|
After reading MorroW's thread about a fundamental problem with forcefields (MorroW's thread), there seems to be some consensus on TL that forcefields are too polarizing - good forcefields leave zerg with no response and zerg is helplessly crushed, poor forcefields and zerg simply overruns protoss' weak gateway units with little more than a-moving and/or flanking.
However, a lot of people expressed concern that if forcefield were to be changed, Protoss gateway units would have to be completely re-designed because of the interplay between forcefield, warpgates and gateway unit strength. I think a simple form of the argument goes like this:
+ Show Spoiler +
- Forcefield is so strong that gateway units must be weaker than other races' respective units for balance to exist
- Forcefield is gameplay polarizing (as above) and inherently bad design regardless of balance. We should change it.
- If forcefield is changed (nerfed), gateway units must be made stronger to compensate otherwise Protoss will plainly die in the early-mid game to mass roach/ling and bio.
- Making gateway units stronger would imbalance protoss in the early game using gateway strategies like 4,5,6-gate, largely due to the warp in mechanic ignoring defender's advantage.
So i came up with a possible change to Warp gates that would set the groundwork for changing forcefield and buffing gateway units.
+ Show Spoiler +
- New concept: disconnected pylon – a pylon further than a certain distance from nearest Nexus will be disconnected and glow a different color than blue.
- Old Warp gate research removed. By default, gateways can warp in units and can no longer ‘build’ units. Default gateways can only warp in at pylons within a certain distance from closest Nexus. When warp in is used, gateway goes on cooldown (call this Gateway Cooldown)
- New Warp Gate Research: Allows gateways to warp in units at a disconnected pylon. Warp in at a disconnected pylon triggers both Gateway Cooldown and Warp Gate Cooldown. Warp Gate Cooldown is twice as long as Gateway Cooldown. The gateway can use regular warp in as long as Gateway Cooldown is available, even if Warp Gate Cooldown is not. However, the gateway cannot use Warp Gate Cooldown if Gateway Cooldown is not available.
Simplified:If you make a pylon far away from your nexus it glows red instead of blue. Warp in at this pylon, you won't be able to warp in at any other red pylons for a long time, but you can still warp in at your blue pylons at home like normal.
Example map:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Cg9rl.jpg) Yellow circle = nexus radius for placing a regular blue pylon (shown for main,nat, third only) Blue triangle = blue pylon, doesn't trigger warp gate cooldown Red triangle = disconnected pylon, triggers warp gate cooldown Of course, you can increase the yellow circle radius. The principle is what matters - a pylon outside of the base that is intended to be used for warping in units, not just supply/powering buildings, is meant to trigger warp gate cooldown.
Thoughts :
- Fast researching and cheap. The aim here is to make it less of a necessity and more of a choice if Protoss wants to apply pressure early on. Should not define Protoss builds, but rather an enabler for a tactic (warp gate harassment/pressure).
- Allows using gateways for light pressure with single-round warp in attacks (eg early pressure on Zerg third with gateway units, warp prism plays) and restores defender’s advantage to the opponent after first round due to drastically lengthened Warp Gate Cooldown.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Some ideas that have popped up in this thread:
Other suggestions for warp gates made by people in this thread
- Warp in by default can only occur around a nexus, warp gate upgrade required to warp in at any pylon. Upgrade would presumably be available later than currently available.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- a similar idea to disconnected pylons except further limits protoss' ability to pressure or use warp prisms. Also might just cause all ins to be delayed, instead of addressing the real issue of defender's advantage. The same reasoning would apply to any suggestion that merely delays or increases the cost of acquiring warp gate tech, while leaving warp gate mechanic (once acquired) intact - including suggestions that warp gate tech should require TC, robo or stargate etc.
- Warp in can only occur around a nexus's 'power grid', extendable by pylons (like placing creep tumors).
+ Show Spoiler +
<- essentially just a removal of warping in at long distances from your base, because it's hard to imagine protoss placing a line of exposed pylons outside of their base so they can warp in more closely to the battle.
- Heavily increase warp gate cooldown, and decrease time taken to swap between gateways and warpgates. So Protoss can use regular gateway 'building' of units until they want to attack, and can swap back to gateways to remax after the battle.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- issues with using warp prisms (have to swap to warp gate then swap back just to perform some harrass?). Also seems clunky in situations where protoss might choose to have some warp gates (for quick defense at far expansion) and some gateways - managing regular building of units as well as warp ins at the same time?
- Increase duration of warp in animation and/or make warp gate tech not available until later, when 2 base all ins are less threatening.
