I see a lot of people calling for the warhound to be nerfed, and blizzard seems to have the same mentality, as they nerfed its attack speed in the last patch. I disagree with this notion on the grounds that no amount of balancing will fix the inherent problem with the addition of the warhound. It is a unit that simply does not belong in its current form in Starcraft 2.
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines). Why is this bad? Well to understand it in the first place let's look at why this is good, and the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
There are two main conflicting philosophies for game design in this context that apply to starcraft. The first is that you design a game that will be fun to watch and will inspire people to play. This philosophy relies on esports viewership enjoying watching the game and wanting to emulate what they see in pro matches on their own. For example, in Brood War you might watch a TSL match with JF, see him absolutely demolishing people with reavers, and get inspired to go try out some shuttle/reaver micro yourself. Since reaver/shuttle micro is difficult, you may fail at first. With a little practice, however, you too can enjoy the fun. The second design philosophy (which seems to be what Blizzard is employing) is to create a game that everyone can easily grasp and understand, and thus you attract new players because they are not discouraged by the game being difficult. With this approach, viewers can watch pros demolishing everything with colossi, and then even if they are in bronze league, they too can enjoy the fun of seeing giant laser beams obliterate everything. (Here's the secret: no one thinks colossi are fun to play with after the first couple times)
The inherent problem here is the idea of replayability. When a game is too easy, it is fun the first couple times and then completely loses its charm and gets boring. I love Portal to death, but once you understand the puzzles and what you are supposed to do, it is so easy upon playing a second time through that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore. In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title, they need to have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based (because anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you understand the solution). This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics, it would get boring extremely quickly and there is no way it would be an esport. It's the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so fun no matter how many times you have already played it. The problem with Blizzard's design philosophy is that it overestimates the pros of low-difficulty, and underestimates the pros of high-difficulty.
Low difficulty mechanics Pros: Newbies get less frustrated because there are less things to mess up. Cons: These same newbies get bored quickly because there is nothing exciting to do (as all the excitement died after the first couple times executing something so easy). Esports is delegitimized and experiences more variance due to a lower skill cap and less opportunities for pros to excel. Pro matches are not fun to watch because any bronze newbie could execute what they see just as well as the pros (obviously this is an extreme example taken to hyperbole). The game does not last nearly as long in popularity because there are no inherently rewarding things to do.
High difficulty mechanics Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible. It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered. Players actually enjoy the game because there is an inherent enjoyment in having practiced something difficult and executing it correctly. Pro matches are more fun to watch and esports flourishes because people LOVE watching other people do things they can't do (don't believe me? Just look at the olympics... pro sports... BROOD WAR). The game's shelf life is extended tremendously due to the increased enjoyment in replayability. Cons: Newbies get more frustrated because they cannot perform tactics they see professionals use upon first try and must actually spend some modicum of time practicing.
So now that I've explained why having difficult mechanics is important, let's look at the warhound. There is absolutely nothing difficult about this unit. It is fast (meaning you don't have to already 'be in the right place at the right time,' instead you can react quickly to your opponent when you are caught off guard), and you do not need to babysit it in the slightest. You attack move and then either go back to macro or sit there staring and watching, bored out of your mind because there is so little micro to do as mech in midgame (until you get ravens or are using siege tanks, and why would anyone build a tank while the warhound exists). Pro matches will never be inspiring to anyone, because they know they could execute exactly what the pro is doing just as well (not hard to attack move).
This is why I do not believe the warhound should be balanced. No amount of tweaking values to make it statistically balanced will make it a good unit for the health of starcraft both as a casual, fun game, and as an esport. The Warhound needs to be overhauled, or completely redesigned. When creating new units, I would emplore Blizzard to look at the design philosophies that made Brood War so unbelievably popular and long-lasting. Many units were considered extremely overpowered in certain ways (dark swarm, anyone?), but in order to make this work, they would sacrifice strength in another way.
Let's look at the Reaver. I use the Reaver as my example because I believe it to be the most exciting (for both players and spectators) and best designed unit in the history of Starcraft. Nothing got spectators more riled up than the nervous anticipation of seeing scarabs running towards their target, not knowing if they would hit or not or how much damage would be done. At the same time, they took an immense amount of skill to use properly. Since their AoE attack was clearly ridiculously overpowered, it was balanced out not by reducing the damage or some other boring stat change to make every unit equally powerful (which almost seems to be Blizzard's intention with SC2), but instead by making it hopelessly immobile and by making the ammunition cost resources and take time to build. Thus the difficulty of the reaver is as follows: You need to get a reaver(s), get a shuttle for mobility, and constantly rebuild ammo. Then when you engage you have to babysit your shuttle (because it's a huge investment to lose in the blink of an eye to 2 scourge for example), drop the reavers, target fire (probably more important than target firing for any other unit in the game due to the pathing, splash damage, and possibility of duds), and then pick them back up in the shuttle to mitigate damage while they wait to be able to shoot again. On paper this sounds incredibly complicated, and you can be assured a newbie would not pick up starcraft and go for a 2 reaver shuttle drop in his first day, but in actuality it looks beautiful in pro matches and is not so difficult to emulate at a low level. You might not have the game sense of JF to go exactly where you need to, and you might not have the perfect shuttle control to constantly move it around and pick up the reavers without decelerating, and you might not have the perfect target firing to pick off the most optimal targets. But hey, you are still going to be able to execute a reaver drop with a reasonable level of enjoyment no matter what level of player you are.
This is the example and ideal I feel Blizzard should be using with every unit they design. Make a unit that is difficult to use perfectly, so that it's fun to use every time and will inspire viewers. If you make an easy-to-use unit like the Warhound, you might not discourage newbies at first but you certainly won't encourage them to continue playing, as the unit isn't actually fun to use.
You may enjoy color-by-numbers as a 3-year-old because it's not overwhelming and you get some guidance. Once you reach any reasonable age, however, these types of "easy-mode" activities hold no enjoyment. Adults generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of inherent masterable difficulty.
So why is this game being designed for children when it is rated T for Teen?
Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
holy fuck you wrote that perfectly. And im the guy basically writing the 2 threads in here detailing ways that the warhound could be balanced with its missiles (just brainstorming ways to actually balance the fucking unit)
but i agree. I hate the unit but sadly I dont think blizzard is **smart** enough to remove it at this point. Hopefully blizzard keeps balancing WoL or maybe there can be teamliquid released WoL patches (essentially custom maps) that slowly patch WoL with a balance team of 15 pros (5 from each race) that promise to try to be as unbiased as possible and that balance WoL as best as they can into an even more exciting skill required Esport. Then possibly some korean tournaments might try to use these teamliquid WoL patchmaps if HOTS turns out to be too boring with all the dustin browder no-skill boring units.
agree i would love to see warhound REMOVED (or redesigned to something more mech like that requires skill. maybe give it thor movement speed so at least its slow like mech should be so bio will be faster than mech as it should be. but even if warhounds are fixed they still are just a 1a unit.)
sadly the tempest and warhound are completely dustin browder units that are just... frankly... shit units. They should be removed.
for example how to fix WoL with teamliquid patches? well lets just take the carrier for example Honestly I think carriers could use a buildtime reduction AND make interceptors immune to spells (fungal/hsm/storm/emp) but even just the spell part I would be happy with (even though a 120 second buildtime is retarded. but seeing all of your interceptors as the last hope of beating lategame zerg get killed in 6 seconds by 2 fungals is even more retarded)
And reapers? the days of 3range queens and roaches are over. Would it really break the reapers to give them a buildtime more in line with the marauders 30 SECONDS for 2FOOD? the reaper is fucking 45 seconds for ONE FOOD? and both require a techlab. wtf?
Agreed but honestly at this point, I don't even care anymore. For the warhound to EVEN make it into beta AND survived a balance patch has made me completely lost faith in blizzard. The more I watch HotS stream, the more I question why this unit is even in the game. So many people has already expressed their hate toward this unit. If this unit is completely reworked during the next patch, I don't know what to say.
Almost feels like a standard post we could have seen 2 years ago when WoL was in its beta.
My question is why did you limit your post to the warhound?
Neither the Oracle or the warhound will offer something interesting to watch in a match. The oracle while low in hp, does its deed in a second and that's that. I can't say I give a damn to watch "oracle harass" in the same way I lived to watch sair/reaver. I know you think the oracle has a chance, but as a commentator do you believe that the war hound is the only unit that has limited viewability?
A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
well, the warhound is what you said, but it is not like this is the first unit in sc2 that behaves this way, merely the first terran unit, how often do you see zerg slacking off with their dropdefense because they have the fastest units in the game, and aren't 3 attackmove units worse than one? (warhound vs chargelot/archon/colossus)
at this point, the whining about the warhound seems a bit excessive considering terrans are the only race that does not feature these easy to use units at the moment, and even if i personally would like interesting and hard to use units for every race, if blizzard decides otherwise, it is at least logically sound to add the warhound to the terran arsenal, as a bonus i expect terrans to equalize on ladder, and maybe we even see some more foreign terrans in tournaments in place of zerg only.
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
i agree 50% with OP, but an easy game is as boring as an hard game, if it is too easy you lose interest, if it is too hard you lose interest, what keep you playing is not its difficulties, but the game itself, the challenge of facing different players, also the other races have more then one a-move unit
Wh is op and it will be nerfed more, what blizzard is trying to accomplish, imo, is to give to all races the chance to play active/passive and progamers will always benefit from their micro even with an a-move unit
I'd like to add in response that I do not mean this to be only addressing the warhound. The primary focus of this thread (even though the emphasis is in relation to the warhound as it is the most extreme example) is to try to convince people (hopefully blizzard employees though that's unlikely) that a design philosophy that promotes easy-mode units is not the right one to use for starcraft.
If I can just convince people that units need to be difficult to use for this game to be good, then you can extrapolate that to affect any and all offending units, rather than just the warhound.
On September 10 2012 16:18 -orb- wrote: I'd like to add in response that I do not mean this to be only addressing the warhound. The primary focus of this thread (even though the emphasis is in relation to the warhound as it is the most extreme example) is to try to convince people (hopefully blizzard employees though that's unlikely) that a design philosophy that promotes easy-mode units is not the right one to use for starcraft.
If I can just convince people that units need to be difficult to use for this game to be good, then you can extrapolate that to affect any and all offending units, rather than just the warhound.
agreed. even if the warhound is balanced, its just a stupid to watch unit compared to BW or even recent TvZ matches like fantasy vs jaedong in sc2 recently
anything with protoss in it seems to be boring because of sentrys/warpgates ruining the game design. But recent TvZ's have been more and more epic
The warhound really needs to be cut if it remains in its current design. Amove deathballs/ boring units will just hurt sc2 as an esport. Whats really entertaining is really increadible micro and macro, where the micro is much more required aspect for an esport(thats why MOBA games have been so successful as an esport). Yeah you can have increade macro and get the warhound deathball really fast, but it will just be a bore to watch in battle and while that build up period is happening.
It will always be impossible to have a game thats completely newbie friendly and esports compatible, since esports compatibility requires a generally high difficulty and micro/macro requirement while newbie friendly requires the game to only be moderately challenging.
Since sc2 is the pinnacle of RTS esport, imo at least, it should favour esports compatibility over newbie compatibility. That means less 1a, Amove, Thor like units.
It seems like blizzard's been on a slow, downhill spiral ever since their merge with activision. How come their major releases diablo 3 and sc2 have much less depth than what they released 10 years ago?
Are you seriously advocating removing or redesigning the warhound because you think it has 'wrong type' of micro? If I understand your standards right then you would like to remove half of the units from SC2.
On September 10 2012 16:27 pmp10 wrote: Are you seriously advocating removing or redesigning the warhound because you think it has 'wrong type' of micro? If I understand your standards right then you would like to remove half of the units from SC2.
each race can serve to have a couple units like this
each race already does
terran already has the marauder. already has the thor.
basically... id much rather tanks just get buffed (even making their attacks go through hardened shields id be fine with, keeping the immortal as a counter to marauders/thors but not tanks and zealots/carriers counter tanks) to have position mech play be "mech" instead of a new ultra marauder being "mech"
and im a master protoss, advocating an extreme tank buff here
Agree, ppl have been saying redesign the warhound and tempest since the start. But I dont think theyll just throw away 2 unit designs, how uninteresting they might be.
Hey orb did you post this on the SC2 forums? DB and David Kim are on there and you might have a good chance for them to read it and consider it if you do. Just post it in their feedback thread they are reading.
Wonderful and I agree. Would be nice if they considered this philosophy.
On September 10 2012 16:31 []Phase[] wrote: Agree, ppl have been saying redesign the warhound and tempest since the start. But I dont think theyll just throw away 2 unit designs, how uninteresting they might be.
I don't mind the Tempest in it's current form tbh - I think its quite interesting for Toss once they get to play with it some more, once players realize that it's not really an option for your deathball, but rather a tool to force players into engaging you, like "Come fight me or I will just continue to siege you"
I also think the Oracle is quite nice really.. It has some really cool utility that players will figure out how to use efficiently - In other words, the new P units are more 'finesse' while the Terran units are just bruteforce 1a units that even makes traditional mechplay even more redundant
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
Tanks and Thors do bonus vs. armored, now along with the Warhound - Yet only one of the mech units have an anti-air attack
On September 10 2012 16:31 []Phase[] wrote: Agree, ppl have been saying redesign the warhound and tempest since the start. But I dont think theyll just throw away 2 unit designs, how uninteresting they might be.
I don't mind the Tempest in it's current form tbh - I think its quite interesting for Toss once they get to play with it some more, once players realize that it's not really an option for your deathball, but rather a tool to force players into engaging you, like "Come fight me or I will just continue to siege you"
I also think the Oracle is quite nice really.. It has some really cool utility that players will figure out how to use efficiently - In other words, the new P units are more 'finesse' while the Terran units are just bruteforce 1a units that even makes traditional mechplay even more redundant
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
Tanks and Thors do bonus vs. armored, now along with the Warhound - Yet only one of the mech units have an anti-air attack
hehehe. thors dont do bonus vs armored x.x
thors are kinda created to be a zealot wrecking machine. sadly their energy bar serves as nothing more than a gimmick for templars to help counter them
It may actually be that it's just to hard to compensate for units with insane micro when it comes to balancing the game for bronze through GSL level all at the same time. Think of what marines do in MKP's hands compared to your average silver player? How good are warp prisms when Hero uses one compared to me? How much better muta's are when idra uses them compared to some guy in gold league? Probably makes getting that 50/50 winrate across all leagues pretty damn difficult when you have units with such depth. Hence, warhound.
On September 10 2012 16:31 []Phase[] wrote: Agree, ppl have been saying redesign the warhound and tempest since the start. But I dont think theyll just throw away 2 unit designs, how uninteresting they might be.
I don't mind the Tempest in it's current form tbh - I think its quite interesting for Toss once they get to play with it some more, once players realize that it's not really an option for your deathball, but rather a tool to force players into engaging you, like "Come fight me or I will just continue to siege you"
I also think the Oracle is quite nice really.. It has some really cool utility that players will figure out how to use efficiently - In other words, the new P units are more 'finesse' while the Terran units are just bruteforce 1a units that even makes traditional mechplay even more redundant
On September 10 2012 16:10 -NegativeZero- wrote:
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
Tanks and Thors do bonus vs. armored, now along with the Warhound - Yet only one of the mech units have an anti-air attack
hehehe. thors dont do bonus vs armored x.x
thors are kinda created to be a zealot wrecking machine. sadly their energy bar serves as nothing more than a gimmick for templars to help counter them
True about the Thor - It's just flat damage, no modifiers - My mistake TT
I completely agree with OP. Sc2 is fun because it is difficult, not a lot of people play it, but it is damn fun to watch the pros do amazing things. With more A-move units introduce... I am seriously slowly losing hope in HOTS. And Beta is the time to remove Colossus and add Reaver back into the mix.
You may enjoy color-by-numbers as a 3-year-old because it's not overwhelming and you get some guidance. Once you reach any reasonable age, however, these types of "easy-mode" activities hold no enjoyment. Adults generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of inherent masterable difficulty.
I think thats the main problem design wise. Whats a "reasonable level of inherent masterable difficulty"? You are talking about a game which has the majority of its players somewhere between bronze and gold level. Some of these players massed games like crazy and still do not advance a bit. So what difficulty level are we talkin about? Thats where the desing problems start. There are roughly 2% of us in ML so where is the "golden path" that makes a unit still demanding and interesting to watch and not frustrating for 98% of the player base when even marine micro is the source of endless complaints?
I don't see Blizzard simply removing a unit they made the model / animation / sounds for. Not going to happen.
What I do see occuring is some out-of-the-blue nerf. Say Warhounds with bonus versus psionic units*? Hmmm? Now that would be an interesting change, would it not.
...
Edit : *or even bonus versus destructible rocks... Well, yeah, I'm still bitter about the ghosts.
This was obvious to me as soon as I saw the warhound at the previous MLG shooting and moving. The problem with the warhound isn't whether it's OP or not (I'm sure this will get fixed) but whether it's a fun and awesome unit.
They've dug themselves into too deep of a hole with:
1. Ridiculous macro mechanics that accelerate the game superfast 2. Sentries (which forces junk like roaches and marauders to compensate) 3. Ridiculous amounts of mobility that negate position
What happens when you have game where you can't hold position? Every army needs to be able to fight on the move at sufficiently high EV, or be easily outmaneuvered and completely crushed
I agree totally. I'm just afraid that we're too far into the development cycle for them to simply scrape any unit. The best we can expect is a massive redesign, but no scrapping unfortunately.
The changes for hots beta where extremely dissappointing especially as the first initial reveal of the new units was actually very promising. Pros has already sad live that David Kim is an idiot (actually quoted) when it comes to design and this only proves it; i would pay more to fire this idiot than i would to actually buy the expo. They have really failed and somehow ended with the wrong mentality; either they can on a new wing or path for each race with units that possible fix holes the other units have, or they make the existing units more diverse and less "works against anythings" and fill in the new holes with new units. Leave it to blizzard to just through something out there without any real thought (ie shreader) when everyone can see from the first second isn't going to work. Its complete bs when thay say they've testing things like ahead of time such as shattered temple especially when the home hobbiest does it more/better the multiple "pro" programmers. Sad to say that the only thing i think of real interest in the expansion is the artwork is thankfully seems seperate the main machine.
i don't know if I entirely agree but definitely some good points, I find units that have tricks to pull off far more interesting and satisfying so that part i agree with, and the warhound is a pretty dull unit, however having the dull one toned unit is required to make the game more interesting, like a story it needs rounded, flat, dynamic, and static characters to feel full. but than again this ain't a book, so i dunno :p
Played a ton of beta so far... Terran moving from microed bio to A-move warhound timing attacks at the master / GM tier.
Pretty boring as a Protoss right now... I'm using WoL builds to deny strong enemy WoL builds except they now have new units that give more synergy to their attacks... I am stuck with a 1 second oracle use and dreaming of making a tempest @ 3-4 base for some tickle damage... I've got to question what they are saying across the table at each design / balance meeting they have...
As a protoss player, shouldn't you be focusing on bigger amove problems, like your entire race? Or is it just that you want other people to need skill and not you?
Well, I basically agree with all that you said, but I still think that interesting positional play can be archived simply by nerfing the warhound. Just nerf it hard enough, so that it becomes a situational unit and is build for-example only against mass immortals/stalkers. Then most of the time people would still be building tanks, and just sometimes sprinkling warhounds to help with specific units.
I really wish Blizzard put more polls up on there website, things such as "Do you think Metalopolis should be replaced by another map", "Do you think the Warhound needs to be scrapped and replaced with a different unit", or "Do you think Blizzard should nerf zergs queens".
I really feel like Blizzard don't listen to their fans, it really upsets me =(
On September 10 2012 18:27 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, I basically agree with all that you said, but I still think that interesting positional play can be archived simply by nerfing the warhound. Just nerf it hard enough, so that it becomes situational and is build for-example only against mass immortals/stalkers. Then most of the time people would still be building tanks, and just sometimes sprinkling warhounds to help with specific units.
Problem solved.
Yeah, I would agree with this. Honestly the only real reason I'm not looking forward to HotS is because I get the feeling I am going to be doing nothing but vs war hounds in zvt, pvt, and tvt. The only issue I find with your philosophy is I really don't see a position where situationally it will be good.
The Warhound is no coincidence. Blizzard wanted exactly this, as stated in interviews. According to Blizzard, the Warhound was purposely created as an a-move unit since there's already so much micro involved in playing Terran...
On September 10 2012 18:27 Alex1Sun wrote: Well, I basically agree with all that you said, but I still think that interesting positional play can be archived simply by nerfing the warhound. Just nerf it hard enough, so that it becomes situational and is build for-example only against mass immortals/stalkers. Then most of the time people would still be building tanks, and just sometimes sprinkling warhounds to help with specific units.
Problem solved.
Yeah, I would agree with this. Honestly the only real reason I'm not looking forward to HotS is because I get the feeling I am going to be doing nothing but vs war hounds in zvt, pvt, and tvt. The only issue I find with your philosophy is I really don't see a position where situationally it will be good.
Nerf their main attack to the ground and make their armor light. Leave their strong health, high speed and great haywire range and damage (probably even buff their haywire damage). You get a unit that can kite stalkers and immortals with haywire, doesn't receive bonus damage from them, but sucks vs zealots/archons since its dps is too low without haywire (if you nerf their main attack a lot, for example to 10). If your opponent doesn't build stalkers/immostals, the warhound can still be used as a meat shield for your thanks, but battle helion would be a much better meat shield vs zealots/archons. Either way, main dps then comes from tanks.
p.s. probably also reduce warhounds' gas cost, and increase their mineral cost, so that you would be able to build both warhounds and tanks in case you need warhounds to complement your tanks vs specific units.
p.p.s. thus protoss wouldn't mass immortals vs tanks, and tanks with battle hellion and widow mine support (and ocasional sprinkle of warhounds vs ocasional immortals/stalkers/sentries) would work.
p.p.p.s. similar in tvt, warhounds redesigned like this would sort of help to break siege lines, but they would be extremely weak vs bio or air play or even vs siege tanks with good meaty bio support, so warhounds wouldn't be massed.
i wish they would just increase siege tank range in hots instead of that silly warhound idea. would make it easier to out-range enemy tanks by sieging within range and then getting vision
On September 10 2012 19:53 Belha wrote: Well said, well said.
I'm still thinking that we should make a petition with signatures or something.
I don't know if the community is that serious. I'm starting to believe we're just a loud minority of people of the community that actually care while the rest of the people just don't care or they like it. lol I think we just need to accept the modern way of rts of playing games.
Basically disagree with everything the OP wrote. Yes, the Warhound as stands is a horrible unit but the beta is like one week old. The Tempest is turning into a great unit and Oracle is meh for harassing but great for supporting Tempest. No more maxed out armies moving around trying to bait the other guy into a bad position. Yawn. Yeah the game needs balance but so what?
Easy to learn, hard to master are the best kind of games possible. Thinking otherwise is completely illogical.
Not everyone wants to devote tons of times playing a video game. People act like this needs to be some secret society you qualify to enter. Every sport you can think of is easy to learn, hard to master. Even chess isn't too tough to learn. What's the issue?
Well it's not like anyone is going to reach the skill ceiling of Starcaft 2 ever anyway. And we have seen players dominate like MVP which indicates that the game is skill based enough for players to distinguish themselves from the pack.
Agree with that. Everyone said the same thing about the colossus and what happend in HOTS? The Carrier got removed lol.
I think the only chance we have to make them change the Warhound is if we make them understand that Tanks should be the core of a mech army and not 1a units.
I just want you oldschool BW guys to know, that even though some of the new fans of Starcraft never really gave a shit about BW, we do understand - at least some of us do. I completely agree with your post and I never cared at all about BW, for whatever reasons, time, lazyness, just never grabbed me.
The only reason I feel I can even begin to understand and agree with your post is GSL, GSL, GSL and spectating. It's ALL about the spectating! I've watched at least 200 hours of SC2 on the GSL maybe more. I may have almost no skill at all (I'd say I'd be in the bottom 10% of this website) but god damnit do I know exciting and good play when I see a good match.
Your post is spot on the money and the reaver drop is a brilliant example. From what little I remember of the reaver and BW, it might sound overpowered but as your example states - to execute the move requires genuinely high level skills. The warhound is straight out of C&C or Supreme Commander. I've been insulting the unit for weeks now. It looks ugly, it plays ugly and for all I know, I could genuinely believe that one of the developers asked their kid for an idea, took the idea and ran with it. The unit literally doesn't even "feel" Starcraft. One of the better comments I heard was "it looks like a toddler which just discovered running" god it's an awful unit.
I will say one thing about the warhound, you guys - yes you guys are partially to blame. When you all latched on to the word "mech" to describe positional play and you perpetuated the use of that word for the last decade, you've slowly seeped the word into the minds of Blizzard. Thinking they need to address "mech" because the community "demand mech!" they've utterly misinterpreted your requests.
I really, really dislike the unit, I think it's an example of really shitty game design to be honest. (before people dismissing me as a whiner say it, I'm not convinced all the changes in HoTS are bad, infact some of them seem quite clever and interesting) Your real problem isn't convincing me though. Sure you've convinced one "non broodwar" fan about how good things were in the past but the giant, mammoth uphill battle is with Blizzard. Even if you did get your post into the hands of the right people there, you then need to deal with a several things working against you such as stubbornness, the time / money / "got to ship it!" factor and even possibly worse, simply not understanding why your post is spot on the money.
Blizzard want a piece of the new DOTA pie. Blizzard want to take SC2 to where BW was and beyond. They really really like money and it's become more obvious lately. The problem is, SC2 isn't the place to do it. It'll only ever make a certain amount because it'll never appeal to the more casual crowd. They are going to slowly dilute SC2 down into a very simple game in an attempt to try and rake in some of that glorious cash that's floating around for things like DOTA.
The worst part of all this is I only discovered the world of Starcraft in early 2010 and now, only 2 and a half years later, some of the changes in the gaming industry and moves Blizzard are making have me convinced that what you point out in your post will never, ever be addressed. I just no longer have the faith in them seeing that big picture anymore. I just don't.
Long story short, good post. Good luck convincing them though.
Also blizzard justifying the warhound as a "siege line breaker". Do they even watch high level TvT? MMA vs MVP in today's GSL shows that TvT is an incredible matchup, and doesn't need to be "fixed" by the warhound.
On September 10 2012 16:18 -orb- wrote: I'd like to add in response that I do not mean this to be only addressing the warhound. The primary focus of this thread (even though the emphasis is in relation to the warhound as it is the most extreme example) is to try to convince people (hopefully blizzard employees though that's unlikely) that a design philosophy that promotes easy-mode units is not the right one to use for starcraft.
If I can just convince people that units need to be difficult to use for this game to be good, then you can extrapolate that to affect any and all offending units, rather than just the warhound.
I recommend you copy and paste the post to the Blizzard forums and you slightly reword it for politeness. I get the impression the Blizzard folk are,.. not as thin skinned as you'd expect game developers to be. They'll just switch off at the first sign of... well insolence of any kind.
Absolutely agree. This actually applies to all games too... too often developers make games easier to try and make them sell better when in the end they just end up crap (remember Spore).
Also, it makes no sense. Blizz is trying to make this an E-sports game, which means it has to be skilful to play and fun to watch... and the warhound isn't any of these!!! (or the roach/collosus/corruptor/viking etc)
On September 10 2012 20:55 Gben592 wrote: Absolutely agree. This actually applies to all games too... too often developers make games easier to try and make them sell better when in the end they just end up crap (remember Spore).
Also, it makes no sense. Blizz is trying to make this an E-sports game, which means it has to be skilful to play and fun to watch... and the warhound isn't any of these!!! (or the roach/collosus/corruptor/viking etc)
What? The Viking is an anti-air unit, It can transform into a ground unit. It has an attack animation and range that allows it to kite very effectively. Would you like it to dance for you? Would that make it interesting enough?
The corruptor reminds of a devourer in that it just needs to be there. It doesn't need abilities that make it super awesome fun time, it just needs interaction with other units that creates interesting dynamics.
Collosi are given for shitty units
Roaches were a failed design idea in beta which had the be relegated to generalist range unit that can't shoot up so it's weird. But you can still use the roach in interesting ways. No one ever tries burrowing micro with it, bu it'd be efficient to do so IMO.
Warhounds are also stupid. Being amove is not a problem in itself. Zealots are amove. I can't do much more in battle other than amove but zealots force a really interesting dynamic where the Terran kites them. You an also use zealots to harass because they only cost minerals. Warhounds could probably be removed entirely for 0.5 supply mines since mech doesn't need 2 meat shield units. Battle hellions are fricken fantastic meat shields already. The siege tanks are supposed to be doing the damage, it's the entire point of mech
100% agree with orb, i'm sure 99% of the rest of the player/fan population does as well. Everyone is already saying the same thing about the warhound.
Gundam marauder needs re-design immediately. Even the part orb mentions about "EA games" strikes me as accurate as when I use the warhound it feels like a command and conquer 1A mass mass mass type of unit right now, especially in TvP/TvT.
This is all regardless of balance. The unit just does not add anything intricate to the game.
The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
Dustin, is that you? Change the Warhound please!
You are wrong not in opinion, but in facts, ex: Vultures had MORE micro then Hellions, not less; lurkers were space control units, nothing to do with hellions, etc.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
I don't suppose you'd take kindly to just "LOL" as a response would you? I used to like the Colossus but I was a stupid newbie to SC2 and didn't understand the problems with the unit.
It cliff walks, it has splash damage, it has very long range, it still moves reasonably quickly, it's still fairly strong. Besides being attackable by air and no air attack, it's got far too many positives to negatives.
It's like the warpgate and gateway. I didn't get it at first but having read a few posts here and actually thinking on it, the design is so mind bogglingly broken it's just retarded. (I have no issue with warping in anywhere with a pylon or prism, the fact that warpgates have 0 compromise / shortcomings means Blizzard should simply remove the gateway, it's bad design)
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
Have you watched a single BW game, let alone played one? You are absolutely clueless. Compared to Vulture, Hellion is an a-move unit. Another a-move unit like the Colossus far better than the Reaver? I hope you are trolling. T______T
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
Have you watched a single BW game, let alone played one? You are absolutely clueless. Compared to Vulture, Hellion is an a-move unit. Another a-move unit like the Colossus far better than the Reaver? I hope you are trolling. T______T
You can say vultures required more micro than hellions (moving show and whatnot) but calling hellion amove is far from the truth
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
Have you watched a single BW game, let alone played one? You are absolutely clueless. Compared to Vulture, Hellion is an a-move unit. Another a-move unit like the Colossus far better than the Reaver? I hope you are trolling. T______T
You can say vultures required more micro than hellions (moving show and whatnot) but calling hellion amove is far from the truth
He said 'compared to'. It's a relative comparison for micro required.
This phenomena is in WoW (obviously), so I moved onto SC2.
Noticed and wrote about some of these phenomena in SC2 myself, moved onto D3.
I expected them to do it again in D3, was surprised with inferno difficulty, but yeah actually they did it again (wrote about that too).
All three of their major franchises
Blizzard's official stance is that they do not make games for hardcore gamers, they make games for casual players with intent to turn them into hardcore players. It's what they've always done. I started casual to be sure, but I too am frustrated with the casual-heavy emphasis. I actually give up (I think my last blog is on this).
Orb you are describing everything I am feeling about the warhound. I've watched a ton of hots streams lately in order to see the new units in actual play and the warhound disgusts me most. Not the fact that it's way too strong (The beta has just started and I'm confident that Blizzard will get the stats right for the release.) but rather that this unit seems to make SC2:HOTS a terrible game.
Yes, low league terrans will love it at first, because they only need to make this unit and a-move to victory. But at some point people will want to improve and do better than their terran colleagues and then there is just not so much room to improve. Even the colossus has be the microed in certain situations (like not shooting a nearby building while attacking or actually attacking marines etc and not some thor or move it back vs vikings) or the chargelot (ever happened to you that they charge around some nearby building instead of the opponent's units or charge after when they shouldn't (always instantly having to pull them back or you will lose them for free), although those offer nothing compared to units like hts, ghosts etc.
I think everybody wants mech to be viable (that means bio still being viable and mech being a viable alternative based on your personal play style/opponent/map etc). Everything that introduces more different unique playstyles and options makes the game more interesting to watch and play in the long run. However, from what I've seen on the streams the warhound is not only a unit that is way too strong (hence why everyone is blindly going for them right now and stats will be tweaked later on if necessary) but it doesn't look/feel like mech at all.
A mech unit doesn't necessarily need to be super immobile but the main army strength (which is usually considered to be the tanks once they reach a certain number) should be rather slow/bulky/immobile while rewarding positioning a lot. If an army is supply efficient/cost efficient etc there need to be other tradeoffs hence why the core of mech dps/army strength is immobile. The hellion in this instant can be mobile to harass/scout etc because they can't kill an army on their own (not talking about early game 6 hellions vs some lings only here :-)).
So where does that leave the warhound? Intended to actually be a better fitting version of the thor initially, Blizzard all of a sudden decided to keep the thor in the game and remove the anti air from the warhound. Instead now there is a unit that is really mobile and makes the tank rather obsolete (except for certain situations where tanks are still better). So all of a sudden everything exciting about the terran gameplay (either bio, really aggressive playstyle with good map control/multipronged attacks etc and mech, the positional slow play methodic play) is gone when the terran decides to make warhounds (with only a little bit of support cause warhounds obviously don't shoot up).
I'm afraid that while Blizzard has stated that everything is still possible once the Beta starts (like reworking a unit if it fails), they only intend to do so if they don't find a way to change the stats of a unit to make it balanced and that they are not going to take the effort to delay the expansion and rework this unit. I hope so much that I am just totally wrong here. They also didn't rework any units in SC2 Beta and only ever changed the stats to make the balance work. But exactly like they removed the replicator (while being a really interesting unit opening a ton of nice tactics) this unit simply had to go because it reduced options from the game which is never good. People should not be afraid to make different units and make them work.
So the question that I've been asking myself for the last few days again and again is:
Is there a single reason (like any reason at all) that the warhound in its current state should stay and make it into SC2:HOTS release?
I can't seem to find a single reason why this unit should add some depth or new layer to the game. For other units such as the swarm host etc there are good reasons for this unit (doesn't matter here if you like this unit or not personally, but it really adds something to the game), for the warhound there isn't. Blizzard please remove the warhound in its current state and give terrans another newly designed mech unit instead and/or tweak/buff other aspects of mech to make it viable without making it broken in tvz and people will be grateful for years to come.
For all those people (sad as it is there are some scattered around in the different threads about hots) who actually really like the design of the warhound, please provide your reasoning why this unit adds something to the game. I'm really interested to see their point of view.
I totally agree; I was watching this PvT game and God it was so fucking boring; there was no drops, no force fields no emps or snipes; not one fucking intense moment.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
Have you watched a single BW game, let alone played one? You are absolutely clueless. Compared to Vulture, Hellion is an a-move unit. Another a-move unit like the Colossus far better than the Reaver? I hope you are trolling. T______T
You can say vultures required more micro than hellions (moving show and whatnot) but calling hellion amove is far from the truth
Vultures are probably the "least" A-Move unit that attacks "normal" in all of SC/BW. When not microed they plain suck and are not even that great against the stuff they, with some control, totally dominate (unless in high numbers were they would melt everything before being hit anyway).
The Hellion is similar but can't be microed as nicely, therefore its baseline attack dominates the stuff it's good against even harder when not caught totally offguard but really can't do much when overwhelmed, you could not overwhelm nicely controlles Vultures whit Zealots or Zerglings unless you cornered them (or better they let themselves getting cornered) , they were too fast + movingshot.
The Lurker is also nothing like the Hellion... Lurkers were actually pretty tanky... And cloaked... Yeah, they share the "line" attack.. But that’s like saying Stalkers, Marines, Hydralisks and Thors are the same because they all just shoot stuff...
Btw: The Warhound should in fact not be balanced, it should be removed.
On September 10 2012 23:03 i)awn wrote: I totally agree; I was watching this PvT game and God it was so fucking boring; there was no drops, no force fields no emps or snipes; not one fucking intense moment.
a week in to the beta....
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
On September 10 2012 23:03 i)awn wrote: I totally agree; I was watching this PvT game and God it was so fucking boring; there was no drops, no force fields no emps or snipes; not one fucking intense moment.
