cywinr Profile Joined February 2011 Canada 172 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-15 08:04:26 #1



You probably think you already understand The Theory of Warpgate Relativity. I'm sure you do. Simply put, a Zealot warped in at your opponent's base is relatively stronger than a Zealot warped in at home. That is the TLDR for The Theory of Warpgate Relativity. This analysis is going to thoroughly expose the problem as it existed in Wings of Liberty, explain how Blizzard mitigated it in Heart of the Swarm, and how it is still holding back Protoss in Legacy of the Void. I will conclude with a very simple proposal.



Let's start with the 4-Gate, the single, most definitive build in Wings of Liberty. This build relies on attacking your opponent immediately after warpgate research completes. The catch is... it is a double-edged sword. Normally, the time it takes for you to run across the map is an advantage for the defender. The 4-Gate build was popular not for this reason, but because it was unfavourable not to use the build. For the sake of balance, the strength of a gateway army had to be equal to the opponent's army at the opponent's base . The same Protoss army used to defend would be relatively weaker than if it were attacking. This was especially problematic in PvP. As soon as warpgate research finishes for both players, neither player has a defender's advantage. If one player decides to expand, their army is instantly 400 minerals weaker.



Several WoL patches introduced changes like not allowing a low-ground pylon to warp in units on the high-ground, as well as designs in mapmaking involving ramps and chokes were crucial in creating advantages for the defender. Protoss players had to create walls with their expansions in order to defend against early Zerg pushes. Natural expansions, chokes and ramps were later standardized to allow Protoss players to use forcefields and delay Terran bio pushes. They also made forge-fast-expand builds viable against Zerg because Zerg could not get past the building wall effectively. All these changes allow Protoss to prevent their opponent's army from attacking at full-force due to forcefields, ramps, and buildings. Gateway units are weaker to ensure they are not overpowered during warpgate attacks.



I am confident that Blizzard is completely aware of this. That is why they introduced the Mothership Core for Heart of the Swarm. Its new abilities all contribute to giving Protoss more advantages when defending. The most obvious ability is Photon Overcharge, turning your Nexus into a giant cannon. This advantage cannot be used offensively, and has allowed PvP strategies to include expansion builds and move beyond the 4-Gate. This solution is especially effective because its usefulness tapers off at the same time as Protoss becomes less dependant on gateway units. This is incredibly important.



Warpgate Relativity is most disruptive in the early stages of the game. When Protoss relies heavily on gateway units, the strength of the army is heavily influenced depending on whether the units are attacking or defending. Once Protoss starts making units out of a robo or a stargate, the defender's advantage starts to return because these units cannot be warped in. A defending Protoss player will have more high-tech units than an attacking Protoss player. The effects of warpgate relativity is less disruptive once you get past the early game. Although HotS has been successful in mitigating the effects of Warpgate Relativity, the MSC isn't a solution. The fundamental problem is still rooted in Protoss strategy and carries over to the LotV.



With the economy changes in Legacy of the Void, players are expected to defend more bases with lower-tech units when compared to WoL and HotS. Considering how weak gateway units are, it is no wonder that Protoss players are struggling to defend multiple bases. They just don't have enough time to reach those high-tech units and the map terrain does not allow them to take a third base safely. Turtling on 2 or 3 bases is not just a cheesy Protoss strategy. It is a necessity. So far, Blizzard is continuing to use the MSC to cover up this problem. The most recent patch has suggested to reduce the energy needed for Recall. This tells me that Blizzard knows gateway units are not able to defend multiple expansions on their own. I do not agree with this approach. It is putting too much emphasis on the importance of a MSC. I think the goal should be giving gateway units the strength to defend as an army.



Two things have become very clear to me. First of all, gateway units are too weak. Secondly, warpgate in the early-game has too big of an impact on the defender's advantage. I propose to move warpgate research higher up the tech-path and to buff existing gateway units. This will allow Protoss players to defend head-to-head against other early-game armies. Warpgate becomes available at later a time when the Protoss army is less dependant on gateway units. The warp-in mechanic remains a cool and useful tactic, but players will have to think critically about when to research this.