+ Show Spoiler +
If increased slightly (eg 10 sec instead of 5) will it be enough of a change to restore defender's advantage? If increased a lot (eg 15 sec instead of 5), might make warp prisms useless because you could kill the warp prism easily in that time and make protoss lose a lot of resources.
- Re-implement high ground advantage to counteract warp gates negating defender's advantage.
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm thinking indirect ways of addressing warp gates' problem re defender's advantage aren't the best approach. This would limit map makers, and might introduce RNG which is bad. Also would have unpredictable effects on ZvT as well.
Concerns
- Idea is just too complex.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- Not much to say here, depends on how you look at it. The disconnected pylon idea is motivated by a desire to keep the warp in mechanic, keep early game attacks and warp prism plays relevant, but negating the issues associated with warp in avoiding defender's advantage. Many of the less complex suggestions (can only warp in at nexus, upgrade required to warp in at pylons, for example) proposed don't address what makes 2 base gateway all ins too strong (lack of defender's advantage) directly. They indirectly solve the problem by making all ins weaker by increasing cost/time required to acquire warp gate tech. The problem i see with this is that you have less room to buff gateway units because the moment the gateway unit buff outweighs the additional time/cost to acquire warp gate tech (compared to the current state of the game) , 4 to 8 gate attacks will see a resurgence.
Also, I don't think it's that complex on the level of the player. A newbie protoss player will just know if they place a pylon far away from their bases, it will be red instead of blue. If they warp in at a red pylon, it will trigger a longer cooldown. Range from nexus should be sufficient to make accidental placement of red pylons impossible.
edit: Guess i did have much to say, lol.
- Late game gateway units may be too strong if they are buffed and when protoss has enough gateways and a bank that 1 round can essentially remax.
- Proxy gateway strategies too strong if gateway units buffed.
+ Show Spoiler +
<- not an issue with disconnected pylons idea, because gateways can no longer build units and can only warp in at a far pylon (disconnected) with upgrade first. The pylon powering the 2 proxy gates will be disconnected. So 2 proxy gate won't even be possible.
|
I think it might work, although the design team might not like the complexity of distance-based production mechanics. Also, it is utterly dependent on the rebalancing of FF and gateway units. Protoss currently needs to hurt Zerg before Inf/BL hits, and the N-gate all-ins and pressure builds they use are incredibly fragile. Making essentially half their production unavailable to the attack increases the odds of their entire army getting crushed and overrun. That fundamental redesign is a much bigger hurdle to clear with the designers than this change.
|
Get rid of warp gates all together I don't really like them as a Protoss player Forcing you to look away to macro sucks when you have to deal with ghosts/infestors.
|
Cool idea, I've been actually thinking about something similar for a long time.
What if nexus gave the power matrix and pylons extended that (the same way zerg creep works)?
With this kind of simple change, the race would lose all of it's most annoying features in a single swing:
1. No more proxy production or tech strats.
2. No more cannonrushes.
3. No more WG rushing all-ins in the early game.
4. No more having to spend 90 to 270 minerals on every new expansion just to get power for warp-ins and cannons.
5. No more annoyingly small power grids where you have to warp 24 gates worth of units to.
6. Harder process of taking new expansions, but easier time defending them once they finish.
7. Easier time defending against ling run-by and you wouldn't have to lose the game because your units got stuck in your own sim-city.
Also, a lot of the tech trees would have a more clear and distinct speciality over each other.
- With Robo, you would have slow moving units but good scouting (obs) and the ability to reinforce on the spot.
- With TC, you would get map control through blink and charge and fast moving units, but no ability to reinforce on spot.
- With SG, you would get great scouting options, the way to shut down opponents scouting, light harassing options and some support (phoenix lift).
|
Makes it some arbitrary distance that isn't even immediately obvious would just add unneeded complexity, for players, spectators and especially map creators.
Something similar along that principle that is much less complicated is simply requiring a warp prism to warp in away from a nexus, or requiring each pylon be upgraded to a 'warp pylon' (with a cost and build time) if you want to use it to warp in, and then just buffing warpgate units from there.
Or just having each gateway require a cost to turn into a warpgate (as well as warp in units having longer build time). That way there leaves scope for balancing how many gateways you want (avoid the cost + faster build time but produces like a barracks) and how many warpgates (subject to cost, longer cooldown but can warp in at distant locations)
|
I feel like for the warp gate thing there is a very simple answer.
Warpgate research stays the same however you can only warp in in the pylon power field that also contains a completed, functional warp gate, thus completely removing proxy pylons but leaving cannon rushing intact. This way Protoss cannot warp in easily for all in's and they are finally able to be punished for being out of position for defending their bases provided they did not make canons to defend it rather than how it is right now where you are just praying that their warp gates are currently on cool down so that you can do soome damage.