This is exactly what I've felt many times lately while watching streams compared to WoL. Whenever a player in HOTS goes for mass warhounds all of a sudden so much depth is lost.
agreed, but as sad as it is, i think the warhound will stay ingame because of youth protection issues. if they get a new unit/model/whatever the existing evaluation is obsolete which means further release delay.
Another article called it a mech marauder, but I cant even agree with that. The warhound is worse, with a marauder there is at least some micro, ie microing against collosus. but with the warhound. there really isnt anything that you can do with it other than A click
On September 10 2012 23:13 emythrel wrote: a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games.
Yeah, it's really all a-moving 15 minute games.
And all the stuff people didn't like was kept in... Seems like the same thing is happening in this Beta...
I really don't get the Warhound. No one wanted that thing, yet for some reason Blizzard seems to think that it's totally necessary and people will come to like it... Because.. That has worked for the Colossus? (lol).
I have been thinking of writing something similar for a long time. Its been almost 6 months since I last watched SC2, because in the end the game has just ended up being boring. But seeing some of the problems with the Warhound I realised the biggest reason why BW had such engaging and interesting units, while WoL is more or less a 1a slugfest.
Its a simple concept: Unit Tradeoffs
Why is the BW tank, Defiler, Reaver, Arbiter or even vultures such fun units to watch and use - Well its because these units are both massively powerful and horribly awful at the same time. Here are a few examples:
Tanks: The epitome of immobility, with so many problems in hitting allied units, slow siege time and overkill that this unit needed the massive damage and splash to actually be balanced.
Zerglings: Small, fast with incredible damage and quick attacks - yeah these things were OP like nothing you could possibly imagine. But then they were super fragile and died in seconds to decent AOE, add to this the clumsy pathfinding, and you see why poeple didn't just mass zerglings for free wins (well they did when spawning pool were 150). A large tradeoff that really made this unit interesting and a staple of Zerg play.
Reavers: THE best single attack in the game. THE longest range of any ground unit (believe it is tied with the Tank). Tough armor and a not horrible attack speed. In short these guys were beasts, and they had to be in order to not be utterly worthless. Everyone knows how stupid scarabs are, but they are just the tip of the iceberg. Reavers are the slowest unit in the game. They require money for each shot. They move slower than a Sloth in a tarpit. The Reaver is a dead end tech choise. You would die of old age before a reaver could move to the other side of the map. Reavers are big and clumsy target, and can be picked of with ease if even a pixel out of position. They make a tortoise seem athletic. They cost a fortune to make. Did I mention that they are just really slow? In short this unit exemplifies how much power a unit can be given if it has enough tradeoffs. Its massive power is balanced by its huge disadvantages, and as such stands as an interesting unit that require a lot of thought and strategy to use.
Now for some counter examples:
Marauders: A solid unit with above average damage, survivability, range and mobility. They are easily massed and have no real counters in the game. So whats wrong with it? It is basically a flawless unit, thats whats wrong. Its not fragile or vulnerable like Hydras or Dragoons (BW comparative units), they don't have short range like the Zealots, and they don't suffer as much from stimming as Marines, while arguably gaining even more from stim. Its a unit with no drawbacks, no weaknesses for the opponent to exploit or the terran to work around (can't shoot up is only a minor weakness for such a tough unit). This is why Marauders are boring to have in the game - they have no weakness and no really interesting interactions.
Colosus: DB: "HEY here is a great idea, lets take the Reaver, remove all of its weaknesses and then let the players enjoy what a true Protoss mech can do" - /Facepalm. The Colossus is a mere shadow of the mighty Reaver now, and with good reason. A unit that is SO MOBILE and SO FAST and SO TOUGH and have range, aoe and undodgable attacks to boot will need to have a much weaker attack to even resemble being balanced. This is why having disadvantages is good for a unit - otherwise it ends as a boring 1a unit of horrid boredom while being dull. Its the same story with the Tank, the Zergling or the HT. They removed the weaknesses and had to nerf the strengths, dulling down the units.
To summerize: In order for ANY RTS to be interesting as a spectator sport, or even just as a playing experience, it needs units with real tradeoffs. The Warhound is just the latest in a line of units that have no weaknesses to keep its strengths in line, and will in all propability end up as a boring 1a unit. Give it some glaring flaws and you can make it surprisingly powerfull without ruining balance.
Orb I would love a personal respone for this since it's after all your argument (though not an uncommon one) and I think it needs clarification:
The one thing I don't understand is the game already has quite a few units who require just as little or less micro than the Warhound. So okay, you don't think there should be any "1-a" units in the game. But Brood War had units that were less micro oriented than the Warhound. The Goliath for example, this unit is just as un-micro-able as the Warhound, even less so in that the Warhound allows manual target fire with the Haywire Missile as to focus down Hardened Shields and not 'waste' shots on Stalkers/Sentries, or to focus down Siege Tanks and not 'waste' shots on Hellions (Note: I am not saying you can't micro Goliaths, just like nobody would ever say you can't micro Warhounds).
Brood War Zealots and Hydralisks were also "1-a" units but nobody in their right mind would say you didn't have to micro these units.
I can understand the argument that high tech, ultra powerful units like the Colossus should be more micro oriented. But even in BW low tier units weren't crazy micro oriented. You can always micro to get more out of a unit though, in BW or SC2.
Are you implying that the skill ceiling was in fact too low in BW? I have never heard someone argue that before. Or areyou implying that since we took APM away from Macro, more APM should be required in SC2's armies than BW armies to balance this out?
On September 10 2012 23:03 i)awn wrote: I totally agree; I was watching this PvT game and God it was so fucking boring; there was no drops, no force fields no emps or snipes; not one fucking intense moment.
a week in to the beta....
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
Yes, and that is why he is discussing his concern for the game, instead of beeing quiet about it. If you want to refine something you have to address the issue you can not hope everything will be allright. If noone ever spoke up during the beta then blizzard would leave it as it is, because they didn't hear any big complaints.
Blizzard doesn't see it like us spectators do either, we are more thinking in the view of is this funny to watch or not. Many people thinks warhound terrible because it lack interesting mechanics and skill to use it. Blizzard is thinking in terms of is this unit balanced which totally different from being enjoyable to watch. Colossus as it is now is balanced in some regard but is it enjoyable to mass up units in a ball and attack at 180 food? Mostly no. Same thing goes for brood lords where you just sit passive and mass them up while building spines everywhere. You get into the fight and either win or lose. That game isn't even funny to play.
When it comes to warhound it has no drawbacks, it doesn't have to be microed against vikings like the colossus. It deals decent amount of damage with its regular attack and automatically cast its spell/ability on a specific unit type. In blizzard sc2 terms is has no counter except air. In the mid game,Air for toss is phoenix or void ray which marines kills, for zerg only mutas which either marines or thors kills. You basically have to fight them with a ground army.
You have to agree with the op that is it dumbing for a game that is trying to be a legit esports to add such unit. I am okay with it being strong but remove the haywire missile at least or make haywire an air attack ability with short range where you have to target the units you are attacking or something. Or charges that you need to buy like the reaver had, and takes some seconds to channel if the 'target' moves out of range the ability is canceled. Something that would give a "omg will that really happen" type of scenario.
Great post! Apart from not not having any drawbacks the warhound is just a mech marauder. Kinda seems like blizz have run out of ideas. Even though I feel blizzard won't do anything it may still be worthwhile to keep pursuing this. I urge you to post this in b.net forums as well. If nothing works out the only other way is for everyone to rally behind a 3rd party mod. But with lack of a ladder on it I doubt if that will ever pan out. So not encouraging at all.
Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines). Why is this bad? Well to understand it in the first place let's look at why this is good, and the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
This isn't anywhere close to true. You can kite, you can spread units against AOE damage, you can flank, you can position for concave, you can drop, you can hit multiple fronts, etc etc.
If a unit doesn't have a user-cast spell and doesn't fly, people on TL want to act like you can't micro it. I'm not thrilled with the warhound design, but let's not pretend that you can't micro it. Its speed is one of the big reasons that it doesn't feel like mech, but that speed also allows warhound opening harass against Protoss where you kite zealots while you focus down stalkers and sentries.
Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines). Why is this bad? Well to understand it in the first place let's look at why this is good, and the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
This isn't anywhere close to true. You can kite, you can spread units against AOE damage, you can flank, you can position for concave, you can drop, you can hit multiple fronts, etc etc.
If a unit doesn't have a user-cast spell and doesn't fly, people on TL want to act like you can't micro it. I'm not thrilled with the warhound design, but let's not pretend that you can't micro it. Its speed is one of the big reasons that it doesn't feel like mech, but that speed also allows warhound opening harass against Protoss where you kite zealots while you focus down stalkers and sentries.
To add on to that, Haywire Missile is a user-cast spell if you want it to be (right click the icon). Focusing Haywire Missile on key units like Immortals or Siege Tanks instead of them hitting Stalkers/Sentries/Hellions is a micro-oriented ability built right into the unit. How does that not require micro? Any player who has the APM to manually use this ability will have an advantage over a player who does not. Isn't that what Micro is all about?
Thanks Orb for making this thread, it made me re evaluate the way i view the Warhound and how new units, for a lack of better word, 'should' be implemended. Even tho i think you focus on the negative aspect of things a lot, it also gives you, and in return us, a clear and indept understanding of things work.
Before i forget, thanks for the TvP 'how to engage lategame army' advice you gave me 1 month ago while streaming, it helped me greatly. I felt that it was much better than all the general advice i've heard over the years and my results are much better now. The thing that stuck most to me was when you said: 'there is nothing the Protoss can do when a Terran play's perfect' or something along those lines. That motivated me to get my stuff together and really handle the problem, because it was all me and i just needed a push in the right direction with some practice combined. I'm going way off-topic here, sorry.
does somebody remember how often dustin said "if you want to stick with wol do that we will not stop the support for it" i think he knew what was coming and that some design decisions are made above him. or maybe im just reading to much into that and he is rly that stupid.
Orb this is an incredibly well and thought out post. Please repost this in the Blizzard HotS Forums too. Dustin Browder and David Kim have been reading and posting in there, so hopefully they will see it too. I'd modify or change the subject line completely though to make it sound more urgent than just another "Warhound thread."
I don't get it. If broodwar was the pinnacle of RTS why did good old Blizzard allowed the dragons? You stated;
an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.
but does this not apply to the dragons too? It seems to me that broodwar had many of easy to use units and some hard to use. Maybe a nice mixture is the way to go.
I feel like this post just sums up the sc2 versus brood war relation.
On September 11 2012 00:37 archonOOid wrote: I don't get it. If broodwar was the pinnacle of RTS why did good old Blizzard allowed the dragons? You stated;
an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.
but does this not apply to the dragons too? It seems to me that broodwar had many of easy to use units and some hard to use. Maybe a nice mixture is the way to go.
There's a lot of potential in micro'ing goons, but if you start microing a large pack of war hounds, it's probably even detrimental for the actual fight.
On September 10 2012 23:13 emythrel wrote: a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games.
Yeah, it's really all a-moving 15 minute games.
And all the stuff people didn't like was kept in... Seems like the same thing is happening in this Beta...
I really don't get the Warhound. No one wanted that thing, yet for some reason Blizzard seems to think that it's totally necessary and people will come to like it... Because.. That has worked for the Colossus? (lol).
Although people dislike the Colossus, they serve a role in the Protoss army that no other unit serves. The Warhound, on the other hand, is a Marauder that comes out of a Factory. Terran already have Marauders, they don't need the Warhound (or Marauders should be removed).
On September 11 2012 00:41 wcr.4fun wrote: I feel like this post just sums up the sc2 versus brood war relation.
On September 11 2012 00:37 archonOOid wrote: I don't get it. If broodwar was the pinnacle of RTS why did good old Blizzard allowed the dragons? You stated;
an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.
but does this not apply to the dragons too? It seems to me that broodwar had many of easy to use units and some hard to use. Maybe a nice mixture is the way to go.
There's a lot of potential in micro'ing goons, but if you start microing a large pack of war hounds, it's probably even detrimental for the actual fight.
The only reason Dragoons have micro potential is because BW pathing is buggy as fuck. That was not an intentional unit design.
That's my point that seemingly easy to use units can be utilized more efficiently with micro and maybe it's not the case with the warhound right now but with balance changes it can be. Therefore it's not absolutely necessary to remove it from the game.
I agree. My buddy and I were having the same discussion. Everything is turning into this big 1A deathball engagements, but more so for Terran than any other race. Zerg and Protoss still have some remnants of micro (not in the true sense), because of all the casters that both of the races have. Terran doesn't really have any casting units. Yes, you can play with Tanks and Ravens, but now with the addition of battlehellions and warhounds and no casting units, they are the true definition of a 1A Deathball, and I don't think that's the direction we need to go.
One of the reasons there are so many viewers watching SC2 is because of the complexity involved. You know it exists, but you don't have the skill set to pull it off, which is why you watch in awe when the pros do it.
So not only does it remove the incentive to repeat play as pointed out, but it removes the desire to watch tournament after tournament.
I think when it comes down it, Activision/Blizz do not see a big ROI from esports. Sure they will balance the game and promote the pro-scene, but it's more about "building the community", branding and marketing than anything else. If their #1 goal is short-term sales then they want it to be accessible/fun to as many people as possible (doesn't matter if they just play it 3 times). This is evidenced by nearly every other game they release (COD, WoW expos, etc.) so I'm really not surprised if they have the same mentality to SC2 as well.
I really hope I'm wrong, and maybe KESPA and other international esports orgs. rising up will motivate Blizz to step it up in the game design department.
I think the real reason why people are upset about the warhound is that it propagates a more bio-like type of play with roaming around the map, instead of the more tank-like type behind fortified positions. And the reason behind that is, in starcraft 1 each race had its characteristic, trademark way of being played (zerg swarmed all around the map, terran sieged up behind fortified lines, and protoss did something in between), and it somehow got lost during the transition to starcraft 2.
Broodlord/Infestor is now prominent in any matchup of the zerg (minus the mirror matchup), in which the zerg basically slowpushes across the map like a terran would in starcraft 1, Marine/Marauder/Medivac is also prominant in all matchups (again minus mirror) where the terran tries to outmultitask his opponent through harass like a zerg in starcraft 1.
So I think there is still a residue of disappointment left, because the races lost their gameplay identity, during the transition from starcraft 1 to starcraft 2, which is now resurfacing again because HotS does nothing to address this "problem". In fact, the addition of the warhound seem to make it even "worse".
On September 11 2012 01:08 Erik.TheRed wrote: I think when it comes down it, Activision/Blizz do not see a big ROI from esports. Sure they will balance the game and promote the pro-scene, but it's more about "building the community", branding and marketing than anything else. If their #1 goal is short-term sales then they want it to be accessible/fun to as many people as possible (doesn't matter if they just play it 3 times). This is evidenced by nearly every other game they release (COD, WoW expos, etc.) so I'm really not surprised if they have the same mentality to SC2 as well.
I really hope I'm wrong, and maybe KESPA and other international esports orgs. rising up will motivate Blizz to step it up in the game design department.
Wouldnt be too sure about this. Blizzard gets his share from every tournament out there with a certain amount of prize money. They basically sell licenses. Its free for small tournaments but its quite a nice cut from big ones.
aye aye. The bronze leaguers have to group together and support this thread! I really do think they agree!!
I wouldnt be too sure about that too. From a viewers perspective its 100% right that we need more micro, more cool stuff ect. But trying to walk a mile in their shoes its already much of "play against the mechanics" instead of "play against your opponent". So I doubt that they would cheer for "more working and less playing"
Warhound = boring a-move unit. Tempest concept so uninteresting compared to carries and interceptors. Oracle = FF minerals, so one dimensional and no room for player creativity =( I think they have their work cut out but will give them the benefit of the doubt till I see a few patches turned out.
hmmm my english is very bad.. but i want disccuss about that i will in french and try to translate, sorry for that
A dire vrai je pense que ce poste ne pose pas les bonnes questions, la question a mon avis, n'est pas de savoir si le Warhound est une A clik unit ou pas, ni de savoir si Blizzard veut casualiser le jeu pour les débutants ou pas ( au vu des investissements émis par Blizzard pour les WCS, j'en doute
L'équilibrage de Starcraft 2 est régie par 3 gros paramètres : le DPS, la vitesse de déplacement, et la capacité a tirer a l'air / voler ou pas. Si on reprend la philosophie de Blizzard, pourquoi le Warhound est la ? parce que le mass tank n'a que peu de solution pour être contré, et les early push gate/ immortal aussi, du coup de mon avis, l'idée du Warhound est bonne, et vu que tank / imo = T2, le Warhound si il passe T3 ou si il devenait une unité a spell, elle serait trop longue a sortir pour contrer les Imo/tank ...
On comprend donc pourquoi le Warhound a un bon dps et une bonne mobilité : c'est le prix a payer pour rendre l'unité viable, car sans ca, elle passe T3 et dans se cas, ne sera pas utilisé, après je suis d'accord pour dire que a ce jour, elle n'est pas encore équilibré mais de la a dire qu'elle ne devrait pas être la, non je ne pense pas
the design ideas of all other new units in HOTS are at least interesting. sometimes very cool sometimes OP(Swarmhost) or useless (Tempest) in it's current state but at least the direction seems legit.
the warhound is just a fucking fast, fucking strong, fucking durable, A-Move unit. when i look at the mass warhound auto-win gameplay which was shown in the last days, i can't really believe that they (blizzard guys) tested shit before.
I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
On September 11 2012 01:28 red4ce wrote: I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
i agree.
but what you also can see here: shit is just dying to fast in sc2.
On September 11 2012 01:28 red4ce wrote: I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
That kind of micro is amazing, but only because of the Spider Mine mechanic. Stalkers/Zealots could easily hold up the Protoss side in that dynamic, but Hellions would be just another a-move unit, completely destroying any unique interaction aside from firing at each other.
Honestly what I would love to see teamliquid appoint of a team of 15 unpaid pros who promise to be as unbiased as possible who come out with balance changes/patches every 2months, then I or any mapper could EASILY create custom maps of each patch with the changes inside within a day for all the current tournament maps.
Then if this teamliquid version of WoL turns out to be more "entertaining" than HOTS due to it being skill based instead of dustin browder A-move unit based, possibly some tournaments will choose to use the more entertaining version.
Then this teamliquid "version" of WoL would hopefully continue the balancing of WoL that blizzard failed to do. I believe the capability is there to improve terran mech, just buff the tanks and boom you have positional play created in terran mech, and if it causes problem in protoss or zerg, put a buff somewhere else in protoss or zerg possibly. I fully support a balance team consisting of nonbiased pros over blizzard
as long as the pros are 5 of each race and they all agree on changes together for the patches I would enjoy those patches much more than blizzard patches.
For example reapers, Im a master protoss player and i can honestly say reapers need to be reduced in buildtime. 45 seconds for 1food? really? marauders are 30seconds for 2food and both require a techlab. the days of 3range queens and roaches are over, zerg has nothing to fear with reapers either, Im sure even idra would support a buildtime reduction on reapers if he was on the balance team
On September 11 2012 01:28 red4ce wrote: I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
i agree.
but what you also can see here: shit is just dying to fast in sc2.
Yeah I hate unit clumping. You can hardly see shit in a max vs max fight.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
Those examples are all easy to learn, hard to master, especially sports and guitar.
Wow... Mad props to you orb, this is the exact same stuff that has been going on in my head since early beta, but i could never had worded it as perfectly as you just did. AGREE X1000000000
The warhound is more to combat the fact that nobody plays terran anymore. Everybody has switched to zerg because it was dramatically easier to play and so much more forgiving after about the 6th minute. I don't see the warhound as any different from the hydralisk or the immortal, both are units that dont really require micro any more than the warhound does.
They need to do something or nobody is going to play terran anymore besides at really high levels.
Maybe its just me but I like the "strategy" of real time strategy games. Doing a mechanical action well is impressive and that is why we watch sports because its the repitition that goes into it that allows them to perform well and we appreciate that. BUT it has NOTHING to do with strategy. The depth of strategy of an average SC2 game: 1.get good economy to get big army that can kill other guys army. 2. do damage to other guys economy because see 1. So it comes down to the person with better mechanics who win the game. This bores the heck out of me. I want to see smart people make smart decisions and get rewarded for it. I want to see brilliant positioning, abuse of particular advantages over your opponents(such as range and high ground), I want a distraction in order to gain an awesome position. (The tank is by far my favorite unit). This still happens but it is exceedingly rare and I have only really seen it in high level TvT's. Its these brilliant chess-like moves that I want to see and perform in a game and I don't want to have to practice a billions hrs just to be able to do this. Basically I'm saying I want a game where the more clever player wins and not the one with faster fingers. In summary, I absolutely agree that the warhound should be removed but for entirely different reasons.
I played some HOTS beta. Although I play Zerg in WoL I did around 30-40 games with T (~50 in total) just fooling around with Warhounds. It was cool going with the first 2-3 warhounds early game and raping whatever the oponent was trying to do as it was cool to max 200/200 and A-click to victory. It is not cool anymore - just feels dumb, this unit offers nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing exciting. Rework it!
The inherent problem here is the idea of replayability. When a game is too easy, it is fun the first couple times and then completely loses its charm and gets boring. I love Portal to death, but once you understand the puzzles and what you are supposed to do, it is so easy upon playing a second time through that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore. In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title, they need to have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based (because anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you understand the solution). This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics, it would get boring extremely quickly and there is no way it would be an esport. It's the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so fun no matter how many times you have already played it. The problem with Blizzard's design philosophy is that it overestimates the pros of low-difficulty, and underestimates the pros of high-difficulty.
I kinda agree with the rest of the post but i want to make 2 points: 1 the above part about knowledge might sound reasonable but it is obviously false if we think even for a moment about board games(in particular Go and Chess). These games have no "difficulty of executing a tricky task" AND they are extremely difficult to play.
One might argue that these are not good spectator sports(in fact they are not mainstream) but I think the problem is that you need much more knowledge of the games to appreciate them in relation to sports/RTS games, and not that they are bad spectator games.
In a game of Go or Chess you use your general knowledge to come up with fresh solutions to the new positions that you face. This happens because little changes in the position cause great long term changes in the strategy and because after a few moves ( it depends but for chess it's usually 10/15 moves) you always face new positions you don't have "solutions" as you call them.
In RTS this doesn't apply for various reasons: • you have imperfect knowledge. IMHO even if creates some strategy (proxys, all-ins) it kinda makes RTS feel gimmicky sometimes and it could remove higher level strategy. But it would make for a very different game: attacking would become very difficult because your opponent would know way before and could counterattack as soon as you leave(but you could see the conter attack before it happens).It would remove coin-flips.But imagine if in sc2 when you drop you don't drag the enemy army away you would be countered 100% because your opponents knows 30 seconds before that it's coming.
• the game is fast This means you have no time to figure something out, like you could in chess, during the game apart from tactic decisions. "Learning happens between games" Day9
• the game is more "fluid". By that I mean that you can move as many units as you want freely, while in chess you can move only one piece at a time, you have pawns and pieces are pretty immobile. In chess much strategy comes from the fact that you can't move pawns backwards and one of the basic strategic rules is to block a target then attack it; this is almost impossible in sc2 apart from some tactics (FF, FG, Concussive). The only thing similar to chess immobility and slowness to change position I can think of is when choses a tech path and can't transition easily and the terran mech, but it is still way more mobile than a blocked pawn.
• the mechanics are often as important as the strategy This united with point #2 means that the knowledge becomes slowly evolving, so easily assimilable and because you often have few general strategies per MU you end up in the same positions (because of #3 there is less difference between them) doing the same generic moves so you need "the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task".
So in a sense you are right that in RTS you have to have difficult mechanics but I think that this is unfortunate because it means that there is little strategy.(we should call them RTs)
2 This is not strongly related to the post.
I think there are two types of micro and I think SC2 is a good step in removing the bad one*:
•Bad Micro
When you have to manually do something which you would never do differently(meaningless actions) E.g. sending the workers to mine at the start of the game E.g. when in bw you have to babysit the dragoon after you moved it because it's retarded.
•Good Micro When you have to manually do something which you could do differently(meaningful actions) E.g. imagine if blink was automatic, always backwards and only for damaged units(like the AI does). This would obviously reduce strategy(no blink forward/ blink away) even if the IA maybe uses blink better than everybody in engagements(ever seen blink hack in action?).
•So we can also have bad micro design When the games takes automatic decisions(and you can't toggle off) when sometimes it would be better to do otherwise. E.g. the lurker if there was no hold lurker trick it would be bad design because sometimes it's better to not attack immediately something that comes in range. E.g. the widow mine that auto-attacks units that come in range and can't be toggled off.
*but a lot the good one was removed too like moving shot (see Micro, Where art thou?) and also zone control and in HotS it's being added to and "removed" to in a sense (warhound should deny siege tank in TvT and tanks are now replaced by warhounds in mech TvP)
I'm curious how a perfect information sc2 game or in general RTS would be. BTW The warhound isn't 100% 1-A because you can engage then run, wait for the hayware missile to recharge then engage again doing more damage and taking more damage than just 1-A. Also you can kite zealots, slow roaches marines without stim ecc... But It has no positional value
Your argument could apply to roaches, yet they're still in the game. Hell, you can even argue theres more micro involved with warhounds since you should selectively target mechanical units with them aka stalkers instead of just a moving them into zealots.
On September 11 2012 01:26 SC2Kerri wrote: hmmm my english is very bad.. but i want disccuss about that i will in french and try to translate, sorry for that
A dire vrai je pense que ce poste ne pose pas les bonnes questions, la question a mon avis, n'est pas de savoir si le Warhound est une A clik unit ou pas, ni de savoir si Blizzard veut casualiser le jeu pour les débutants ou pas ( au vu des investissements émis par Blizzard pour les WCS, j'en doute
L'équilibrage de Starcraft 2 est régie par 3 gros paramètres : le DPS, la vitesse de déplacement, et la capacité a tirer a l'air / voler ou pas. Si on reprend la philosophie de Blizzard, pourquoi le Warhound est la ? parce que le mass tank n'a que peu de solution pour être contré, et les early push gate/ immortal aussi, du coup de mon avis, l'idée du Warhound est bonne, et vu que tank / imo = T2, le Warhound si il passe T3 ou si il devenait une unité a spell, elle serait trop longue a sortir pour contrer les Imo/tank ...
On comprend donc pourquoi le Warhound a un bon dps et une bonne mobilité : c'est le prix a payer pour rendre l'unité viable, car sans ca, elle passe T3 et dans se cas, ne sera pas utilisé, après je suis d'accord pour dire que a ce jour, elle n'est pas encore équilibré mais de la a dire qu'elle ne devrait pas être la, non je ne pense pas
Truthfully I think this post isn't asking the right questions. The question from my perspective isn't whether or not the Warhound is an a move unit or not nor to know if Blizzard wants to make the game more accessible to casual players (I doubt it based on their investments in WCS)
Balance in SC2 is based on 3 parameters: DPS, Movement Speed, and the ability to shoot up or fly. From Blizzard's Perspective, why is the Warhound there? Because Mass Tank only has a few counters, same for early gate immortal pushes. In my opinion the idea is good and seeing as Tank and Immortals are tier two units, if the Warhound were made a tier 3 unit it would take too long to counter Immortal/Tank pushes.
We understand then why the Warhound has such DPS and mobility: It is the price to pay to make a unit viable, without which it would be unusable at tier 3. I do agree that it isn't balanced at the moment but I don't think it should be removed.
English is official language, but thanks for the help remembering some of my french. ♥
Why are people ignoring the fact that warhounds need to be focus firing mechanical units to be effective? That fact alone makes them more micro intensive than many other units in the game.
On September 11 2012 01:54 jackdavis486 wrote: Maybe its just me but I like the "strategy" of real time strategy games. Doing a mechanical action well is impressive and that is why we watch sports because its the repitition that goes into it that allows them to perform well and we appreciate that. BUT it has NOTHING to do with strategy. The depth of strategy of an average SC2 game: 1.get good economy to get big army that can kill other guys army. 2. do damage to other guys economy because see 1. So it comes down to the person with better mechanics who win the game. This bores the heck out of me. I want to see smart people make smart decisions and get rewarded for it. I want to see brilliant positioning, abuse of particular advantages over your opponents(such as range and high ground), I want a distraction in order to gain an awesome position. (The tank is by far my favorite unit). This still happens but it is exceedingly rare and I have only really seen it in high level TvT's. Its these brilliant chess-like moves that I want to see and perform in a game and I don't want to have to practice a billions hrs just to be able to do this. Basically I'm saying I want a game where the more clever player wins and not the one with faster fingers. In summary, I absolutely agree that the warhound should be removed but for entirely different reasons.
Even in a game like Broodwar which was like super hard on the mechanics the very good players who are flash, jaedong or older ones like boxer usually won everything because they were the smartest guys out there. Also they have beastly mechanics...so there is NO reason not to have both sides to this game. Thats why its a REALTIME strategy game...it will and has to have a strong mechanical component.
If you only want strategy in there you have to play a turnbased strategy game.
I always got the impression the Warhound is filling a void in the Terran arsenal for the 1 APM fire and forget no micro a-move units that the other 2 races already have. As a Terran player I almost welcomed the idea that they get a unit where you can a-move vs Protoss (like a Protoss) and sit there watching the battle unfold in your favor. Ideally there would be no units like that of course, but Protoss already has so many. Charge Zealots, Archons, Colossus etc. are already as bad as the warhound in my book and would need looking at alongside reworking the Warhound. There must be a way of making Factory units viable vs Protoss that is slightly less silly than the Warhound of course. Looking at it objectively then an a-move, no micro unit with an autocasting ability isn't going to lead to interesting gameplay and needs to be ditched. The problem is I can think of units that are already in WoL which fit that bill (I hate Charge Zealots).
The current situation where the best strategy seems to be stacking Warhounds at the expense of Siege Tanks, Thors and Hellions certainly doesn't seem right for a start. Positional play with Siege Tanks and the idea of "breaking the mech Terran" is far more interesting to watch than seeing 20 Mechwarrior Marauders on crack zooming into the Protoss (and Zerg LOL) army and steamrolling it with no regard for positioning or micro. The TvP Battle Report where the Terran had a more balanced mech army (with tanks) is what I was hoping for, but I imagine it's difficult to tune the Warhound and Siege Tank such that a Terran wants to have a mixture of the two in their army. It seems like it will be hard to get away from mass Warhound TvP when the Siege Tank is so disappointing in the matchup.
I agree that the warhound needs an overhaul, but for other reasons. The game is based around the principle of Terran - high dps, low health, protoss - high health, low mobility, zerg - high mobility, low dps. If you add a tanky, fast unit to terran you break the whole principle of the different races.
If you nerf the WH as much as it needs to be nerfed, then it becomes the Thor that already exist.
1. The Warhound is powerful and easy to use. 2. That making a powerful unit that is difficult to use would be a good design. 3. Don't nerf the Warhound.
On September 11 2012 02:07 Zorkmid wrote: I don't understand this.
You're saying that:
1. The Warhound is powerful and easy to use. 2. That making a powerful unit that is difficult to use would be a good design. 3. Don't nerf the Warhound.
On September 11 2012 01:28 red4ce wrote: I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
i agree.
but what you also can see here: shit is just dying to fast in sc2.
Yeah I hate unit clumping. You can hardly see shit in a max vs max fight.
Yeah, that is one of the issues with SC2. Units "clumped" in BW, but they also took up more space on the screen, so it was less of an issue. Also, the units were sprites on a grid, displayed on a CTR screen in a resolution smart phones have surpassed; rather than 3d models on 3d map, showing in wide screen at 1920 x 1080. You would be hard pressed to get a max army all on one screen in BW, but is SC2 is no problem just because everything is so much smaller, faster and meaner.
Even in a game like Broodwar which was like super hard on the mechanics the very good players who are flash, jaedong or older ones like boxer usually won everything because they were the smartest guys out there. Also they have beastly mechanics...so there is NO reason not to have both sides to this game. Thats why its a REALTIME strategy game...it will and has to have a strong mechanical component.
If you only want strategy in there you have to play a turnbased strategy game.
Do you think that chess part of Chess Boxing has the same strategic value of a normal chess game because having both boxing("mechanics") and chess doesn't lower the strategy? (I'm using your reasoning)
I think the more things you put in a game the more every aspect becomes less relevant.
If we had less mechanics if the game was good we would focus more on the strategy. Unfortunately I think that RTS can't have very complex startegy, maybe it's because imperfect information hinders that(coin-flips)
I'd like to see the Warhound as a support caster, like and Electronic Warfare unit that can, say, nullify forcefields, disrupt guardian shields, drain energy, etc.
Even in a game like Broodwar which was like super hard on the mechanics the very good players who are flash, jaedong or older ones like boxer usually won everything because they were the smartest guys out there. Also they have beastly mechanics...so there is NO reason not to have both sides to this game. Thats why its a REALTIME strategy game...it will and has to have a strong mechanical component.
If you only want strategy in there you have to play a turnbased strategy game.
Do you think that chess part of Chess Boxing has the same strategic value of a normal chess game because having both boxing("mechanics") and chess doesn't lower the strategy? (I'm using your reasoning)
I think the more things you put in a game the more every aspect becomes less relevant.
If we had less mechanics if the game was good we would focus more on the strategy. Unfortunately I think that RTS can't have very complex startegy, maybe it's because imperfect information hinders that(coin-flips)
But I'm ready to change idea
That's where I disagree a lot. I really don't think that if you tone down mechanics a lot you will see a lot more strategy. You basically automate mechanics by training a lot. The decisionmaking in scbw even though it requires a lot more mechanics has way more strategic depth than sc2. Highground advantage and more units that allow you to control space a lot more for example give a lot of strategic depth. Also you don't have that deathball syndrom allowing you to do way more with your units.
On September 11 2012 02:07 Zorkmid wrote: I don't understand this.
You're saying that:
1. The Warhound is powerful and easy to use. 2. That making a powerful unit that is difficult to use would be a good design. 3. Don't nerf the Warhound.
I`ll be the one to disagree. (with orbs reasoning) - misleading sensationalist headline, just write what your real point is ("Get rid of the warhound") - SC2 has easier mechanics than broodwar, but there is still a very long way to master it totally. when you write that "Newbies get bored quickly, because they can do everything", I disagree heavily, out of own experience, your "newbies" are at least master players - Many people criticize that SC2 shouldnt become a battle of casters, instead there should be simple attack units who are then microed by moving back and forth and focus firing, there were tons of this kind in Broodwar
I don't think that the Warhound is a great unit and I'm unsure about all updates of game mechanics, I mainly don't support orbs reasoning here.
Don't agree entirely with all the reasoning behind it but I agree with the conclusion: the warhound sucks and needs to be seriously altered. An attack move unit in itself doesn't need to be bad if it features in interesting strategies. For example hydra's are pretty much the same but they can be just fine. The warhound just sucks because it's intended to be part of the new mech which becomes boring with it. Mech is a slow positional style with huge strength but no mobility. The warhound changes this and makes it just a boring version of MMM. I don't want to see warhound fights in TvT or super slow warhound/battlehellion(maybe even BC) armies in TvP.
Units need flavor of themselves or need to enable other units with flavor. Boring units that hardcounter fun strategies too much sucks. Nerfing it into the ground where it becomes useless in TvZ and hardly used in TvT will probably end up being the solution though. At some point blizzard will have to be pragmatic and start tweakign numbers instead of overhauling entire systems even if the chosen path they have sucks. Development choices from blizzard have just been terrible the past few years in both diablo and starcraft, they seem to opt for terrible lead designers
Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Even in a game like Broodwar which was like super hard on the mechanics the very good players who are flash, jaedong or older ones like boxer usually won everything because they were the smartest guys out there. Also they have beastly mechanics...so there is NO reason not to have both sides to this game. Thats why its a REALTIME strategy game...it will and has to have a strong mechanical component.
If you only want strategy in there you have to play a turnbased strategy game.
Do you think that chess part of Chess Boxing has the same strategic value of a normal chess game because having both boxing("mechanics") and chess doesn't lower the strategy? (I'm using your reasoning)
I think the more things you put in a game the more every aspect becomes less relevant.
If we had less mechanics if the game was good we would focus more on the strategy. Unfortunately I think that RTS can't have very complex startegy, maybe it's because imperfect information hinders that(coin-flips)
But I'm ready to change idea
That's where I disagree a lot. I really don't think that if you tone down mechanics a lot you will see a lot more strategy. You basically automate mechanics by training a lot. The decisionmaking in scbw even though it requires a lot more mechanics has way more strategic depth than sc2. Highground advantage and more units that allow you to control space a lot more for example give a lot of strategic depth. Also you don't have that deathball syndrom allowing you to do way more with your units.
