|
On August 30 2017 22:57 Olli wrote:
This entire theory is based on the foregone conclusion that warpgate is a problem. It isn't, though. Warpgate is an integral part of how Protoss is designed in SCII, and it's an awesome mechanic that you won't find in any other RTS. So what if that means Protoss needs extra protection early on? These aren't 'bandaid solutions', because warpgate isn't a problem. They're not the most elegant, I agree with that, but they're what Blizzard decided on. I'm glad that they're trying something new for early protection now, but I disagree entirely with the idea that warpgate is an issue.
Your entire point is predicated on the notion that just because warpgate is a fundamental design mechanic, it cannot be flawed. Which is objectively wrong, it can be flawed. There are many games whose core principles and mechanics have glaring flaws in them, it's not unheard of in the slightest. Whether it actually is flawed or not is harder to prove, but there are numerous posts bordering on dissertation-length which have been written trying to show that it might be, or at the very least it clashes with other fundamental design decisions. Granted many of them were written before you joined in 2012 so you may be excused for not knowing.
I'll set aside your long history of irrational Protoss fanboyism and just address the fact that you're parading your personal opinion as objective truth here. Please take some time to read and understand.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On August 30 2017 23:02 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 22:57 Olli wrote:
This entire theory is based on the foregone conclusion that warpgate is a problem. It isn't, though. Warpgate is an integral part of how Protoss is designed in SCII, and it's an awesome mechanic that you won't find in any other RTS. So what if that means Protoss needs extra protection early on? These aren't 'bandaid solutions', because warpgate isn't a problem. They're not the most elegant, I agree with that, but they're what Blizzard decided on. I'm glad that they're trying something new for early protection now, but I disagree entirely with the idea that warpgate is an issue. Your entire point is predicated on the notion that just because warpgate is a fundamental design mechanic, it cannot be flawed. Which is objectively wrong, it can be flawed. There are many games whose core principles and mechanics have glaring flaws in them, it's not unheard of in the slightest. Whether it actually is flawed or not is harder to prove, but there are numerous posts bordering on dissertation-length which have been written trying to show that it might be, or at the very least it clashes with other fundamental design decisions. Granted many of them were written before you joined in 2012 so you may be excused for not knowing. I'll set aside your long history of irrational Protoss fanboyism and just address the fact that you're parading your personal opinion as objective truth here. Please take some time to read and understand.
but I disagree entirely with the idea that warpgate is an issue
Which part of this strikes you as me passing this off as objective facts?
First of all, I've read these articles you speak of, second I disagree with all of them. Because there is no "correct" design, there will be flaws in everything you can come up with. Protoss is played this way, the only thing that matters is whether or not people enjoy it. And the thousands of people that played the race did. That's what matters. Nothing else.
|
On August 30 2017 23:04 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:02 207aicila wrote:On August 30 2017 22:57 Olli wrote:
This entire theory is based on the foregone conclusion that warpgate is a problem. It isn't, though. Warpgate is an integral part of how Protoss is designed in SCII, and it's an awesome mechanic that you won't find in any other RTS. So what if that means Protoss needs extra protection early on? These aren't 'bandaid solutions', because warpgate isn't a problem. They're not the most elegant, I agree with that, but they're what Blizzard decided on. I'm glad that they're trying something new for early protection now, but I disagree entirely with the idea that warpgate is an issue. Your entire point is predicated on the notion that just because warpgate is a fundamental design mechanic, it cannot be flawed. Which is objectively wrong, it can be flawed. There are many games whose core principles and mechanics have glaring flaws in them, it's not unheard of in the slightest. Whether it actually is flawed or not is harder to prove, but there are numerous posts bordering on dissertation-length which have been written trying to show that it might be, or at the very least it clashes with other fundamental design decisions. Granted many of them were written before you joined in 2012 so you may be excused for not knowing. I'll set aside your long history of irrational Protoss fanboyism and just address the fact that you're parading your personal opinion as objective truth here. Please take some time to read and understand. Which part of this strikes you as me passing this off as objective facts?
"This entire theory is based on the foregone conclusion that warpgate is a problem. It isn't, though. Warpgate is an integral part of how Protoss is designed in SCII, and it's an awesome mechanic that you won't find in any other RTS."