All right, I confess. The Theory of Warpgate Relativity is just a fancy name for how warpgate affects the defender's advantage. I use this title because its impact is complicated, hard to quantify and is always changing. The influence of warpgate fluctuates depending on how far you warp-in, what units are warped-in, and the timing of the game. As the game goes on longer, the problem lessens and warpgate is used more for reinforcement, harassment, and defense.



Preface: I must start by saying that I love the warpgate mechanic. It is the most distinctive, cool, and fun element to playing Protoss. However, I don't think people understand the severity of the problem that warpgate is for the Protoss race. Many others have said similar things. I am merely exposing these ideas in a more detailed way before LotV is released.You probably think you already understand The Theory of Warpgate Relativity. I'm sure you do. Simply put, a Zealot warped in at your opponent's base is relatively stronger than a Zealot warped in at home. That is the TLDR for The Theory of Warpgate Relativity. This analysis is going to thoroughly expose the problem as it existed in Wings of Liberty, explain how Blizzard mitigated it in Heart of the Swarm, and how it is still holding back Protoss in Legacy of the Void. I will conclude with a very simple proposal.Let's start with the 4-Gate, the single, most definitive build in Wings of Liberty. This build relies on attacking your opponent immediately after warpgate research completes. The catch is... it is a double-edged sword. Normally, the time it takes for you to run across the map is an advantage for the defender. The 4-Gate build was popular not for this reason, but because it was unfavourableto use the build. For the sake of balance, the strength of a gateway army had to be equal to the opponent's army. The same Protoss army used to defend would be relatively weaker than if it were attacking. This was especially problematic in PvP. As soon as warpgate research finishes for both players, neither player has a defender's advantage. If one player decides to expand, their army is instantly 400 minerals weaker.Several WoL patches introduced changes like not allowing a low-ground pylon to warp in units on the high-ground, as well as designs in mapmaking involving ramps and chokes were crucial in creating advantages for the defender. Protoss players had to create walls with their expansions in order to defend against early Zerg pushes. Natural expansions, chokes and ramps were later standardized to allow Protoss players to use forcefields and delay Terran bio pushes. They also made forge-fast-expand builds viable against Zerg because Zerg could not get past the building wall effectively. All these changes allow Protoss to prevent their opponent's army from attacking at full-force due to forcefields, ramps, and buildings. Gateway units are weaker to ensure they are not overpowered during warpgate attacks.I am confident that Blizzard is completely aware of this. That is why they introduced the Mothership Core for Heart of the Swarm. Its new abilities all contribute to giving Protoss more advantages when defending. The most obvious ability is Photon Overcharge, turning your Nexus into a giant cannon. This advantage cannot be used offensively, and has allowed PvP strategies to include expansion builds and move beyond the 4-Gate. This solution is especially effective because its usefulness tapers off at the same time as Protoss becomes less dependant on gateway units. This is incredibly important.Warpgate Relativity is most disruptive in the early stages of the game. When Protoss relies heavily on gateway units, the strength of the army is heavily influenced depending on whether the units are attacking or defending. Once Protoss starts making units out of a robo or a stargate, the defender's advantage starts to return because these units cannot be warped in. A defending Protoss player will have more high-tech units than an attacking Protoss player. The effects of warpgate relativity is less disruptive once you get past the early game. Although HotS has been successful in mitigating the effects of Warpgate Relativity, the MSC isn't a solution. The fundamental problem is still rooted in Protoss strategy and carries over to the LotV.With the economy changes in Legacy of the Void, players are expected to defend more bases with lower-tech units when compared to WoL and HotS. Considering how weak gateway units are, it is no wonder that Protoss players are struggling to defend multiple bases. They just don't have enough time to reach those high-tech units and the map terrain does not allow them to take a third base safely. Turtling on 2 or 3 bases is not just a cheesy Protoss strategy. It is a necessity. So far, Blizzard is continuing to use the MSC to cover up this problem. The most recent patch has suggested to reduce the energy needed for Recall. This tells me that Blizzard knows gateway units are not able to defend multiple expansions on their own. I do not agree with this approach. It is putting too much emphasis on the importance of a MSC. I think the goal should be giving gateway units the strength to defend as an army.Two things have become very clear to me. First of all, gateway units are too weak. Secondly, warpgate in the early-game has too big of an impact on the defender's advantage. I propose to move warpgate research higher up the tech-path and to buff existing gateway units. This will allow Protoss players to defend head-to-head against other early-game armies. Warpgate becomes available at later a time when the Protoss army is less dependant on gateway units. The warp-in mechanic remains a cool and useful tactic, but players will have to think critically about when to research this.All right, I confess. The Theory of Warpgate Relativity is just a fancy name for how warpgate affects the defender's advantage. I use this title because its impact is complicated, hard to quantify and is always changing. The influence of warpgate fluctuates depending on how far you warp-in, what units are warped-in, and the timing of the game. As the game goes on longer, the problem lessens and warpgate is used more for reinforcement, harassment, and defense. To describe my proposal in greater detail, I would make warpgate technology to be researched at the Twilight Council instead of the Cybernetics Core. This is an obvious nerf to gateway units by taking away their ability to be warped in early. This change is also a nerf to Twilight Council since you can only research warpgate, blink, or charge, one at a time. To address both these problems, I propose to make blink available without research. Giving Stalkers the ability to blink without research allows Protoss to scout safely in the early-game. An immediate concern regarding blink strategies comes up, but a key part of what makes blink strategies so powerful also comes from the ability to warp-in as well as high-ground vision from the Mothership Core. Zealots and Sentries can receive stat buffs to allow them to fight head-on against other armies. This means Protoss won't need time warp or photon overcharge to give them an advantage. The final change I would make is removing the Mothership Core because many of the problems the Mothership Core addresses will not longer be a problem.