My point was more general.
For sc2 I think you are right(I said if the game is good meaning if it has the possibility for complex strategy) but I think my point in general still holds. BTW BW had 12 years to develop strategy where sc2 had 2 years and now we are gonna somewhat start again. But I agree with you that maybe sc2 doesn't support much strategic depth. But before Botvinnik's (first chess world champion) scientific approach to chess strategy, chess was thought to be a game about tactics and calculation were the first player to make a major mistakes loses and not about strategy (you can read E.A.Poe that in the 18th century thought draughts had more depth than chess + Show Spoiler +
Form The Murders in the Rue Morgue
The faculty of resolution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it, which, unjustly, and merely because of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet, to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess player, for example, does one without the effort of the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here powerfully called into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed [“blunder”—the Editor] resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the motives are unique and have but little variation, the possibilities of inadvertence are diminished; and the mere attention being comparatively left unemployed, what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by by superior acumen.
I think Warhound is a great idea on paper. Right now, terrans get their both anti-air and anti-ground ball upgraded from the same tech tier, much faster. If Warhound is designed to be much stronger than Marauder, and becomes the staple in TvP army mix, then the T should not (in principle) be so well upgraded against air.
In theory, that should make air transitions or air play much more viable (I might horribly wrong).
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list.
roach makes some pretty exciting zvp games.
devourers were hardly seen and just existed to counter carrier / bc. same deal with corrupter
collossus / immortal / thor / marauder. I believe each race can have a few a-move units as long as they are exciting to watch. I enjoyed MVP doing thor timings at IEM killing zergs right when they switched into broodlords with the anti-air thor attack.
Each race already has their a-move units. Terran doesnt need another marauder
starcraft turns more and more noob friendly, attack move units help the casual gamers to win more. this may sound dumb, but blizzard only interests how many players are gonna play starcraft. I also think automine and the count of ur workers doesnt belong to starcraft, but blizzard seems like they dont care about the traditions of starcraft.
I disagree with the marine part, I think it's a well designed unit because of how fragile it is, meaning it is incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage, meaning that you will get much more mileage out of marine micro than well, almost any other unit.
blizzard is a corporation... no matter what they do in the end everything that they do must serve in some way or purpose to meet their final goal which is profit... the more people who play the more profitable the game is... a game like broodwar that lasted 10 years is unfortunately very counterproductive to what they truly want so that is why they are trying to balance competitiveness in sc2 with the shelf-life of the game... all they want to do is soak up as much money as possible from "e-sports" and then move on to the next game and do the same... guys... you shoulda lost faith in blizzard a long time ago... if we truly want an e-sports to flourish then the whole competitive scene cannot be focused around a corporation that has a sole goal of profit... rather we have to focus around a separate organization that has oversight over what goes on and doesn't choose profit over quality... it's just reality guys... reality of the current situation... as long as e-sports is centered around or controlled by a corporation it will never reach the level of actual sports.
On September 10 2012 18:51 Morphs wrote: The Warhound is no coincidence. Blizzard wanted exactly this, as stated in interviews. According to Blizzard, the Warhound was purposely created as an a-move unit since there's already so much micro involved in playing Terran...
that doesn't fix the problem... instead of adding a-move units they should instead do the opposite... remove a-move units from the other races and introduce skillbased units... lol
On September 10 2012 23:13 emythrel wrote: a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games.
Yeah, it's really all a-moving 15 minute games.
And all the stuff people didn't like was kept in... Seems like the same thing is happening in this Beta...
I really don't get the Warhound. No one wanted that thing, yet for some reason Blizzard seems to think that it's totally necessary and people will come to like it... Because.. That has worked for the Colossus? (lol).
Although people dislike the Colossus, they serve a role in the Protoss army that no other unit serves. The Warhound, on the other hand, is a Marauder that comes out of a Factory. Terran already have Marauders, they don't need the Warhound (or Marauders should be removed).
On September 11 2012 00:41 wcr.4fun wrote: I feel like this post just sums up the sc2 versus brood war relation.
On September 11 2012 00:37 archonOOid wrote: I don't get it. If broodwar was the pinnacle of RTS why did good old Blizzard allowed the dragons? You stated;
an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.
but does this not apply to the dragons too? It seems to me that broodwar had many of easy to use units and some hard to use. Maybe a nice mixture is the way to go.
There's a lot of potential in micro'ing goons, but if you start microing a large pack of war hounds, it's probably even detrimental for the actual fight.
The only reason Dragoons have micro potential is because BW pathing is buggy as fuck. That was not an intentional unit design.
Mine defusing without Obs (move a little forward to pop the Spider Mines, back off, press "hold" or FF the Mine), getting out of Vulture surrounds/sniping Mines, hold-micro vs. early Terran pushes, tanking for Reaver in Reaver drops.
Yeah, because that's all related to Dragoon's pathing...
On September 10 2012 15:56 SheaR619 wrote: Agreed but honestly at this point, I don't even care anymore. For the warhound to EVEN make it into beta AND survived a balance patch has made me completely lost faith in blizzard. The more I watch HotS stream, the more I question why this unit is even in the game. So many people has already expressed their hate toward this unit. If this unit is completely reworked during the next patch, I don't know what to say.
But having it removed entirely is wishful thinking by this point. If it was changed to be more fun to play and observe, by toning its A-Move down and giving it a better toolset, then that would be optimal.
The inherent problem here is the idea of replayability. When a game is too easy, it is fun the first couple times and then completely loses its charm and gets boring. I love Portal to death, but once you understand the puzzles and what you are supposed to do, it is so easy upon playing a second time through that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore. In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title, they need to have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based (because anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you understand the solution). This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics, it would get boring extremely quickly and there is no way it would be an esport. It's the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so fun no matter how many times you have already played it. The problem with Blizzard's design philosophy is that it overestimates the pros of low-difficulty, and underestimates the pros of high-difficulty.
I kinda agree with the rest of the post but i want to make 2 points: 1 the above part about knowledge might sound reasonable but it is obviously false if we think even for a moment about board games(in particular Go and Chess). These games have no "difficulty of executing a tricky task" AND they are extremely difficult to play.
One might argue that these are not good spectator sports(in fact they are not mainstream) but I think the problem is that you need much more knowledge of the games to appreciate them in relation to sports/RTS games, and not that they are bad spectator games.
In a game of Go or Chess you use your general knowledge to come up with fresh solutions to the new positions that you face. This happens because little changes in the position cause great long term changes in the strategy and because after a few moves ( it depends but for chess it's usually 10/15 moves) you always face new positions you don't have "solutions" as you call them.
In RTS this doesn't apply for various reasons: • you have imperfect knowledge. IMHO even if creates some strategy (proxys, all-ins) it kinda makes RTS feel gimmicky sometimes and it could remove higher level strategy. But it would make for a very different game: attacking would become very difficult because your opponent would know way before and could counterattack as soon as you leave(but you could see the conter attack before it happens).It would remove coin-flips.But imagine if in sc2 when you drop you don't drag the enemy army away you would be countered 100% because your opponents knows 30 seconds before that it's coming.
• the game is fast This means you have no time to figure something out during the game, like you could in chess, apart from tactic decisions. "Learning happens between games" Day9
• the game is more "fluid". By that I mean that you can move as many units as you want freely, while in chess you can move only one piece at a time, you have pawns and pieces are pretty immobile. In chess much strategy comes from the fact that you can't move pawns backwards and one of the basic strategic rules is to block a target then attack it; this is almost impossible in sc2 apart from some tactics (FF, FG, Concussive). The only thing similar to chess immobility and slowness to change position I can think of is when choses a tech path and can't transition easily and the terran mech, but it is still way more mobile than a blocked pawn.
• the mechanics are often as important as the strategy This united with point #2 means that the knowledge becomes slowly evolving, so easily assimilable and because you often have few general strategies per MU you end up in the same positions (because of #3 there is less difference between them) doing the same generic moves so you need "the simple difficulty of executing a tricky task".
So in a sense you are right that in RTS you have to have difficult mechanics but I think that this is unfortunate because it means that there is little strategy.(we should call them RTs)
2 This is not strongly related to the post.
I think there are two types of micro and I think SC2 is a good step in removing the bad one*:
•Bad Micro
When you have to manually do something which you would never do differently(meaningless actions) E.g. sending the workers to mine at the start of the game E.g. when in bw you have to babysit the dragoon after you moved it because it's retarded.
•Good Micro When you have to manually do something which you could do differently(meaningful actions) E.g. imagine if blink was automatic, always backwards and only for damaged units(like the AI does). This would obviously reduce strategy(no blink forward/ blink away) even if the IA maybe uses blink better than everybody in engagements(ever seen blink hack in action?).
•So we can also have bad micro design When the games takes automatic decisions(and you can't toggle off) when sometimes it would be better to do otherwise. E.g. the lurker if there was no hold lurker trick it would be bad design because sometimes it's better to not attack immediately something that comes in range. E.g. the widow mine that auto-attacks units that come in range and can't be toggled off.
*but a lot the good one was removed too like moving shot (see Micro, Where art thou?) and also zone control and in HotS it's being added to and "removed" to in a sense (warhound should deny siege tank in TvT and tanks are now replaced by warhounds in mech TvP)
I'm curious how a perfect information sc2 game or in general RTS would be. BTW The warhound isn't 100% 1-A because you can engage then run, wait for the hayware missile to recharge then engage again doing more damage and taking more damage than just 1-A. Also you can kite zealots, slow roaches marines without stim ecc... But It has no positional value
Sorry if I quote myself but nobody answered
Sirlin, author of Playing to Win said about strategy in starcraft:
I wish Starcraft focused more on strategy than it does. If there's a pie of 100% of whatever to focus on, some of that is strategy and a whole lot is related to APM (actions per minute). The more the focus is on one, the less on the other. And Blizzard has been explicit that they want the skill test to include high APM.
Blizzard improved the UI of Starcraft 2 over Starcraft 1 to allow things like selecting more than 12 units at a time, and using tab to cycle through unit types within a selection. This allows the player execute decisions better. That is, first the player decides what he wants to do (strategy) then physically issues the commands to make that happen in the game (execution). The UI decisions I just mention shift the emphasis towards strategy mattering a bit more, so that's good. Fighting against the UI to perform the exact same tasks in Starcraft 1 does add "more skill" for sure, but it's a kind of skill that is not related to strategy, hence its removal. That said, other extra clicks were added on purpose in Starcraft 2, and units designed specifically to reward very high APM usage.
Some other similar game could be very similar to Starcraft, but focus less on execution and more on strategy. In other words, it would give much less reward to a 300 APM player over a 100 APM player than Starcraft 2 does. The result of this would be that if more players were on equal footing APM-wise (because it's less rewarded, or capped or whatever) then strategy matters more. This is what Extra Credits wants, to have more freedom of strategy choices without spending so much time honing skills on perfectly timed, memorized build orders. This has NOTHING to do with game balance though. That Starcraft has really well-balanced races is not the CAUSE of this problem, and making the races intentionally imbalanced so as to create a less fair game would not solve the problems.
starcraft was all about potential for mechanics/micro/.... When you maynard you can send 12 workers to one patch and they'll do alright, but a mechanically better player will be able to even split the 12 workers while not failing on anything else.
It's like yin/yang, they're two opposites but they complement each other and are both needed. We aren't even seeing better strategic choices in sc2 than in brood war. Players with worse mechanics, but 'good strategic' sense can now compete with players who have better mechanics and equally as good strategic sense (talking about the top of players) because the effect of better mechanics stagnates at the top in sc2 as opposed to brood war.
An A player on Iccup (or 1500 Fish or w/e) has pretty good mechanics, better than a grandmaster player, that's for sure. His strategic decisions are okay. Then you've got a person like flash, who's got insane game sense and strategic decision making. But his mechanics are also a billion times better than an A player. That's what's so beautiful about bw imo. Whereas in sc2, a grandmaster player's mechanics, are not as good as a pro, but there's a lot less difference than when comparing flash vs A iccup player.
I think it is okay when some units need much micro and others do not. Of course a unit which allows for much micro should be a bit more effective than the a-move unit. But I don't think that it hurts the game if some units are a-move friendly.
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list.
That is the point I tried to make in my post a few pages back.
SC2 units are in general a lot more shallow than their BW counterparts. This is due to the "fixed weaknesses" of these units. Without weaknesses a unit cannot be given any major strengths.
The Immortal and Thor are actually kinda vulnerable, and very slow, so they have some detriments, allowing them to have quite the punch without people screaming imbalance.
But the Colossus, Marauder, Roach, Corruptor, Voidray, Warpgate mechanic and well the Warhound all have no real weaknesses. They are simple tough damaging units with good range and good mobility.
The Zealot is kinda on this list with charge, as it removes one of the major weaknesses of old Zealots, but with small size and clumping, they still are weak to major splash.
Its true that a lot of the BW units had weaknesses because of the AI and pathing. But my point is that they HAD real weaknesses - not what those weaknesses were.
Take each and every one of the 1a units and give them a "problem" that will give clear, easy or very exploitable counterplay, especially in big battles, and I'm sure SC2 will be a lot more interesting to both watch and play.
And before the "casuals" say that this will make the game only cater to the Pro's - BW siege tanks, carriers or lurkers were a lot better with micro, but didn't really need it to be used well against an less than stellar opponent, because they still performed fine without micro.
On September 11 2012 02:58 hnim wrote: I disagree with the marine part, I think it's a well designed unit because of how fragile it is, meaning it is incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage, meaning that you will get much more mileage out of marine micro than well, almost any other unit.
Warhounds do not look like fun units to play with nor do they have the caliber of microability that most terran units have. I think Mech is missing that key filler unit role that would make it a very viable unit composition for standard play but the warhound is not it.
It's all 100% true, but look at hots as a game, i remember when i was starting Broodwar, i was practicing like 1 week, just the worker split, to be able to do it properly, now the game does it alone, or remember how long koreans were practicing, to make mutas almost imba just with micro, now impossible, or how hard it was to play bio vs zerg, by controling like 4-5 controlgroups like you control now 1. I picked terran cause it was the only race wich had some micro, wich you had to practice before doing it properly, like marinesplit, kiting and stutterstep, but with bringing more mech units into the game, it will make no sense to play bio anymore and also terran will become a deathball race.It's sad, but i doubt that this will change in the beta and blizzard doesn't seems to have intrests in it.
Because, "Anti-Mechanical" and if it makes more than that then you should ask why the units are still countered by Warhounds. It has a purpose, given, but why are you in-depth looking at a beta-unit that has months of trial by fire left a head. It's counters are listed clearly and make as your opponent's army size has, no more need to worry beyond that.
The game is balanced or not and you have little right, as do I, to say what the problems with "Meta" beyond: "People are Warhound All-Ining Me too Much".
On September 11 2012 03:08 aznboi918 wrote: blizzard is a corporation... no matter what they do in the end everything that they do must serve in some way or purpose to meet their final goal which is profit... the more people who play the more profitable the game is... a game like broodwar that lasted 10 years is unfortunately very counterproductive to what they truly want so that is why they are trying to balance competitiveness in sc2 with the shelf-life of the game....
Unfortunately, this may be the case. Many game devs nowadays seem to be succumbing to what I think is the 'Call of Duty effect'; that is, to pump out iteration after iteration year after year because the product is so profitable, with little respect for actually making a quality game that people will spend lots of time with. The dichotomy that you pointed out between Blizzard wanting people to play their game and setting people up to buy the next one is interesting, because if one game is too well designed, the players might not want to switch over to the new one when it comes out.
I also feel that Blizzard is coming up with new units just for this purpose - to give people some reason to pick up the new game. From what I've seen, they approached new units with the philosophy of 'What would be cool to put in HoTS that would make people want to buy it on first sight?' instead of 'What units could possibly affect the game in a positive way that is both interesting to both watch and play for extended periods of time?' In other words, I felt that Blizzard is shoehorning units in to make the game feel new, and then in the aftermath, they have to clean up the mess that they left behind (i.e. Warhounds)
great post orb! I really hope someone from blizzard developing heart of the swarm reads this! They must hear the agony of the people who work in their esports!
I don't know how a person can tell SC2 is better than BW. I didn't even play it, I just look at the game at see some sick shit going on. I don't see all of this in SC2. I see pew pew colosai which are real fail e-sports unit... etc. Blizzard is all about money. They are stuck in their cave and they are not planning on going out anytime soon. They should learn from Valve and Dota2 - this is how e-sports is done.
On September 11 2012 02:03 Bagi wrote: Why are people ignoring the fact that warhounds need to be focus firing mechanical units to be effective? That fact alone makes them more micro intensive than many other units in the game.
Because they are actually really cost effective against any protoss unit composition without this focus fire. The zealot is the only unit a warhound could be shooting at in a tvp that is not mechanical and due to it's low supply cost of 2 is even annihilating zealots once the armies get bigger.
Whenever I watch hots streams I see protoss just lose or throwing 3-4 armies at one warhound army and trying to overwhelm it with way more bases.
It's true that some WOL units should be changed as well but this doesn't mean that the design of the warhound is even more boring. Colossi need to be protected and focus fire unit clumps (not shooting at some nearby building on auto attack or one lonely marauder), roaches actually have burrow movement, immortals have such a big difference in dps that they really need to attack the armored units etc. All those are actually units that are way not as exciting to watch like hts etc and it would be great if those units would be more interesting and the skill ceiling even higher, but that doesn't mean that new units have to be even more terrible than the old ones.
It's really important to discuss unit design really early on because that's the only chance something might be changed (however I highly doubt it when I look at WOL beta and nothing has been taken out any more). Stats will be modified accordingly anyways after a while, but terrible unit designs will stay until the end of SC2 because Blizzard is not willing to take the risk of doing some fundamental changes to the game because those will screw up balance a lot and require even more further balance changes.
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list.
You are correct but it was brought up -ALOT- before SC2 launched, especially the holy trinity of Roach-Immortal-Marauder, 3 well represented units that never felt like they belonged in SC2. Artosis was often one of the most prominent people in the community to complain about the plain and boring Marauder that made Terran in SC2 not feel like Terran at all, it feels at times like Protoss with Medivacs
The Roach reminds me more of the Dragoons than any kind of Zerg unit, it is the perfect example of a unit Zerg should NOT have and yet here we are. There was no reason to introduce this unit, when the Hydra could fulfill all the rules if it was tweaked around a bit number wise
Warhounds are just another unit in that line of thinking, a sort of nothing unit that is dull to watch. I understand Blizzard wants to spice Terran up because the everlasting image of StarCraft 2: WoL will always be a MM Terran running around stimmed killing Zerg and Protoss left and right, that is pretty much what WoL was in the first 6-8 months of this game. The question was always "can the Protoss/Zerg hold this timing push" by the same units and same tactic you have seen a dozen of times by the random Korean Terran number 9582th.
The Scout was useless in BW and the Firebat had very limited use, but at least those units looked and sounded cool, the Warhound is easily the worst looking unit ive ever seen in a Blizzard RTS, even the sprite based units in Warcraft 2 Tides of Darkness looked miles better.
So from every angle the unit is unwelcome, it looks like a unit that belongs in Command and Conquer: Electric Bogaloo
On September 11 2012 02:03 Bagi wrote: Why are people ignoring the fact that warhounds need to be focus firing mechanical units to be effective? That fact alone makes them more micro intensive than many other units in the game.
Because they are actually really cost effective against any protoss unit composition without this focus fire. The zealot is the only unit a warhound could be shooting at in a tvp that is not mechanical and due to it's low supply cost of 2 is even annihilating zealots once the armies get bigger.
Well... templar-tech units, too. Though a stiff breeze is enough to kill a DT or HT, so that's really just the archon.
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list.
All units in this game are a-move. From time to time you might studder step or pull/blink an injured unit back, but beyond that there is little. The flaw in this game is how it's so vital to move in big balls. Instead of multiple fronts being the norm, they are a rarity. It's not just the warhound; it's everything. As much as no one wants to admit it, people don't like the warhound because it counters stalkers and immortals, two fan favorites. It's not about balance. I wish the guy who designed BW designed this game.
I don't understand why people think the Warhound is an A-move unit. I really don't get it.
At its current (and especially pre nerf) variation, it simply has so much DPS and health that it can be a-moved against almost any unit in the game. That really is a balance issue. Stimmed Marauders are incredibly microable, but if they did 30 damage you could a-move them against just about everything.
The Warhound is supposed to be a fast long range unit with a somewhat slowish attack speed and high damage. It's basically a Terran Stalker on mega steroids. You can kite a lot of units with it and do 10 times the damage you normally would.
I think it does need to be balanced, because then people will actually bother to micro it. 220 health is pretty asinine and it does (did?) too much DPS.
1. Blizzard has already created a money buffer for SC2 by making people pay 50 dollars. This fact just reinforces the idea that the average SC2 player is willing to push through a learning curve to actually play the game at a decent level. (I agree with you that they should increase the inherent skill cap of units.)
2. The warhound can learn a few things from the hydra. Hydras, in the sense that you stated in your post, are a-move units. They can attack at 6 range and can move. That is it. Yet there IS a strategy to using hydras. If hydras are caught in a head on engagement they will almost always end up on the losing end. The natural fix to this is to stick roaches in front of them to create a buffer. While a player doesn't necessarily have to micro each hydra, he has to plan ahead of how many roaches he has, how he will attack into a choke to increase the surface attacking area of hydras, and at the same time decreasing the surface attacking area of the roaches. Sure, let Blizzard make the warhound an a-move unit, but give it enough weaknesses so players can't just a-click across them map. Force them to asses what units they have in front of the warhounds, what units they have behind the warhounds, and what type of choke they are attacking into.
Mech is not supposed to be micromanaged. That's the very essence of mech. It's all about strategy and thinking ahead. Now while warhounds and battle hellions don't take much micro, like tanks, they still really don't really force players to plan far head. If you want to push with tanks you have to scan, know how far you can a-move ahead before you might have to siege. If you don't plan well, the opponent will flood in mid-siege. At that point you lose because of your failure to take into account the inherent weakness of siege tanks, the time it takes to siege. If I had a magic wand that could change mech however I wanted it I would turn the battle hellion transition into a semi-siege. Where, the battle hellions are useless at maneuvering in battle mode, yet amazing at defending the area around them. (and i mean literally they can't move, yet can change from battle to striker mode in less than a second, aka semi-siege) For the warhound, just lower it's health enough so they are weak in straight up engagement but work well behind an army buffer.
I agree, the Warhound looks and feels like a unit taken out of a 20 years old RTS and should be removed.
So supposedly they wanted Terran to be able to play mech against Protoss so they gave them a unit from the factory that is good vs mechanical. But this is NOT mech, mech is supposed to be slow and methodical, have the ability to fortify areas of the map and do slow pushes that are hard to stop. The Warhound is freaking faster that marines and marauders! If by going mech against Protoss they mean a group of fast units that run around the map and snipe expansions then bring me back my bio any day.
At least the Marauders had a slow to anything they hit, a spell that increased their speed and attack speed for a short time but cut a piece of their health, the ability to be healed by medivacs and you also needed to be aware of splash damage. That sounds like a unit from an RTS in 2012.
On the other hand watching Warhounds fight is almost as boring as mass SCV vs mass SCV. Its a unit that moves and attacks. End of story. The fact that it autocasts an attack vs mechanical does not affect your gameplay at all, it is just more damage. There is no decision to be made whatsoever.
What Terran needs imo is not a new core unit, but a new viable tech choice for the end game, something like what should have been the Raven if it wasn't broken.
On September 11 2012 05:08 Zane wrote: While I agree with this, should Blizzard remove the immortal as well? Chargelots are even more a-move than warhounds/immortals, what about them?
No. Protoss is a race where you pay more to have these somewhat A-Move units like the Chargelots or Immortals, however, those two units require placement and a bit of micro to ensure they are optimally used.
The problem with the Warhound is that its only weakness is the Zealot (which is hardly a counter and can be countered straight-up by Battle Hellions anyways) and Air units, which we all know is extremely risky for Protoss. The Immortal or Stalker would provide a counter if they weren't completely negated by the Haywire Missile. Sentries are smashes in 3 hits by one Warhound, so you'd have to hit-and-run to land successful Forcefields or keep a Guardian Shield.
On September 11 2012 05:08 Zane wrote: While I agree with this, should Blizzard remove the immortal as well? Chargelots are even more a-move than warhounds/immortals, what about them?
No. Protoss is a race where you pay more to have these somewhat A-Move units like the Chargelots or Immortals, however, those two units require placement and a bit of micro to ensure they are optimally used.
The problem with the Warhound is that its only weakness is the Zealot (which is hardly a counter and can be countered straight-up by Battle Hellions anyways) and Air units, which we all know is extremely risky for Protoss. The Immortal or Stalker would provide a counter if they weren't completely negated by the Haywire Missile. Sentries are smashes in 3 hits by one Warhound, so you'd have to hit-and-run to land successful Forcefields or keep a Guardian Shield.
But he said this is not a balance problem, as in, even if the warhound would cost as much as an immortal or it would be nerfed so it gets countered by stalkers or whatever, it would still be wrong. He said the problem is that it doesn't require mircro, which is true for a lot of other units as well. I know that immortals require some positioning and target fire to be effective, but the warhound will require that too if you give the beta enough time.
Well written, i agree completely, but blizz won't listen, they are all about the sales, and sales are a one time thing, so if people buy it once there is little reason to improve the current version, just get to work on the next game that will sell well and keep doing it. If people keep playing the old game they won't buy the new one, so why make the old one a good as possible when you can get a lot of sales on the next one.
I feel like feedback like this coming from every single pro in the Hots beta (because let's face it, this is what everyone thinks) might push Blizzard to changing the unit. Maybe. But only if each and every single high profile player talked to them. Outside of something like that, i think Blizz is too damn proud to say "yep we fucked up. Here, Reavers instead of Colossi, BW microable Carriers instead of Tempests and while we are at it we are changing the Warhound to me a Goliath-like support unit." And i am sure, even they are aware of how completely bad some HotS or Wol units and ideas are.
On September 11 2012 03:27 Novalisk wrote: Yes, balancing won't fix the Warhound.
But having it removed entirely is wishful thinking by this point. If it was changed to be more fun to play and observe, by toning its A-Move down and giving it a better toolset, then that would be optimal.
He wrote this not specifically about the Warhound, but about A-move units in general and game design. He expressed this not only in his main post, but also later.
This is not simply bashing the warhound (which does represent one of the only a-move units for Terran) but it is a criticism of simple game design.
I disagree and I tell you why: the players are not yet good enough to make it matter. I dont think there is one player atm that is so fast that he can do anything he wants as fast as he wants, until we reach that point, adding units thats are just A move simply allow the Pros to do more stuff they couldnt do before or do the same stuff better, from the spectator POV he doesnt do less he just do other things , while not microing warhound he would micro the raven / medvic marine drop / macro or w/e else require the APM.
you might ask yourself what APM have to do with the warhound , but it has everything to do with it, there is enough things to do in the game already so the warhound just will be added to the end of list to things to spend thier APM on it, so right now it doesnt matter because it wont be micro either way.
On September 11 2012 05:08 Zane wrote: While I agree with this, should Blizzard remove the immortal as well? Chargelots are even more a-move than warhounds/immortals, what about them?
No. Protoss is a race where you pay more to have these somewhat A-Move units like the Chargelots or Immortals, however, those two units require placement and a bit of micro to ensure they are optimally used.
The problem with the Warhound is that its only weakness is the Zealot (which is hardly a counter and can be countered straight-up by Battle Hellions anyways) and Air units, which we all know is extremely risky for Protoss. The Immortal or Stalker would provide a counter if they weren't completely negated by the Haywire Missile. Sentries are smashes in 3 hits by one Warhound, so you'd have to hit-and-run to land successful Forcefields or keep a Guardian Shield.
But he said this is not a balance problem, as in, even if the warhound would cost as much as an immortal or it would be nerfed so it gets countered by stalkers or whatever, it would still be wrong. He said the problem is that it doesn't require mircro, which is true for a lot of other units as well. I know that immortals require some positioning and target fire to be effective, but the warhound will require that too if you give the beta enough time.
I agree with his general principle, which is that these units should not play a large role in the game or be some of the strongest units for each race. Just being able to a-move a collosi, an immortal, a warhound or (any of zergs units, just kidding :D), is not what makes good game design, or so goes his argument.
And I agree with him. I think the beauty and complexity of BW is that it required a high level of skill to execute certain builds and attacks. And it was precisely this skill cap that made the game more of an art when played by the very best.
It's been a while, but welcome back orb. Great post and good points, i tottaly aggre with your ideas here and personally things such as worker counts on your nexus in hots for example reduce skill as that takes less assessment from the player and therefore less possibility of error. Keep it up bro thanks for this.
On September 11 2012 02:58 hnim wrote: I disagree with the marine part, I think it's a well designed unit because of how fragile it is, meaning it is incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage, meaning that you will get much more mileage out of marine micro than well, almost any other unit.
Amen, simple yet skill rewarding.
A Hydralisk is equally fragile, incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage and still you dont really get more out of them if you try to micro them. So we got equal starting positions yet the marine yields a much higher reward.
On September 11 2012 02:58 hnim wrote: I disagree with the marine part, I think it's a well designed unit because of how fragile it is, meaning it is incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage, meaning that you will get much more mileage out of marine micro than well, almost any other unit.
Amen, simple yet skill rewarding.
A Hydralisk is equally fragile, incredibly vulnerable to area of effect damage and still you dont really get more out of them if you try to micro them. So we got equal starting positions yet the marine yields a much higher reward.
Well there are some differences. Marines have very small attack windows, so there's negligible punishment for stuttering at any given rate. They're also a lot faster than most other units when stimmed, so they actually have the capacity to micro out of or into DPS critical ranges. The problem is that every unit can't enjoy the benefit of being faster than the other units, so micro opportunities have to be handled in other ways.
On September 10 2012 17:28 architecture wrote: They've dug themselves into too deep of a hole with:
1. Ridiculous macro mechanics that accelerate the game superfast 2. Sentries (which forces junk like roaches and marauders to compensate) 3. Ridiculous amounts of mobility that negate position
What happens when you have game where you can't hold position? Every army needs to be able to fight on the move at sufficiently high EV, or be easily outmaneuvered and completely crushed
2) is wrong in my opinion. Not sentries force roaches, roaches force sentries. Roaches kill every gateway unit, that's why forcefield are needed to survive. Furthermore: There is a hugh difference between good and bad forcefields, and doing it right is often not trivial (otherwise: why do you see so many pros fail at them?).
I agree that forcefields suck, become they seem to be the reason why gateway units are so bad.
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before.
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units:
Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list.
All units in this game are a-move. From time to time you might studder step or pull/blink an injured unit back, but beyond that there is little. The flaw in this game is how it's so vital to move in big balls. Instead of multiple fronts being the norm, they are a rarity. It's not just the warhound; it's everything. As much as no one wants to admit it, people don't like the warhound because it counters stalkers and immortals, two fan favorites. It's not about balance. I wish the guy who designed BW designed this game.
Let's not get hyperbole. You need some basic units. Furthermore is blinking, marine splitting or zergling surrounding micro. It's not so hard, that only Flash can do it, still there are gradual differences from a diamond player splitting up to Marineking levels. Same for the others mentioned. You can't have 200 supply and all of they special fairy units, each needing special treatment to do anything. Even the Immortal is a good unit, because it forces you to targetfire, if you want to use him to real effect. Collosus is also a nice unit, not because of it's need to be microed (even thou in very high level play you have to, or vikings shred them before the fight starts), but because they force a response. A game, in which you could use any unit you liked, no matter what the opponent did, and just won because you microed like a god will just look like WC3.
I think Warhound should be removed, because it's too close to the marauder, and the marauder (having stim, and weaknesses like light armor) is the better unit. Furthermore it has the feel of a bio unit, not mech.
In my opinion, the swarm host is just as good an example of this. Right now, it's used far too often in lategame to an overpowered degree because it's utility is too great. It's obvious the locusts should be a melee unit and perhaps have more movement speed instead, but blizzard are keeping them ranged in a desperate attempt for them to be different from broodlings. Because of this, blizzard is instead of nerfing the range of the SH or Locust, nerfing their damage output. This creates weaker units, and a one-dimensional, low multitasking style of gameplay. Nerfing their damage makes their use in midgame less interesting, instead of nerfing them where they needed it, in larger numbers.
It's LAZY BALANCING.
If blizzard doesn't realize this and change their design philosophy NOW to what it was in broodwar, big strengths and big weaknesses for units instead of letting them have enormous overlap and just nerfing their damage until they all suck, then I have very little hope for HotS.
On September 11 2012 07:33 Forikorder wrote: people call EVERY unit an amove unit then people figure out "hey if i jsut micro it then it becomes alot better"
once people figured out how to micro Thors (thank you MKP) there became no such thing as an Amove unit
ofc every unit is microable no matter how simple it is. But that's not the point here...it's about how much potential the unit has when a really good player uses it. You got this with Vultures or Mutas in scbw...the effectiveness of the unit is hugely dependent to how good a player uses it. You won't really have that with a Thor or a Warhound. Bio in sc2 is similar to that though...this style in general has a really high skillceiling.
While I stopped taking this pseudo-essay seriously somewhere between the second and third paragraph, I have to admit he saved his best for the last one.
-orb- wrote: "Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?"
Was this orb-Chief Game Designer speaking, or just orb-Protoss player?
It's a very concerning trend. Every time one of these write-ups posted by closet-intellectuals pops up in Teamliquid, if the word count is high enough, the community seems to just swallow it all up. The positive-feedback loop is never ending, and I can't help but to feel Blizzard feels obligated to pander to the circlejerk in fear of losing popularity or whatever. I've no doubt Blizzard is filled with competent people who can dissect a post like this and realize it mostly means nothing, but nonetheless community response is often times so overwhelming.
On September 11 2012 08:01 fer wrote: While I stopped taking this pseudo-essay seriously somewhere between the second and third paragraph, I have to admit he saved his best for the last one.
-orb- wrote: "Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?"
Was this orb-Chief Game Designer speaking, or just orb-Protoss player?
It's a very concerning trend. Every time one of these write-ups posted by closet-intellectuals pops up in Teamliquid, if the word count is high enough, the community seems to just swallow it all up. The positive-feedback loop is never ending, and I can't help but to feel Blizzard feels obligated to pander to the circlejerk in fear of losing popularity or whatever. I've no doubt Blizzard is filled with competent people who can dissect a post like this and realize it mostly means nothing, but nonetheless community response is often times so overwhelming.
1/5, should've been a blog.
This is true, I don't he mentioned the fact that Blizzard entirely intended the warhound to be an a-move unit to complement everything else that needs to be micro'd (especially marauders in tvp-ease of doing so is debatable but you still need to micro).
If you don't post this on the Blizzard forum it will have no effect at all. Granted it still may have no effect there, but it gives it a shot at least.
OP is missing samething.you dont even think about economics.yes BW was the best rts ever.but did blizzard gained enough from BW?how much dolars?even osl finals hits 70.000 people everytime.did blizzard gained something.yes they gained fame and respect.making a game for esport is hard and you need lots of luck.i think all of the devoloper of sc2 knew this well.you cant produce every time an album like thriller.even auidence dont get excitiment when a player loose tons of workers cause all of them know the mechenics the race have.(mule crono larva system)
When you look at any truly competitive game (the most obvious that come to mind are SC:BW, Counterstrike, and Halo), you see that the main design goal of the game was to create a very simple world with simple goals with an infinite amount of ways to solve them and an infinite amount of ways to execute them.
There was this thing called "skill". You could shoot a guy if you camped in the right spot and shot as he came around the corner. But a pro could do a 360 and do the same thing, and faster too. In BW, you could decimate a worker line with a reaver, but a pro could do that too...plus macro perfectly behind it as well as microing a push at the front. It was this thing called "skill" that separated the two players. Easy to learn, hard to master. Blizzard has said several times that they wanted to implement ways for newer players to stay interested; however, they are doing this by encouraging WINS, not LEARNING. The fundamental problem here with the way Blizzard is trying to balance SC2 is that they want newer players to have bigger steps that are less rewarding as opposed to smaller steps that are quite rewarding. They don't want new/low level players to overcome little things like worker splitting, basic macro, basic micro, etc; they want them to instead be able to go into a game and be able to win.
This is a HUGE problem. It's the same approach Infinity Ward took when they destroyed CoD with MW3. Raising the skill floor and trying to balance the rest of the game around this misperceived notion of "fun" only causes more and more problems in the competitive world as things that were commonly used in high level strategy and high level thought are done away with in favor of "helping the average joe out".
