StarCraft® II

Warpgate / Gateway, why bother David, Dustin?

Posts: 570
I don't know how to write this to ensure the development team read it but here goes.

Simply put, where's the tradeoff / concession in warpgate vs gateway? I do not understand the logic in the warp gate mechanic being better in every way except queuing multiple units?

Everything which makes being a huge SC2 specator exciting is watching matches go back and forth and enjoying tense moments. There's no tension with the warpgates as they currently are because there's no tradeoff.

How much more exciting would a warp prism / hidden pylon drop be, if the attacking player having opted for warpgates also had to factor in a slightly longer cooldown for building his units 'locally' via the warpgate? On the flipside the defender could have a slightly faster response time by making the choice to spend 10 minerals and 5 seconds, converting his warpgates, back to gateways but ensuring faster build times? That strategical decision would be interesting and add a dynamic to the game.

Blizzard, I understand you get a lot of whiny 'but it should be this way!' posts on these forums but I genuinely can't see the logic here, without that tradeoff, there is simply no reason to ever NOT get warpgates?
This means you may as well just adjust the build time on the gateway and make it have warpgates as default :/

This isn't the biggest problem in the world but I feel it's a shortcoming of the game which could be easily looked at through some ongoing testing for the HoTS beta. It could really lead to more exciting and interesting games and THAT is what gets the spectators.

One final thing, I want to make it clear, not only do I play Protoss and I'm a "Protoss fan" in general - but I propose this more as a viewer, who wants to enjoy good games. I watch probably 50+ hours a month of SC2.
Seriously guys, you don't have to answer me here, just ask yourselves - why is it like that?

Thanks for your time.
Reply Quote
Posts: 118
agreed!

when i first learned about the most recent patch to warpgates, i thought they would be slower than gateways.

i thought players just went to warpgate immeadiately to 4gate attack.

it took me months to realize that warpgates r actually faster, too.

maybe in hots?
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
I'm not aware of any plans to change this in HoTS and I don't know the best method to get feedback to Blizzard. It's unfortunate.

Also I'm surprised to get someone agree here on the Blizz forums, perhaps all hope is not lost for this place :)
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
Blizzard have now mentioned they might think about looking at old stuff, "maybe" in HoTS :( I'd really love to see this change - big but I think important.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,926
08/27/2012 07:29 AMPosted by abrasion
Simply put, where's the tradeoff / concession in warpgate vs gateway? I do not understand the logic in the warp gate mechanic being better in every way except queuing multiple units?


It's like asking why there isn't a reason to not get ling speed for Zerg. The mechanic is there to make Protoss different, but they can't give it to you by default or else the game balance would be really stupid.
Reply Quote
Posts: 988
I understand why many people think that Blizzard intended a tradeoff between warpgates and gateways since the two function so differently, but I think it's pretty clear that Blizzard has warpgate as an upgrade simply to delay when Protoss has access to warpgates. The closest parallel I can think of is the Orbital Command--there's no reason for the Terran not to get it, but Blizzard implemented a Barracks requirement so that Terran couldn't get it at the beginning of the game. Blizzard never intended for there to be a real tradeoff between the Command Center and the Orbital Command, in the same way that there is no real tradeoff between the Gateway and the Warpgate. There's no logical flaw on Blizzard's part--it's simply a balance decision, and I think its clear that they never intended Gateways to be used past the early game.

The strategy behind the warpgate upgrade is not whether or not to get it, but when to get it. For example, a Protoss player needs to decide whether to get warpgate before or after expanding, or whether to invest chronoboosts into the research or into Probes. Terran and Zerg players face similar choices with upgrades like ling speed and stim.

I agree that an actual tradeoff would be interesting from a spectating perspective, but it would be very difficult to balance. You'd either have to nerf warpgate, which would be very unpopular, or buff gateways, which could make proxy stalker or zealot strategies extremely imbalanced, and/or make Protoss' defenders advantage too strong.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,697
08/27/2012 07:29 AMPosted by abrasion
I do not understand the logic in the warp gate mechanic being better in every way except queuing multiple units?