Alternatively, you could make Twilight Council a requirement to research warpgate at the Cybernetics Core and Twilight Council will not be nerfed, instead it would be buffed. In that case, you will not have to change blink, you can simply buff Gateway units, but Protoss may lack early map control compared to the new LotV Terran and Zerg races. I guess they still have the adept.



There have been other suggestions, such as longer build-times for warpgates, or less health for units warped-in, varying depending on the distance from the gateway. That is all way too complicated. As I mentioned, the effects of Warpgate Relativity is always changing. There have been other suggestions, such as longer build-times for warpgates, or less health for units warped-in, varying depending on the distance from the gateway. That is all way too complicated. As I mentioned, the effects of Warpgate Relativity is always changing.

Pontius Pirate Profile Blog Joined August 2013 United States 1556 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-15 08:44:27 #2 These are not exactly new ideas, but they're delivered in a much more palatable article here than they have been in many previous posts. I disagree with your assertion that longer Warpgate cooldowns would be complicated, but that's probably a bone to pick for another thread. Your idea sounds pretty solid, though I get skittish around the idea of Blink being researchable so early. Then again, if the other gateway units are buffed and Stalkers are not, maybe that's exactly what Protoss needs. Personally, I'd prefer the Sentry not be buffed in dps, but in making it less fragile, or improving guardian shield a little bit more.



In relation to the Zealot, I'm beginning to think that 55 shields and 110 HP might be a better spread for it than the frequently suggested 60/100 from BW. It's just barely strong enough to tank a WM shot if you don't have blink yet to dodge it, and you don't want to be forced to lose a unit to it. Slightly more encouragement to use the Chargelot-Archon with storm composition is always nice, just as long as it's not so much encouragement that huge swaths of pure Zealots are seen being kited by a bio ball across entire maps again. If it turns out to be too strong against Zerg early game, it could be swapped to 65/100, but I feel like Protoss needs all the non-Adept help they can get against early game Zerg in LotV. "I had to close the door so my parents wouldn't judge me." - ZombieGrub during the ShitfaceTradeTV stream

fenix404 Profile Joined May 2011 United States 305 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-15 09:04:40 #3