If Blizzard wants to make the game more fun and more exciting for everyone, they really need to look at creating smaller, more rewarding steps than instawin buttons. It's the mastery of something as relatively inconsequent and simple as a zealot rush that brings joy and excitement to a player; when that stops working, a player needs to find a new way to solve the same problem using the knowledge he learned from the zealot rush. And that's where fun begins.
On September 11 2012 07:33 Forikorder wrote: people call EVERY unit an amove unit then people figure out "hey if i jsut micro it then it becomes alot better"
once people figured out how to micro Thors (thank you MKP) there became no such thing as an Amove unit
I want to note that we still haven't found a really good way to micro hydras off creep yet lol.
Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines). Why is this bad? Well to understand it in the first place let's look at why this is good, and the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
This isn't anywhere close to true. You can kite, you can spread units against AOE damage, you can flank, you can position for concave, you can drop, you can hit multiple fronts, etc etc.
If a unit doesn't have a user-cast spell and doesn't fly, people on TL want to act like you can't micro it. I'm not thrilled with the warhound design, but let's not pretend that you can't micro it. Its speed is one of the big reasons that it doesn't feel like mech, but that speed also allows warhound opening harass against Protoss where you kite zealots while you focus down stalkers and sentries.
Was just going to say the same thing. Watched a bunch of pro streams with some early warhound harrass that was micro intensive. I think it needs to be tweaked, maybe boosted +1 more supply to lower its quickly growing mass of numbers as game time increases but micro opportunities are still there.
On September 11 2012 08:34 SC2John wrote: When you look at any truly competitive game (the most obvious that come to mind are SC:BW, Counterstrike, and Halo), you see that the main design goal of the game was to create a very simple world with simple goals with an infinite amount of ways to solve them and an infinite amount of ways to execute them.
There was this thing called "skill". You could shoot a guy if you camped in the right spot and shot as he came around the corner. But a pro could do a 360 and do the same thing, and faster too. In BW, you could decimate a worker line with a reaver, but a pro could do that too...plus macro perfectly behind it as well as microing a push at the front. It was this thing called "skill" that separated the two players. Easy to learn, hard to master. Blizzard has said several times that they wanted to implement ways for newer players to stay interested; however, they are doing this by encouraging WINS, not LEARNING. The fundamental problem here with the way Blizzard is trying to balance SC2 is that they want newer players to have bigger steps that are less rewarding as opposed to smaller steps that are quite rewarding. They don't want new/low level players to overcome little things like worker splitting, basic macro, basic micro, etc; they want them to instead be able to go into a game and be able to win.
This is a HUGE problem. It's the same approach Infinity Ward took when they destroyed CoD with MW3. Raising the skill floor and trying to balance the rest of the game around this misperceived notion of "fun" only causes more and more problems in the competitive world as things that were commonly used in high level strategy and high level thought are done away with in favor of "helping the average joe out".
If Blizzard wants to make the game more fun and more exciting for everyone, they really need to look at creating smaller, more rewarding steps than instawin buttons. It's the mastery of something as relatively inconsequent and simple as a zealot rush that brings joy and excitement to a player; when that stops working, a player needs to find a new way to solve the same problem using the knowledge he learned from the zealot rush. And that's where fun begins.
This post to me sums up what orb's main point seems to be quite eloquently.
What Blizzard doesn't seem to understand is people enjoy games that are difficult. People enjoy a challenge, because then if they win they feel as though they've been rewarded for their hard work.
This concept comes through nicely in all these posts about people's favorite units from Broodwar. The best units it seems are ones that are capable of doing massive damage, but essentially have huge design flaws that make them impractical unless the user gains mastery over them. Reavers can turn a game around, but are slow and easily killed unless the player can protect them. Gaining mastery over a unit that has a high skill ceiling is more fun than gaining mastery over a unit with a low skill ceiling. Blowing up a whole worker line instantly with a scarab and escaping is the reward a player gets for his hard work and practice.
In my opinion, most major damage dealers in a game like SC2 should be of the high risk/high reward variety. Currently, very few of them are. Tanks, DTs, HTs (maybe), Banshees, Ghosts/nukes, and Infestors (if tweaked slightly) are all at least close to a state of having big weaknesses (usually very low hit points + high costs) and yet are all able to do lots of damage if used skillfully. These units are fun to watch (aside from Infestors, because fungal is boring to watch). Meanwhile, Colossi, Thors, Carriers (the SC2 variety, remember), Broodlords do not require much skill to use and yet do tons of damage - this is less fun to watch because it's harder to see the impressive awareness/micro/control/positioning required from the other units.
The biggest problem though is the major damage dealers (aside from Protoss who get the best "a-move" damage dealer in the game) in many cases in SC2 are inexpensive/low risk/do tons of damage/are easily massable. Basically it's low risk to make the units, and high reward. Marauders, stimmed marines, roaches, Warhounds (just added) etc. are cheap, easy to use, and do insane amounts of damage. I'd love to see these units fight it out, but have the reward for using them be lower. It'd still be fun to see how people control these large armies when they deal less damage, because then there's more time to control lots of little units, or control your hardest to control expensive damage dealers. That's fun to watch, and fun to play.
Some of new Heart of the Swarm units are bizarre in terms of this kind of design:
You have the Oracle and Tempest which are high risk/low reward units. From a risk assessment point of view there's almost no way to see why you would make these units. With their current design they have little ability to turn a game around (no high reward) and they're insanely expensive and force you down a tech tree that isn't particularly good against any of the easily massable, inexpensive, high reward units.
Some of them just add to the problem of low risk/high reward:
Warhounds, duhhh. Maybe battle hellions, but I'm not sure yet. I think the switching of modes could result in some exciting things.
Some of them maybe have promise:
Vipers are squishy, but quite powerful and can turn a battle around. Mothership Core is inexpensive and can be used change the early game/allow for free attacks that can ruin an economy. However, they get weaker as the game goes on. Widow Mines are inexpensive, but need great skill to work effectively as they are stationary in the ground when attacking.
Some I don't know about. Swarm Hosts seem like a good high risk/high reward type unit, but I really hate the concept of a unit that makes free units. If locusts cost minerals that would be pretty interesting in my opinion.
There's plenty to disagree with in here, but as a Tl;dr I'll just write: The most fun units are the ones that are expensive and hard to use, but if used correctly are really effective and thus fun to play with. And micro light units should not do insane amounts of damage.
Functionally they work just like a beefier marauder. So if you nerf the cost too much they would become useless. They also completely neutralize a playstyle.....
In TvP Warhound's ability is completely dumbtarded. Thanks to it's ability it basically hard counters it's own hard counter.
However, to end on a higher note..... with a reasonable damage nerf Warhound won't be dumb in TvZ
You just took everything that I don't like about Blizzard's design of SC2 (And especially the expansion) and put it in a way that I could never because of my english speaking ability. Thank you. Brood War was really great because there were so many tricky things that are very hard to do, especially while having to make units and make sure ur workers are mining etc., and if you don't do them correctly you just are swamped by the difficulty. It's a lot less forgiveful. But at the same time, that makes it better. Colossus? They are just big heads that shoot lazers, there's nothing special about that. The way to using Colossi are pressing a and clicking on ur enemies base. The way to counter Colossi is to make vikings/corruptors/colossi if your own. There's nothing fun about that, its just numbers and making correct units. Sure there is some micro involved with pulling back vikings against stalkers, but its just boring. Note that I'm not a brood war hardcore guy who watched it up until recently b/c of the end of OSL, I've watch SC2 for quite a while now and it's obviously not a terrible e-sport by any means but the direction blizzard is putting it in is sad. As I said b4 and I'll say it again, if Blizzard can make BW then they can make something as good as it again. The thing is, will they?
Plus, in BW there were just so many cool things that could be used which makes the game so deep. And it goes past just spells like mass recall. The units themselves are not "a-move" friendly. A-move terran bio vs. lurkers, I'll see how that one works out. A-move a Reaver (more like A-sit-there-and-wait-a-minute-to-have-it-move-from-your-main) and waste scarabs on buildings and on single marines.
And, about Warhounds being a-move friendly, sadly its not just them that blizzard is implementing. A lot of the new units are just so.. silly. Oracle? Do you want vision, vision (+ anti-cloak, as if observers didn't do the job), or to disrupt mining for a bit? And sadly, Oracle is honestly one of the more "cooler" units that Blizzard introduced.
And. Although this is just something little. The addition of the "Select army" button and telling you how many harvesters are mining minerals on a hatchery, it seems like a little thing which is really stupid to complain about but it's the fact that they implemented it at all which suggests that Blizzard are trying to dumb down the game, as you suggested and I agree 200% with ur post.
Is there actully a single person, who likes the current state of Hots, just curious, cause i think, it's an aweful game. Not just the units, also the other changes.
Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I think orb may have focused on the Warhound too much in his post.
The point here is fuck all "attack move" units for every race. That means fuck Colossi, Broodlords, etc. This isn't about balance either, it's about whether or not the game is fun to watch/play. There's nothing fun about giant blobs of warhound/roach/colossus + gateway slamming into each other. Fun units are ones that do tremendous damage at tremendous risk because that's more exciting to watch and more fun/rewarding for a player of the game to learn.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I think orb may have focused on the Warhound too much in his post.
The point here is fuck all "attack move" units for every race. That means fuck Colossi, Broodlords, etc. This isn't about balance either, it's about whether or not the game is fun to watch/play. There's nothing fun about giant blobs of warhound/roach/colossus + gateway slamming into each other. Fun units are ones that do tremendous damage at tremendous risk because that's more exciting to watch and more fun/rewarding for a player of the game to learn.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
Yeah because TvT is a terrible matchup that needs fixing. I and others totally hated today's GSL matches between some of the world's finest TvT players... WHAT does it fix in TvT exactly?
Many people also want Protoss and Zerg to require more unit control, the return of a unit like the Reaver over the Collosus, those kind of things. Wanting a better game, especially one that is in beta stage and is still subject to community input is not just whining.
Queen change made TvZ worse as well, don't care if it is dead on 50/50, the matchup is a less entertaining one to play and to watch since the change.
On September 11 2012 08:55 OrganicDoom wrote: The war hound is intended to be a micro light unit. David Kim said in an interview that Terran needed a unit like that.
anything that is fast with a big range has great micro potential, if they want it to be "micro light" they should reduce the range/attack speed/movement speed and just increase HP/damage
And I agree completely, though it's sad that Blizzard will most likely not give a shit about these complains to achieve their goal of attracting conformists with short attention spans.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I never heard anyone asking Blizzard to give Terran an A-move unit; in fact, a lot of people begged to have Colossi/marauders/roaches removed. TvT in its current form is easily one of the most dynamic matchups in the game that does not need a 'fix'. Plus I imagine that most people rather have Terran stay as a race that relies on microable squishy marines and drops instead of a dumb blob of units which effectiveness can't be optimized by a skilled player.
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
I agree with everything you both just said.
A mini thor that could hop cliffs would be cool.
And it'd be neat if the reaver and a re-designed carrier could make a comeback some day.
There's more to interesting units then whether or not they have any cool abilities. It's not that the warhound is incredibly a-move oriented, it's also that it doesn't force any micro of any sort from any party involved to mitigate any type of potential damage.
This will undoubtedly get lost in the thread, but I think warhounds and mines should be removed, and hellions should be given a spidermine ability and cost 100m50g with tanks getting a slight damage buff. This would make mech exciting and viable. Unlikely this will happen however.
Considering there is a shitload of A move units currently in WOL, i have no problem with this. Also consider terran units require the most control overall right now.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
Many people also want Protoss and Zerg to require more unit control, the return of a unit like the Reaver over the Collosus, those kind of things. Wanting a better game, especially one that is in beta stage and is still subject to community input is not just whining.
Are you crazy? Protoss already needs microing in battles, especially in PvZ (less in PvT I agree). In PvZ there is the need to: perfect forcefield or its already lost, guardian shield, focusfire the stalkers on the corruptors to protect the colossi from them.. All this while trying to spread out of the fungals and trying to blink microing...
On topic: warhound is just extremely imba and ridicolously powerfull. I love how blizzard pretend that it was created to spice up TvT, making it an anti-armored and a counter to tanks, while tanks (together with banelings) is the only thing he doesn't kill. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8VKon9F-zM) And meanwhile warhound kills everything of protoss. Nice excuse to nerf protoss even more. No warpins in highround, shit new units and imba counter-units.
I feel like this post is just pining for the good old brood war days when you had reavers instead of colossus. And you know what? I agree with you, the colossus is not that interesting of a protoss support unit. I actually don't think it's because of the attack move, I think it's because it's just a super powerful unit unless the opponent gets units basically taylor-made to counter it, then it is balanced. That seems like poor design decision to me, but it's done, and the game is still really complex and really interesting.
Getting mad at the warhound is silly to me. It's not a product of trying to dumb the game down, it's a brute-force attempt at making mech viable in PvT, because PvT is really boring when the Terran player goes bio every single game. It doesn't have replayability and doesn't leave as much room for strategy as would be ideal (although obviously there's still a lot). If the warhound does that it is a success in Blizzard's eyes.
Is it the most elegant solution? No, but it's what blizzard is aiming for.
On September 10 2012 18:51 Morphs wrote: The Warhound is no coincidence. Blizzard wanted exactly this, as stated in interviews. According to Blizzard, the Warhound was purposely created as an a-move unit since there's already so much micro involved in playing Terran...
There may be tons of micro in bio, but with this iteration of the @arhound, many Ts will go Mech with it and skip Bio forces.
Does Blizzard really not see this? They are replacing micro with a move. Adding a Mech unit with micro will not add onto Terrans micro load.
Even if it does, who cares? This game needs more micro situations.
On September 11 2012 10:29 PGLMilneCraft wrote: I actually don't think it's because of the attack move, I think it's because it's just a super powerful unit unless the opponent gets units basically taylor-made to counter it, then it is balanced.
Taylor? What does he have to do with this? Why is he making things to counter the Warhound?
On September 11 2012 10:29 PGLMilneCraft wrote: I feel like this post is just pining for the good old brood war days when you had reavers instead of colossus. And you know what? I agree with you, the colossus is not that interesting of a protoss support unit. I actually don't think it's because of the attack move, I think it's because it's just a super powerful unit unless the opponent gets units basically taylor-made to counter it, then it is balanced. That seems like poor design decision to me, but it's done, and the game is still really complex and really interesting.
Getting mad at the warhound is silly to me. It's not a product of trying to dumb the game down, it's a brute-force attempt at making mech viable in PvT, because PvT is really boring when the Terran player goes bio every single game. It doesn't have replayability and doesn't leave as much room for strategy as would be ideal (although obviously there's still a lot). If the warhound does that it is a success in Blizzard's eyes.
Is it the most elegant solution? No, but it's what blizzard is aiming for.
It would be THE SIMPLIEST thing in the world for Blizzard to tune down the warhounds speed. Make haywire missles non auto castable, give plantable mines to helions, and make the tank more viable.
Boom, you got the warhound, battle helions, tanks and thors (and vikings + ravens) for AA and all of it require decent levels of micro.
Boom, You got a bad ass mech army.
Warhounds are too fast right now to be mechy and too good for the Tank to be used in conjunction.
I think there was an earlier post that basically made the point that warhounds are NOT mech. Mech play is not defined by "whatever comes out of the factory". It is centred on the TANK, and not marauders writ large (ie, warhounds). Buff tanks (un-nerf them) and bring back the goliath...
Attack move units that do extra damage to specific armor types needs to fuck off in SC2, it's an utter disgrace that a game made in this day and age can't live up to the originality of the units from Broodwars more than 10 years ago. WoL has this problem and now they want us Terran players to continue this trend. At least with Thors they are slow, expensive and take a while to build as a way to prevent the player from just abusing it.
I sort of agree, but to exclusively only focus on the Warhound is too much of a double standard when we already have units like Collossi, Voids, Roaches, Thors; so your whole "doesn't belong in SC2" argument is weak. DKim has implicitly said he wanted to give Terran an A-move unit to balance out the micro imbalance.
Just odd that you focus only on the Warhound in your post without acknowledging the already lower skill ceiling on SC2. Realistically, imo, it's one a-move unit being added to a race that requires arguably the most micro. Your post comes off as biased to me. Why aren't you lobbying for the removal of Warp Gates? A rather forgiving macro mechanic. Or remaking/removing/replacing the Collosus?
You want the Warhound to be overhauled, but stay just as strong (or else you're just calling for a nerf), where are your suggestions?
P.S.: The inherent difficulty of StarCraft 2 is that it's a multiplayer, non-level based game, orb, that's why you can't compare it to Portal.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I think orb may have focused on the Warhound too much in his post.
The point here is fuck all "attack move" units for every race. That means fuck Colossi, Broodlords, etc. This isn't about balance either, it's about whether or not the game is fun to watch/play. There's nothing fun about giant blobs of warhound/roach/colossus + gateway slamming into each other. Fun units are ones that do tremendous damage at tremendous risk because that's more exciting to watch and more fun/rewarding for a player of the game to learn.
Nah, then we'd just have warcraft 3 in space.
I hate warcraft.
The dancing in Warcraft was fucking beautiful, it's a goddamned shame that more pros don't per unit micro their damaged units to the back. I hate your post.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
Many people also want Protoss and Zerg to require more unit control, the return of a unit like the Reaver over the Collosus, those kind of things. Wanting a better game, especially one that is in beta stage and is still subject to community input is not just whining.
Are you crazy? Protoss already needs microing in battles, especially in PvZ (less in PvT I agree). In PvZ there is the need to: perfect forcefield or its already lost, guardian shield, focusfire the stalkers on the corruptors to protect the colossi from them.. All this while trying to spread out of the fungals and trying to blink microing...
On topic: warhound is just extremely imba and ridicolously powerfull. I love how blizzard pretend that it was created to spice up TvT, making it an anti-armored and a counter to tanks, while tanks (together with banelings) is the only thing he doesn't kill. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8VKon9F-zM) And meanwhile warhound kills everything of protoss. Nice excuse to nerf protoss even more. No warpins in highround, shit new units and imba counter-units.
I am entirely aware of how to control Protoss units, I play Protoss. Casting spells like forcefield and storms to win games is all well and good, people want a way to win through better control of basic units, instead of relying on spells/Collosi to win battles.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I think orb may have focused on the Warhound too much in his post.
The point here is fuck all "attack move" units for every race. That means fuck Colossi, Broodlords, etc. This isn't about balance either, it's about whether or not the game is fun to watch/play. There's nothing fun about giant blobs of warhound/roach/colossus + gateway slamming into each other. Fun units are ones that do tremendous damage at tremendous risk because that's more exciting to watch and more fun/rewarding for a player of the game to learn.
Nah, then we'd just have warcraft 3 in space.
I hate warcraft.
The dancing in Warcraft was fucking beautiful, it's a goddamned shame that more pros don't per unit micro their damaged units to the back. I hate your post.
I too have a soft spot for WC3 but such things were only possible due to things being pretty beefy. Stuff just melts too fast in SC2 to make such things worth it. The DPS output of balls just scales so quickly that it's hard to keep in such heavy micro play later on in the game.
Some of my favourite games in SC2 involve me (P) holding off big Terran cheese/aggressions because there are few units on the field. You're stretched to your limits micro wise and it's always really intense.
On September 11 2012 09:39 Ucs wrote: Finally terran gets a "attack move" unit and you people don't want to balance it, you want to remove it. Well I think you are wrong. Its a TvT fixer and a good unit to make mech viable. Stop whining and deal with it(isen't that what every other race says when one complains about another? When T was crying about the queen range buff nobody said to remove the queen, but to nerf it and the answer was deal with it. Innovate new strategies.)
I only want for terran to get what protoss and zerg already have, so fk me, right?
I think orb may have focused on the Warhound too much in his post.
The point here is fuck all "attack move" units for every race. That means fuck Colossi, Broodlords, etc. This isn't about balance either, it's about whether or not the game is fun to watch/play. There's nothing fun about giant blobs of warhound/roach/colossus + gateway slamming into each other. Fun units are ones that do tremendous damage at tremendous risk because that's more exciting to watch and more fun/rewarding for a player of the game to learn.
Nah, then we'd just have warcraft 3 in space.
I hate warcraft.
The dancing in Warcraft was fucking beautiful, it's a goddamned shame that more pros don't per unit micro their damaged units to the back. I hate your post.
I too have a soft spot for WC3 but such things were only possible due to things being pretty beefy. Stuff just melts too fast in SC2 to make such things worth it. The DPS output of balls just scales so quickly that it's hard to keep in such heavy micro play later on in the game.
Some of my favourite games in SC2 involve me (P) holding off big Terran cheese/aggressions because there are few units on the field. You're stretched to your limits micro wise and it's always really intense.
What kills me is when I don't even see immortal, colossus, carrier micro. It's just mind boggling how little per unit micro is performed in the game even at a high level. As you say though, so many units just melt. I guess we can't have just Warcraft - they are different games - but I do like the odd strong unit (like the ones listed) which can be pulled back and then back in again. About the only unit you see regular micro on is void rays. Hell even phoenix micro would be good - but do you see them move the weaker of the pack of 6 to the back? nope. ARGH
Balance and theorycrafting discussions aside, people forget that this is is Activision-Blizzard, not Blizzard Entertainment. The team that worked on StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War is not the same as the current iteration, in fact they've long been gone from the company. An entirely new team with no previous StarCraft experience developed SC2 (heck, the lead designer is from the Command and Conquer franchise, an infinitely inferior RTS game compared to StarCraft). They obviously lack the understanding and insight that the original team had. I hate to sound pessimistic but they probably will never gain such understanding and insight.
On September 11 2012 09:38 WeRRa wrote: Is there actully a single person, who likes the current state of Hots, just curious, cause i think, it's an aweful game. Not just the units, also the other changes.
TvZ is doing fantastic. Magical mushroom+Vipers vs Tank+Raven is so good to see.
ZvP is OK. The MU is too stagnated on WoL, just need a metagame shift.
TvP can be good if past early/mid game. But the roles are reversed. Terran are in fewer bases when is going Mech, it is hard to Harass for Terran at the same time it's easy to Harass with Zealots. It is hard to move out as well. Flanks/Vortex are just too good against Thor/BH/Warhound.
TvT is in a weird place. But Biotank still works even against Warhound compositions. MMM now shreds Warhounds after the Patch.
ZvZ is getting better. Less volatile and more Tatical/Micro intensive.
It is more safe to expand in PvP. But War of the worlds are still reign strong after the midgame.
I almost never post here. I just lurk, but now I had too. I totally agree with orb. But...
What I find most upsetting is not the warhound itself or the skill drop involved.
It's the fact that Blizzard is trying to push the directions in which Starcraft II should be played (for example mech-Terrans which seems to be their grand design plan for HotS).
Why is this upsetting? Because Blizzard isn't supposed to push the game in ANY direction. They are supposed to SUPPLY THE TOOLS. Players make the game, and players make it an E-sport.
I don't know when this great company stopped creating magic and went on creating "regular games" instead. Sure WoW needed a face lift, but they messed that up bad. D3, I won't even go there (who the f--- came up with the idea to kill off Deckard Cain in A1?). And now before HotS... Well, from what we have seen so far, I'm worried for Starcraft.
On September 11 2012 11:24 Scratchy! wrote: I almost never post here. I just lurk, but now I had too. I totally agree with orb. But...
What I find most upsetting is not the warhound itself.
It's the fact that Blizzard is trying to push the directions in which Starcraft II should be played (for example mech-Terrans which seems to be their grand design plan for HotS).
Why is this upsetting? Because Blizzard isn't supposed to push the game in ANY direction. They are supposed to SUPPLY THE TOOLS. Players make the game, and players make it an E-sport.
I don't know when this great company stopped creating magic and went on creating "regular games" instead. Sure WoW needed a face lift, but they messed that up bad. D3, I won't even go there (who the f--- came up with the idea to kill off Deckard Cain in A1?). And now before HotS... Well, from what we have seen so far, I'm worried for Starcraft.
Like I said in my post above, today's Blizzard is an entirely new iteration (except probably for Morhaime). The Blizzard that made its holy trinity of awesome games (Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War, Diablo and Diablo II and its expansions) is long gone.
Like I said in my post above. today's Blizzard is an entirely new iteration. The Blizzard that made its holy trinity of awesome games (Warcraft 1-3, StarCraft and StarCraft: Brood War, Diablo and Diablo II and its expansions) is long gone.
Yeah, I just read that right after i posted. I guess that answers my question
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
Pretty much this.
I agree with everything, but it's nothing new. I played SC2 extensively through beta and after. About a year after, I realized this game was stale. There are many issues but unit design is the focus here. Warhound sucks, true. So does the immortal, collosus(as you mentioned), roaches, marauders... We could go on and on. Blizzard is just being Blizzard. It's the peoples fault that SC2 is the way it is. People still actively watch and play it, so Blizz will be Blizz. You can't blame them. Blizzard has consistently shown us that they either don't know how to give us(the minority) the game we want, or they just don't want to(probably this). If you want to try and make a difference then try getting in touch with Starbow, or make your own Starcraft mod and stream it and host tournaments. Competition is good, and there is no alternative to SC2 really. BW is gone and even when it wasn't, the low graphics made many not be able to compare it to SC2. Anyways, SC2 gameplay will remain the way it is unless Blizzard has a major design change, or people show them by playing something else. We have all the tools available. I rarely go on SC2 anymore, and when I do it's to play a Starbow match. It amazes me how much more fun I have with that game than regular SC2. It's not perfect but it goes to show that if the community was really ready for a big change, it could be done. But the community isn't ready, people that hate SC2 and it's direction will continue to play and ladder like zombies while hoping that one day Blizz will bring them the game they so desperately desire.
Basically, we need the TL Promod to become a reality. No joke.
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
Pretty much this.
I agree with everything, but it's nothing new. I played SC2 extensively through beta and after. About a year after, I realized this game was stale. There are many issues but unit design is the focus here. Warhound sucks, true. So does the immortal, collosus(as you mentioned), roaches, marauders... We could go on and on. Blizzard is just being Blizzard. It's the peoples fault that SC2 is the way it is. People still actively watch and play it, so Blizz will be Blizz. You can't blame them. Blizzard has consistently shown us that they either don't know how to give us(the minority) the game we want, or they just don't want to(probably this). If you want to try and make a difference then try getting in touch with Starbow, or make your own Starcraft mod and stream it and host tournaments. Competition is good, and there is no alternative to SC2 really. BW is gone and even when it wasn't, the low graphics made many not be able to compare it to SC2. Anyways, SC2 gameplay will remain the way it is unless Blizzard has a major design change, or people show them by playing something else. We have all the tools available. I rarely go on SC2 anymore, and when I do it's to play a Starbow match. It amazes me how much more fun I have with that game than regular SC2. It's not perfect but it goes to show that if the community was really ready for a big change, it could be done. But the community isn't ready, people that hate SC2 and it's direction will continue to play and ladder like zombies while hoping that one day Blizz will bring them the game they so desperately desire.
Basically, we need the TL Promod to become a reality. No joke.
What happened to the TL Promod anyway? I was really intrigued reading that way back in the day. I think it's something that could have mileage but it's probably tough to sort out. One day that kind of thing may be the thing to properly reinvigorate SC2
Dear Orb, I'm curious on your thoughts on the Goliath and the lack of a similar all-round unit in WoL mech. From what I understand, Blizzard's inclusion of the Warhound was to give mech that same all-round unit it lacks in WoL, but naturally be something other than just a Goliath clone -- hence them deciding on a ground-to-ground only unit with anti-mech capabilities.
Is it that you don't like the idea of a Goliath-type unit in general, or just that you feel Blizzard's approach to the unit's specifics is flawed?
We just need more popular members in the community to embrace a SC1 mod and host a few tournamaents. The game itself is better, and people will understand why after watching 1 tournament
Even if the warhound doesn't belong in the game, it certainly needed rebalancing before the first patch (and it still might--not sure yet). If you haven't seen this video, it does a pretty good job of showing why, lol...
On September 11 2012 12:48 trbot wrote: Even if the warhound doesn't belong in the game, it certainly needed rebalancing before the first patch (and it still might--not sure yet). If you haven't seen this video, it does a pretty good job of showing why, lol...
Wow...just wow. I never thought anything on the ground could beat mass collosus.
The greatest irony is that tanks won. The unit warhounds specifically are supposed to counter
I don't see why so many people are like "Blizzard will never remove the warhound. They're retarded and it's still in the beta for a week, so it must be true!" We're talking about actual human beings, one of which is in grandmaster with all the races. We aren't talking about glue-sniffing retards. Completely scrapping a unit is a rather large decision, and we all know how Blizzard likes its snail pace development. If I were given a button that would instantly scrap the warhound, despite the fact I know it's terrible, I would still be giving it a week or two to make some balance attempts, if only because the decision to scrap it is just so final. If nothing comes out of the unit, it will be removed. Soon. Trust me.
Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible. It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered. Players actually enjoy the game because there is an inherent enjoyment in having practiced something difficult and executing it correctly. Pro matches are more fun to watch and esports flourishes because people LOVE watching other people do things they can't do (don't believe me? Just look at the olympics... pro sports... BROOD WAR). The game's shelf life is extended tremendously due to the increased enjoyment in replayability.
I 100% agree with this. I switched to Protoss because Storms were so powerful and hard to use properly. I practiced Reaver-Shuttle because I was in awe of what the pro's could do. Even the little bit I could manage was a satisfying experience. I tried out Carrier micro because it looked fun. I off-raced just so I could try out muta micro. Spectacular micro units leaves viewers in awe. The high hanging fruit are appealing when you can just touch the lower ones. If all the fruit is low hanging, a lot of the power and uniqueness of a unit get's nerfed out of the unit. And what we're left is bland, samey, but balanced units. Units that require mastery are units that are allowed to have tremendous power. The true balance is in the hands of the players, not in yet another bonus to armour or light.
And I know there are all sorts of subtle things that pro's do to separate themselves from others. But subtle positioning is only the foundation like good dribbling. We need layups, 3 point shots, and the SLAM DUNK! Visual and visceral. Day9's frisbee analogy comes to mind.
What an idiot op is. Warhound is bad because it isn't requiring great micro? That's thepoint of the unit. Look at the comparison http://i.imgur.com/M7oTJ.jpg
On September 11 2012 14:19 worldpeace30 wrote: What an idiot op is. Warhound is bad because it isn't requiring great micro? That's thepoint of the unit. Look at the comparison http://i.imgur.com/M7oTJ.jpg
Blizzard made it a no micro unit for a reason.
What does that have to do with anything? And if Orb is an idiot based on what he posted, you barely class as sentient. \
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason, if you like the warhound, give a reason why it's a good unit/design.
Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible. It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered. Players actually enjoy the game because there is an inherent enjoyment in having practiced something difficult and executing it correctly. Pro matches are more fun to watch and esports flourishes because people LOVE watching other people do things they can't do (don't believe me? Just look at the olympics... pro sports... BROOD WAR). The game's shelf life is extended tremendously due to the increased enjoyment in replayability.
I 100% agree with this. I switched to Protoss because Storms were so powerful and hard to use properly. I practiced Reaver-Shuttle because I was in awe of what the pro's could do. Even the little bit I could manage was a satisfying experience. I tried out Carrier micro because it looked fun. I off-raced just so I could try out muta micro. Spectacular micro units leaves viewers in awe. The high hanging fruit are appealing when you can just touch the lower ones. If all the fruit is low hanging, a lot of the power and uniqueness of a unit get's nerfed out of the unit. And what we're left is bland, samey, but balanced units. Units that require mastery are units that are allowed to have tremendous power. The true balance is in the hands of the players, not in yet another bonus to armour or light.
And I know there are all sorts of subtle things that pro's do to separate themselves from others. But subtle positioning is only the foundation like good dribbling. We need layups, 3 point shots, and the SLAM DUNK! Visual and visceral. Day9's frisbee analogy comes to mind.
^
Reaver/shuttle micro is the reason I play starcraft. I laughed when I heard that starcraft was played professionally, but when I saw those first few stork games I ate every syllable because, like most people from my generation, I had played bw as a kid and I couldn't believe that shit was possible.
The more I think about it, there are very few legitimate analogs to that kind of micro in sc2. I doubt I would play sc2 if I hadn't played bw. Not that I don't love sc2, but it probably wouldn't have caught my attention.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
I see a lot of white people playing their favorite race Terran because according to you zerg having lots of a-move units doesn't change Terran being the favorite race of white people over the globe. When I go over to scstats.com and see the racial distribution per country it reinforces your points.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
Completely agree. Warhound needs to simply be scrapped, or else completely reimagined. If Terrans need help dealing with Immortals, then let's offer some kind of buff to Ghostmech. Vikings should be enough to handle Protoss air, although there might be some benefit in creating the Warhound as the Goliath.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
I see a lot of white people playing their favorite race Terran because according to you zerg having lots of a-move units doesn't change Terran being the favorite race of white people over the globe. When I go over to scstats.com and see the racial distribution per country it reinforces your points.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
Actually that probably wont happen the number of games played in SC2 is dropping constantly but viewer counts for streams are staying fairly consistent and are only dropping when their are either multiple tournaments on at once or when their is a massive surge in the amount of tournaments.
SC has always been about the pro scene and if you compere SC2 to a game like LoL this is fairly clear. So far SC2 has sold around 4.5million copies and has apparently been pirated 2.3 million times so your looking at a maximum player base of 6.8 million people no I personally own 2 copies of SC2 and im sure other people do aswel so that number is actually too high but even if it was accurate a large toiurnament can still get 80thousand+ viewers, Compared to LoL which is getting 200thousand or so viewers for major events but out of a player base of 35million SC2 has a much higher number of viewers to players ration than LoL. The only reason LoL can do this is that their game is F2P so anyone can download and play a few games and making an easy game that they will stick around in makes business sense so they buy Skins etc. If SC2 goes down the lol route they it will fail as people wont leave LoL to play SC2 as they have already invested a lot of time and effort into their LoL account as well as probably money, for SC to emulate that they would have to add micro-transactions to the game and make it infinatly easier to play to even having a chance to compete and going down that route will put you up against not only the biggest name in e-sports right now but also every new game that comes out trying to jump on the band wagon.
For SC2 to succeed and grow it needs to carve out its own market and the SC2 pro scene is now undeniably the strongest aspect of SC2 and the strongest marketing asset at the Disposal of Blizz especially after the SC2-BW merger. Making a game that pro players can really excel at and turn into something beautiful is the best path for Blizz as SC2 is an easy game to understand and get into and if you can make it into a truly high level competitive game you can sell that to people given a good marketing stratergy.
If you do that you may well sell more copies of a game and insert new players into the game but the main revenue of Blizz at this point will end up coming from tournament revenue as to run a large tournament of over 5000 dollars prize pool you need a licence from blizz which gives them something like half of the add revenue from the tournament and the more people watching the tournament the more revenue they will make.
Warhound needs to go, because it's an awful unit. It's just bad - and it's so regardless of any balance tinkering. It doesn't fill any new role, but more importantly - it's unbelievably ugly. It's hands down the ugliest unit in a game where 1/3 of all units were designed to look repulsive.
Role of a unit can be changed via mechanics. But with warhound it's not worth it - because balance be dammed - who'd want to look at this piece of trash standing out of the Terran designs like a sore thumb?
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
The post below me was pretty well written, but as an additional point.
Why do people have to feel they're good to have fun with a game? I think BW came out when I was 9 or 10, I had no idea what the hell I was doing but still had fun with it, played BGH maps and the likes, built Carriers and other things that are cool to a youngster. Had a great time, had no idea what I was doing but the RS spark was lit in me, albeit it would only really take hold of me later in life. The issue with keeping casual players engaged isn't really applicable with folk who come with that mentality. Casual players howoever, who want to want to win games and be competitive in getting ladder promotions, but don't want to put any graft in are the ones who drift away. I'm really not sure how to keep people like that interested and active.
The biggest problem I have with a warhound is that it's very much like a marauder (1.5 marauders); A marauder that's rather useless against Zerg.
There should be a more unique unit, like mobile missile turret (there are no ground to air only units in SC2 at all, granted there weren't any in SC1 either), or the cool/junky little artillery/rocket machine used in a broodwar cutscene.
Warhounds are just like buffed ground-mode vikings, or 1.5 marauders — nothing particularly new.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs.
The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized.
Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great.
But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same.