Queuing multiple units is never a good thing. Warp gate is better period.

It was always intended for protoss to have warp gate as their primary macro mechanic. The only reason you see gate way first is for balance concerns. It lets protoss stay even with the other races. If warp gate was free, then the first protoss units would be out before the first terran units.

So why is warp gate our main macro mechanic? It is simply our unique ability. Terran has add-ons with the tech lab and reactor. Zerg has queens to spawn additional larvae, and the larvae mechanic itself is part of their unique abilities.

From a design perspective, warp gates are not a flaw, they're intentional. There is no need to have an equally good reason to use a gateway throughout the game. As it stands, there is only one good reason to not get warp gate and that's for proxy gateways.
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
10/08/2012 12:56 PMPosted by EllisD
I do not understand the logic in the warp gate mechanic being better in every way except queuing multiple units?


Queuing multiple units is never a good thing. Warp gate is better period.


I don't even need to read the rest of your post to know you 'don't get it' - the entire point of the OP is that it's a TRADEOFF - yes queueing is bad that it ties up your resources and yes gateways suck because they ONLY build at home - but that's why the tradeoff should exist, gateway builds faster locally, or player managers their cooldown and has warpgate.

This so needs to be changed.
Reply Quote
Posts: 2,920
I get your points OP, however as many other Protoss have stated before, in order for this to take effect, the gateway units need a buff of some kind to compensate.

Personally I would like to see a reason to stay on regular gateways, even though it's a backward step in technology.
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
I get your points OP, however as many other Protoss have stated before, in order for this to take effect, the gateway units need a buff of some kind to compensate.

Personally I would like to see a reason to stay on regular gateways, even though it's a backward step in technology.


A small buff - remember the warpgate build time would now be shorter.
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
I understand why many people think that Blizzard intended a tradeoff between warpgates and gateways since the two function so differently, but I think it's pretty clear that Blizzard has warpgate as an upgrade simply to delay when Protoss has access to warpgates. The closest parallel I can think of is the Orbital Command--there's no reason for the Terran not to get it, but Blizzard implemented a Barracks requirement so that Terran couldn't get it at the beginning of the game. Blizzard never intended for there to be a real tradeoff between the Command Center and the Orbital Command, in the same way that there is no real tradeoff between the Gateway and the Warpgate. There's no logical flaw on Blizzard's part--it's simply a balance decision, and I think its clear that they never intended Gateways to be used past the early game.

The strategy behind the warpgate upgrade is not whether or not to get it, but when to get it. For example, a Protoss player needs to decide whether to get warpgate before or after expanding, or whether to invest chronoboosts into the research or into Probes. Terran and Zerg players face similar choices with upgrades like ling speed and stim.

I agree that an actual tradeoff would be interesting from a spectating perspective, but it would be very difficult to balance. You'd either have to nerf warpgate, which would be very unpopular, or buff gateways, which could make proxy stalker or zealot strategies extremely imbalanced, and/or make Protoss' defenders advantage too strong.


The problem is people get it, every time - it's simply 'part of protoss now' - that lack of having to balance the two takes out a nice cool way to have to manage something in the game, adding some complexity and variety to games.

I genuinely don't think it would be THAT difficult to balance back to gateway, ESPECIALLY during a beta.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8
Why would they nerf it? If you want to play like that. Play terran!! thats one of the main things that sets up protoss for matchups. Otherwise it would be like just like terran!
Edited by BeAsT on 10/12/2012 2:41 PM PDT
Reply Quote
Posts: 570
10/12/2012 02:40 PMPosted by BeAsT
Why would they nerf it? If you want to play like that. Play terran!! thats one of the main things that sets up protoss for matchups. Otherwise it would be like just like terran!


This isn't about nerfing or buffing, I want to make that clear, this is actually about just adding a different way of playing. The idea of players having to decide if they are going for a shorter build time but needing to rally / queue the units or a longer build time but the convienience of anywhere there's power.

I'm not saying there's any imbalance or that warpgate is 'broken' - I'm not one of those people, I'm just saying - hey this could be cooler, imagine players having to make that tactical decision.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]