it could even make expansions throughout the game much more defendable... its sad that the only advantage to high ground is simply vision, which can be overcome with any air unit (MSC, anyone?) i wish they would be willing to try it might sound cliche, or too brood-war-ish (i don't think so), but if they could add in miss chance when shooting uphill, almost every all-in in the game would get a nerf merely by your base being elevated. dota 2 even has miss chance when shooting uphill, how can they realistically argue against it?it could even make expansions throughout the game much more defendable... its sad that the only advantage to high ground is simply vision, which can be overcome with any air unit (MSC, anyone?) i wish they would be willing to try "think for yourself, question authority"

WhiteSapphire Profile Joined May 2015 2 Posts #4 The argument is well-structured and coherent, but perhaps there are better solutions than what you propose. Moving Warpgate to the Twilight is along the lines of Starbow's solution, which moved it to the Templar Archives. I personally like this solution very much, and I think many others could be on board with this as well. But as you addressed, it leaves the problem of needing to buff Gateway units somehow.



Starting Stalkers with Blink would make PvP highly uninteresting. I do not think this is a good solution.



The difficulty of making Gateway units stronger has to do both with Warpgate and Forcefield as many people have pointed out before. Both have to be nerfed before we can talk about buffing Gateway unit stats.



The LotV Adept is almost an example of how much stronger a Gateway unit can be if Warpgate and Forcefield were nerfed/removed. LotV Warpgate is delayed relative to the rest of the game, and Adepts don't synergize with Forcefields in such a way that Adept+Sentry is doing something that any other combination of Gateway units couldn't. So we're looking at a Gateway unit that's holding its own in the presence of a nerfed Warpgate and doing just fine without Forcefields to protect it. Few would say that the Adept is balanced right now, but I think if the rest of Gateway became Adept-like strong, Forcefield were severely nerfed or removed somehow, and Warpgate moved up the tech tree, we'd be seeing the Protoss Gateway we're all looking for.

Jumbled Profile Joined September 2010 1489 Posts #5 Just to let you know:

Warpgate doesn't actually make the Protoss gateway army stronger on attack than defence, it just means it's no weaker. The thing that makes a gateway army actually stronger on attack is unit design, particularly the zealot. Because it's a slow-moving melee unit, it can be kited very easily by an attacking force. However, on attack you can force engagements by threatening the opponent's buildings and mineral lines, making the zealot far more effective.

KrOmander Profile Joined August 2014 United Kingdom 78 Posts #6 Warpgate = flashy mechanic that may be good in some sort of other RTS that does not rely on macro orientated play so much. Not a fan of it regardless of what adjustments were to be made as long as the creation of new units anywhere on a map exists with no time between resources spent and unit availabilty.

linuxguru1 Profile Joined February 2012 Belgium 110 Posts #7 I saw someone else mention in another topic that punishing extreme economic greed in the early game becomes much harder if you move warpgate to tier 2 due to the general immobility of Protoss. Giving Stalkers blink by default does increase mobility, but it is my opinion that it still isn't enough to provide adequate means of punishing economic greed. I would like to know the OP's opinion on this subject.

Saechiis Profile Blog Joined May 2010 Netherlands 4079 Posts #8



http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/legacy-of-the-void/485255-solving-the-warpgate?page=1 This is exactly the same thing that has been proposed in the other thread, don't think you needed to make another. I think esports is pretty nice.

ChriS-X Profile Joined June 2011 Malaysia 1186 Posts #9 i've always thought the warpgate mechanic was fundamentally broken, by completely superseding the need for gateways once warpgate is researched. imo warpgates should have a longer cooldown, and gateways shorter, to encourage players to stick to gateways more, and use the warpgate as more of a strategical tool than rather be completely reliant on it.

