reliance on sentries in early game and an explosion of unit effectiveness in tier 2-3 (colossi appear so that toss can win anything). To counter that other races have artificial out-of-place measures like vikings and corruptors etc.Hence the warpgate problem is partly the cause of the game's complex counter chain. The sad thing is that Blizzard systematically refuses to even acknowledge the existence of those problems, yet even try to fix them. Hopes were high with HotS, now LotV is on the horizon and it's still nothing. Warpgates giving you instant unit production wherever there is pylon power and having lower than regular gateway unit build time at the same time raised eyebrows in beta as soon as they appeared and they are still there. I'm not sure Blizzard has the guts, to be honest. EDIT: come on, TvP in BW was super fun to watch when Terran built no more than 3 types of combat units over the span of the whole game, relying only on 2 for the first half. You don't need to stuff every race with 20 different units for the game to be fun, Blizzard should first make good use of what they already have. Good post, i agree completely. The problem is that these things are known since forever and blizzard just doesn't want to fix it (maybe they simply can't, whatever). I mean i really like sc2, i enjoy it for the most part, but i know it could be better with some rather "simple" changes and that knowledge hurts haha | ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach. That wouldn't be a big deal if there wouldn't be any blobs. I am actually not sure how smart units in sc2 target stuff when amoving, do they waste shots or do they target pretty efficiently? | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On February 18 2015 21:42 Dingodile wrote: 30supply vs 30supply fights are great and entertaining to watch/play. 120 vs 120 are utterly boring because they take same or less! amount of time to end the fight. Upgrades scales have a big issue! Example: Roach vs Roach 0-0 Roach needs 10 shots to kill a 0-0 Roach. 3-3 Roach needs 9 shots to kill a 3-3 Roach. I'm sorry, what's the problem with the upgrades in that example? Edit: Oh I see, you mean that fights theoretically end even faster in lategame due to upgrades alone and regardless of army size, is that it? In any case 1 more shot doesn't seem like such a big deal to me. | ||
| ||