I feel like FF is providing skill for protoss to use but removing skill for the defending player/attacking player. It is imo very dependant on if you are watching, how good your ff are and how good your opponent is. If any of these is bad then the battle ends up being very 1 sided.
|
On November 20 2012 17:02 Ryder. wrote:
Makes it some arbitrary distance that isn't even immediately obvious would just add unneeded complexity, for players, spectators and especially map creators.
Something similar along that principle that is much less complicated is simply requiring a warp prism to warp in away from a nexus, or requiring each pylon be upgraded to a 'warp pylon' (with a cost and build time) if you want to use it to warp in, and then just buffing warpgate units from there.
Or just having each gateway require a cost to turn into a warpgate (as well as warp in units having longer build time). That way there leaves scope for balancing how many gateways you want (avoid the cost + faster build time but produces like a barracks) and how many warpgates (subject to cost, longer cooldown but can warp in at distant locations)
While I agree it does add some complexity, I don't think it's a big issue. The range would be large enough to cover all the places that a Protoss would ordinarily place pylons around a nexus. Each expansion already has some sort of demarcation (cliffs, walls etc). The range should extend far enough that Protoss can't accidentally place a disconnected pylon, and short enough that a disconnected pylon placed can only be interpreted as an intention to use warp in aggression at that pylon.
The suggestion you make about only warp prisms being able to warp in doesn't address the issue of warp gate negating defender's advantage which is the main limitation (in my mind) why gateway units can't yet be buffed. Same with requiring pylons to upgrade to be able to warp in, or imposing a cost on transforming gateways into warp gates. These are just pure nerfs to protoss (they have to spend more money/time before they can do what they can already do), instead of changing a fundamental issue so that there is room to make changes to FF and buffing the strength of gateway units.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On November 20 2012 17:01 ledgerhs wrote:
Cool idea, I've been actually thinking about something similar for a long time.
What if nexus gave the power matrix and pylons extended that (the same way zerg creep works)?
With this kind of simple change, the race would lose all of it's most annoying features in a single swing:
1. No more proxy production or tech strats.
2. No more cannonrushes.
3. No more WG rushing all-ins in the early game.
4. No more having to spend 90 to 270 minerals on every new expansion just to get power for warp-ins and cannons.
5. No more annoyingly small power grids where you have to warp 24 gates worth of units to.
6. Easier time with general sim-city. Harder process of taking new expansions, but easier time defending them once they finish.
1. Good thing, adds variance
2. Good thing, adds variance
3. Good thing, adds variance
4. Everyone needs to defend an expansion, why should Toss not have to?
5. Deal with it, you have the fastest reinforcement and to any place on the map basically, you should be able to find some space or at least plan in advance with attacks, it can't be all easy going.
6. When has Toss ever wanted to have harder expansions to take? Toss already has quite hard bases to crack with cannons, no need to make them harder.
|
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same.
|
This has pretty much been my argument for the reason that they have FF in the first place.
There can however be other complications. Something like a blink stalker all-in could become increadibly strong when Stalkers get buffed. This is one example, but because of these, I think we should make further consideration about the impact of the change, than just looking at the 4-gate..
@Razorspine, I dont think that pylons at connected to gateways would be the best solution. If you consider how easy it is for a Terran to proxy two rax. What is stopping the Protoss from a similar proxy, and if they can do this with stronger gateway units, a Terran pretty much straight up looses if they dont scout/destroy the proxy gate before the 5 min mark.
Looking at the implications that I posted above (I am not sure how much these have effect, but they should be taken into serious consideration), I think the solution may lay in replacing the FF. Maybe the Sentry can be a buffer from which the effect works comparible to Stim. The actual implimetation would be definatly different, because the buff is done through a spell caster, creating a different weakness, resulting in different gameplay.
|
4. Everyone needs to defend an expansion, why should Toss not have to?
I for T and Z they can just plant down a bunker or spine wherever their expansion completes. Toss has to plant down pylons just for the power and then cannons. It's just more expensive and it doesn't have to be.
6. When has Toss ever wanted to have harder expansions to take? Toss already has quite hard bases to crack with cannons, no need to make them harder.
I guess I'm more conservative and like the RTS101 type design where you have to spend money on either static defense, map control or scouting to expand safely. I never really liked the idea that you can spend on infrastructure that works as defence to expand. It creates a too binary type asymmetric balance and forces the gamedevs to design gateway units with a clear weakness (like the requirement of FF to trade efficiently).
|
On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same.