This part. The way you phrase it makes it sound like you say "warpgate is not a problem, it's awesome and you should love it".
Yeah it's unique, it was very ambitious when they first announced it, even allowing you to replace photon cannons and whatnot. But it's one of those things that is better in theory than it is in practice.
|
Austria24422 Posts
Feel free to dislike it. It won't be removed from its current role, though. And that's a good thing in my eyes. If I want all my units to be rallied out one at a time, I'll play literally any other RTS out there.
|
Anyone who's played Wings as Protoss at a decent level and especially those of us turbonerds who watched a ton of progames too know how slim the margin for error when balancing this race is *because* of warp gate. Not to mention how important it was to map design (before every map was huge and had 3 safe bases at minimum).
Warpgate means that gateway units need to be shit. If they're too shit then Protoss can't hold off other races' aggression (hence the need for MSC and Pylon overcharge in the expansions). If they're not shit enough, 1base and 2base allins from Protoss are way too powerful (which is what we saw for almost the entirety of Wings, that is Protoss only being able to win with all-ins pretty much and getting crushed in most macro games). Or if you played Terran in Heart of the Swarm, you would know how fearsome a blink all-in can be...
|
On August 30 2017 23:08 Olli wrote:
Feel free to dislike it. It won't be removed from its current role, though. And that's a good thing in my eyes. If I want all my units to be rallied out one at a time, I'll play literally any other RTS out there.
So we play starcraft because of warpgates? Cmon you know that is not true, we play it because the unit interactions are a thousand times more fun than in any other rts game + having three fairly unique races.
Yes warpgate is part of this "uniqueness" but ultimately i think the units are the important part, not if i warp them in or rally them. (from a fun perspective)
Do you actually disagree that warpgates attack the concept of defenders advantage?
|
On August 30 2017 23:08 Olli wrote:
Feel free to dislike it. It won't be removed from its current role, though. And that's a good thing in my eyes. If I want all my units to be rallied out one at a time, I'll play literally any other RTS out there.
I think this is just you falling prey to "this concept appeals to me therefore it is impossible for it to be bad no matter how you look at it". Admittedly the same is true for most of the people who engage in gaming discussion online, but it's important I think to recognize it and frame your arguments accordingly.
I must admit I've never heard of someone who loves the game solely because of the warp gate mechanic (and believe you me I've had tons of friends who played SC2 at some point many of whom mained Protoss), but hey nothing wrong with that.
That said, other RTS though more traditional, are definitely better designed than SC2 in this regard, even if they don't appeal to you personally quite as much. 
|
I still wonder if we can have our cake and eat it, if warpgates simply would slow down production instead of speeding it up. So you balance around the defenders advantage you take from your opponent by intentionally weakening your production capabilities, which on the other hand would mean the solution to protoss Defense would become gateways.
Anything but making pylons do weird things pls blizz
|
Austria24422 Posts
You're just rehashing arguments that have been made a million times before. And the exact same arguments could be made about the other races, too. Where you get the idea from that 1-2 base all-ins were too strong I don't know, because they weren't. They were strong. They were also perfectly capable of being shit if you scouted and reacted properly. There was one all-in that I would categorize as too strong, and that was immortal/sentry. But that's due to the synergy of sentries and immortals against Zerg at that particular timing, and not due to warpgate.
Warpgate and sentries dictated map design, yes. But the same applies to a lot of units or mechanics of the other two races. Medivacs limited airspace, so did liberators, Zerg's ability to produce much faster than other races limited how open maps could be, the way Zerg and Terran benefited from gold bases for a long time saw them go essentially extinct, zergling speed impacted the size of natural ramps (and the fact that every natural needs one wallable entrance as you expand), and. so. on.
You're cherry-picking one thing that annoys you. There's a million things that impact map design and the way the game is played, but you've chosen warpgate as the one and only problem that's to blame for everything Protoss. Warpgate has not been a balance problem since early WoL. If you think it's a design problem, you're free to have that opinion. But there is no such thing as correct design, so this really all boils down to you not enjoying it. I do. Shall we leave it at that?
So we play starcraft because of warpgates? Cmon you know that is not true, we play it because the unit interactions are a thousand times more fun than in any other rts game + having three fairly unique races.