I think they're doing a lot of decent things with HotS, but warhound isn't one of them. Just seems like a "mech-marauder", and for all the talk of trying to limit deathballs, it's just falling flat on it's face. It doesn't have another interesting function like a marauder that can stim, tank banelings etc, or blink like a stalker. It's just a massive wall of damage dealing mini-thors.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs.
The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized.
Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great.
But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same.
I kind of disagree with you on the Collosi. I've been teaching my brother how to play over the last few weeks. I had played a bit of BW (very casually, mostly noob only games in college) and he saw a bit of it back then visiting on occasion. He said he wanted to learn a bit of SC2 and I asked him to pick a race he might enjoy. He replied that he would like to play Protoss - digged on the higher tech superior race sort of thing. Showed him a couple of basic builds, went over the tech tree. You know what the things that he initially enjoyed most? Answer: Collosus, storm, and warp gate. 2 of the 3 things that hard core BW followers will report are 'broken' almost verbatim. He on the other hand, is the casual gamer, the one that we want to bring into the game, not alienate because it has become chess. Thats the point of SC2, its a blend between spectator sport and strategy. Its a fine line and difficult one to walk. Tanks are boring. Sorry, but they are. I love SC2. Watch even more than I play but if there is a TvT on...I work on my thesis. And my casual brother echoes the same.
That said, Warhound is a bad unit as presently implemented. I don't like the model and I don't like various attributes about it but I think it will be fine in the end. I think we need to take step back and understand that this is long process and despite what most BW die hards will say, WoL is a pretty good game. Keeps bringing me back day after day - not a bad thing.
On September 11 2012 10:47 bubblegumbo wrote: Attack move units that do extra damage to specific armor types needs to fuck off in SC2, it's an utter disgrace that a game made in this day and age can't live up to the originality of the units from Broodwars more than 10 years ago. WoL has this problem and now they want us Terran players to continue this trend. At least with Thors they are slow, expensive and take a while to build as a way to prevent the player from just abusing it.
There were several BW units that did different damage to different unit sizes. It's more or less the same type of thing.
The problem isn't the Warhound is an A-move unit, A-move units do not exist in Starcraft, even Zerglings require micro for surrounds and Ultralisks require positioning when they're slower, and bigger, than the rest of the Zerg army, altho' you may have a point regarding Charge units like the upgraded Ultralisks and Zealots. The problem is the Warhounds free DPS vs mechanical units is complete and utter bullshit vs Protoss and to a lesser extent Terran because it's impossible to balance that and make it useful.
The main problem with Terran right now is that Battle Hellions and Warhounds do not address Terran weaknesses, Battle Hellions nerf Zerglings and Warhounds nerf Protoss, if Blizzard just removed both the Battle Hellion and the Warhound and designed the Widow Mine to be Terran's answer to Zealots then it'd feel like Blizzard actually knew what the fuck they were doing with the race for a change. I mean, why do you need to add 3 units in HOTS to balance Factories vs Protoss when Broodwar managed to do it with just Siege Tanks, Vultures and Spider Mines and Goliaths? Thors are a strict upgrade vs Protoss compared to Goliath's already, the game does not need the /faceroll keyboard unit that is the Warhound and to a lesser extent the Battle Hellion at all. I mean how the fuck do you just go and decide to buff the most heavily played unit in TvZ as an "answer" to Zealots and think it wont completely be imbalanced vs. Zerglings? How the fuck do you add a horribly overpowered and undercosted Mech that /facerolls Protoss, wipes out Terran mineral lines and 2 shots Zerglings and think it wont be completely imbalanced?
I mean, the Raven Buff and the Battle Cruiser buff already put Terran late game vs Zerg late game into an incredibly good place, all they need to do is give Terran another Reactor Factory unit to deal with Zealots and it's probably fine. Ghosts deal with Immortals already and kick ass vs Protoss in general, god forbid Terran Mech have to use their Barracks for something other than building a Reactor for a Factory at any point in the game ...
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs.
The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized.
Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great.
But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same.
I kind of disagree with you on the Collosi. I've been teaching my brother how to play over the last few weeks. I had played a bit of BW (very casually, mostly noob only games in college) and he saw a bit of it back then visiting on occasion. He said he wanted to learn a bit of SC2 and I asked him to pick a race he might enjoy. He replied that he would like to play Protoss - digged on the higher tech superior race sort of thing. Showed him a couple of basic builds, went over the tech tree. You know what the things that he initially enjoyed most? Answer: Collosus, storm, and warp gate. 2 of the 3 things that hard core BW followers will report are 'broken' almost verbatim. He on the other hand, is the casual gamer, the one that we want to bring into the game, not alienate because it has become chess. Thats the point of SC2, its a blend between spectator sport and strategy. Its a fine line and difficult one to walk. Tanks are boring. Sorry, but they are. I love SC2. Watch even more than I play but if there is a TvT on...I work on my thesis. And my casual brother echoes the same.
That said, Warhound is a bad unit as presently implemented. I don't like the model and I don't like various attributes about it but I think it will be fine in the end. I think we need to take step back and understand that this is long process and despite what most BW die hards will say, WoL is a pretty good game. Keeps bringing me back day after day - not a bad thing.
Sorry, but the reason he likes Colossus is not because they are fun to use, but because they look cool. There is no real fun in mastering the Colossus. To unlock its full potential the answer is "make more Colossi", not "micro till your fingers bleed". In the end this will become boring, because the only improvement you can make is making more units, not using them better.
If the Colossus looked the same, but had a really slow attack that is dogeable, but a lot more powerful it would be 10X as fun to use. There I just fixed the issues with the number one a-move unit in the game with a simple micro mechanic. Bronce league players will still use them because microing against them is not in they opponents capabilities, however as skill levels rise on both sides, micro to prevent or secure Colossus hits would make the game more exiting.
This is what we mean when we talk about units with high skill caps. Units that work fine when both sides can't micro, but become infinitely more interesting as players learn how to micro with or against them.
Oh and tanks may visually be a bit more bland. But even first time players to BW quickly saw the awesomeness of 10+ tanks blasting any attacks agaist them to smithereens. Tanks are great because they feel awesome to use.
On September 11 2012 10:47 bubblegumbo wrote: Attack move units that do extra damage to specific armor types needs to fuck off in SC2, it's an utter disgrace that a game made in this day and age can't live up to the originality of the units from Broodwars more than 10 years ago. WoL has this problem and now they want us Terran players to continue this trend. At least with Thors they are slow, expensive and take a while to build as a way to prevent the player from just abusing it.
There were several BW units that did different damage to different unit sizes. It's more or less the same type of thing.
Yes, It is not so different as many people thinks.
Dragoon: 10 vs light, 15 vs medium, 20 vs heavy Stalker: 10 vs light, 14 vs heavy
I agree with everything, just like I agreed the first time and the hundreds of times after that when someone said the game was too easy and that the design-philosophy itself was broken. It hasn't helped.
If you disagree with what he posted, give a reason.
l2r
Terran need an A-move unit because Zergs have lots of them? Cool reasoning, will probably improve the game long term if we follow the desires of players like you.
The question here is for WHOM you want to improve the game? For our 2% Masters? For our 0,02% Professional Players? Or for the 70% hanging in Bronze/Silver which are even now overchallenged? You guys need to realize that all our precious progamers, tournaments,... will crumble when the BASE just leaves for another game.
You can improve the game for the sake of improving the game. I genuinely think casual players will still enjoy it if it's well designed, as casual players tend to enjoy most games that are good. Dumbing down ends up eventually killing franchises, or at least leads to a slow diminishing of returns, I mean look at MW3 for and example of this.
It's not an issue for me if Blizzard wanted to go the casual route if they hadn't explicitly stated they wanted to make SC2 a premiere E-sports game and plowed money into WCS. It's this trying to appease two camps that will invariably create difficulties for them going forward
But improving =/= improving. You can say "Im improving the game" all day, Bronzie Joe will tell you "You kill it" Thats exactly what happens now. Blizzard says "we are improving the game" and you keep yelling that they kill it. So for whom do you want it to improve? "Casuals" wont eat anything you serve them. At least not for a long time. They need the feeling that they are improving over time and they want to do "cool stuff". Now you basically tell them "learn to macro!" which is definately not "cool stuff". Its boring stuff. Staring at your base, counting workers, look at numbers,... just dont look at your army. That equally exciting as playing "wallstreet manager 2012". The cool part comes when you actually got the boring stuff done... which is somewhere up high masters.
I agree casuals want to do cool stuff. But making warhounds and attacking with them is not doing cool stuff. Nor is making collosi doing cool stuff. Setting up a line of siege tanks and having them reign destruction down is cool stuff. A noob can do that even if they are terribly slow. But it's still fun because it destroys soooo much. (BW we'd just tell newb Terrans to just make tanks.) Getting off one powerful storm is cool stuff because it does soooo much damage. Managing to drop a reaver in the worker line and having 2 shots kill a good portion of the worker line is cool stuff. Even if they can't instantly reload it while keeping the shuttle at top speed while replenishing the scarabs.
The point is even when things are difficult to do, when a casual can pull one thing off, the results are AWESOME. The results are awesome because the units top potential is hard to reach. (Don't confuse this with non-functional units. At the base level, the units work perfectly well. It's just with mastering its execution, it's true potential can be exploited.) This allows the power of the unit too be much more powerful. When things are easy, the unit is nerfed to be balanced under the assumption that the units top potential will nearly always be reached. The results are less and become more meh and creates bland gameplay. Instead of reigning destruction, tanks are alright. Instead of storms ripping through armies, it's okay. It's all balanced, but the raw power has been sanitized.
Whereas, if a casual catches a glimpse of the raw power potential of units and tastes a bit of success with their first storm or reaver shot.... that's addicting. Difficulty isn't an issue when the reward is so great.
But the best thing of all is even if casuals aren't into super micro, the game still works by a-moving around the map. Newbs can go a very long time without making vultures and yet have lots of fun with Tanks, marines and air. It's not 'correct play,' but it's still fun play. And many casual Protoss will never use high templar. But that's okay, the power of the high templar still waits for them and they can enjoy the game just the same.
I kind of disagree with you on the Collosi. I've been teaching my brother how to play over the last few weeks. I had played a bit of BW (very casually, mostly noob only games in college) and he saw a bit of it back then visiting on occasion. He said he wanted to learn a bit of SC2 and I asked him to pick a race he might enjoy. He replied that he would like to play Protoss - digged on the higher tech superior race sort of thing. Showed him a couple of basic builds, went over the tech tree. You know what the things that he initially enjoyed most? Answer: Collosus, storm, and warp gate. 2 of the 3 things that hard core BW followers will report are 'broken' almost verbatim. He on the other hand, is the casual gamer, the one that we want to bring into the game, not alienate because it has become chess. Thats the point of SC2, its a blend between spectator sport and strategy. Its a fine line and difficult one to walk. Tanks are boring. Sorry, but they are. I love SC2. Watch even more than I play but if there is a TvT on...I work on my thesis. And my casual brother echoes the same.
That said, Warhound is a bad unit as presently implemented. I don't like the model and I don't like various attributes about it but I think it will be fine in the end. I think we need to take step back and understand that this is long process and despite what most BW die hards will say, WoL is a pretty good game. Keeps bringing me back day after day - not a bad thing.
Oh and tanks may visually be a bit more bland. But even first time players to BW quickly saw the awesomeness of 10+ tanks blasting any attacks agaist them to smithereens. Tanks are great because they feel awesome to use.
Just had to agree with that last line. I know from when I played BW (casually only mind) the sound of siege tanks sieging up near my Protoss expansion was terrifying, and then THE BOOMS! *Shudder* It frightens me a little, even now.
When I started playing War3, I felt like making rifles, a lot of rifles, and wyverns, a lot of wyverns, depending whether I was Orc or Human, all on one base, they were good damage dealers and high hp units, I hence went on w/o microing and w/o thinking. I got dead bored after a few weeks and stopped playing for months. A friend forced me back into it a while later and I (luckily) saw some of my random team allies do cool stuff with quick/smart creeping and/or fast expanding. Needless to say this was the moment I started getting miraculously addicted to RTS games, so I could achieve the same genre of moves (perfectly described in the article, it was hard but althemore rewarding). Everytime I was starting to get annoyed and was feeling the whole thing to become redundant I was quickly discovering a harder/better/funnier mechanical gimmick to pull out, I carried on playing and improving, and as I grew older, the game was actually getting younger. I was 15 when I massed wyverns for the first time, now I'm 22 and stupidly busier but I still can't cope without my monthly 5+ relatively high-level ladder games. And I still greatly enjoy it.
As for SC2, I bought it the day of the release, I've played 1,5k+ games on it, and I'm still hopelessly looking for the rewarding and addictive enjoyment not of playing well, but of wanting to play well.
I guess my point is, your article is great. And if it wasn't for watching esports and the whole beautiful and funny community ambiance around it, I would lose all interest in the game.
You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned.
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned.
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening
You cannot do much about the current game, bot HotS still in beta, you have more chance to tell your point than ever.
Is blizzard aware majority of bw players are not happy? Threads like these popup once in awhile, it continues to get ignored without a voice. Bw fanbase cannot be all ignored or dismissed, who better understands the experience of playing and spectating than long time bw players?
The topic was exact reason i started watching pro, them doing difficult stuff and me trying to mimic. my skills increased exponentially afterwards. The typical micro battles(heavily focused on spell) of sc2 are not impressive at all.
As others have said.. The baseline problem is that many units in SC2 lack a true weakness... The units are so "average"... These 4 are probably the ones "guiltiest" of the problem:
Marauder --> Beefy, decent damage, fast, slowing shot, can be healed. Roach --> Beefy, decent damage, fast, cheap... (it is not very supply efficient tho... But that’s not enough). Colossus --> Beefy, awesome damage, fast, cliff walk, awesome range. Immortal --> It's main weakness is, that the Colossus outshines it except against timing pushes which hit before you can have enough Colossi and having 1-2 more Immortals instead would save you... Which tells tons about the lolworthy power of the Colossus....
Now the Warhound shows up and is just even more of this flawed principle... It's fast, it's long range, it's good DMG (against anything...), it's not expensive, it's not even high supply... It's just so fucking (above) average that it lacks any true identity. The Battlehellion is also such a "problem", they basically "patch out" the Hellions weakness (being low HP)...
Marines and Zerglings die very fast to any sort of AE but do good DMG when surviving (for some reasons Zerglings are weaker than in SC/BW but well...) --> This unit works (the Hydralisk woul also belong here, but it's weaknesses are to big compared to the return it gives). Stalkers and Zealots are expensive for their stats but the Stalker is very fast (+ Blink) and the Zealot is pretty Beefy (+Charge). These work because they are different enough from everything else and do their job (which sadly mostly comes down to protecting Colossi/Templars...). Siege Tanks... Actually "worked", but Blizzard decided to "average" them and gave them less Siege-DMG but more "normal"-DMG. They actively tried to destroy the identity of this Unit (because they made too small maps and gave it instant dmg instead of overkill).
A unit can be PURE 1A but still be "unique" and interesting because you have to handle it right... Many of the new SC2 units just don't have enough weaknesses compared to strengths which leads to boring games.
Btw: Not being able to attack Air is just not enough of a weakness...
As of right now, Terran is the most difficult race to control imo. The whole bio army has to be split almost perfectly against fungals and storms for you to even have a shot of winning a battle. Even the mech army (tanks and vikings) has to be split effectively if you want any chance at winning. Zerg, on the other hand, can attack move into a Terran ball as long as fungals are good, which isn't hard to do (like 4-5 keystrokes?). Toss is a little trickier, but still easier to micro than a Terran army. The main thing Toss has to worry about is splitting their templar. It's not like it's that hard to attack move with a Protoss deathball anyway.
I think it's safe to say that Terran has the least likelihood of succeeding with a straight up attack move. Would you really try to attack into banelings/fungals and storms/colossi? So give Blizzard a break if they're finally giving Terran a unit that 1) Makes it possible for Terran to finally attack into an opponent, and 2) Allows mech to become a viable strategy in all matchups. My main concern is the second point; I'd love for mech to be viable in HotS -- with or without the Warhound. If you're not going to allow the Warhound into the game, what else will make mech viable?
I gave it some thought and this is how I think they should change the warhound: Remove its standard attack, make a haywire like missle ability that does good damage against immortals etc be its primary ground attack, and give it the ability to siege, aiming its missles at the air switching it from a ground to ground unit to a ground to air unit.
Why this setup? From what I can tell, mech was missing 4 things, a unit for map control, direct air attack units(they only have slow firing splash damage units in the thor), a unit that can fight things like lings and zealots, and something that can fight things like immortals. With a balanced functioning widow mine you have something for area control, and with battle hellions you have a unit to fight lings and zealots, now if you give the warhound a attack vs tanks and immortals in one mode and a direct damage air attack in another mode mech should pretty much be complete.
In its ground form the unit would fire fairly slowly and only at one unit at a time, making it weak to things like zerglings, but with its reasonable speed it can do things like kite to make up this deficit if micro'd, but it would still have this disadvantage, balancing out its function. When it would go into siege mode the unit no longer has the ability to attack ground units, making it weak to ground attacks lol, but it would fill a real purpose with direct damage missle shots that fire mich faster than a thor would. It also doesn't overlap with a thor since thors fire slow flash damage shots at the air while the warhound would only be doing direct damage.
Basically, this concept of a unit would be fun, skill based, and involve a great deal of decision making. The unit would gain a lot from target firing and proper control, making it extremely fun IMO. Thoughts anyone?
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
Didnt you just answer your own question. Because there is no mech-marauder. When was the last time you saw a Terran go mech+marauders unit comp? Warhound is the zealot of protoss, the zergling/roach of zerg, the marauder of bio. You could argue all those units should be redesigned and all made with heavy flavour abilities, but I dont see how you could argue mech was lacking one. From a balance standpoint, that was probably a very large part to mechs relatively low frequence of use in WoL. Boring? Yes. Filling a hole mech had? Absolutely.
On September 11 2012 18:02 Maghetti wrote: I gave it some thought and this is how I think they should change the warhound: Remove its standard attack, make a haywire like missle ability that does good damage against immortals etc be its primary ground attack, and give it the ability to siege, aiming its missles at the air switching it from a ground to ground unit to a ground to air unit.
Why this setup? From what I can tell, mech was missing 4 things, a unit for map control, direct air attack units(they only have slow firing splash damage units in the thor), a unit that can fight things like lings and zealots, and something that can fight things like immortals. With a balanced functioning widow mine you have something for area control, and with battle hellions you have a unit to fight lings and zealots, now if you give the warhound a attack vs tanks and immortals in one mode and a direct damage air attack in another mode mech should pretty much be complete.
In its ground form the unit would fire fairly slowly and only at one unit at a time, making it weak to things like zerglings, but with its reasonable speed it can do things like kite to make up this deficit if micro'd, but it would still have this disadvantage, balancing out its function. When it would go into siege mode the unit no longer has the ability to attack ground units, making it weak to ground attacks lol, but it would fill a real purpose with direct damage missle shots that fire mich faster than a thor would. It also doesn't overlap with a thor since thors fire slow flash damage shots at the air while the warhound would only be doing direct damage.
Basically, this concept of a unit would be fun, skill based, and involve a great deal of decision making. The unit would gain a lot from target firing and proper control, making it extremely fun IMO. Thoughts anyone?
Regarding the anti-air, I think thor + viking already is a great combination. low damage with splash and regular damage but single targeting, all with incredible range, is a great combination, on paper and in the game. The fact that both units move so ridiculously slow make them basically siege units. The only thing that stands against it is the production cost of the thor, plus the general fragility of clumping air units against fungal growth. All units in the mech composition are too gas intensive. What would be nice is if we had a low gas anti-air unit, which would then have to suck at everything else to make it balanced (hint: goliath).
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
Didnt you just answer your own question. Because there is no mech-marauder. When was the last time you saw a Terran go mech+marauders unit comp? Warhound is the zealot of protoss, the zergling/roach of zerg, the marauder of bio. You could argue all those units should be redesigned and all made with heavy flavour abilities, but I dont see how you could argue mech was lacking one. From a balance standpoint, that was probably a very large part to mechs relatively low frequence of use in WoL. Boring? Yes. Filling a hole mech had? Absolutely.
You either missed his point, or justified it by treating a Bio player and a Mech player as two different races.
Speaking on the latter, you're essentially wanting all races to be practically the same and not have any unique or defining characteristics. You're implying that Mech and Bio should be allowed to played and executed the same way, even though they're two entirely different unit compositions, and give Terran as a whole two ways to accomplish the same goal of an mobile aggressive army.
That's pretty retarded, since it just takes away the fun in choosing a race, or playing a certain specific style, if it's all the same and simplified. There's no actual skill in playing both mech and bio, or one or the other when it's all practically the same.
The game doesn't need to be more simplified than it already is. It's bad enough that features like automining and worker counters are removing difficulty from the mechanics of the game, we don't need to oversimplify and eliminate difficulty in strategy as well.
I think everything has been said numerous times already,i faintly remember even years ago during the WOL Beta serious concern about the game/unit design was voiced but unfortunatly to no avail .
To be honest, i feel frustrated about this topic.
Although i have not played any SC2 games for months, i still love the community,but most important i know of SC2 latent potential but i am afraid the responsible people for SC2 will continue their way of doing things.
A game should be first and foremost about fun, how to achieve that and keep that enjoyment in the long term is where the chaff is seperated from the wheat. But all i ever hear is people talk/write about balance.
I played similar RTS-games for years that were really bad balanced but fun. I refuse to play a balanced game that is not fun.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
Didnt you just answer your own question. Because there is no mech-marauder. When was the last time you saw a Terran go mech+marauders unit comp? Warhound is the zealot of protoss, the zergling/roach of zerg, the marauder of bio. You could argue all those units should be redesigned and all made with heavy flavour abilities, but I dont see how you could argue mech was lacking one. From a balance standpoint, that was probably a very large part to mechs relatively low frequence of use in WoL. Boring? Yes. Filling a hole mech had? Absolutely.
You either missed his point, or justified it by treating a Bio player and a Mech player as two different races.
Speaking on the latter, you're essentially wanting all races to be practically the same and not have any unique or defining characteristics. You're implying that Mech and Bio should be allowed to played and executed the same way, even though they're two entirely different unit compositions, and give Terran as a whole two ways to accomplish the same goal of an mobile aggressive army.
That's pretty retarded, since it just takes away the fun in choosing a race, or playing a certain specific style, if it's all the same and simplified. There's no actual skill in playing both mech and bio, or one or the other when it's all practically the same.
Mech should be treated as separated race because Terran as only race in game has different ups for bio and mech (despite booth having ground units). If you choose one path in game you are probably bound to it.
Warhound would be unnecessary if infantry would share ups with mech, it would also solve many other problems - Terran would be able to tech switch much better, mech would be playable versus Toss, Terran would gain a better reinforcement rate.
As of now I think in WoL much bigger problem, if we talk about 1a move units, is a big part of Toss army.
On September 11 2012 18:18 Velr wrote: It's not filling a hole Mech had.
It's altering Mech to be Bio 2.0.
Yeah. The mech army in WoL is just too weak to take on Protoss. I feel like a buff to tanks in combination with the tanky battle hellion would fix alot.
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned.
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening
It's not ironic really, tons and tons of Protoss players have advocated the removal of warpgates, or Collosi and a rework of the game to make the race more fun to play with, and play against. Not everybody wants things tweaked so they can win games you know
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned.
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening
I feel bad replying to this comment when there are so many more deserving comments that very intelligent posters made, but for some reason I feel drawn to do so anyways as there have been a couple people on other sites making similarly silly posts...
First off you should understand I'm a random player, not a protoss player. Protoss may be my best race, but I'm not a competitor. I'm no pro, I don't make posts for the purpose of buffing "my race" so that I can win more tournaments. I'm a caster. There is really no possible reason at all for me to want one race to be more powerful than the other. All I want is the best possible spectator experience, so that my audience will enjoy watching, the game will thrive, and I will enjoy casting and legitimately get excited enough to hype the players and their play up.
Secondly if you actually read my post instead of reading the title and assuming you know what I said, you'll notice I actually do reference how the colossus is an extreme failure in comparison to the reaver. I am not making an attack only on the Warhound, I am making an attack on all easy-mode low-risk/high-reward units and more importantly the design philosophy that leads to these types of units. I just use the Warhound as the focus and biggest example because it is probably the biggest offender that also does not even add anything to the game. While I hate units like the colossus (I have said so many times during WoL beta and release that it is my least favorite unit of all time and I even refused to build it for most of my Beta competitive career), at least they serve some purpose in the game, while the warhound really doesn't add anything other than a way to play mech exactly like the way people play bio.
Also, were I to make a thread today saying why the colossus should be removed, I can 100% guarantee it would be ignored by blizzard. It is much more likely in my opinion that if I make a thread with regards to a more current and immediate issue (as they are just now trying to make HotS balanced) that I will be able to change Blizzard's mind about their design philosophy in general.
It's an extreme long-shot, I am aware. At this point however I find myself becoming extremely motivated to do something, because I don't want to see my favorite game franchise become boring and lose the fun/excitement, which seems to be the direction Blizzard is taking it. I can no longer just sit idly by and let them ruin this game that used to be so unbelievably beautiful and inspiring.
On September 10 2012 16:27 pmp10 wrote: Are you seriously advocating removing or redesigning the warhound because you think it has 'wrong type' of micro? If I understand your standards right then you would like to remove half of the units from SC2.
each race can serve to have a couple units like this
each race already does
terran already has the marauder. already has the thor.
basically... id much rather tanks just get buffed (even making their attacks go through hardened shields id be fine with, keeping the immortal as a counter to marauders/thors but not tanks and zealots/carriers counter tanks) to have position mech play be "mech" instead of a new ultra marauder being "mech"
and im a master protoss, advocating an extreme tank buff here
I like your thinking here, my friend. Let me play TvP a bit more like how we all did in BW (in addition to having MMM as a viable option.)
I hope Blizzard listens to its beta testers. A researchable upgrade to tank damage/hitpoints + something like spider mines (maybe a patched widow mine) + something like the Goliath would make mech viable and fun. It would also make it like Broodwar, which is why Blizzard probably won't do it. But would it really be so awful to let Terran mech be Broodwar style if that's what the players/customers/fans want?
This was a fantastic post Orb! I have very similar feelings on this.
My biggest reason why I dislike the Warhound is that it doesn't add anything to the idea of mech. Yeah its a factory unit, but its not a mech unit. Mech is a slow, expensive, and terrifying army once it gets maxed. That right there even brings in a storyline to the idea of mech. Which is being broken down with the addition of this new unit.
On September 11 2012 21:34 xHQx wrote: *before hots beta* terrans is so hard need to 2x more actions and micro all units so hard *after hots beta* we needed more micro for Zerg/Protoss, not less for us
FIXED
After reading some comments on community mods I fouund StarBoW to really have potential. No a-move units to speak of, and a lot of the anti-micro mechanics in SC2 have been removed, while a lot of the gameplay improvements have been preserved. Seeing matches in this mod really reminds me of seeing (low-level) BW games. If anything this proves that the BW type gameplay is not only possible, its also quite simple to achieve.
I have to agree that this post is kind of ridiculous and too little/too late. If you apply the standards you set in your post, you'd be complaining about half the units in the game. Its so funny that because terran is getting a unit they DON'T have to micro and is not completely useless, the community is up in arms. I'm not saying that its well designed, but even blizzard has said they WANT to give terran an A move unit. So that is where this game is going unfortunately; instead of elevating the difficulty and finesse of the other races, they want to bring terran down to that philosophy. But hey, maybe the foreigners can win things when the game is designed with that philosophy, it worked a little for WoL!
As much as I agree with your overall argument, there's a CON in high difficulty mechanics that you're not giving its fair credit, and that's accessibility.
Case in point the success of League of Legends and its low difficulty mechanics and highly accessible game play.
Terran is the least accessible of the three races currently, which is why it is also the least popular globally on the ladder. Pros make it work and it's definitely a ton of fun to watch, but that fun does oftentimes not transfer over to the lower leaguers on the ladder.
That's where I think Blizzard is focusing right now with the Warhound, and that's also where Terran is struggling the most. Not at the top level where it's already super successful.
That's the argument anyway. Like I said already, I totally agree with your view and I absolutely HATE what the Warhound currently brings to the race, but there is an argument to be made for increasing the accessibility of not just Terran but Starcraft 2 in general, that in the OP you've completely avoided.
Orb you wrote an excellent and well thought out post which I whole heartedly believe. What I am more interested is how do you propose this change to the Starcraft 2 blizzard game design team. Changing the mindset of game design philosophy is a major challenge and somewhat almost impossible feat. Since you have the motivation, how will you implement this kind of change? Will your course of action have any kind of influence on our community and blizzard?
Great post, both Warhound and Tempest are really shockingly badly designed units. Would much rather like to see a Factory Spell caster or something like that. Like, it's a mix between a Marauder and a Thor, i remember in WoL Beta they were so happy about how absolutely diverse and flexible all the units were. Well this unit is the exact opposite of that, I'm really surprised they didn't give it a 80mm Strike Cannon or Concussive Bombs. They could at least try to diverse it some more, like making it melee range or at least Something! Give it like a mode where it hammers downwards dealing AoE to all nearby units, somewhat like The Shredder, that they first introduced. It's just mega bland and adds just nothing to do the game, in terms of excitement.
On September 11 2012 23:03 ejozl wrote: Great post, both Warhound and Tempest are really shockingly badly designed units.
Well, as unexciting as Tempest tickles are on Hots streams, at least those are new units, and there's some skill in using them. The Warhound ? In Heart of the swarm, the unit microes you.
On September 11 2012 23:19 how2TL wrote: If there was no proscene at all, I would bet my dick that more people would play BW than SC2.
If there was no proscene 1v1 BW would have died long before it did. Most people in BW never played 1v1 and if they did they didnt enjoy it. The majority of people who played BW played UMS games, it was only the hardcore group who stuck with 1v1 and kept it alive as long as they did.
It seems most people seem to miss the point of the Warhounds existence. It IS meant to be in a similar role as the Marauder. BUT to encourage the Mech tech path, which includes the mech (sans bio) upgrades, by making it more mobile and less susceptible to the vast mobility of Stalkers and the penchant for Zergs to go mass Roach.
I am a Protoss player and I think the vids that WhiteRa has done lately indeed show that the Warhound is OP as it comes, BUT I still believe it has an important role in the Terran army. One that allows the Terran to move about more freely when going mech, rather then the quite stale inching forward that is quite common in mech oriented TvT and TvZ.
To address -orb-'s concerns directly about how entertaining units are in-game and so on, would this unit not address the 40 minute TvT games that seem so common? Hey, I love some of those games, especially any involving the initials MMA and MVP; but far too often they are just too dull.
I think the Warhound has vast potential to change a whole slew of match-ups. In its current stats it is an unrealistically powerful unit, which doesn't mean it cannot be molded to fulfill its destined role in various future epic games.
The Warhound just needs to be axed in it's current form. No discussion or number-tweaking about that. It ads no debth to the game, but only retracts, becouse it replaces the Marauder and the Siege tank.
(On a minor side note, I am surprised why there is not re-buff to the tank. So many anti-tank things are being added to the game, it makes tanks almost not worth getting at all.)
I'd actually go far as to say that ALL the SC2 units have been designed under your 1st philosophy: low difficulty mechanics leading to boring, bland, bad gameplay.
Case in point: the Collosus.
Take the cool spash damage of Reaver, change it a bit to be less random (and exciting). Fine. Then remove all its weakness: make it fast, walk over cliffs, stack on top of units and tanky. Stupid.
Why do you expect this to change in HotS? It's still Browder. He clearly never understood SCBW design. I have extremely low expectations.
how can i play terran when theres such a shit unit around. just look at these engagements. theyre neither fun for a player nor for a viewer. terran does nothing. just.. nothing. and still trades even.
On September 11 2012 23:19 how2TL wrote: If there was no proscene at all, I would bet my dick that more people would play BW than SC2.
If there was no proscene 1v1 BW would have died long before it did. Most people in BW never played 1v1 and if they did they didnt enjoy it. The majority of people who played BW played UMS games, it was only the hardcore group who stuck with 1v1 and kept it alive as long as they did.
The red line is the line of engagement and decides the winner. The number "50" is the number of Warhounds each opponent has. On the left is a draw. On the right side B wins. We will be able to predict every battle's outcome this way by the time Blizzard is finished.
On September 11 2012 23:54 Sajiki wrote: how can i play terran when theres such a shit unit around. just look at these engagements. theyre neither fun for a player nor for a viewer. terran does nothing. just.. nothing. and still trades even.
if this unit stays in the game i will switch races or not play hots. what the fuck blizzard.
Posts like this are actually comical.
Have you ever played TvP in WoL? I can assure you using a ghost/MMM composition vs chargelot/archon/HT (amove + T) makes it appear as though the protoss does nothing...just....nothing...and doesn't trade even but obliterates the entire Terran army, then warps in 15 zealots. The level of hypocrisy in this thread from people who have never even played the game is incredible.
On September 11 2012 23:19 how2TL wrote: If there was no proscene at all, I would bet my dick that more people would play BW than SC2.
If there was no proscene 1v1 BW would have died long before it did. Most people in BW never played 1v1 and if they did they didnt enjoy it. The majority of people who played BW played UMS games, it was only the hardcore group who stuck with 1v1 and kept it alive as long as they did.
for me was the opposite, BW was a trash game for me at the start when what all I was doing, was playing ums and 2v2, i start enjoying BW only with 1v1 and the better i became at the game the more i enjoyed it
On September 11 2012 23:54 Sajiki wrote: how can i play terran when theres such a shit unit around. just look at these engagements. theyre neither fun for a player nor for a viewer. terran does nothing. just.. nothing. and still trades even.
if this unit stays in the game i will switch races or not play hots. what the fuck blizzard.
Posts like this are actually comical.
Have you ever played TvP in WoL? I can assure you using a ghost/MMM composition vs chargelot/archon/HT (amove + T) makes it appear as though the protoss does nothing...just....nothing...and doesn't trade even but obliterates the entire Terran army, then warps in 15 zealots. The level of hypocrisy in this thread from people who have never even played the game is incredible.
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned.
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening
I feel bad replying to this comment when there are so many more deserving comments that very intelligent posters made, but for some reason I feel drawn to do so anyways as there have been a couple people on other sites making similarly silly posts...
First off you should understand I'm a random player, not a protoss player. Protoss may be my best race, but I'm not a competitor. I'm no pro, I don't make posts for the purpose of buffing "my race" so that I can win more tournaments. I'm a caster. There is really no possible reason at all for me to want one race to be more powerful than the other. All I want is the best possible spectator experience, so that my audience will enjoy watching, the game will thrive, and I will enjoy casting and legitimately get excited enough to hype the players and their play up.
Secondly if you actually read my post instead of reading the title and assuming you know what I said, you'll notice I actually do reference how the colossus is an extreme failure in comparison to the reaver. I am not making an attack only on the Warhound, I am making an attack on all easy-mode low-risk/high-reward units and more importantly the design philosophy that leads to these types of units. I just use the Warhound as the focus and biggest example because it is probably the biggest offender that also does not even add anything to the game. While I hate units like the colossus (I have said so many times during WoL beta and release that it is my least favorite unit of all time and I even refused to build it for most of my Beta competitive career), at least they serve some purpose in the game, while the warhound really doesn't add anything other than a way to play mech exactly like the way people play bio.
Also, were I to make a thread today saying why the colossus should be removed, I can 100% guarantee it would be ignored by blizzard. It is much more likely in my opinion that if I make a thread with regards to a more current and immediate issue (as they are just now trying to make HotS balanced) that I will be able to change Blizzard's mind about their design philosophy in general.
It's an extreme long-shot, I am aware. At this point however I find myself becoming extremely motivated to do something, because I don't want to see my favorite game franchise become boring and lose the fun/excitement, which seems to be the direction Blizzard is taking it. I can no longer just sit idly by and let them ruin this game that used to be so unbelievably beautiful and inspiring.
<3 Can't say I disagree with anything you said in this thread.
I have followed teamliquid.net for years now, and I log in to my account for the first time in years, only to comment that this post was fucking beautiful...
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design
First of all your argument makes zero sense, you take the basic mechanic of every ranged unit in the game and try to use it against the warhound (WTF?). Then you admit you're wrong by adding the bold text. Were you hoping that nobody actually pays attention or what? I did read the entire post and this is pretty much what's supposed to be your core argument, everything else is just examples and theory crafting (well written though). However, when it comes down to why you think the warhound should be removed, you have no real reasons except the one i mentioned earlier. Which you yourself admit that applies to every range unit in the game. At least get some decency and ask for the redesign/removal of immortals, roaches, stalkers, etc as well OR come up with a legit argument against the warhound itself. Trying to get a single unit removed for having the same basic mechanics as half the units in the game is childish, hypocritical and disrespectful to anyone who actually reads your post.
