What if the warpgate becomes a separate building to the gateway which allows you to warp ANY units from any of your available existing production facilities but on a very harsh cooldown.

Yes, you could warp in Carriers or even Probes but doing so will take a lot longer than simply building the actual unit.

When you use the warpgate the production facility that produces said unit goes in "cooldown" for a lot longer than the actual build time of the unit. This means you reinforce once with strong units but you can't do it all the time unless you invest the money into more production facilities.

Thoughts?

brickrd

United States4894 Posts

April 16 2015 22:16 GMT

#22

i think it would be neat if you could only warp in 1 unit at a time per psi field. so at home you could just stack a pylon wall near your gateways or whatever and be able to warp in 6 stalkers defensively in your base, but aggressively you would be forced to either reinforce slower or invest money in a bunch of extra proxy pylons

DarkPlasmaBall

United States43410 Posts

April 17 2015 11:45 GMT

#23

On April 17 2015 06:42 TheDwf wrote:

Show nested quote +

Queueing doesn't make macro “easy,” quite on the contrary it creates the tension between “too little” (production gaps) and “too much” (saturation of production = inefficient use of resources); the latter being absent from the Warpgate model.

I meant on relative terms... "easier". It's not easy, per se, because very little of the game is inherently easy. As you mentioned, any race can forget about creating a new round of units at the perfect time, but Terran and Zerg allow for a little more leeway in that respect, as they permit queuing in case they need to focus entirely on microing an upcoming battle or something else that focuses all their attention. Not only can Protoss not queue with warpgate, but it requires you to look away from the battle when you wish to warp in more units (unless there is a proxy pylon exactly on screen, which is quite rare), which can lead to errors in micro/ key units being picked off (especially since Protoss units are slower too). This is another macro problem that Terran does not have (since they can use only hotkeys if needed, so they don't have to look off-screen to build more units), although Zergs have this issue too in terms of injecting larvae. Obviously, the ability to reinforce pretty much anywhere on the map is the reason why Protoss uses warpgates and sacrifices the more reliable macro mechanics of gateways.

NasusAndDraven

359 Posts

April 17 2015 12:26 GMT

#24

On April 17 2015 20:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I meant on relative terms... "easier". It's not easy, per se, because very little of the game is inherently easy. As you mentioned, any race can forget about creating a new round of units at the perfect time, but Terran and Zerg allow for a little more leeway in that respect, as they permit queuing in case they need to focus entirely on microing an upcoming battle or something else that focuses all their attention. Not only can Protoss not queue with warpgate, but it requires you to look away from the battle when you wish to warp in more units (unless there is a proxy pylon exactly on screen, which is quite rare), which can lead to errors in micro/ key units being picked off (especially since Protoss units are slower too). This is another macro problem that Terran does not have (since they can use only hotkeys if needed, so they don't have to look off-screen to build more units), although Zergs have this issue too in terms of injecting larvae. Obviously, the ability to reinforce pretty much anywhere on the map is the reason why Protoss uses warpgates and sacrifices the more reliable macro mechanics of gateways.

Being able to queue units is a big advantage. Even thou queued units are pretty much locking your resources away early which is bad, its still much better than having your warpgates sitting idle just because you have something more important to do at that second. And ofcourse other big advatange is that you dont have to locate camera at a certain location to build. But because of this reason I have always tought that zerg macro is by far the easiest. Sure they have to inject larvae but that can be done really fast if you practice. But protoss and terran have to build supply depots/pylons which takes 4 times more time than building overlords even counting in the inject larvae and ignoring the fact that you have to locate camera to exact location unlike for overlords. Also keep in mind that protoss and terran have to build other buildings aswell more than zerg, and building buildings takes always much more time than building units.

JCoto

Spain574 Posts

April 17 2015 12:47 GMT

#25

Why can't we just simply swap Gateway and Warpgate times and move Warpgate up in tech? Is the most brained thing, and only requires small rework of the macro. Maybe some build times should also be adjusted.
Just like SC2 alpha.

BTW, we need old Chronoboost (30s duration) and the Obelisk or some Nexus upgrade tech at 150mins to standarize Protoss macro.

[UoN]Sentinel

United States11320 Posts

April 21 2015 17:58 GMT

#26

I like the idea of limiting WG range, but I feel like we need to focus on making the Gateway useful past WG research as well.

I like JCoto's idea, maybe at that point we wouldn't even need to move Warpgate up. Just swap the times (or just extend Warpgate time), maybe buff the Zealot/Stalker to compensate for the loss and reform the Protoss core, and should be good.

vicml21

Canada165 Posts

April 22 2015 04:18 GMT

#27

I kind of like how it would give a defenders advantage in PvP games, but I think it might be a little confusing for newer players. I also currently like how protoss unit building mechanics vary quite a bit from terran and zerg, and if you can queue up units again, I feel like it might be too similar to terrans once again? Definitely a small detail, but still an interesting suggestion, similar to the idea I had back when Wings of Liberty was first released.