Yes warpgate is part of this "uniqueness" but ultimately i think the units are the important part, not if i warp them in or rally them. (from a fun perspective)
Do you actually disagree that warpgates attack the concept of defenders advantage?
I don't care one bit about it "attacking the concept of defender's advantage". It probably does. So what?
|
|
|
There isn't "correct design" but you can have certain goals and then decide which design decisions would be the best to reach these goals.
You can always do better and worse ofc, but i don't agree with the notion of "there is no correct decision" therefore everything is subjective anyway?
On August 30 2017 23:25 Olli wrote:
I don't care one bit about it "attacking the concept of defender's advantage". It probably does. So what?
This is about the "goals" i am talking about. We surely agree that defenders advantage is an important concept in gamedesign. It gives stability and allows different kind of strategies other than "build as many units as possible".
Ofc this is also a spectrum and we could argue if we want more defenders advantage or not, etc.
So let's say defenders advantage is one of x design goals we have in mind for the game, we want to reach every goal through means which hopefully don't interfere with each other. So if "uniqueness" is one design goal it still should interfere as little as possible with e.g. defenders advantage. (and the other design goals obviously)
Ofc you can sort these goals by priority and maybe it simply doesn't matter as much that it kinda attacks some other goals when they are lower on the list. I would argue that defenders advantage should be one of the most important aspects though tbh.
So yeah depending on how we want our game to be (priorities, design goals, etc) it might be an actual problem.
Uniqueness is really the only thing in favor of it imo and that can be achieved in a million different ways and as i said before comes more from unit design anyway
|
On August 30 2017 23:25 Olli wrote:
I don't care one bit about it "attacking the concept of defender's advantage". It probably does. So what?
Yes your posts have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about anything but your own opinion.
And before I bow out of this conversation, the reason I say that Protoss all-ins were too strong is because at the highest level of play there were times in the meta when I've seen top Terrans and top Zergs fall to simple all-ins where they literally could not have done anything to hold it except completely tailor their build to blind-counter it from the outset on the offchance the Protoss would try to do it (and of course if he didn't then they would be way behind and lose anyway). But of course I'm just cherry-picking and blah blah blah (which is ironic because the only arguments you've ever put forth have been cherry-picking).
Not sure why I expected any better given your post history, no good deed goes unpunished and same is true for optimism I guess.
Anyway, have a good day everyone in this thread.
|
Austria24422 Posts
On August 30 2017 23:30 The_Red_Viper wrote:
There isn't "correct design" but you can have certain goals and then decide which design decisions would be the best to reach these goals.
You can always do better and worse ofc, but i don't agree with the notion of "there is no correct decision" therefore everything is subjective anyway?
But that's exactly what it is. Enjoyment of the game is a subjective thing. And thousands of people have played SCII and never complained about warpgate, or how Protoss is designed. A lot of people I assume (mostly Protoss players) actually enjoy the mechanic. And that's all that matters.
On August 30 2017 23:39 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:25 Olli wrote:
I don't care one bit about it "attacking the concept of defender's advantage". It probably does. So what?
Yes your posts have made it abundantly clear that you don't care about anything but your own opinion. And before I bow out of this conversation, the reason I say that Protoss all-ins were too strong is because at the highest level of play there were times in the meta when I've seen top Terrans and top Zergs fall to simple all-ins where they literally could not have done anything to hold it except completely tailor their build to blind-counter it from the outset on the offchance the Protoss would try to do it (and of course if he didn't then they would be way behind and lose anyway). But of course I'm just cherry-picking and blah blah blah (which is ironic because the only arguments you've ever put forth have been cherry-picking). Anyway, have a good day everyone in this thread.
Ah, yes. The good old "they couldn't have done anything better!". They could have, and should have. Besides, warpgate all-ins weren't the only thing you could be prepared for and still die. May I remind you of roach maxes, the 1-1-1, 2rax vs Zerg, speedling or roach all-ins on certain maps with open naturals, and everyone's favorite BL/infestor?