Maybe 6 months ago, a few friends and I were playing some custom BW games for fun. None of us had ever played BW seriously, and I was probably the only one of us who even knew what TL was. I picked Protoss, and as soon as the game loaded, I realized: I have absolutely no idea what to do. I didn't know any builds, hadn't even really watched enough BW to have even a vague notion of what a good Protoss composition in PvZ looked like, but I knew that reaver drops were a thing. So I made some cannons, made a shuttle, made a reaver, fumbled around looking for my friend's base, and proceeded to execute probably the most awfully clumsy reaver drop in the history of Starcraft. But I blew up his whole drone line, and it was one of the more nerve-wracking /exhilarating /awesome moments I've ever had playing videogames.
All of which is a roundabout way of saying: people who are new to a game may be terrible at it, but they are not infants. Show them something cool, whether it be a reaver drop or setting up baneling landmines, and show them how to do it themselves--literally, what buttons on the screen to press, if need be--and they'll end up having more fun in the long run than they will watching a colossus barbecue some marines. But somebody who really is new to Starcraft, who perhaps doesn't even know that a pro scene exists--in short, the sort of casual player whose interest Blizzard would like to do more to maintain--that sort of player does need some direction. Maybe just an advanced tutorial: here's a little clip of an archon toilet. Doesn't that look awesome? Okay, here's how you do it yourself. See? Now you're having more fun than you were before.
The awfulness of the warhound aside, I do think that Blizzard is moving in the direction of more interesting, more difficult, more micro-able units with HotS. But if they want to broaden and deepen the player base, they need to help spread an appreciation for the things that make Starcraft awesome, they need to present new players with more than seemingly random banners on the home screen for tournaments and a "Find Match" button, or most of those uninitiated players and just going to try the campaign and then move on to something else.
Very well written thread, If they think Terran is too hard in lower leagues why not just make Zerg and Protoss harder? I do not understand Blizzard anymore.
umm... toss and zerg have an indredible amount of a-moving units and now you want to take the first viable amoveunit for terran out of the game again? i think it's a good thing when there's a way that terran is as easy as the other races.
Dragoon is a simple unit with nothing but ranged attack too -- why isn't anyone bashing it for being lame?
The reason is that the Warhound's problem is not just its simple ranged attack, but a combination of easy unit pathing, high damage output per second, multiple unit selection.
It's a much deeper problem than just what's being discussed here
Right on. I was hoping blizzard would change direction with this new expansion and try to fix on some of the fundamental things it fucked up on but instead they are continuing down the same path. This was always inevitable however. BW is the best RTS ever created. It is a collossal task to recreate such a masterpiece without making it identical.
Units i'd like to see removed for their bad design: colossi, marauder, hydra, warhound, tempest, corruptor, baneling (this is more of a grudge agaisnt banelings as they take lurker's spot), swarm host.
PS. To anyone that says "this isnt BW! go play bw if you want BW!!!": Two words for you: F and U.
i agree with orb about the whole A-move thing and the game being easy, but the fact is that the entire game consists of those units.
colossi, thors, roaches, hydras, ultras, broodlords, carriers, zealots, archons, marines, etc etc... in order to change this you would have to resdesign every unit in the game as well as remove a few units. colossi, thors, and Mship are units that i believe should have NEVER gotten past the beta stages and its utterly stupid that they did. infact colossi itself is the embodiment of the A move deathball in SC2.
so honestly because of all these units and the addition of even more easy mode units like the warhound i beleive that blizzard has reached the point of no return. the reason for that IMO is because of blizzards decision to make this a "spectators" sport so they wanted it to be pure non stop action. thus adding A move lazer beam units.
Attack move units are fine. The units that require micro just need to be better than them when used properly so top level players won't generally use the attack move units.
I have next to no faith in Blizzard's balance team. I continue to think they largely got lucky copying from SC1. (Except the Phoenix - beautifully designed unit there).
This is why I'm not going to be buying HOTS until I see how others like the changes. I just don't see the allure.
Very well written post Orb. At the moment I only really watch SC2 to cheer on specific players I enjoy seeing. To tell you the truth I was one of the people who went BW -> SC2 -> Dota2. At least Icefrog knows what he is doing...
On September 12 2012 01:02 Ballistixz wrote: i agree with orb about the whole A-move thing and the game being easy, but the fact is that the entire game consists of those units.
colossi, thors, roaches, hydras, ultras, broodlords, carriers, zealots, archons, marines, etc etc... in order to change this you would have to resdesign every unit in the game as well as remove a few units. colossi, thors, and Mship are units that i believe should have NEVER gotten past the beta stages and its utterly stupid that they did. infact colossi itself is the embodiment of the A move deathball in SC2.
Broodlords and zealots need to be microed against ; they have quite a bit of micro potential. Carriers could be awesome.... Ultas not only must be microed against - but if you say they're a move then you've never seen Stephano and Idra play (Steph being the good example, and Idra showing exactly how much of a failure amoving ultras most of the time is) But marines ? Something tells me you've never seen a Korean terran micro marines. Marines have enormous skill cap and micro potential.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
lol what the fuck is this.
Marines are not comparable at all to BattleCruisers.
I would love to see some examples of overlapping units in BW. Go on.
Nothing special about the vulture? How about not needing to stop to shoot? or laying mines to control space or make for escape routes? Speed? They don't trigger mines?
Nothing special about the lurkers? Lurkers are not immobile hellions. They get cloaked and immobile when burrowed, but are really fast when walking (which let's them create pincer attacks). They can be stopped to act like baneling bombs (or should I say Banelings can act like stop lurkers?). Their spines can be dodged. I wonder how different the Collosus would be if it's laser was slower and it could be dodged to mitigate it's damage. Lurkers also are made from eggs which are beefy and can be use to block ramps or paths, but also used to shield hydras under storm or irradiate.
You are seriously critiquing BW balance? You are pretty much clueless.
The Reaver epitomizes everything that's good about brood war. A hard to master unit which would die in 5 seconds in the hands of a new player but can be devastating in the hands of someone who knows how to play. It creates situational terrain advantage, it enforces the player to not look away from it too much and makes a tech path viable, thus creating more openings and game plans. All this while being viable in all 3 Protoss match-ups.
The Warhound is a terribly designed unit. In addition to being a boring, easy to use unit, it does not contribute to mech style play because it is neither a fast but weak raider unit or a powerful but immobile unit.
In my opinion, the Warhound should either be a slow and powerful unit (or a fast and weak unit, but I don't think that's going to happen) or completely removed. I think mech-style play should become more viable, not less, because mech has the potential to add an interesting dynamic to all the terran matchups.
To all Protoss of the Beta ....welcom to the Terran side of things were having the units is not enough
Airplay, WarpPrism Immortal, Oracle, StormDrop, DT, Blink Mirco.... Show your best and stop QQing about a unit.. Terran always found a way to beat stuff, got nerfed all the time...now Warhound is the reward...
Orb is wrong with saying this will make all the mechanics too easy to be interesting.. Blizzard is genius to introduce the Warhound to FORCE protoss not to play passive. This will result in more exciting games since the 200 vs 200 Battle is not favorable by either side, not a one sided slaugther witch 3-3 Colossi and Storm. Warhound should not effect TvZ since there will be a Muta threat all the time.
By the way...everyone here who claims not to buy HotS is a dirty liar
well lets be honest here, terran is by far the least friendly 1a race. i'm oldschool and think bw is the far superior game, but when it comes to sc2, unit design is just way too messed up already to complain about terran finally getting a real 1a unit.
the conclusion would have been making protoss and zerg harder to micro ...
am i the only one that finds "you protoss needs to ____ or zerg or terran" whats the point of pointing fingers at other race users? i understand its fine as a joke like protoss in bw but some people here are taking it very seriously, as if their race is their pride and aggressive attitude towards other races
the point is not what certain race needs in their arsenal, the point is that the units need to be designed with micro potential in mind.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
On September 12 2012 02:10 plgElwood wrote: To all Protoss of the Beta ....welcom to the Terran side of things were having the units is not enough
Airplay, WarpPrism Immortal, Oracle, StormDrop, DT, Blink Mirco.... Show your best and stop QQing about a unit.. Terran always found a way to beat stuff, got nerfed all the time...now Warhound is the reward...
Orb is wrong with saying this will make all the mechanics too easy to be interesting.. Blizzard is genius to introduce the Warhound to FORCE protoss not to play passive. This will result in more exciting games since the 200 vs 200 Battle is not favorable by either side, not a one sided slaugther witch 3-3 Colossi and Storm. Warhound should not effect TvZ since there will be a Muta threat all the time.
By the way...everyone here who claims not to buy HotS is a dirty liar
QFT. Time for Tosses to use their brain in game. The age of turtling came to an end.
On September 12 2012 02:10 plgElwood wrote: To all Protoss of the Beta ....welcom to the Terran side of things were having the units is not enough
Airplay, WarpPrism Immortal, Oracle, StormDrop, DT, Blink Mirco.... Show your best and stop QQing about a unit.. Terran always found a way to beat stuff, got nerfed all the time...now Warhound is the reward...
Orb is wrong with saying this will make all the mechanics too easy to be interesting.. Blizzard is genius to introduce the Warhound to FORCE protoss not to play passive. This will result in more exciting games since the 200 vs 200 Battle is not favorable by either side, not a one sided slaugther witch 3-3 Colossi and Storm. Warhound should not effect TvZ since there will be a Muta threat all the time.
By the way...everyone here who claims not to buy HotS is a dirty liar
This is a discussion from the perspective of maintaining the long term health of SC2 as a vibrant spectator e-sport, not some myopic balance whine directed at one race or another. If you can't grasp this then you are part of the problem.
This is a good thread and is something I have had a problem with for quite a long time (marauders, warp gate, force field, roaches, the list goes on). I lived through this shit in World of Warcraft when the game went from gold to garbage in the course of one expansion after the Activision merger and the same has happened to the Starcraft and Diablo franchises since then. I have little hope for the future or for the effectiveness of pleas like this thread but I do hope that I am wrong.
they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
That's not true though, I feel like Blizzard has done a pretty good job of balancing WOL; and I'll admit I have complained a ton in the past about how "underpowered" Terran is, etc.
Right now I think WOL is balanced pretty well, and it seems as if Blizzard is taking more of an interest in making sure HoTS ends up the same way, which makes me confident that they'll get it right eventually. That being said, I do think the Warhound should be completely redesigned.
On September 10 2012 21:14 Evangelist wrote: The only condition that a unit requires for inclusion in a game is that it has substantive differences than another unit. That is why a battlecruiser and a marine are able to co-exist despite arguably being comparable to each other (terrans only have two low damage rapid fire units). The only problem with the warhound is that it overlaps far too much with the marauder and at the same time is also better than the marauder. This is due to the following reasons:
- it costs the same supply and only slightly higher amounts of resources - it is more mobile - it carries improved damage against nearly all of the opponents a marauder is expected to face - it has a longer range - it has higher HP - it can be mass repaired
So for the same supply you get improved damage, longer range, more mobility, high survivability and the ability to be repaired. It is even larger, so it suffers less from siege tank fire.
There were plenty of overlapping units in BW. This constant harping on about the reaver and the dragoon and so on - there was nothing particularly special about the dragoon or the vulture or lurkers. Lurkers were just immobile hellions. Dragoons were just stalkers with a bit more damage. The vulture doesn't even have the micro of the hellion for gods sake.
The only unit people keep going on about is the reaver. Well you know what? I've had it with the reaver. I'm going to call it what it was. It was a complete design failure. It was a stupid unit that couldn't survive without entire tactics being based around its use. It was slow, buggy and looked ridiculous. There was no micro involved in the reaver without the use of shuttles. It lagged a mile behind every other unit, it required extra building micro in a game already overloaded with it. What's more, it was a dumb fire unit - it just did splash damage in a game completely overloaded with splash damage
The reaver epitomised everything that was wrong with BW design. It epitomised everything people misunderstand about system design. The colossus is a far better unit.
woooooooooooat? that is some gross, gross and disgusting reasoning sir. and your nickname LOL, what flaw don't you have?
This is the truth, i used to play RTS when i was 8-10 and loved it, but i soon realized that they all handled the same and they were all pretty simple, and really not that fun to play after a couple times.
Then, after 8 years of FPS games, i saw a youtube video of Husky casting a pro game, talking about how difficult it was to do what it was I was watching, I learned about the pro scene, and how everybody said it was so difficult to master. Thats why i picked up sc2. Because I didnt play zelda for the graphics, i didnt play racing games for the cars, or mario party to see cute cartoon characters. I became a gamer because after running into these games they were FUN TO PLAY, and HARD, therefore REWARDING TO MASTER.
I'm not asking for the re-incarnation of Chess, i'm asking for a game that doesnt devolve back 10 years into basic unit types with basic rolls and basic gameplay.
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
Whats really sad imo is that they think casuals dont play this game because its hard rather than because of its poor uninteresting and overall bad game design, units that have no soul, cartoonish graphics, poor rts engine, epic fail battlenet, and the fact that the game doesnt suck you in neither with its MP nor SP. Casuals dont play because its not fun, not because its too hard. And I love the people who are in denial about these very serious matters!
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
Whats really sad imo is that they think casuals dont play this game because its hard rather than because of its poor uninteresting and overall bad game design, units that have no soul, cartoonish graphics, poor rts engine, epic fail battlenet, and the fact that the game doesnt suck you in neither with its MP nor SP. Casuals dont play because its not fun, not because its too hard. And I love the people who are in denial about these very serious matters!
Not true. Many times i didn't ladder because i felt I am in too terrible shape to even stand up even ground with Toss or Zerg. Terran is not a race for casuals ATM - Warhound, as Blizz stated many times, is to change that.
On September 11 2012 01:28 red4ce wrote: I wonder if maybe the blandness of the warhound isn't a terran problem, but a zerg/protoss one. Looking back at the goliath and the dragoon, there really isn't anything inspired about their design. What made these units fun to watch was that they had an opponent worthy of micro-ing against rather than just 1a2a3a4a. For the goliath this opponent was the carrier and for the dragoon it was the vulture/spidermine.
Why don't we see this sort of thing in SC2? It isn't because the units are too limited in design. Ground units can split and target fire in SC2 just as they could in BW. It's because there aren't any enough situations for this kind of micro to take place.
The other big thing here are the distinct range tiers that everything has.
Spider mine range < marine range = dragoon range (unupgraded) < vulture range < dragoon range (upgraded) < tank range
The fact that dragoons can kite marines (they can't kite vultures since vultures are faster than goons) all day but not tanks makes micro vs say, a fake double, very, very interesting. It's not JUST the spider mines that do this.
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
Whats really sad imo is that they think casuals dont play this game because its hard rather than because of its poor uninteresting and overall bad game design, units that have no soul, cartoonish graphics, poor rts engine, epic fail battlenet, and the fact that the game doesnt suck you in neither with its MP nor SP. Casuals dont play because its not fun, not because its too hard. And I love the people who are in denial about these very serious matters!
difficulty doesnt explain bw's success and in terms of unit synergy and things to do, micro prowess, bw offers so much more which makes it more fun
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
Whats really sad imo is that they think casuals dont play this game because its hard rather than because of its poor uninteresting and overall bad game design, units that have no soul, cartoonish graphics, poor rts engine, epic fail battlenet, and the fact that the game doesnt suck you in neither with its MP nor SP. Casuals dont play because its not fun, not because its too hard. And I love the people who are in denial about these very serious matters!
difficulty doesnt explain bw's success and in terms of unit synergy and things to do, micro prowess, bw offers so much more which makes it more fun
The same things that make BW more fun to watch make it more difficult and frustrating to play. Much steeper curve.
Orb, what a well written piece. I agree with everything you said, and it is a sad thing when not just blizzard but other big game companies make games the same way.
Oh yea btw first post after about 2 years of no account and only lurking hai everyone ;p
I would disagree with the OP in that I think easy a-move units don't need to be removed from the game. BW had plenty of A-move units too. Instead, A-move units need to be underpowered when compared to their more skilled bretheren. A newbie should be able to utilize an a-move unit and walk over other unskilled players, but a skilled player should have a skilled method of consistently countering that unit.
The warhound is fine if it's underpowered at the pro level, but that's not what we're seeing. Meanwhile, units like the raven need to be overpowered, not balanced, at the pro level of skill. As long as each race has both the easy-to-use underpowered units, the middle-skill balanced units, and the hard-to-use overpowered units, then we'll see relatively even curves of player development in all races.
As it stands now, Terran seems to have to consistently rely on medium or high skill units in order to defeat low-medium skilled opposing units and only the very tip top elite Terrans are capable of doing it. Meanwhile, the tip-top elite zergs and especially protosses are getting stuck in a bunch with nobody able to separate himself from the pack.
With protoss especially, it seems like either every pro is doing well in the current balance patch and meta-game or every pro is doing poorly. Seems like the game isn't rewarding the high-skill units for protoss.
1) Warhound. We all know it has overlapping roles with too many units in the game and serves no other purpose than being a direct counter to immortals ( and A-move ). I completely agree with that -orb- said. Couldn't have said it better myself. Let's just scrap this unit.
2) I know some people are asking for some sort of goliath remake. But if you really think about it, the thor is essentially a goliath remake! Blizzard tried to remake the thor multiple times. They tried to make it a hero unit like the mothership.. they made it smaller so that it is easier to control, but then not small enough to seem like a goliath. Seems blizzard is trying to put the goliath into the game, but by not actually putting the goliath in. Make up your bloody mind, blizzard.
DB: "Oh maybe we can bring back the goliath by introducing a similar unit model and we call it the warhound? Sound good right? Right? RIGHT? RIGHT?" Me: "No, I don't think so Dustin."
3) Initially, the hellion was vulture + firebats hybrid.. Now, lets give the players the choice of going 60% vulture 40%firebat or 70% firebat 30% vulture!!
You might as well make them two separate units and let the player choose what to make. DB: "But wait.. the viking unit design was such a success! I love transformers!"
I think hellions are already very well designed. Despite being quite similar to the vulture, it is still distinct enough. It's also a very exciting unit to watch from a spectator POV. In my opinion, the hellions should be kept the same. Maybe throw in an upgrade to make them more viable for late game -- higher dmg output, more splash etc.
4) Bring back spider mines but make them standalone units. Isn't that really similar to the baneling? which is essentially a hybrid between the scourge and spider mine. You gonna give the protoss some of these nasty babies in LotV too?
Having said that, I still like the idea of crawling tank lines and spider mines across the map. It complements the mech philosophy very nicely.
5) Moving onto my proposed solutions: a) If we were to keep the hellions the same, we need something beefy to stand between our tanks and the enemy lings/zealot. I think a melee mech unit would be a good idea. The hellion can still be built at the player's will, and can still be used to protect the tank lines.. But it should be kept as a unit more suited for raiding and fast hit/run situations. You simply cannot have a unit that is Beefy/fast/has splash dmg/melee ALL with one click, one transformation. Players should make that conscious decision when they are queueing up units for production. We don't need a one-size-fit-all C&C unit that is built en masse.
b) The Thor is an extremely tanky unit, and it can shoot everything (up and down), but the down side of that is it is very slow. Sounds like a good concept on paper, but what we end up having is an extremely boring unit to watch, and an extremely frustrating unit to use. Also, the thor shuts down stacked air units completely.. which is reasonable given it's slow movement/atk speed, but imo the air attack serves a very niche role -- which is to completely shutdown mutalisks.
A zerg player with good mutalisk control can evade archons ( they, too, have anti-air splash). However the thors have insane range. If the zerg player goes in blindly with 3-4 thors waiting, that's just about the end of the mutalisk play. No amount of fancy micro can save your from that.
Proposed solution? The thor's anti-air seems to be tailored for anti-muta play, and it's decent ground attack + beefy hp/armor serves as protection for the tank line. Why not split it into two units? Create another tanky mech units that is not a hellion/firebat transformer. Also, create a smaller, more micro friendly anti-air mech unit. Because if you think about it.. mech play is very vulnerable to air -- nothing shoots up! In Bw, it is very common to built turrets along with your siege tank/spider mine lines for better board control. Bring in an anti-air unit that is mobile enough and effective enough to win any even-food GtA battle, but don't give it a massive anti-air burst dmg like the thor.. that way, it gives micro play more room to grow. Players need to position these anti air units strategically to catch mutalisks, while players with good muta control will not be punished too severely.
Final words: It is my intention to not describe these proposed unit in too much detail. I believe that a creative unit design is crucial, for both gameplay and spectating. That is why I only suggested a role for the new unit to fit, as well as highlight the issues with the current mech composition. Right now many units fulfill similar roles.. they are boring, give tendency to A-move/deathball syndrome, and it just feels like the unit design is all over the place.
actually i lost my interest in sc2 a while ago. i hoped hots would change it, but it seems rather disappointing for what i have seen so far. that´s why i think OP is damn right. blizzard is losing its rep.
i´m just happy TL added dota2, so i still come here quite often
On September 12 2012 03:58 RenSC2 wrote: I would disagree with the OP in that I think easy a-move units don't need to be removed from the game. BW had plenty of A-move units too. Instead, A-move units need to be underpowered when compared to their more skilled bretheren. A newbie should be able to utilize an a-move unit and walk over other unskilled players, but a skilled player should have a skilled method of consistently countering that unit.
The warhound is fine if it's underpowered at the pro level, but that's not what we're seeing. Meanwhile, units like the raven need to be overpowered, not balanced, at the pro level of skill. As long as each race has both the easy-to-use underpowered units, the middle-skill balanced units, and the hard-to-use overpowered units, then we'll see relatively even curves of player development in all races.
As it stands now, Terran seems to have to consistently rely on medium or high skill units in order to defeat low-medium skilled opposing units and only the very tip top elite Terrans are capable of doing it. Meanwhile, the tip-top elite zergs and especially protosses are getting stuck in a bunch with nobody able to separate himself from the pack.
With protoss especially, it seems like either every pro is doing well in the current balance patch and meta-game or every pro is doing poorly. Seems like the game isn't rewarding the high-skill units for protoss.
i agree. it´s been the overpowered units that made bw great. yet it was balanced since every race had those.
In SC/BW most units seemed overpowered in certain situations and weak in others.
That was the true beauty of it, this has just not translated over to SC2 well... Except with some of the old BW units that did not change totally like the Zergling/Marine/Zealot or had removed their hard counters and microcapability like Mutas...
The new units are next to all "meh". The Baneling and Hellion are probably the best "new" units.
I'd be surprised if you made a poll and even 15% voted that the warhound, in it's current state of usage (regardless of actual balance) is even "acceptable" as a unit.
Great post. I remember watching your stream the first time a warhound popped out of a factory..."what the fuck is that, it's walking so fast it doesn't even seem real, looks like a joke, is this some sort of blizzard troll?"
I also don't like the warhound. I can't see any interesting synergies for it. Also I don't see how the warhound in any form promotes the usage of siege tanks.
I agree 100%. I love almost all of the changes in HotS, but the Warhound is just so repulsive, and when I watched my first HotS TvT (TvT is one of my favorite matchup in WoL), I nearly crid T_T
the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote: the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: A lot of angry reactionaries are already calling for the warhound to be nerfed, and blizzard seems to be listening, as they have responded by nerfing its attack speed in the recent patch. I disagree with this approach on the grounds that no amount of 'balancing' will fix the incredible blot on SC:BW2 that is the warhound. Instead, it must be completely destroyed.
The warhound is an attack move unit, by which I mean that it doesn't give me any opportunity to use my fancy gm level micro to make it effective. You only have to push one button and walk into the enemy army.
Literally the only thing I can use my 300 apm for is target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds and I could do that for loads of other things already! Literally any ranged unit even marines - and I always make a million of those anyway so I don't need more stuff like that!
To understand why it's bad, let's make up a reason why it could be good, and wildly speculate at the design philosophy Blizzard seems to be approaching the game with.
Without any recourse to boring facts or research I have come to the conclusion that there are fundamentally two conflicting philosophies for game design that apply to Starcraft.
The first is that you design a game that will be fun to watch and it will inspire people to play. To say that again, but longer, this philosophy relies on the people who are watching pro level matches enjoying watching pro level matches and wanting to emulate what they see in them on their own.
For example, to draw on a game that was already perfect, in Brood War you might watch a TSL match with JF, see him absolutely demolishing people with reavers, and be inspired to go try out some shuttle/reaver micro yourself. Since reaver/shuttle micro is difficult, you may fail at first. However for the true fans, who don't get fed up when they fail and quit, with a little practice you too (I assume you're all high level gamers like me) can enjoy the fun.
The second (AKA Blizzard's) design philosophy is to create a game that everyone can easily become immediately expert at - which isn't fair because it took me 5 years to reach GM - and thus you attract new players because people who start to play are not discouraged by the difficulty.
With this approach, viewers can watch pros demolishing everything (especially the destructible landscape) with colossi, and then even if they are in bronze league, they too can build loads of colossi and use giant laser beams to obliterate everything, especially the landscape as it doesn't fight back. Hopefully the other guy won't have realised this guaranteed-win technique and won't also have an army of colossi.
Since I don't like making colossi because they are no fun (using my spare apm to walk them comically up and down cliffs just isn't amusing enough) unfortunately this 'make a colossus' build is particularly effective against me.
When a game is too easy, as it is when you realise you only need to build a colossus to win, it is fun the first couple times feeling like a big man and then completely loses its charm and gets boring when you have smashed all the noobs and are #1 na ladder. That's why you don't get people losing games on purpose so they can keep playing easy bronze guys - it's too easy and nobody likes that.
I love the narrative puzzle game Portal to death, but once you have solved all the puzzles and worked out what you are supposed to do and you know how to get through all the levels and you don't need to work out the solutions, it is so easy that it is just not fun or worth the time anymore, rather like if I made you read the same idea five times - it's just a waste of time!
In order for video games to continue being played for years instead of taking the route of pretty much every single EA title and needing to be replaced with sort of the same game a year later, they must have some inherent difficulty that is not knowledge based. Anything that's only difficult because you don't know what to do will no longer be difficult once you know what to do.
This is where execution and tactics in Starcraft come in. If the game was only strategy and no tactics (I don't need to explain the difference there) it would get boring really fast and wouldn't be a popular esport.
It's the never-ending challenge of executing a tricky task that makes playing starcraft so much fun no matter how many times you have already played it. How is it even possible to keep building scvs and marines without forgetting and also at the same time making supply depots? that is a challenge that can never be totally overcome and that's what makes the game so enjoyable. Blizzard just don't get that.
Low difficulty mechanics
Pros: Newbies get less frustrated because the game's basic mechanics are less of an obstacle.
Cons: These same newbies get bored quickly because all they have to do is build a colossus and no one likes those.
Esports is delegitimized and Pro matches are not fun to watch because any bronze newbie could execute what they see just as well as the pros (obviously this is an extreme example taken to hyperbole).
As a result, the game does not last nearly as long in popularity because the reward of mastering a difficult skill is no longer there and it's just about strategy instead of mechanics.
High difficulty mechanics
Pros: People who have started playing the game and already enjoy it get inspired to actually spend time playing the game more because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible.
It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered. Players actually enjoy the game because despite the crushing frustration, there is an inherent enjoyment in having practiced something difficult and executing it correctly.
Pro matches are more fun to watch and esports flourishes because people LOVE watching other people do things they can't do. What? You don't believe me? You mentalist! come on!! You wouldn't catch an expert magician watching another magician though, because if you can do the trick for yourself in the mirror what's the point??
Cons: Newbies get more frustrated because they cannot perform tactics they see professionals use without dedicating several hours (probably after work) practising small techniques instead of playing on ladder.
So now that I've quickly cleared up why having difficult mechanics is important, let's go back to the warhound. There is absolutely nothing difficult about this unit. It practically teleports, so you don't have to already 'be in the right place at the right time' instead you can magically appear wherever you need it.
All you do is attack move and then either go back to macro or sit there staring and watching, bored out of your mind because there is so little micro to do as mech in midgame (until you get ravens or are using siege tanks, and don't do that because it would kinda ruin my point)
Pro matches will never be inspiring to anyone, because they know they could execute exactly what the pro is doing just as well (not hard to attack move).
This is why I do not believe the warhound should be balanced. No amount of tweaking values to make it 'BLAHtistically' balanced will make it a good unit for the health of starcraft either as an esport or as a casual, fun game, because easy relaxing things like World of Warcraft and Farmville will never catch on.
The Warhound needs to be overhauled, or completely redesigned like with less legs or something so it can only hop in circles When creating new units, I would implore Blizzard to look at the design philosophies that made Brood War my favourite game. Many units were considered extremely overpowered in certain ways (dark swarm, anyone?), but in order to make this work, they would sacrifice strength in another way.
Let's look at the Reaver. I use the Reaver as my example because it's my favourite. Nothing got me more riled up than the nervous anticipation of seeing scarabs running towards their target, not knowing if they would hit or not or how much damage would be done.
At the same time, they took an immense amount of skill to use properly. Since their AoE attack was clearly ridiculously overpowered, it was balanced out by making it hopelessly immobile and by making the ammunition cost resources and take time to build.
Thus the difficulty of the reaver is as follows: You need to get a reaver, get a shuttle, get ammo. Then when you engage you have to babysit your shuttle (because if you let it die it's mum will kill you), drop the reavers, target fire, and then pick them back up in the shuttle to hide while they wait to be able to shoot again. There is literally nothing remotely like this in SC2.
You can be assured a newbie would not pick up starcraft and go for a 2 reaver shuttle drop until they had played the game for months trying to master basic macro play, but it looks beautiful in pro matches and is not so difficult to emulate at a low level (but just difficult enough). You might not have the game sense of the beautiful JF to go exactly where you need to, and you might not have his mechanics but you are toooootally still going to be able to execute a reaver drop with a reasonable level of enjoyment no matter what level of player you are because it's difficult not like the easy warhound.
This is the example and ideal I feel Blizzard should be using with every unit they design. Make a unit that is difficult to use perfectly, so that it's fun to use every time and will inspire viewers. If you make an easy-to-use unit like the Warhound, you might not discourage newbies at first but you certainly won't encourage them to continue playing, as the unit isn't actually fun to use.
You might liek colour-by-numbers when you are 3 but once you are a grown up, these types of 'EASY PEASY' activities hold no enjoyment. Adults with a lot of time to commit to niche pursuits generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of masterbatable difficulty.
So why is this game being designed for children when it is rated T for Teen? TEENAGERS LOVE DIFFICULT NON SELF GRATIFYING THINGS OMFG
Q. Even if you do not agree with the enormous rant above, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
A. Because sneaking in and killing a nexus in 5 seconds then running off is really super fun.
It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen.
On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote: the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
Neo Halls of Valhalla i remember yellow had to play on that map twice vs boxer in bo 5,XD
what are some of the most imbalanced maps? just curious...
To people who say, well all ranged units are 1A units, well these units have since and especially in the beta been discussed to death. The Marauder, The Roach, The Immortal, The Colossus and now the Warhound. There is a reason for this, these units are actually pretty badly designed. Personally i pretty much like The Colossus, since it's way of dealing splash damage is in a line and that's at least sort of special. It can walk up cliffs, can be targeted by anti air units, it has long range and requires a bunch of units to kept alive. It also has nice synergy with other Protoss units, so to be honest, i like the Colossus. The one i hate the most is the Immortal, since it overlaps with the Stalker, it's a counter unit and in my opinion it's just so boring.. I think the Marauder and the Roach has potential, since Marauders have a building smashing theme and the Roach has a burrowing theme. The Warhound however is just like the Immortal, it not only overlaps with Marauder AND Thor, but it's also a counter unit and it's just boring.
On September 12 2012 05:42 SolidMoose wrote: It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen.
Yes, but if you want to win you're going to choose the best strategy. When one strategy becomes completely dominant (mass warhound, for example), play stagnates, players become frustrated, and the game dies.
On September 11 2012 23:19 how2TL wrote: If there was no proscene at all, I would bet my dick that more people would play BW than SC2.
What a ludicrous thing to say. SC2 is far more popular in the west than BW ever was, and not mainly because of the pro scene.
What is so hard to understand about 'different' times? 15 years ago people didn't have the technology or the accesibility to technology as today. Gaming wasn't nearly as excepted as it is today. So many factors to include. And BW was quite popular in the west, the tournaments organized back in 2000+ also had 1000's of people coming to play and watch bw games.
The trouble with the internet is it's hard to tell a troll from a bad argument. I sure hope this thread was a troll, because the basic argument is so bad.
The guts of the argument seems to be: 1) warhound is a ranged unit 2) ranged units cannot be micro'd 3) without micro, the game has no replay value 4) therefore, warhounds are killing esports
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Firstly, warhounds are irrelevent entirely to the argument. They're just a hot topic, which you mention to increase the number of people viewing/responding. Secondly, the assertion that ranged units cannot be micro'd is so easily refuted it's ridiculous. Target fire and running away when wounded literally the only form of micro possible for ranged units? I guess you've never seen anyone stutterstep, or spread their units (e.g. spreading marines against banelings), or set up a concave or a flank, or any of dozens of other examples I could list.
For the simplest of examples, take something that happens early in most games of PvT - protoss sends a scouting probe into the terran's opponent's base. If you're the terran, and you have a single marine, if you a-move, or target fire, or just let the marine start shooting without doing anything, that worker will get past and get into your base (or out of your base, if they got there before the marine finished). However, even this early in the game, you can use micro! With good control, you can kill that pesky worker every time, without letting it past.
Now about small numbers of stalker vs marines?. Both are ranged units, and you claim that it's not possible to do any micro to make them effective. I, and everyone else, say bullshit. A-move your stalkers into my marines and you will lose more than I will. If I micro my marines, and move command to run in close to your stalkers, I'll do even more damage. If you utilise micro and kite, and you can pick off marines without taking any damage. Holy shit, micro makes units more effective! Even ranged units!
You claim that without needing "fancy" micro to make units effective, that anyone can copy a strategy from a pro and be just as good as them, but that's simply not true. Every single unit becomes more effective when micro'd. There is no way a pro could be competetive with, say, a flat 60APM, but that's more than you need to macro and a-move.
There is a point buried in your post, underneath all the bullshit. It's a point I disagree with, but it's a valid point. You want units to be less effective, even completely ineffective when not micro'd. Maybe you want all units to not shoot at all unless you select them and push a key, once for each attack. You could even make it pick a random key each time! Wouldn't that make the game so much better? If you don't concentrate on a unit, it's not effective, exactly what you wanted! Yes, that's a ridiculous and extreme example, but if you want reasoned arguments you'll have to show some yourself.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
Well, this is easy to explain: 1. Blizzard wants terran to use mech more. a. Bio is vulnerable Colossi/storm, mech isn't as bad. b. Tanks are too important in tvt, so give an auto-cast ability that makes mech much easier to use (and kills toss along the way). c. Mech has always been good vs zerg in the right hands, doesn't change much there, so zerg won't qq too much.
So how to achieve it? well marauders are pretty good vs toss, but they are bio, and they have a lot of hp so they are decent vs tanks (and banes)...so make a mech marauder that is even better vs toss and will help vs other mech as well, since mech in tvt is so dependent on tanks....Warhound is born
In BW there is only one unit that doesn't need micro : the ultralisk, because it is used in a late game situation where zerg can swarm the opponent with ultra/ling. Even the zerling/zealot need high amount of micro to be effective, there are units that need insane micro like Shuttle/Reaver/HighTemplar/Corsair/Carrier - Tank/Vulture/Vessel - Lurker/Scourge/Muta/Defiler.
Those things make battles and harasses extremely exciting to watch, but in the other hand the very same units make battles between players of different levels completely one-sided. The newbies just cannot win no matter what they do, so they keep watching the game as an esport but stop playing the game completely. In the end, the E-sport aspect of the game will develop, but the game itself becomes less popular for the casuals, and obviously the casuals are Blizz's priority, not the true gamers.
On September 12 2012 05:59 Aragnis wrote: The guts of the argument seems to be: 1) warhound is a ranged unit 2) ranged units cannot be micro'd 3) without micro, the game has no replay value 4) therefore, warhounds are killing esports
On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote: the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
Neo Halls of Valhalla i remember yellow had to play on that map twice vs boxer in bo 5,XD
what are some of the most imbalanced maps? just curious...