HoZBlooddrop Profile Blog Joined December 2013 Italy 320 Posts #10 i expected a thread about physics and real world warping in people

linuxguru1 Profile Joined February 2012 Belgium 110 Posts Last Edited: 2015-05-15 17:50:42 #11 On May 16 2015 02:11 ChriS-X wrote:

i've always thought the warpgate mechanic was fundamentally broken, by completely superseding the need for gateways once warpgate is researched. imo warpgates should have a longer cooldown, and gateways shorter, to encourage players to stick to gateways more, and use the warpgate as more of a strategical tool than rather be completely reliant on it.

You can argue the same case for any upgrade in the game aswell as add ons on terran buildings/orbital command/planetary fortress and zerg lair/hive. One building being "strictly better" than another one isn't necessarily broken. You can argue the same case for any upgrade in the game aswell as add ons on terran buildings/orbital command/planetary fortress and zerg lair/hive. One building being "strictly better" than another one isn't necessarily broken.

Powerwhelming Profile Joined May 2015 2 Posts #12 Ok to begin with i think you have neglected some of the traits warp gates allow people to have. The defenders advantage is not the only thing they offer. They offer getting over obstacles in maps , negating holding crucial strategical points and they allow the protoss player to warp in the unit they need rather than the unit they would decided to build with gateways prior to any attacks, taking emphasis off the decision making regarding what to make.



You claimed that they were succesfull with restoring it in HotS. I disagree, PvP is still the most volatile match up today with no stable way of getting a natural base. The things that they have added to give the protoss that defensive advantage, causes problems. Photon overcharge is to easy to use from the defensive standpoint and the ramps with forcefields are abused with offensive sentries.



Your description of the relation of warpgates with defenders advantage are really accurate and well written



As for your solution , i do not think it is that simple. You advise buffing gateway units and pushing warpgate to later on where robotics or stargate units restore the defenders advantage. My catch on the matter is ,if you buff and make gateway units the core of protoss armies the emphasis will be taken off the stargate and robotics units. This means the weight they have on the battlefield will be lighter and thus the defenders advantage they offer will also be much lighter. So i do not think this particular solution would work unless the warpgate is delayed so much that it comes only in the lategame.



You brand other solutions as to complicated and yet i fail to see the complexity of those things you listed. The health change can cause problems regarding distinguishing the 2 versions of the units and i do not find it an elegant solution. The warpgate production rate reduction however , is both simple and an elegant solution. Easy to understand that you sacrifice production rate for the ability to warp in and elegant enough that there would not be complications as to how it functions.

friendship Profile Joined November 2014 32 Posts #13 Making gateway units stronger for the price of:

-removing the MSC

-delaying warp gate tech



Really? Here's my counter offer:



Make gateway units worse at deathballs (think roach-- bigger, clumpier, slightly reduced damage but a bit faster), in exchange for:

-removing the need to research warp gate but add a cost to upgrading the gate

-require 2 more lings to surround a stalker



Why? Because we already have a terran race and I don't see how forcing the protoss to turtle (which he/she seems happy enough to do already) until their deathball is well endowed enough to move out and take a third (or just all in) is going to be a drastic change. If anything it's a net buff as the ball effectively becomes more concentrated and easier to mass recall.

BigBobbyJ Profile Joined April 2011 Germany 11 Posts #14 Ok guys i rarely post anything in this forum because my english just isn't really good, and I am afraid to be misunderstood.

I will try it now regardless because the topic is pretty interesting ^^.



I really like the Idea to change the warpgate tech, because there are alot of obvious benefits.

Almost everyone who has played Sc2 for years now - just like me - is very open to balance changes, and thinks positively about trying to make sc2 a better game.

Some might read your suggestion, theorycraft for days, and come to the conclusion that it wouldn't work. Which is totally fine.

The problem is though, that Blizzard and its Starcraft 2 team is IMO way too careful when it comes to balance changes/testing.

For example the latest swarmhost patch of HotS. It took them years to finally announce a change to the SH. Then they came up with some Ideas, and wanted us to test them on a custom balance testing map which nobody played. They then implemented the unit into the game, but to nobodys surprise it is shit, and nobody uses the SH ever nowadays.