Lots of things at some point were so strong they ended the game despite the defender being prepared. How you can reduce that to warpgate is beyond me. Then again you round it off with petty insults as you run out of arguments, so there goes any interest I had in finding it out.
|
On August 30 2017 23:08 Olli wrote:
Feel free to dislike it. It won't be removed from its current role, though. And that's a good thing in my eyes. If I want all my units to be rallied out one at a time, I'll play literally any other RTS out there.
And there is a good reason why no other game, nor other race in the game tried to mimic the warpgate mechanics, for many people it just does not fit well in the game. In the end they kind of balance everything around it so it kinda work, but many things disliked in SC2 are coming from this design choice.
I fear you are right though, they probably won't touch it.
|
On August 30 2017 23:11 207aicila wrote:
who watched a ton of progames too know how slim the margin for error when balancing this race is *because* of warp gate. Not to mention how important it was to map design (before every map was huge and had 3 safe bases at minimum).
ConquerCup admin here.
Warpgate was fine. Sure Naniwa could 4-gate you off of 1 base into oblivion. However, SjoW could 1-base 1-1-1 you into oblivion as well. And Zergs could bury you in 87-bazillion lings and blings. Transition to a 2nd base and get Mutas..gg.
WoL was about as difficult to balance as most diverse-race, 3-race RTS games. Diverse race, 3-race games are extremely hard to balance with a very slim margin for error at many different points. And, if they are easy to balance then the racial diversity is low.
Warpgate is good. Someone suggested adding 10 HP to the Zealot and removing 10 HP from the Adept. I'm all for that. I got no problems with the Adept being used only 10% as much as its used now.
In general, i'm in favour of weakening the Warpgate mechanic in some way IF this permits the strengthening of the Stalker and Zealot. I long for the old bad ass Brood War Zealot. what a beast. we used to call 10+ Zealots walking across the map the "million man march"... ah the memories.
|
On August 30 2017 23:39 Olli wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2017 23:30 The_Red_Viper wrote:
There isn't "correct design" but you can have certain goals and then decide which design decisions would be the best to reach these goals.
You can always do better and worse ofc, but i don't agree with the notion of "there is no correct decision" therefore everything is subjective anyway?
But that's exactly what it is. Enjoyment of the game is a subjective thing. And thousands of people have played SCII and never complained about warpgate, or how Protoss is designed. A lot of people I assume (mostly Protoss players) actually enjoy the mechanic. And that's all that matters.
I agree that "fun" is subjective, my argument basically is that this "fun" can be achieved no matter if there are warpgates or not though. At that point it seems better to design it in a way as explained before.
Have design goals like defenders advantage, micro potential, action all over the map, unique races, etc and then find design solutions for these goals. Preferably design decisions which don't interfere with any of the goals.
I think warpgates interfere with defenders advantage and to some extent it also interferes with other things (gateway units have to be worse than they could be which has negative impact here and there).
So we either think the uniqueness of warpgates is such a huge deal that this is ok or we do not. Personally i would say that protoss would still feel unique and fun withotu warpgate because the unit design itself is what matters a lot more. (which is actually impacted by warpgates being in the game)
|
|
|
There surely is. I just want people to think more along the lines of why they think something is fun, what the pros and cons are of a specific design decision, etc.
Who cares about balance, you can always make that reasonable enough (ofc it's also hard, but we can get to numbers which work). Let's talk more about design, if said design is fun and if said design maybe interferes with other goals we might have.
Game design surely is creative work and there are multiple things which therefore can work. But why not talk about that instead of the 1000th "balance whine".
Obviously warpgates will never be changed and thus it might not have a real impact on the game to discuss these things, but we still can come to our own conclusions, learn, discuss, etc. I think that alone is worth it.
What i also kinda dislike about warpgates is that it's not even a consistent design approach. Only gateway units can be warped in, everything else still functions the old way. That's imo a flaw in the concept, if you cannot make it work for the whole production then maybe that alone shows that the concept is flawed
|
well, only units built by a gateway can be warped in by a warpgate. that mechanic seemed intuitive to me when i first learned it.
|
I am talking about the general idea of warpin in units. Ofc the actual upgrade and implementation is clear enough, but you have to think "why only gates".
It's not like terran or zerg have these inconsistencies in their production. Protoss has.
Arguably because it was already a huge pain in the ass to balance around warpgates, now imagine if you could warpin every other unit as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