On September 12 2012 05:42 SolidMoose wrote: It's just as much an A move unit as all the other A move units in the game. There are still other terran units besides the warhound, just like there are other protoss units besides colossus. According to this post, SC2 is already screwed because we already have A move units, yet pros still seem to exist. So either the warhound stays or the entire game gets a full blown redesign. I'm sure everyone probably wants that but it will never happen.
Yes, but if you want to win you're going to choose the best strategy. When one strategy becomes completely dominant (mass warhound, for example), play stagnates, players become frustrated, and the game dies.
Until the warhound is finalized no strategy can be labeled as dominant. Protoss went stalker colossus for over a year before realizing how good mass zealots are. Now mass zealot is the dominant strategy for PvT in WoL. So I guess the matchup has become stagnated, and Terrans definitely have become frustrated. But the game doesn't seem dead.
My point is the things people are complaining about are already in the game.
On September 12 2012 05:59 Aragnis wrote: The trouble with the internet is it's hard to tell a troll from a bad argument. I sure hope this thread was a troll, because the basic argument is so bad.
I'm afraid that "the troll" is getting spotlined and "the bad argument" is agreed upon by 90% people who commented on this thread lool. In this case I can confirm that it's hard to tell whether you're a troll or your argument is bad :D.
You may enjoy color-by-numbers as a 3-year-old because it's not overwhelming and you get some guidance. Once you reach any reasonable age, however, these types of "easy-mode" activities hold no enjoyment. Adults generally prefer activities with some reasonable level of inherent masterable difficulty.
Wow, this is a great post! I couldn't agree more! The reason I play this game is because it is hard and there is always something to improve on. I really hope that blizzard reads your post.
On September 10 2012 17:01 Murlox wrote: I don't see Blizzard simply removing a unit they made the model / animation / sounds for. Not going to happen.
What I do see occuring is some out-of-the-blue nerf. Say Warhounds with bonus versus psionic units*? Hmmm? Now that would be an interesting change, would it not.
...
Edit : *or even bonus versus destructible rocks... Well, yeah, I'm still bitter about the ghosts.
Lurker was in WoL beta, didn't make it to the game.
On September 12 2012 05:01 Pazuzu wrote: the BW philosophy was not if something is too strong, we make it weaker. BW was basically "if everything is imbalanced, nothing is." On paper each race had things that seemed completely ridiculous, but as every race had these options, they effectively cancelled out but still led to a faster paced more intense game
Well you have to admit that a lot of the imbalances where adressed by mapmakers who put in a lot of work to even out the gameplay.
This actually is very true. It was all about the maps. If the map wasn't very carefully designed it lead to huge imbalances. However, this is pretty much the problem in all games. Due to the maps, the matchup win% tends to be similiar.
HOW they reach the 50% winrate is what's different.
On September 12 2012 05:59 Aragnis wrote: The guts of the argument seems to be: 1) warhound is a ranged unit 2) ranged units cannot be micro'd 3) without micro, the game has no replay value 4) therefore, warhounds are killing esports
No.
Read again.
Ok, I read it again. Still seems like an accurate summary of the original post. Feel free to point out what I'm missing, if it is actually there.
The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
The problem is units which create stall and boring match up situations and shitty learning curves.
If you ever played FPSs an analogy could be made with bunny hopping, wall shooting, etc. Learning techniques to manouver and use units to the max is fun. Just like making skate tricks is fun for someone who likes going around in a board.
The warhound creates no interesting relationship with any units. You simple attack move and that's that. It may looks flashy but what's to enjoy about a warhound attacking anything? Who makes the better arc? Pulling injuring ones behind? That applies even to probes and SCVs.
There's a reason people get excited when a baneling army engages a bio infantry, or when a baneling bomb is planted. Because it takes, skill and perception of the match up to engage into those situations.
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
From the original post (emphasis mine):
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant?
I completely disagree with the OP (nothing personal, of course)
I simply do not see the problem with low-micro units, and only a fool would actually call SC2 an easy game. It is way harder than most games I have ever played in fact. I just think that people complaining about the Warhound are overhyping the problem
SC2 is still a macro-focused game and there has yet to come a player with perfect macro.
TL;DR I wouldn't call SC2 easy -> i dont see a problem with easy units
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant?
The marine is not an attack move unit, the vulture is not an attack move unit, the helion is not an attack move unit, the mutalisk is not an attack move unit.
The warhound moves in, attacks and pulls out, dies or kills something.
The marines are spread, helions move while shooting to maximize the aoe/harrass workers, the vulture is microed with patrol micro/lay mines, etc.
The marine being so fragile and mobile creates interesting relationships with other units, such as banelings, stalker, etc.
edit: I bolded the part which i think is interesting. (inside the nested quote).
Lolz after the stunning realization of the fact that "We're removing carriers from the game to make room for the tempest" was not a joke I don't really see any point behind arguing on starcraft II game design. Trying to be reasonable with Blizzard is like arguing with a tree or something worse.
The thing that pisses me off is not the warhound per say, but the fact that Blizzard seems to have no understanding of (not ultra casual) players opinions. Yes It's okay that there are a bunch of quite uninteresting units that you can Attack move with in the game, every unit can't be super-complex. But when they are making an expansion where they add just a few units to each race they should have been able to make atleast 2 new interesting units that are unique and that reward skill and training.
Guess what, they didn't. I still think the Warhound design isn't worse then say the Collosi, but the point is we already have enough boring easy to learn units. Don't add more in the expansions!?
Blizzard get in touch with reality, not even casuals appreciate that they can do the same thing as a pro after just a couple of tries, not in the long run. If we are to make Starcraft 2 a respected E-sport then we need to have a skill ceiling that is way up there.
The unit made it into beta. I think Blizzard's proven that once they're at this point, no amount of community displeasure can persuade them otherwise. All you can hope now is that they somehow figure out how to balance this mess, but don't expect any of the units to be removed or replaced. I called this WAY back when we first started getting info in on HoTS and the new units, that it was going to be shit and make SC2 worse than it already is. I've lost almost complete faith now that Blizzard is competent enough to produce a polished an balanced game.
On September 12 2012 02:47 Garmer wrote: they made it a-move on purpose, nothing we can do will change their mind sadly... we should fund a kickstarter project for a BW-like-RTS; Sc2 is fucked on so many levels that is beyond repair already
That's not true though, I feel like Blizzard has done a pretty good job of balancing WOL; and I'll admit I have complained a ton in the past about how "underpowered" Terran is, etc.
Right now I think WOL is balanced pretty well, and it seems as if Blizzard is taking more of an interest in making sure HoTS ends up the same way, which makes me confident that they'll get it right eventually. That being said, I do think the Warhound should be completely redesigned.
It's not about balancing the game. First the gameplay flaws have to be addressed. Who cares if the game is balanced when it's boring, does not reward skill and promotes idiotic playstyle like deathballs and such... They should fix the damn game and only then think about balancing it.
On topic, what do you think of such replacements for the Warhound and Thor?
Morian Quaker (replacement for Warhound)
Morian Quaker is Kel-Morian mining machine refitted for military purposes (think of an industrial looking Dreadnaught). The unit would have an awesome industrial design, obviously. Its role would be mainly as a support unit, especially for mech pushes, but also as a defence tool and possibly slowing down reinforcements.
Basic characteristics:
- average HP - movement speed of Siege Tank - no attack at all by default; after researching Close Combat Kit - above average melee attack (bonus vs. armored) - tier 2.5 (Factory+Lab), upgrades require Armory but are researched in Lab
Abilities:
Seismic Mode (deployable like the Siege Mode of the Siege Tank) - default ability; allows the Morian Quaker to deploy and slow down movement of all units within its range (somewhat bigger than Shredder's attack range) by X%; Quaker in the Seismic Mode cannot attack but using Defensive Matrix is possible
Defensive Matrix - requires Close Combat Kit upgrade; gives Quaker 300 extra HP (up to balance) against ranged attacks that enables it to close the distance more easily but loses the advantage upon encountering other melee units; requires full energy to be activated, channeling "spell" that drains energy at such rate that the Matrix lasts for 10-15 seconds (up to balance, duh)
Upgrades:
Close Combat Kit - requires Armory, researched in Lab; allows the Morian Quaker to use its massive jackhammers in combat, giving the unit a formidable melee attack; unlocks Defensive Matrix ability; gives the unit energy pool - 3/4 of its default HP
Enhanced Legs - requires Armory, researched in Lab; allows Quakers to move as fast as Warhounds currently do
Morian Quaker would be an excellent support unit, mainly for a mech based army. Its role would be making sure that the enemy thinks twice before engaging your push as his units would stay within Siege Tanks' range much longer than usual, as well as guarding leap frogging Tanks from flanking enemy forces, giving Tanks enough time to deploy. They'd have to be carefully positioned in order not to slow down your own troops.
Upon researching Close Combat Kit, Morian Quakers would gain an additional role as Tank line breaking units (ordefensive positions in general), but only if used correctly - using Defensive Matrix at the right time or Medivacs to close the distance, speed upgrade would come in handy is the former situation. Matrix would make them more durable in their Seismic Mode, too.
Their weakness would be their energy pool - they'd be vulnerable to EMPs and Feedbacks (both could easily shut down Defensive Matrix), as well as light melee units (Lings, Banelings, Zealots) and air. So upgrading Close Combat Kit would come with a significant drawback. The player would have to decide whether he actually needs Close Combat Kit when using only Seismic Mode (no energy pool = no Feedback).
Loki Missile Battery (replacement for Thor)
Basic characteristics:
- movement speed and HP similar to Goliath - attack speed and damage similar to Valkyrie; Valkyrie's splash damage - attack range similar to upgraded Goliath - has to deploy in order to attack
Abilities:
Shared Targetting - passive; requires no upgrade; allows deployed Lokis to share attack range with other Lokis if their range radii overlap.
Target sharing would allow Lokis to drastically increase their range if positioned properly. E.g. Terran could place them in a triangle formation, with a tiny bit of range overlapping for all of them, allowing all of them to cover 3 times larger area!
On September 12 2012 07:09 monomo wrote: I completely disagree with the OP (nothing personal, of course)
I simply do not see the problem with low-micro units, and only a fool would actually call SC2 an easy game. It is way harder than most games I have ever played in fact. I just think that people complaining about the Warhound are overhyping the problem
SC2 is still a macro-focused game and there has yet to come a player with perfect macro.
TL;DR I wouldn't call SC2 easy -> i dont see a problem with easy units
it is easy compared to bw, hence no one is impressed with pro's typical micro battle because anyone competent can do it as long as the game remains focused on spells and spells have smartcast. bw's unit efficiency increased depending on player's micro. the thread is pointing out that warhound is the epitome of lacking unit micro potential.
having micro potential brings depth to the game and create great spectacles.
I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed.
I agree with everything you just said 100%, but knowing Blizzard, they're not going to change ANYTHING! They are just too ignorant and don't give a shit about our thoughts and feedback.
I really don't like what they did in HotS with Protoss and Terran... Zerg gets "terrain/space-control" units that allow the Zerg to easily defend and kinda like siege the opponent. So let's take a look at what Terran gets : Two Attack-Move units ( Warhound and Battle-mode Hellion) and a mine that you move around, borrow it and then it does it's thing alone. No need to micro at all. Protoss got a pretty good harrasment-spellcaster-unit, the Oracle, which is a flying paper that dies so easily and costs so much, kinda like the Shuttle/Reaver drop but less expensive, you can just lose it to 2 marines or a queen. They get that mothership core which has some pretty interesting role : Hit & Run using the Recall or to actually defend pushes with the Purify ability early-game. And last but not least, a very terrible capital-ship at dealing damage but kinda good at sniping important units and structures and in some situations force engagements.
In conclusion, Protoss and Zerg got some units that makes your army a little bit harder to control at the later stages of the game aswell as some pretty sort of "APM required Spell-Casters" (Viper, Oracle and maybe the Mothership Core in the early-mid game). Terran got a tech choice that is really boring to even watch!
Make warhounds not even have a normal attack and only have those missles. Also the missles must be built, and the warhound be extremely frail. It can keep its 7 range. Pretty much will force u to micro them.
On September 12 2012 07:44 LavaLava wrote: I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed.
This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable.
On September 12 2012 07:44 LavaLava wrote: I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed.
This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable.
there are units like that in the terran arsenal already. it still adds nothing to the game.
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
From the original post (emphasis mine):
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant?
The marine is not an attack move unit, the vulture is not an attack move unit, the helion is not an attack move unit, the mutalisk is not an attack move unit.
The warhound moves in, attacks and pulls out, dies or kills something.
The marines are spread, helions move while shooting to maximize the aoe/harrass workers, the vulture is microed with patrol micro/lay mines, etc.
The marine being so fragile and mobile creates interesting relationships with other units, such as banelings, stalker, etc.
edit: I bolded the part which i think is interesting. (inside the nested quote).
See, this is an argument that I can agree with. 100%. The warhound is a boring unit, simple to use and with very little scope for micro.
It's also not what the original post said. The original post took that attack move argument and basically did a reductio ad absurdum on it, apparently without realising that reductio is a tool to be used on arguments you are opposing (and it was not used validly). The warhound has very little scope for microing, but "no scope for microing to improve efficiency" is emphatically not a trait inherant to all ranged unit designs. Yet that is what was claimed.
Since we're just repeatedly agreeing with each other, there's not much more to say until/unless orb wants to join in.
Wow it amazes me how Blizzard (the company that design SC2 (and SC1 and SC:BW and plenty of other super popular, successful games) would suddenly be unable to design units, balance races or listen to players. !!!!
I, myself, trust these professionals with a proven track record, and a history of getting things right, over this annoying vocal minority flooding forums with their petty complaints on a unit based off very little than some beta streams and whatever info has been released about a still changing unit in a still changing gamestate.
Furthermore, unless you have played in the Beta (and are high level) your opinions on new units don't really carry much weight (as to their power, balance, effectiveness, use . . .) I wonder how many other problem units/mechanics existed in the betas of SC2, SC1, SC:BW that when the game was released and actually played, turned out to be fine.
Also I find it funny how they put so much weight into the fact that other people that echo them are posting as evidence that their views are popular, disregarding the fact that anyone that is fine with the warhound (or more likely, doesn't care or even know about this "issue,") is unlikely to spend the time to complain online.
Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have.
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant?
You are not comprehending my sentence structure properly, or perhaps I did not word it distinctly enough for it to be obvious. As I understand your argument, you seem to be interpreting that paragraph as me having said that any ranged unit including marines is an attack move unit. This is not the case. I was saying the warhound is an attack move unit. Then in a separate sentence, I say that the only way you can micro them is the most basic form of ranged unit micro -- the target fire and hurt-unit-save. In that same sentence I then mention that this can already be said to be true for any possible ranged unit design. The point was that other units already have this simple micro; it exists everywhere. What sets some of the other, less offensive examples out is that they have more interesting micro ON TOP of focus firing/pullback, such as blinking, marine splitting, roach burrowing, etc.
Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have.
His argument here is not that the Warhound is overpowered. The whole point of this post is that, even if it is possible to balance this unit, it should not be in this game because it is not in the spirit of SC2 and not in the spirit of a competitive game to have a, so put, "a-move unit". Watching the beta streams, I see most Terrans just mass this unit, with some other factory units tossed in, and go for a 200/200 push. They a-move their army and the game is decided then. It's not the strength of the warhound that the OP is taliking about but its' lack of micro-ability, such as a unit like the marine or the infestor.
Also, pretty much nothing in your post is reasonable, logical, or backed by any evidence. There is a large part of the community that is unhappy about the design of the warhound and would like to voice their opinions on this site. It is because of constructive discussions like these, that Blizzard is able to take steps in the right direction for SC2.
Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have.
His argument here is not that the Warhound is overpowered. The whole point of this post is that, even if it is possible to balance this unit, it should not be in this game because it is not in the spirit of SC2 and not in the spirit of a competitive game to have a, so put, "a-move unit". Watching the beta streams, I see most Terrans just mass this unit, with some other factory units tossed in, and go for a 200/200 push. They a-move their army and the game is decided then. It's not the strength of the warhound that the OP is taliking about but its' lack of micro-ability, such as a unit like the marine or the infestor.
Also, pretty much nothing in your post is reasonable, logical, or backed by any evidence. There is a large part of the community that is unhappy about the design of the warhound and would like to voice their opinions on this site. It is because of constructive discussions like these, that Blizzard is able to take steps in the right direction for SC2.
Pretty much this. Indeed, why would Blizzard even BOTHER with a Beta test outside of bug testing if they didn't want a feedback? Why would they have sections for HoTS beta discussion on their forums if they didn't want it?
Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it.
I feel like everything should be balanced at the highest level and not the lowest. The game then becomes actually balanced. Kinda like how Dota is balanced.
On September 12 2012 09:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it.
They don't want it. If you even participated in any Blizzard beta you would know they don't give a shit about feedback and lock threads about ideas once they become popular (see D3 for the most recent example).
They think they know what players want, which they don't. Blizzard is a shitty company now if you haven't realized.
On September 12 2012 09:24 Glasse wrote: I feel like everything should be balanced at the highest level and not the lowest. The game then becomes actually balanced. Kinda like how Dota is balanced.
On September 12 2012 09:22 Wombat_NI wrote: Aye, let's just trust in Blizzard and not contribute in giving feedback, despite that the company itself desires it.
They don't want it. If you even participated in any Blizzard beta you would know they don't give a shit about feedback and lock threads about ideas once they become popular (see D3 for the most recent example).
They think they know what players want, which they don't. Blizzard is a shitty company now if you haven't realized.
Nah I haven't because I never make it in. Saw a post that Browder made 'conerns with Tempest and Warhound noted'. But yeah, no they don't ever want or listen to feedback
Awesome post. I agree entirely with the general idea of what you've said here. Blizzard's design philosophy seems to be based on this entirely false notion that you can't have complex units or units that rely on finesse without scaring off lower level or uninitiated players. Since when did accessibility and complexity become mutually exclusive?
There are a dozen different things Blizzard could do completely outside the actual game that would make their game infinitely more accessible and appealing to the uninitiated. For example, Starcraft 2 does an absolutely horrid job of giving you any sense of progression as you develop as a player. There are no statistics by which you can measure your progress, divisions within leagues make little sense and don't tell you anything, so on so forth. Hell even something like letting players take achievement points/ladder points/any other similar thing and "purchase" alternate models for units would get a million times more uninitiated players interested in the game than making the game itself specifically easier (for example, "purchasing" the alternate Dark Templar model, or "purchasing" a female Ghost model). All kinds of players, especially casual ones, love stuff like that, and as clearly evidenced by the two different Dark Templar models currently in the game you can have altered or slightly different unit models without distorting a unit's identity on the battlefield.
That having been said however, I feel like Blizzard is absolutely intent on giving Terran a unit that is "easy" to control come HOTS (specifically in the Terran versus Protoss matchup, which the Warhound is clearly aimed at). Historically, Terran has been underrepresented at the lower league levels. In comparison to Zerg or Protoss, most of their units require a relatively higher level of unit control in order to achieve the level of effectiveness around which they are generally balanced. For players lacking mechanical capacity, this becomes an issue.
Understandably, some people, myself included, do not like the idea of making Terran have an "easier to play" option just because Protoss/Zerg have one (or several), or just because lower level players struggle with the race. Unfortunately, such a move just seems to be in accordance with Blizzard's design philosophy for Starcraft 2, and hence why they will likely ultimately pursue it despite however much criticism the idea of the Warhound garners them.
Below is what I feel about my race, Protoss. It is about its mechanics and how HotS will not fix core issues holding my race back from competing at a high level vs. the other races.
It is with a long sigh that I write this in an effort to vent out some of the feelings of what I believe to be the majority of Protoss as I have personally witnessed. Where do I begin...
I am Archon, a high level Protoss gamer on SC2 and BW player. I have played Protoss back when Protoss were the high-cost, strong race, and powerful late game army. Since WoL, Protoss has lost their strength but retained their costs. As expected, the game was new and has years to match the expectations of BW balancing. With that being said, it should be noted that the fundamental concepts were 'already in place' since BW.
Let's move on to what this is really about: HotS. Before I touch base on Protoss changes I would like to bring attention to what I believe is even more important than new units... old ones. To clarify, I am referring to the buffs of several WoL units such as the reaper, ultralisk, hydralisk, hellion, battlecruiser, raven, etc. I feel like these buffs were well thought out for the above mentioned but I see something missing. Changes to Protoss WoL units. It is as if the development team considered the WoL Protoss units....perfect? I will not go into theorycrafting ideas but lay out the details such as the above.
Moving on to the problems I believe resonate with the majority if not all Protoss players. The New Hots units. As a high level gamer, I have tried it all, that's what we do; we look for the best, train, revise, repeat, and win. The new HotS units have almost no value to the way that I believe the metagame of WoL is played. Granted, the metagame will surely change in HotS for Zerg and Terran, but without the addition of "early/midgame units," as I shall term it, Protoss is not going to change much at all. That last sentence is actually a reference to another problem I will address later.
Back to the synergy of the new HotS units to our current units. Simple. There is none. Mothership core seemed like a brilliant idea, and indeed, it was. Past tense due to the hammer nerf to the ground making this core something I will highly consider skipping until I absolutely need it. It's garbage, damage, speed, ability costs, anything and everything to the point I have to ask...what does Blizzard want us to do with this. What do they believe we will be doing with this new unit. Some people believe mass recall is going to be amazing but I remain skeptical. We were talking about synergy. With the cost at an astonishing 150 energy, we have 1 use for a long while. The worst part is Protoss is not the race who can split units in the early and midgame as efficiently as other races. There will be no need to mass recall anything because I won't ever take anything I don't want to lose. I.e. I'm not worried about recalling my 4 zealots in my early game pressure as my stalkers can run home safely. I will spare the further details but remember this core point: Protoss won't be able to do multi pronged pressure with units they are not already prepared to lose.
Tempest saddens me. Not only did the iconic protoss unit, the carrier, get thrown into the can, but what saddens me is that I believe they did this because they just had no idea what other unit to give Protoss so they gave us a worse carrier. What do I mean? Remove thor and give terran warhound or remove roach and give zerg swarm host; Happy birthday, you didn't gain anything but broke out even in units. In the case of the Protoss, the tempest is a major nerf for reasons such as not being able to counter mech(I think it took 1 tempest around 10 shots to kill a warhound) The DPS is an issue, the cost is an issue, the time to make is an issue, etc. Synergy of this unit to Protoss? There is none with the exception that it is just as slow as the Protoss deathball. With no abilities on the tempest, it is just an a-move unit.
Moving on...
Alas, the oracle. The oracle was MY personal favorite unit going into the pre nerfed HotS. My god what use and strategy I could reap from such a versatile unit. Taking my third base earlier and cloaking it from roaches and lings and sniping a potential overseer with a stalker, engaging in micro with cloak...finally a cloak that I get before tier 3. An arbiter, not a "you can only have 1" slow "get this unit only to abuse it with vortex because that's all this unit is for" mothership. Cloaking my pylon to prevent it being sniped to allow my pressure to actually continue. Cloaking my warp prism at the corner of my enemy base while having the oracle slightly outside of firing range... I can go on for hours. It's gone. Cloak is gone. Strategy is gone. Protoss get a cheesy press e to block mineral patches ability. Oh I can see the strategy there. But that is not what bothers me, what bothers me is the nerfed split between its first ability having detection and now giving a 3rd ability.....detection. JUST GIVE THE ORACLE 2 ABILITIES. We know you have no idea for a 3rd ability, we get it. Don't worry, we won't be making the unit anyways. It won't have the "disruption web" the corsair had to prevent static defense from engaging so once an enemy gets 1 turret up, it's over for the oracle... "Hey oracle, meet phoenix." The cost is astronomically high and forces Protoss to commit to a stargate play which is already underpowered. Remember that list of zerg and terran units I mentioned that got buffs....now is a good time to make a connection to Protoss not receiving any. The Protoss does need a harassing unit as mentioned by David Kim. The oracle is not it.
Finalizing my position is the revisiting of a core issue: the metagame. Currently, I believe a lot of Protoss do what is widely known as "timing attacks or all ins" to win a game vs a zerg or terran player. There is little strategy to these attacks by Protoss and require a relatively low skill cap to execute(good ff, good blinks..that's it) compared to the potential of other races. This is boring to execute and boring to watch but it should be remembered that Protoss is not a very strong late game(At least in regard to what it used to be.) Yes I am referencing Brood War but before I receive a "this is not Brood War" comment. Need I remind you we already have our goliath(warhound) and lurker(swarm host) back from Brood War.
As I try to remain relatively distant from posting in these forums, I would like to voice my opinion for MY race. I believe Protoss is broken; from the reliance on sentry to survive early game, to reliance of exploits of mothership and terrain and ramps(ff) and even to how the warpgate mechanic is setup, Protoss is a shell of its former glory. But still I choose to play for this race because I keep waiting for change.
The Protoss of the starcraft 2 community are outraged. As most would say, we don't want to be strong, we want to play on an even playing field. The beta is still in beta but it is obviously headed in the wrong direction for Protoss. I personally would be thrilled with the removal of oracle, mothership core, and tempest, and just get a buff on the void ray. We, as a race of the Protoss do not want to wait for LotV to fix core problems still lurking in WoL with our race(including needing to abuse "archon toilet" to stand a chance. As the Spectre would say, "I'm tired of waiting."
On September 12 2012 09:29 Vindicarian wrote: Awesome post. I agree entirely with the general idea of what you've said here. Blizzard's design philosophy seems to be based on this entirely false notion that you can't have complex units or units that rely on finesse without scaring off lower level or uninitiated players. Since when did accessibility and complexity become mutually exclusive?
There are a dozen different things Blizzard could do completely outside the actual game that would make their game infinitely more accessible and appealing to the uninitiated. For example, Starcraft 2 does an absolutely horrid job of giving you any sense of progression as you develop as a player. There are no statistics by which you can measure your progress, divisions within leagues make little sense and don't tell you anything, so on so forth. Hell even something like letting players take achievement points/ladder points/any other similar thing and "purchase" alternate models for units would get a million times more uninitiated players interested in the game than making the game itself specifically easier (for example, "purchasing" the alternate Dark Templar model, or "purchasing" a female Ghost model). All kinds of players, especially casual ones, love stuff like that, and as clearly evidenced by the two different Dark Templar models currently in the game you can have altered or slightly different unit models without distorting a unit's identity on the battlefield.
That having been said however, I feel like Blizzard is absolutely intent on giving Terran a unit that is "easy" to control come HOTS (specifically in the Terran versus Protoss matchup, which the Warhound is clearly aimed at). Historically, Terran has been underrepresented at the lower league levels. In comparison to Zerg or Protoss, most of their units require a relatively higher level of unit control in order to achieve the level of effectiveness around which they are generally balanced. For players lacking mechanical capacity, this becomes an issue.
Understandably, some people, myself included, do not like the idea of making Terran have an "easier to play" option just because Protoss/Zerg have one (or several), or just because lower level players struggle with the race. Unfortunately, such a move just seems to be in accordance with Blizzard's design philosophy for Starcraft 2, and hence why they will likely ultimately pursue it despite however much criticism the idea of the Warhound garners them.
Those are actually some good ideas right there. I remember earning points for completing the campaign, or warping in 10 units simultaneously or whatever and really thought this concept was underexplored. The 'cool' icons tend to be for tons of ladder victories, which put off the casual due to the inherent grind, plus it encourages portrait farming.
That kind of purely aesthetic customisation is pretty cool, having your own favoured unit models and the like. It's not quite getting to LoL with the microtransactions allowing you to buy hats, but it would give something else outside gameplay itself to appeal to folk.
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't).
From the original post (emphasis mine):
The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant?
You are not comprehending my sentence structure properly, or perhaps I did not word it distinctly enough for it to be obvious. As I understand your argument, you seem to be interpreting that paragraph as me having said that any ranged unit including marines is an attack move unit. This is not the case. I was saying the warhound is an attack move unit. Then in a separate sentence, I say that the only way you can micro them is the most basic form of ranged unit micro -- the target fire and hurt-unit-save. In that same sentence I then mention that this can already be said to be true for any possible ranged unit design. The point was that other units already have this simple micro; it exists everywhere. What sets some of the other, less offensive examples out is that they have more interesting micro ON TOP of focus firing/pullback, such as blinking, marine splitting, roach burrowing, etc.
Hope this clears up the misunderstanding.
Yeah, I was looking at what you wrote, not what you meant. So when you said
Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines).
I thought you meant that any possible ranged unit design (including marines) could only have those simple forms of micro. Since that's what you said. The logic then went:
The warhound is an attack move unit.
By that, you mean "has no fancy micro".
The only micro possible with a warhound is focusfire and pullback.
Therefore, focusfire and pullback are not fancy.
The only possible micro with any possible ranged unit design is focusfire and pullback.
Therefore, all ranged units are attack move units.
I now understand your argument to be
Warhounds have no fancy micro.
You can only do basic ranged unit stuff with them: focusfire, pullback
You can do basic ranged unit stuff with any ranged unit (kinda by definition)
I don't know why I mentioned other ranged units at all, since that doesn't form part of my argument. But it sure made things less clear. I even managed to word things to say the opposite of what I meant - I equated warhounds to all other ranged units, when really I mean there are ranged units I like, but I hate warhounds. Why can't you just telepathically understand what I meant instead of reading my words?
Therefore, warhounds have no fancy micro. And are boring. And are killing esports.
It's a bit of a stretch from "this unit is boring" to killing esports, but you managed to make it. Thanks for the clarification.
SC2 is still a great game, but man, I honestly think they really don't understand which aspects makes the game good. Without that knowledge, them adding terrible units is just not surprising at all. I mean, some of the new HOTS units are very interesting without a doubt (and props to them for that), however them making good units feels too much like 50/50 odds, and thats not good enough for an esports-centric game like SC.
On September 12 2012 07:44 LavaLava wrote: I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed.
This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable.
there are units like that in the terran arsenal already. it still adds nothing to the game.
Yea, I loathe the unit. It could be the linchpin to making mech entirely different with some new mind blowing mechanic. Instead we get the Terran Roach.
In theory, I agree with everything orb and others (including myself) have said about game design.
And yet, at least once a week, I go play a game of BW on BGH or Primeval Isles or something where all I'm doing is playing FFA vs 7 comps and carrier rushing. I know I'll win - like, it's almost impossible to lose, especially on the island maps - but it's still satisfying.
Not as satisfying as playing against a real person, or even as cool as watching Stork do impossible things with reavers, but the cheap thrill is there, and it's very real.
On the one hand, I hate the thought that all Blizzard is looking for is a game that runs on cheap thrills. On the other hand, is there a better product out there (not counting Brood War, since the Powers That Be seem determined to supplant it) that both matches even the easy-come vibe-ness of SC2 and counts as some sort of strategy game?
Never played HotS but I can relate to what you wrote some bit.
Your post reminded me a bit of the post that said that HotS Terran Mech play isnt actually mech(because you play Warhounds like a bio-ball).
Also I had to think of the Colossus, lots of Protoss players were annoyed at how boring it is and that the race in general(but specifically the Colossus) has very few micro-opportunities.
It's also a lot less frustrating to lose to beautiful reaver micro than to a-moving collosi. As Zerg, I rarely lose against protoss thinking 'damn that guy played well.' It's always, 'damn I played too greedy (or not greedy enough) and could not counter his collosi gateway a-move.'
It's not that the game is imbalanced, it's just not very fun to play that way over long periods of time. It's the same damn mindset after every game, where small strategic decisions decide who wins the big battle and the game. I think it's the worst in PvZ because there is so little micro involved (don't tell me blink forward into Broodlord, Vortex, or Fungal counts as micro...) that the game has no longevity for the players and the viewers. At least PvT has some ghost v templar action and a lot of terran micro in general.
Going by this way of thinking Blizzard needs to redo almost all the units. Roaches, Maruaders, Colossus, Warhounds, It would make the game much better. I just don't see it happening Really good post though I love reavers too I miss them greatly!
Also fuck hero units. No unit should be so good that you can only make one. If you want units that are not useful in mass but good as support, design them that way...
On September 12 2012 11:16 Steel wrote: Also fuck hero units. No unit should be so good that you can only make one. If you want units that are not useful in mass but good as support, design them that way...
I'd like to say I tend to agree with this sentiment. If you compare the Arbiter to the Mothership, the arbiter is better in basically every way (speed, acceleration, cost, build time, food usage, and upgrade-able energy), and yet you could build as many as your supply would allow you. While this seems backwards to me (if you can only build one of something shouldn't it be more powerful than an exact counterpart that you can build effectively infinite of?), almost more appalling to me is the idea of a hero unit in Starcraft. It's something that never existed in Starcraft or Starcraft: Brood War because that just doesn't fit with the style of the game of building big armies to kill your opponent with. It has always struck me as utterly bizarre that Blizzard decided the best possible course of action was to put in a clunkier, gimmickier (not a real word?), and less attractive (intellectually -- archon toilet: really?) arbiter that you can only build one of. I feel like it would have been superior to either just give us the original (as it was one of the most badass units in the protoss race, probably only second to the dark archon imo) or at least come up with some creative and fun new abilities if you want to make it into a new unit. As it stands right now, recall is obviously the same, and there are obvious similarities between vortex and stasis. Against brood lords, for example, I feel they would accomplish pretty much the same thing (although they wouldn't stack the units for an archon toilet), as they would stop the brood lords from attacking and spawning broodlings and allow you to get under them, which is usually the hardest part.
A little off topic but it's another important topic.
In this post, the OP was expressing his concern toward the warhound as many of us had. Surprisingly it got a blue post, quoting:
"We are very aware of a variety of concerns with this very early version of our beta for Heart of the Swarm. We are going to address design and balance issues as quickly as we can.
Protoss and the Warhound have been the focus of our discussions over the last few days. I expect we will patch soon to try some more stuff with the Protoss and the Warhound. This will certainly include balance changes but may also include design changes.
We are not discussing removing Warp Gates or making any changes to the Sentry. Sorry."
I though this was pretty huge that it finally getting addressed and the voice of the people finally wins over their arrogances.
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
Not to mention the warhounds role is anti-armored.
On September 10 2012 16:04 ELA wrote: A warhound with bonus dmg. to light and a powerful ground to air single target attack would be awesome... And yeah, I know Im basicly asking for the Goliath, but Blizzard seems to do everything they can to discourage me from building tanks with this current build (Viper Abduct, Warhounds bonus vs. amoured)
Warhound doesn't need bonus to light, that's basically the role of the hellion.
Not to mention the warhounds role is anti-armored.
Wait isnt the tanks suppose to be anti-armor? See what I did there...:D
In this post, the OP was expressing his concern toward the warhound as many of us had. Surprisingly it got a blue post, quoting:
"We are very aware of a variety of concerns with this very early version of our beta for Heart of the Swarm. We are going to address design and balance issues as quickly as we can.
Protoss and the Warhound have been the focus of our discussions over the last few days. I expect we will patch soon to try some more stuff with the Protoss and the Warhound. This will certainly include balance changes but may also include design changes.
We are not discussing removing Warp Gates or making any changes to the Sentry. Sorry."
I though this was pretty huge that it finally getting addressed and the voice of the people finally wins over their arrogances.
EDIT: For fail grammar and spelling
Jst for clarification, Rocks is Dustin Browder's account.
At least they are paying attention to what people are saying. That they needed the beta to see the obvious flaws with the warhound, oracle and tempest are somewhat depressing.
Terran has TWO 'core' units. Marines and marauders. Just like the other races. Just like there are no strategies for Protoss that don't include zealots or stalkers and few for Zerg that don't involve zerglings or roaches, the options that don't include these
Terran wants to mech? Well you have two options, then: 1. Make Marines or Marauders 2. Get another core unit.
Terrans have obviously decided that marine/tank isn't 'mech' enough for them, so you're left with option #2. Insert giant derpface here.
Well I'd rather have the Warhound than the Marauder, just because it does extra to mechanical and not to armored, so it's role is slightly different. Marauder with concussive is such a silly early game anti-micro unit and terribly boring over-grown marine in general(, as if marines aren't sickening enough on their own). Slow down it's attack so it doesn't slaughter probes, maybe rise the pop cost or cut HP and armor.
I don't mind the idea of a faster & slimmer thor that can be helpful against mechanized units and otherwise it's use is closer to a simple meatshield for tanks and hellions. It wouldn't be too good against buildings so it would actually be a buff to defensive buildings and defensive play in general. No more 10 marauders killing 3 PF's in 5 seconds.
As it is now, there's no way I'm going to use it. Why would I use an overgrown robot marauder when I have the dignity to not use marauders in the first place.