I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that.
|
On November 20 2012 17:35 Deckkie wrote:
This has pretty much been my argument for the reason that they have FF in the first place.
There can however be other complications. Something like a blink stalker all-in could become increadibly strong when Stalkers get buffed. This is one example, but I think we should look further than just the 4-gate.
@Razorspine, I dont think that pylons at connected to gateways would be the best solution. If you consider how easy it is for a Terran to proxy two rax. What is stopping the Protoss from a similar proxy, and if they can do this with stronger gateway units, a Terran pretty much straight up looses if they dont scout/destroy the proxy gate before the 5 min mark.
Looking at the implications that I posted above (I am not sure how much these have effect, but they should be taken into serious consideration), I think the solution may lay in replacing the FF. Maybe the Sentry can be a buffer from which the effect works comparible to Stim. The actual implimetation would be definatly different, because the buff is done through a spell caster, creating a different weakness, resulting in different gameplay.
Is blink stalker all-in really that strong if the subsequent rounds of warp ins take twice as long? There are not many all-ins that I know of that simply instantly kill zerg without at least a few rounds of warp ins. Keep in mind we are also considering a FF change which would balance out some/most/all of the additional power of gateway units.
In any case, if the stalker all in is super strong, it can be scouted because protoss will have to pre-make stalkers in their base. The aggression switch won't be as sudden as currently, where zerg thinks it's just stalker pressure but then 8 gates of stalkers warp in outside zerg's third. Instead, protoss will want to warp in before moving out, because they know they only get 1 warp in cycle at the proxy pylon, which allows zerg to scout the stalkers moving out. A lot of theorycrafting but I think it makes sense overall.
|
The problem with a range based limit on WG is that it creates a fair bit of confusion for players on both sides as to where protoss can and cannot warp in units. "Am i 75 range from the nexus,or am I 76?". A tiny misplacement and suddenly your strat is broken for a minor error.
You could start adding in range indicators from nexus but then the map just get messy, the opponent can't see it (can protoss flank with warpins here?) and its just poor game design.
On/Off polarization like that is not good for a game, even a misplaced Nexus can still mine.
The best "fix" to warpgate I've seen posted several times is to simply increase the cooldown for warpgates so that they're good for a one-time reinforcement but bad for macro (WG can buff standard gate build times after research so that toss production can still keep the same pace it has now). This would also give players a reason to use "Turn Warpgate back to Gateway" (the least useful ability in the game, bar none).
|
On November 20 2012 17:23 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:02 Ryder. wrote:
Makes it some arbitrary distance that isn't even immediately obvious would just add unneeded complexity, for players, spectators and especially map creators.
Something similar along that principle that is much less complicated is simply requiring a warp prism to warp in away from a nexus, or requiring each pylon be upgraded to a 'warp pylon' (with a cost and build time) if you want to use it to warp in, and then just buffing warpgate units from there.
Or just having each gateway require a cost to turn into a warpgate (as well as warp in units having longer build time). That way there leaves scope for balancing how many gateways you want (avoid the cost + faster build time but produces like a barracks) and how many warpgates (subject to cost, longer cooldown but can warp in at distant locations) While I agree it does add some complexity, I don't think it's a big issue. The range would be large enough to cover all the places that a Protoss would ordinarily place pylons around a nexus. Each expansion already has some sort of demarcation (cliffs, walls etc). The range should extend far enough that Protoss can't accidentally place a disconnected pylon, and short enough that a disconnected pylon placed can only be interpreted as an intention to use warp in aggression at that pylon. The suggestion you make about only warp prisms being able to warp in doesn't address the issue of warp gate negating defender's advantage which is the main limitation (in my mind) why gateway units can't yet be buffed. Same with requiring pylons to upgrade to be able to warp in, or imposing a cost on transforming gateways into warp gates. These are just pure nerfs to protoss (they have to spend more money/time before they can do what they can already do), instead of changing a fundamental issue so that there is room to make changes to FF and buffing the strength of gateway units.
You say it isn't a big issue but your very description of the distance is vague and arbitrary. Map makers already have enough trouble with making maps due to the nature of protoss taking a natural and 3rd (need to be able to walloff natural for FFE, third can't have too many different attack paths). You say 'long enough for this, short enough for that' but that is entirely map dependant and very vague and will make the balance of PvX matchups very map dependant if you buff gateway units yet some maps still allow aggressive warpins just because the nature of the map layout..