For me it is really hard to understand what the problem is with just making a strawpoll on Ideas regarding balance changes, then implementing it into the ladder and let everyone test the changes. We could say like the first week of each month, five months a year, there would be a balance test week, so that tournament organizers and stuff are prepared.



The only thing I am trying to say is that you kind of waste your time, when you theorycraft about balance changes, write a long detailed post, but realize that no one gives a shit because of blizzards overcautiousness when it comes to balance.

NasusAndDraven Profile Joined April 2015 358 Posts #15 Come on guys this same thread has been created 1000 times. How about something new?



Here is my idea. Decrease the warp gate research time, unit warp in times, pylon build time. Increase pylon power range and health.



This way protoss wont struggle so much in LotV. Other races cant exploit them by over expanding, because protoss is so strong offensively, now enemies cant expand either. Easy fix.

DinoMight Profile Blog Joined June 2012 United States 3331 Posts #16 On May 16 2015 02:50 linuxguru1 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On May 16 2015 02:11 ChriS-X wrote:

i've always thought the warpgate mechanic was fundamentally broken, by completely superseding the need for gateways once warpgate is researched. imo warpgates should have a longer cooldown, and gateways shorter, to encourage players to stick to gateways more, and use the warpgate as more of a strategical tool than rather be completely reliant on it.

You can argue the same case for any upgrade in the game aswell as add ons on terran buildings/orbital command/planetary fortress and zerg lair/hive. One building being "strictly better" than another one isn't necessarily broken. You can argue the same case for any upgrade in the game aswell as add ons on terran buildings/orbital command/planetary fortress and zerg lair/hive. One building being "strictly better" than another one isn't necessarily broken.



Oh my god thank you.



Seriously I've been saying this and I feel like I'm the only one who gets it. Oh my god thank you.Seriously I've been saying this and I feel like I'm the only one who gets it. "Wtf I come back and find myself in camp DinoMight all of a sudden, feels weird man." -Wombat_NI

Pino Profile Joined June 2013 1032 Posts #17 Zealot doesn't need that much of a buff. They are super tanky and once chargelot do plenty of damage.



Stalkers on the other half are super limited in maxed comp to air unit snipers. They are just super weak and without much dps. I would rather consider a buff to stalker

Vanadiel Profile Joined April 2012 France 961 Posts #18 On May 16 2015 02:11 ChriS-X wrote:

i've always thought the warpgate mechanic was fundamentally broken, by completely superseding the need for gateways once warpgate is researched. imo warpgates should have a longer cooldown, and gateways shorter, to encourage players to stick to gateways more, and use the warpgate as more of a strategical tool than rather be completely reliant on it.





I had a bit similar idea but not exactly like this, I always thought that warpgates should be an upgrade to the gates (not a replacement) , in the sense that once the research is finished gates can either build units normally or warp units. The trade-of would be that warping units takes in fact more time to reload the gates instead of the opposite as it is right now, so warping units instead of building them directly makes you sacrifice a part of your production capability. I had a bit similar idea but not exactly like this, I always thought that warpgates should be an upgrade to the gates (not a replacement) , in the sense that once the research is finished gates can either build units normally or warp units. The trade-of would be that warping units takes in fact more time to reload the gates instead of the opposite as it is right now, so warping units instead of building them directly makes you sacrifice a part of your production capability.

ArvickHero Profile Blog Joined October 2007 10379 Posts #19 it's a good suggestion but because you, as a community member, took time to fully explain the problem and suggest a solution, it means that Blizzard will automatically disregard it and never fix the problem. Writer ptrk

SetGuitarsToKill Profile Blog Joined December 2013 Canada 28391 Posts #20 On May 19 2015 04:32 ArvickHero wrote:

it's a good suggestion but because you, as a community member, took time to fully explain the problem and suggest a solution, it means that Blizzard will automatically disregard it and never fix the problem.

too true, it's awful that the company works that way but listening to the community is like a fucking sin to them for some reason. too true, it's awful that the company works that way but listening to the community is like a fucking sin to them for some reason. Community News "As long as you have a warp prism you can't be bad at harassment" - Maru | @SetGuitars2Kill