And what do you mean my suggestions don't address the issue of warp gate negating defender's advantage? Your suggestion of disconnected pylons increasing cooldown doesn't 'negate' the issue either; they can still do aggressive warp ins. The whole point is to simply make it more costly for aggressive warp-ins so you can justify buffing gateway units. Requiring a warp prism or upgraded pylons/warpgates that cost extra does exactly that; it makes it harder/more expensive to use aggressive warp ins, so you have to think twice about whether it is actually worth it (and in the case of warp prism) need to ensure you don't lose it since losing it is much more costly to your attack than throwing up 4 pylons and losing 1 or 2 of them. Its just about adding to the cost/risk of aggressive warpins.
Edit: ^^ guy above me put it very well.
|
Russian Federation216 Posts
i think better add flexibility to this like:
all protoss structures is connected through pylon field and using nexus like some kind of "nydus network"
so if you want to warp on your pylo, his power field should:
- be connected to gateway
OR
- be connected through other powerfields to gateway
OR
- be connected to nexus (may be through other pylonfields)
where nexuses serve as ultimate point, which doesn't needs connection to gateways and etc
|
On November 20 2012 17:49 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:35 Deckkie wrote:
This has pretty much been my argument for the reason that they have FF in the first place.
There can however be other complications. Something like a blink stalker all-in could become increadibly strong when Stalkers get buffed. This is one example, but I think we should look further than just the 4-gate.
@Razorspine, I dont think that pylons at connected to gateways would be the best solution. If you consider how easy it is for a Terran to proxy two rax. What is stopping the Protoss from a similar proxy, and if they can do this with stronger gateway units, a Terran pretty much straight up looses if they dont scout/destroy the proxy gate before the 5 min mark.
Looking at the implications that I posted above (I am not sure how much these have effect, but they should be taken into serious consideration), I think the solution may lay in replacing the FF. Maybe the Sentry can be a buffer from which the effect works comparible to Stim. The actual implimetation would be definatly different, because the buff is done through a spell caster, creating a different weakness, resulting in different gameplay. Is blink stalker all-in really that strong if the subsequent rounds of warp ins take twice as long? There are not many all-ins that I know of that simply instantly kill zerg without at least a few rounds of warp ins. Keep in mind we are also considering a FF change which would balance out some/most/all of the additional power of gateway units. In any case, if the stalker all in is super strong, it can be scouted because protoss will have to pre-make stalkers in their base. The aggression switch won't be as sudden as currently, where zerg thinks it's just stalker pressure but then 8 gates of stalkers warp in outside zerg's third. Instead, protoss will want to warp in before moving out, because they know they only get 1 warp in cycle at the proxy pylon, which allows zerg to scout the stalkers moving out. A lot of theorycrafting but I think it makes sense overall.
This could definatly be a solution.
My first thought however is: what would stop the Protoss from going 5-gate instead of 4? With a fifth gate, the Protoss can still get the same strength as when the gates would build as fast as they do now. So, would this fifth gate be a sufficient investment to counter the damage increase of the gateway units?
edit: investment, not infestment.
|
On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that.
I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
|
On November 20 2012 17:57 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that. I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
Not only that, but if you would make the gateways produce faster, you would get the same problem as seen in early WOL beta. Protoss could just go two gate zealot every game and destroy his opponent.
|
On November 20 2012 17:57 contv wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 17:42 droken wrote:On November 20 2012 17:31 Xanbatou wrote:
All they have to do is buff gateway units slightly and increase production time for gateway units when warping them in, but keeping regular gateway production the same. I second this. If they would do this and lower the transition time between warp gate and gateway, it would be a viable option to swap your warp gates into gateways when remaxing, or even maxing and then turning them into warp gates when you actually need to attack. I would love that. I disagree with this suggestion. The bulk of gateways is in the main base, if Protoss trade an army then decides to swap their gates to gateways to build units back up more quickly, they can get caught with their pants down at 4th/5th bases. Also, protoss already has something to speed up unit creation - spending build up chronoboost on their gateways. It doesn't make sense to me to trade time (swapping between gateways/warpgates) to gain time (faster unit rebuilding), even if you propose to reduce the swap time.
If you are afraid of getting caught with your pants down at 4th/5th bases, then keep your gateways as warpgates. Hell, at that stage in the game, you could just build additional gateways that you will SOLELY use as warpgates in case of an emergency. It's really not a problem if you think about it.
Not only that, but if you would make the gateways produce faster, you would get the same problem as seen in early WOL beta. Protoss could just go two gate zealot every game and destroy his opponent.
I don't really think this will be an issue anymore lol, even if gateway units were slightly buffed to compensate for the loss of utility with warp tech. If it were causing an issue though, it would just require increasing gateway build time a tad. Again though, I don't think this would be an issue even with slightly buffed gateway units. Proxy 2gate is pretty easy to stop.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