In this post, the OP was expressing his concern toward the warhound as many of us had. Surprisingly it got a blue post, quoting:
"We are very aware of a variety of concerns with this very early version of our beta for Heart of the Swarm. We are going to address design and balance issues as quickly as we can.
Protoss and the Warhound have been the focus of our discussions over the last few days. I expect we will patch soon to try some more stuff with the Protoss and the Warhound. This will certainly include balance changes but may also include design changes.
We are not discussing removing Warp Gates or making any changes to the Sentry. Sorry."
I though this was pretty huge that it finally getting addressed and the voice of the people finally wins over their arrogances.
EDIT: For fail grammar and spelling
great find.
at least they're doin' smth bout it. his other posts are somewhat shameful tho ('duly noted', 'read it, thanks' lolol) oh dustin...
On September 12 2012 16:55 Jerubaal wrote: Terran has TWO 'core' units. Marines and marauders. Just like the other races. Just like there are no strategies for Protoss that don't include zealots or stalkers and few for Zerg that don't involve zerglings or roaches, the options that don't include these
Terran wants to mech? Well you have two options, then: 1. Make Marines or Marauders 2. Get another core unit.
Terrans have obviously decided that marine/tank isn't 'mech' enough for them, so you're left with option #2. Insert giant derpface here.
And here the problem starts.
Terrans 2 "core" units should be:
Marines and Tanks.
This made SC/BW Terran so cool, you could (or like me couldn't :p) play basically 2 totally diffrent races/playstyles depending if you went for Bio or Mech.
This techtrees dealt with diffrent treats diffrently (Bio used mainly Vessels to get rid of Lurkers/Defilers and drops for Mapcontroll) while Mech mainly used sheer power/Positioning to fight basically everything and Vultures/Mines for Mapcontrol. Bio was very micro intensive, Mech needed really careful positional play.
Add just one "fast powerunit" to Mech and you alter it's whole personality fundemantally... Which is what happens with the Warhound.
It would be nice if they made it an anti-air unit again. What mech needs is a anti-air unit with a bonus against armored/massive. I know they have the viking but they do not benifit from the mech upgrades.
i have always found cool, how terran have two different ground composition to play with(bio or mech), other races don't have this, they should explore more this path
On September 12 2012 13:42 Sparkman wrote: Its a beta for god sakes. Blizzard will come up with a solution. Have faith and hope for the best.
I've been trying to have faith for the last 5 years, alltho they just bring one dissapointment after another.
SC2:WoL was the only thing they made decently since they released World of Warcraft (before all the expansions), and now they are only making it worse.
Imo people should spam Valve to make a RTS game, perhaps we could see something really amazing.
Orb, I love the way your opinions are well thought out and are not just blind rage. If there was anyone I could put in charge of SC2 balance it would be you (Assuming you wouldn't hate the role). You have an amazing understanding of the game which really shows in both your play and your casting (best caster around). But it also makes reading your threads so worthwhile. Thank you for explaining this to the community.
This discussion reminds me those about ShootMania. I'd like that Blizzard use the same approach Nadeo used : easy to get into, hard to master. You must be able to do cool things quickly, but you also must put up a lot of training/have some talent to become truly efficient/good at it.
Here, you can use the warhound at its full potential very quickly and without that much effort it seems, and this reveal the poor design of this unit imo. Tough I don't think releasing a game as hard as BW atm would be good (though I love this game), accessibility being imo a condition, or at lest a valuable asset, to go esports now (LoL being a very good example, whether you like it or not...), there must be a high skillcap in order to see games from progamers and realize that "it's high level of play".
It's kinda funny BW is always brought up as a focal point when the new starcraft balance team makes a mistake. Sure it was the best game of all time in my books but this new group likes fun derp units that really bring nothing to the game outside of something they end up having to balance over and over again. It's almost like these guys are on some epic crusade to completely seperate their baby from it's predecessor even if it ruins the game. So now we get the warhound which is supposed to improve TvT matches by shortening the time it takes to kill your opponent until strategies are developed that counter this unit doing this exact job. What's the point in making tanks when you can make these bad boys and some hellions? If your opponent makes tanks and marines they lost the game. When I tried this unit before the Blizzard started handing out keys to people to play whenever they want it was completely useless against zerg and I heard the Browder bunch were dreaming up ways to make it useful. I really don't like this unit period and hope it is changed from the ground up or removed. Maybe they can change it to something that depends less on the all mighty a move and has some style.
The OP was excellent and sums up my thoughts pretty damn well. I think the warhound is just a small issue thats hiding the real root cause of the actual problem which is Blizzard's design philosophy.
When you look at the bigger picture of unit design, one of the key basic requirement that these old/newly designed unit should have are its advantages/drawbacks and its interaction with the rest of the units. But then taking a look at SC2, you do not see such pronounced advantages/drawbacks that one would notice in BW. Some units also severely overlap others roles that it becomes redundant.
Take the marauder for example. What pronounced drawbacks does one have when building this unit? its simply too good at almost everything. Same goes for colossus, medivacs and the list goes on. That design philosophy seems to have gotten worse in HOTS, ala warhound..
I think Ill write up a new thread regarding how this design philosophy has led to creating the kind of games we see and where they have gone wrong. The more I read/play/see about SC2, it seems as if the fundamentals of a basic RTS (or just starcraft) has been tempered with making the game linger ever closer to being similiar to the likes of C&C/COH/DOW etc.
Another pretty clear sign of "less weaknesses" in units is the combat shield upgrade. It targets exactly the marines one and only weakness and makes him more durable.
Good upgrades improve a units strenght making it's "role" even more defined. They also shouldn't add something completly random (concussive shells)... To be fair, only the Marine and the Marauder have such upgrades in Wol, most (all?) others are pretty much "in line" with the above concept. Which makes me wonder even more why they tought they were a good idea... But well, Terran in Wol has like a million upgrades for anything anyway, they probably tought they have to put use to those techlabs .
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
F*cking A!
The FIRST post in this thread that is smart and reasonable, yay! And seriously folks... this game is more about adaptation than "op" or "imba". There's always a way.
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
F*cking A!
The FIRST post in this thread that is smart and reasonable, yay! And seriously folks... this game is more about adaptation than "op" or "imba". There's always a way.
Uhm, I do not think you really get it here. It is the inherent design of the units that is at fault, which resembles Blizzards faulty design philosophy. We said this at the start of the previous BETA: "Its only the beta! It will get beter!" Yes, some problems got fixed and the games have gotten better, especially if no protoss is involved. But the game keeps getting easier, keeps getting these type of silly units and keeps being designed to attract the masses of weak players [which, ironically, as Orb rightfully points out, Blizzard still does a crappy job at]. Final product sucked last time too.. >_>
I generally agree with the OP, but I never played/watched competitive BW. 1) I appreciate the need for interesting and microable units, HOWEVER I find the reaver to be a poor example because so much of its "balance" was related to awful AI. SC2 tanks, ghosts, templar, blink stalkers, speed zealots, banelings, and infestors are good examples of units that require high skill and micro, and are fun to watch. I'm not trying to complain about BW, but the community holds up too many examples of units that were interesting because of poor pathing and targeting. 2) The best argument against the Warhound is that it IS a maurader. I'm not in the beta, and I've watched some HoTS streams, and I'm not very clear on Haywire Missiles. But those aside, it's literally 50/50 more resources for a super maurader. The 1A nature of the unit is definitely bad, but it's 90% overlapping role with an existing unit is its worse crime.
In this post, the OP was expressing his concern toward the warhound as many of us had. Surprisingly it got a blue post, quoting:
"We are very aware of a variety of concerns with this very early version of our beta for Heart of the Swarm. We are going to address design and balance issues as quickly as we can.
Protoss and the Warhound have been the focus of our discussions over the last few days. I expect we will patch soon to try some more stuff with the Protoss and the Warhound. This will certainly include balance changes but may also include design changes.
We are not discussing removing Warp Gates or making any changes to the Sentry. Sorry."
I though this was pretty huge that it finally getting addressed and the voice of the people finally wins over their arrogances.
EDIT: For fail grammar and spelling
Jezzs if the warhound is that much of a problem for you stop playing the beta until they fix it. Be grateful that you actually have a beta key. Unlike the rest of us who can only watch . Just realized that some people here don't know the difference between a "beta" and a "demo". A BETA has bugs, balance issues, and problems where a few selected people get to play and test. Demo is a balanced, bug free(hopefully) short version of a the full game released to the public. Don't assume a beta is a demo where everything is balanced and bug free.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
wrong. the POINT of a beta is to gain feedback from the people INVITED to the BETA, and as a spectator community, people WATCHING the BETA. This is what the OP(and most of this thread) is, a response to exactly that. Its OUR revisions of the second/third draft of HotS multiplayer.
What im hearing from you is "Too soon to judge" What i hear from the OP and responding posts is "Here's what i don't like and why, and how i would fix it."
what do you think Blizzard is more interested in hearing after releasing a beta to Pro gamers and Casters? When they should go about making changes to the Game. Or what are peoples first reactions to watching and playing the Game?
Good signs from Blizzard! A post on the oficial forum reads:
"We are very aware of a variety of concerns with this very early version of our beta for Heart of the Swarm. We are going to address design and balance issues as quickly as we can.
Protoss and the Warhound have been the focus of our discussions over the last few days. I expect we will patch soon to try some more stuff with the Protoss and the Warhound. This will certainly include balance changes but may also include design changes.
We are not discussing removing Warp Gates or making any changes to the Sentry. Sorry."
On September 13 2012 01:14 winthrop wrote: should colossus be redesigned?
The Colossus is a MUCH weaker reaver, but with a movement buff to help him follow the deathball, which is the mistake I think. Robo units should rely on warp prisms to get on the battlefield. I'd make the immortal even stronger, but less mobile.. same with Colossus.
Blizzard will not change the Colossus, unless of course they totally change the design of the game, and put in units that are made to be dreadfully OP vs the deathball in order to break it, but I can see how this could just break the game. SC2 is actually playable and fun, but it is NOWHERE like BW (only people who haven't played BW try to refute this claim). Adding a lurker, a reaver, and a stronger siege tank could spell the death of the deathball, but it is to use with caution, because the game could fall into the unplayable.
On September 13 2012 01:26 Headnoob wrote: Blizzard ruined diablo and indeed seem to turn everything they touch into shit these days.
I have extremely little hope for the future of starcraft.
Blizzard is only a name (that has been more or less bought).
The people who made the awesome games of the past are gone, and the ones in control have no idea how to make a great successor to those games. I'm 99% sure Dustin Browder or David Kim haven't touched Starcraft seriously until they were given the control of SC2's developpement. No one who followed the scene for a few years would make such a bad sequel. The essence of BW is simply absent from this game.
I'm sorry, that's just my view of the whole thing, and I mention this because I actually care about this game. If it were some EA title, or some "real" Activision one, I wouldn't expect much from it, nor have the dedication to even spend money on it, but I want this game to succeed and I want to play BW2, not WC3 and Warhammer 20k's bastard child.
Edit: The events of the last week or so have led me to believe that there is hope.. Hope for the community and this game, because we have raised our deception and voices high enough that the developpers have understood our critics. Don't stop, we'll have the game we have waited for since 2001
On September 13 2012 01:26 Headnoob wrote: Blizzard ruined diablo and indeed seem to turn everything they touch into shit these days.
I have extremely little hope for the future of starcraft.
Blizzard is only a name (that has been more or less bought).
The people who made the awesome games of the past are gone, and the ones in control have no idea how to make a great successor to those games. I'm 99% sure Dustin Browder or David Kim haven't touched Starcraft seriously until they were given the control of SC2's developpement. No one who followed the scene for a few years would make such a bad sequel. The essence of BW is simply absent from this game.
I'm sorry, that's just my view of the whole thing, and I mention this because I actually care about this game. If it were some EA title, or some "real" Activision one, I wouldn't expect much from it, nor have the dedication to even spend money on it, but I want this game to succeed and I want to play BW2, not WC3 and Warhammer 20k's bastard child.
On September 13 2012 01:14 winthrop wrote: should colossus be redesigned?
The Colossus is a MUCH weaker reaver, but with a movement buff to help him follow the deathball, which is the mistake I think. Robo units should rely on warp prisms to get on the battlefield. I'd make the immortal even stronger, but less mobile.. same with Colossus.
Blizzard will not change the Colossus, unless of course they totally change the design of the game, and put in units that are made to be dreadfully OP vs the deathball in order to break it, but I can see how this could just break the game. SC2 is actually playable and fun, but it is NOWHERE like BW (only people who haven't played BW try to refute this claim). Adding a lurker, a reaver, and a stronger siege tank could spell the death of the deathball, but it is to use with caution, because the game could fall into the unplayable.
The problem with colossus is the fact that it is entirely useless on it's own. 10 lings > colossus if there's nothing to buffer the distance between them. At least reavers would STILL kill the shit out of a group of units.
Anywayz, to add to the discussion, I think I'm okay with the idea of a multi-purpose all-around unit, which is what the warhound is. Much like the marine or marauder, it's a generally swift, microable, solid unit. However, the downside is that terran really doesn't need any more multipurpose all-around units as marine/marauder fill this space already. If anyone needs another or at least a better all-around unit, it's protoss. Protoss units have been built with so much specificity in mind, and every unit is like a specific counter to certain things, with the exception of the stalker. However, we all know that as good as blink stalkers are, they still can't be used to a strong degree in a straight up fight against something like MMM or ling/infestor.
So...I'm actually okay with the design concept, but I wish it were given to protoss, not terran. I feel like a thor nerf (aka goliaths) would have ended up being a better option. But we'll see how it all plays out. I honestly feel like SC2 has grown immensely in the past 2 years, and this expansion isn't going to kill it...in the end, Blizzard will listen to us if something needs to be removed or reworked.
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
F*cking A!
The FIRST post in this thread that is smart and reasonable, yay! And seriously folks... this game is more about adaptation than "op" or "imba". There's always a way.
Uhm, I do not think you really get it here. It is the inherent design of the units that is at fault, which resembles Blizzards faulty design philosophy. We said this at the start of the previous BETA: "Its only the beta! It will get beter!" Yes, some problems got fixed and the games have gotten better, especially if no protoss is involved. But the game keeps getting epasier, keeps getting these type of silly units and keeps being designed to attract the masses of weak players [which, ironically, as Orb rightfully points out, Blizzard still does a crappy job at]. Final product sucked last time too.. >_>
I really don't like how this sounds elitist ("the mass of weak players"... Not saying it was intentionnal, it just "sounds"...)
I think making the game more "accessible" is somewhat important, especially regarding competition. I truly believe competitioncomes partly from the number of people playing the game. By making it more accessible, you'll make it easier to newcomer to get into. Being elitist and putting barriers to the entrance doesn't help to grow imo...
What is wrong I believe then is not accessibility but rather the lowering of the skill level necessary to master the game... (which seem to be he case here with the warhound...)
If the outside world read this thread, they would think everyone who got a beta key hated the game. People bitch so much on TL. So, so much. The constructive posts are excellent; I can't say the same for the "OMG Blizz SUX. WHAT A FUCKING JOKE." That doesn't help anyone, and furthermore, you're wrong.
I just wanted to add a positive voice: I love HotS. So do countless professional players. The future is fine, the sky isn't falling. Blizz will iron out mistakes, and all of you who are now bitching will play HotS. And enjoy it.
I understand the "design" argument some of you are making but I feel like that is just your desire for an updated BW, which SC2 ain't. It's a new beast -- and a fun one at that.
I look forward to seeing Blizzard's implementations, if for no other reason than so that we can remove all of the ridiculously hostile energy towards a beta that has been around for one week. -_-
if it looks like shit, smells like shit, feels like shit, you dont need to eat to make sure its shit. things are very obvious without even having to play it such as shredder (thank god its out) and warhound.
TL DR orb is butthurt that he is losing in hots BETA. What should we do about it?
Option A) L2P orb, wait for blizzard to get their game out of fucken beta testing and just don't cry so much until then.
Option B) since its obvious that orb thinks so highly of himself, he knows better than blizzard how to make a successful and balanced and fun game, we should sack blizzards game design team and hire orb instead as King of the knowledge of all things related to making games fun.
On September 13 2012 03:06 PittlerGG wrote: TL DR orb is butthurt that he is losing in hots BETA. What should we do about it?
Option A) L2P orb, wait for blizzard to get their game out of fucken beta testing and just don't cry so much until then.
Option B) since its obvious that orb thinks so highly of himself, he knows better than blizzard how to make a successful and balanced and fun game, we should sack blizzards game design team and hire orb instead as King of the knowledge of all things related to making games fun.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one?
yes!
and while you're at it, take a good look at protoss, because it's not fun for me to play any more, and i'm a die-hard Aiur fan... :/
I put this in another thread, but it applies here too.
If you listen to this weeks Inside the Game, Idra and Incontrol said that Blizzard has a forum for the beta where they are communicating directly with the pros about the problems in the beta. Both Idra and Incontrol were very postive about the interaction with Blizzard and that they are aware of the issues with the new protoss units(and warhound). It sounds like Blizzard is taking the criticism and is willing to address things the pros are taking about. If you want to feel better about the beta, go listen to the show from this week.
Also, remember that the WoL units were not good until players really got their hands on them. Blizzard cannot fully design units until they see them in the hands of high level players. It takes time, effort and hard work.
I fell out of my chair at the start of the second paragraph, "The warhound is a "a move unit".
Oh, kind of like everything zerg and protoss. Blizzard gave terrans the warhound due to the simple fact that we needed something that doesn't require us to micro perfectly or die and lose every other game.
I could care less about reading beyond your act of stupidity, you need to re-think on what you're trying to accomplish.
As a Terran player, I totally agree with what you're saying here orb. As I have seen it at the moment (watching several hours of HOTS streams and reading quite a bit), the Warhound looks like a go to unit for just about anything, and requires no micro whatsoever. Sure macro is an awesome and important part of the game, but what makes high level games so engaging is the micro the players use. Micro + Strategic placement (especially in stuff like TvT) showcases the higher levels of play and inspires nubs like me to greater lengths.
Sure I can't pull off a multi-prong drop harass while baiting the main army out away from the opponent's base, but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy trying it, and get nerd chills when I see it happen. Splitting against banelings, target firing/positioning with tanks, and medivac/prism micro are three things that are incredible to see, and easy to imitate on a lower level. I want to see more of that kind of thing in the game, not just macro fights warhound vs death ball. As shiny as they may be, those fights aren't much of a showcase for the skill I want to see in pro matches.
I agree completely with everything you stated Orb. That has been the main problem with the gaming industry as a whole since it became more mainstream ~10 years ago. Companies all feel the need to cater to casuals in order to make that all important $. I still remember when I played Final Fantasy 7 for the first time, and CTrigger, and all the other great RPG's back in the day. What made them so great is that developers were making games for the sake of making a QUALITY game, not to entice as many people as possible. Nowadays we are stuck with hundreds of clone FPS' and other unoriginal games.
Personally, I feel that the solution to all of this is to give the warhound a (reasonably) long ranged ground to ground missile attack ONLY, removing the direct attack, and decreasing it's health significantly. I also feel that it should have some chance to miss if the targeted units move away in time, which allows them to be effective against tank lines whilst stopping them from becoming another marauder.
It is a unit that simply does not belong in its current form in Starcraft 2.
OK, I have a problem with this argument, and it goes something like this.
Blizzard could do one of 3 things with the Warhound:
1) Leave it as is.
2) Balance it.
3) Remove/heavily modify it.
#1 is a bad idea. A broken unit is broken, and should therefore be fixed. Leaving it alone is not a good idea, regardless of whether you support #2 or #3.
#3 is not going to happen. I almost guarantee it. I lay 10:1 odds that not only will the Warhound see HotS's release, but that it will do so in a form that is functionally identical to what it is now (though obviously stats can be tweaked). Blizzard wants the unit in the game in it's current form (and feel free to call me out for this if it gets cut or modified).
Since #1 is a priori bad, and I simply don't believe #3 is going to happen no matter how many "I hate the Warhound" threads TL has, I'm going to have to say that #2 is the best of the available options.
Note that I agree that the Warhound is a fundamentally shitty unit. But I don't believe that Blizzard agrees; so long as that is the case, the best option is for them to balance it.
There are two main conflicting philosophies for game design in this context that apply to starcraft. The first is that you design a game that will be fun to watch and will inspire people to play. [...] The second design philosophy (which seems to be what Blizzard is employing) is to create a game that everyone can easily grasp and understand, and thus you attract new players because they are not discouraged by the game being difficult. [...]
I disagree with this in several areas.
First, I disagree that these philosophies are in conflict. There is nothing that requires a game that is easy to grasp to be boring to watch. The Colossus is a boring unit because it is a boring unit. But really, so are Zealots. So is a Reaver in the absence of Shuttles. It is the combination of different units and tactics, the need for micro in battles, that micro and quick-thinking can turn a defeat into victory, that makes it interesting to watch.
And there's nothing about that need that requires the game to be difficult to play in many of the ways SC1 is difficult to play.
Second, I disagree that various mechanics people point to "inspire people to play." I've never watched someone using patrol/hold-position micro and thought, "hey, I want to do that!" then run over to my machine and play. My first thought upon seeing that (and learning the mechanics of it) was, "that's exploiting a game bug." Even ignoring that issue (which is admittedly subjective), I don't recall playership in the non-Korean part of the world of SC1 going up due to videos of skilled SC1 play. Yes, there was a core of SC1 players outside of South-Korea who kept playing, but in general, the numbers were never going up. And thus, high-level play was not inspiring more people to play to compensate for general attrition.
Most importantly third, I disagree that Blizzard is even following that philosophy. They don't seem to be following any philosophy beyond making the game more balanced.
Since their AoE attack was clearly ridiculously overpowered, it was balanced out not by reducing the damage or some other boring stat change to make every unit equally powerful (which almost seems to be Blizzard's intention with SC2), but instead by making it hopelessly immobile and by making the ammunition cost resources and take time to build.
You have that backwards. Blizzard decided that the Protoss would have a couple of units that cost resources to use. That built things in the field. The Reaver was one of them. The Reaver's attack is powerful because it costs resources. Now yes, it's slow because it's attack is so powerful.
But I would point this out: if Shuttles didn't exist, or were unable to combo with them, Reavers would have been a forgotten unit. Because without Shuttles, Reavers aren't entertaining in the slightest. Reavers are only interesting when you remove their limitation via the use of micro.
I agree with every point you laid out completely. This game just doesn't feel as deep to me as BW did. I hope they take this into account more and redesign the warhound (and maybe a few other units) to add some actual depth and skill.
I agree with this completely. There is just a fundamental game design flaw with Starcraft 2. What most people in this forum are suggesting is a marauder that just has more health. Blizzard just needs to scrap the warhound and oracle. Honestly who is going to freak out over someone blocking my mineral patches and say wow that took a lot of skill. I dont think anyone will. Sure it maybe cool to block someones mineral patches but are you getting out of that attack the satisfaction that I just accomplished something not many people can do. No. What I love about Starcraft are units like the marine. The marine is one of the greatest units in Starcraft. Pretty much if you are using marines you have to use some sort of control in order to make them cost effective. When you are not cost efficient with marines most of the time you will lose. I dont know about most other Terran's but I get a lot of satisfaction out of splitting my marines to avoid banelings/fungals from completely destroying my army. So when we are talking about units that require little to no control to use it makes the game less interesting and it gives players who arent necessarily at your level a better chance at beating someone who is better than them when in reality they shouldnt of won.
As a Terran player (Gold lol) I'd be happy if they scrap the unit entirely. It's boring and we don't need it. Right now Mech can *almost* work in TvP, except that most of the time blue flame hellions don't counter charge zealots with armor upgrades quite hard enough. The zealots get in among the mech too fast and do too much damage before they're killed and then the colossi and archons mop everything up. I was excited to try out mech with just the addition of battle hellions to see whether that would make it viable without making it stupidly powerful and easy. The warhound (in its current form and from only having watched it in action) appears to make mech stupidly powerful and easy.
On September 13 2012 05:24 NicolBolas wrote: Blizzard could do one of 3 things with the Warhound:
1) Leave it as is.
2) Balance it.
3) Remove/heavily modify it.
#1 is a bad idea. A broken unit is broken, and should therefore be fixed. Leaving it alone is not a good idea, regardless of whether you support #2 or #3.
#3 is not going to happen. I almost guarantee it. I lay 10:1 odds that not only will the Warhound see HotS's release, but that it will do so in a form that is functionally identical to what it is now (though obviously stats can be tweaked). Blizzard wants the unit in the game in it's current form (and feel free to call me out for this if it gets cut or modified).
Since #1 is a priori bad, and I simply don't believe #3 is going to happen no matter how many "I hate the Warhound" threads TL has, I'm going to have to say that #2 is the best of the available options.
Note that I agree that the Warhound is a fundamentally shitty unit. But I don't believe that Blizzard agrees; so long as that is the case, the best option is for them to balance it.
I'm like a 100% certain Blizzard will either remove or heavily modify it. Pros complain about it in their little secret Blizzardforum and the community HATES it. Also there are pretty strong arguments against the current Warhound.
Blizzard is a little ignorant and proud, but I'm pretty sure they will swallow that down and just change the unit for the sake of a better game.
I wrote such things in SC2 beta 2 years ago... but this time Orb made a really good post.. so well written.
Good work orb... it's impossible Blizzard will answer removing such units but... GL.
I stopped playing SC2 1 year ago , i stopped watching GSL and PRO Matches almost instantly because they are so boring.
Watching units like colossi and marauders going over and over from left to right is wasting time.
It's nothing compare to the skill required to master Brood war.
PRO SC2 players... They're like children in a battleground... and frankly knowing that Jaedong , Flash and Kespa players had to learn this "garbage" now that BW is dead make me feel so bad.
Blizzard should have taken Brood war with a new graphic engine, but Dustin Browder tried to innovate.
Innovation is not something everyone is capable of... Dustin Browder is certainly not an innovator and he showed that to us clearly.
Every other race has at least one a-move unit that they almost never need to micro intensively (broodlords, colossi, etc). Terran simply didn't have one such unit until the Warhound arrived. In WoL, we have to split our units and hope we don't get hit by some random, forgotten infestor or high templar while trying to get in range of those dangerous units that we need to kill asap in order to win the fight. Blizzard realized this and added a Terran unit that is actually a bit more of a threat than everything else we have in our arsenal.
While I don't agree with the OP in the part about completely redesigning the unit (if they redesign it then they'll have to redesign many of the existing units to finally achieve balance in the TvNon-T matchups) I still believe that the unit itself is a bit too strong, especially early in game. I've been watching Thorzain playing some hots and some of his Warhound pushes seemed unstoppable, even though they weren't all-ins. So yeah, Blizzard will obviously try to fix this problem either by increasing the cost a bit, or by adding some more seconds to the construction time but I don't think that the other races will be having difficulties confronting it after those mini-nerfs, to justify radical changes in the unit design.
Edit: Oh and I agree that such units make the game much much easier but they already exist and they're the main reason why Sc2 is a joke compared to Sc1 in terms of difficulty.
Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
If Blizzard really wanted to design the units in a way that would benefit both beginners and pros they would keep basic "A-move" units low in the tech tree (e.g. Zealot) and more difficult to master units high in the tech tree (Reaver). I think this was clearly a game design principle of SC:BW. Higher tech units either required either individual micro or were a specialized unit to be deployed strategically. SC2 seems to be going against this by adding simple, A-move high-tech units.
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
And even combining it with the age old: "This game is not Broodwar" Only thing he could do to make it even more sensational is to talk about Kespa players beating everybody and EG being a frat house.
EDIT: In the remotely possible scenario that it took orb about 6 months to realize that Warhound is an simple unit. I am sorry. If thats the case.
But w/e its my opinion I respect that you take it as serious statement about the game development cycle. Its not important enough for me to convince you.
the fact that blizz shipped WOL of with badly designed units such as marauder (can't micro against), the collosus (can't micro with, and can't micro against), and badly designed spells such as fungal growth show that there is little to no hope they'll take away these terribad units.
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
Being able to play it is what changed. Again, some people don't trust theorycrafting.
On September 10 2012 16:38 Qwyn wrote: Hey orb did you post this on the SC2 forums? DB and David Kim are on there and you might have a good chance for them to read it and consider it if you do. Just post it in their feedback thread they are reading.
Wonderful and I agree. Would be nice if they considered this philosophy.
Do this!!! Or directly email them! Something to get their eyes on to this!!!
Very well written orb. I couldn't agree with you more on how the "easiness" of this game is ruining it. (I'm paraphrasing a lot there of course)
On September 10 2012 16:27 pmp10 wrote: Are you seriously advocating removing or redesigning the warhound because you think it has 'wrong type' of micro? If I understand your standards right then you would like to remove half of the units from SC2.
The problem is not that it requires the wrong type of micro, it is that IT TAKES NO MICRO AT ALL. The unit actually becomes WORSE if microed, which is the complete opposite of how a unit should behave.
The game has been out 8 days... it makes absolutely 0 sense to call to scrap units.
Terran players are barely exploring the utility of the unit. Just yesterday, I saw Kawaii use warhound drops in early game TvT because of the damage output to mechanical (SCVs and probes)
Let the beta do its job.. give the developers the data to fine tune the tool given to you.
On September 13 2012 09:44 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:41 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
Being able to play it is what changed. Again, some people don't trust theorycrafting.
The ancient conniving dragon is right. We had no idea what the Warhound was actually going to DO, what its stats were, or anything like that. Hell, I'm pretty sure it still attacked air back then. Now we know exactly what it is, have seen it in action, and the conclusion that much of the community has reached is that it's a terrible unit--not like the Scout was a terrible unit, but in that its very concept is antithesis to good design. It is not "bandwagoning" to listen to an argument, decide after consideration that it is valid, and then openly agree with it. If that was the case, then such things as the theory of gravity would be "bandwagoning".
On September 13 2012 10:45 Emerc wrote: The game has been out 8 days... it makes absolutely 0 sense to call to scrap units.
Terran players are barely exploring the utility of the unit. Just yesterday, I saw Kawaii use warhound drops in early game TvT because of the damage output to mechanical (SCVs and probes)
Let the beta do its job.. give the developers the data to fine tune the tool given to you.
Terrans already have three units that do that job very efficiently: the Marine, the Hellion, and the Banshee. This is not a niche that needs to be filled. In any case, given that you seem to think that Orb is calling the Warhound out for being UNDERPOWERED, I think you should go back and read the OP.
i really really really would be soooooo happy if they just removed these gorram warhounds from the game, seriously one of the least imaginative dull, boring units, not to mention brainless, really don't think blizz thought too hard on this one
I hate to say it, but Blizzard will do whatever Blizzard wants. It is making patches to the game to balance it out because it would not be playable otherwise, and that would affect sales down the road. So, they "balance" the game, and will release the next. Blizzard does NOT care about the community. They care only about promoting their product lines, and selling more games. They are financially invested in Starcraft 2, nothing more.
so, expect the warhound and other crappy units to remain, and the game, if poorly designed, to remain as it is. I expect nothing more or less than only balance changes and bug fixes from here on out.
People who talk about bandwagoning are fucking stupid. Stop being such stupid hipsters. What do you want us to do? Not talk about how retarded the warhound is? Fuck that
The warhound's current design is fucking retarded.
Yeah blizzard will do what blizzard will do. That doesn't mean we can't discuss the shittyness of the current design.
On September 13 2012 12:08 Grimmyman123 wrote: I hate to say it, but Blizzard will do whatever Blizzard wants. It is making patches to the game to balance it out because it would not be playable otherwise, and that would affect sales down the road. So, they "balance" the game, and will release the next. Blizzard does NOT care about the community. They care only about promoting their product lines, and selling more games. They are financially invested in Starcraft 2, nothing more.
so, expect the warhound and other crappy units to remain, and the game, if poorly designed, to remain as it is. I expect nothing more or less than only balance changes and bug fixes from here on out.
As opposed to a situation where they could listen to the mass, mass hate that is poured upon the unit and design better stuff that would encourage more people to buy their products?
On September 13 2012 14:11 veryveryhard wrote: yes, warhound is an attack-move unit, which makes Terran more like the other races
How many times are noobs going to use this stupid argument? Are you mentally deficient?
Nobody wanted Terran to be more like the other races, in terms of micro requirement and skill ceiling. They wanted the other races to be more like Terran.
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
No, actually watching people play it makes a huge difference. Playing it makes a bigger difference and that's what has changed. For instance, I wrote a very long blog on why I felt the the warhound was going in the opposite direction of good mech play. However, because I had only seen battle reports (which are notoriously bad for macro for one thing), I had to leave a back door/caveat at the beginning saying that we were not yet in beta. That's because one needs to see how the unit handles. Particularly on the off chance they included move-shot. The design of it hasn't changed, but more people will become convinced as they see pro's trying to make it work and how it interacts with the rest of the units.,
But how do you tell the difference between a critical mass of people becoming convinced that the early arguments were correct vs band wagoning? Or would you dismiss any general consensus on a topic as bandwagoning?
It's a terrible terrible unit and if it makes it to the game I will be totally crestfallen. Somehow we gotta make it clear to Blizzard that we hate it.
It going to either be sooo powerful that it going to overlap the tank to much and the tank wont be used in TvP and TvP become a mass warhound 1-A gg. OR it will be so weak that it wont be used in TvP and TvZ because being anti mechanical, it shouldnt be as effective as it is in TvZ. This mean that it might only be useful in TvT.
Do you realise that it is just as terrible a unit as the Roach, Marauder (and somewhat Colossus)? People are bitching about it because the Roach and Marauder are also bad... We bitched about these units in the Wol-Beta but were probably to euphoric to finally get SC2 so nothing happened. They got balanced but still stayed the same boring units they were are and probably allways will be... At least the Roach used to have a kinda interesting concept during the Alpha but that also got scrapped...
It's just sad. The last thing we need is more of "these" units... They should have removed them/altered them massively with Hots... But instead they want to add more... Once upon a time they had the balls to do heavy changes with Addons (even Patches) like D2 classic -> Lod -> 1.10 or WC3 -> TfT... sigh... The "problems" with HOTS are not HOTS problems, they are the same problems SC2 in general has.
Can't wait for the Protoss expansion, we probably will get a cheap Airunit that is decent against everything and solves the "Problem" with Air untis not being able to cost efficiently butrape Marines, Hydras, Thors and Turrets/Spores/Cannons...
I went to this thread a bit skeptical, but after reading your post it's obvious that you have a strong point. But still, I've got to say that it's not just black and white as you say it is: It's obvious that from BW to SC2 the gameplay mechanics have become less complicated and more accessible. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Well, I can't say I know the first game too well, but let me take the hotkeys as an example: in BW, if I recall correctly, the hotkeys that you were using were not displayed in the game's HUD, but in SC2 they are visible (exception made for the visual hotkeys). I personally think that this cange was a really nice touch that mantained a required skill level to be able to master the thing correctly, but still making it quite accessible to new players.
I hope they can do something similare with every little aspect of the game, I think that Blizzard has all the time that it takes to adjust the game
Remove the warhound Add 3 upgrades too the terran arsenal:
out of the tech lab > electro-statically charged rounds (firendly fire removal to siege mode) 150crystal/125gas
Solid shot siege mode upgrade (increased seige tank range- reduction in splash range) 100crystal/75gas (make it possible to switch between round types with a 2x reload delay)
out of the armory > Mecha-morph Hydraulic System Upgrade (reduces morph time for all Hybrid units by 1-1.5 ingame seconds) 150crystal /125 gas.
that would terran more flexibility in mirror matches and spreads the upgrades around the terran tech tree - given that hybrid units are all mech based the armory is a natural choice to place the hybrid upgrade.
giving the addition of a 2nd ammo type for the siege tanks lends to higher difficulty in mastering said unit whilst opening up new methods and tactics for tank spread and usage
the late game addition of FF removal too siege tanks reduces the self damage load terran has on its self while the cost makes this upgrade very expensive in the early game and would probably work out in their opponents favor should it be used
The hybrid upgrade removes some of that crucial hang time that can make or break a terran army in any stage of the game, it opens up strategies with Viking Harass and helps add to the utility of battle hellions. the added bonus to this effect on siege tanks would help in reducing the long drawn out Chess game that TvT can stagnate into
If Blizzard is going to stick with the warhound, then I would want to see the Thor removed and AA missiles return to the warhound. Haywire missile being remove as well would be excellent.
If it just becomes a mobile and weaker Thor after some tweaking, I can see justification in keeping it. My biggest issue with it is as orb said, it's a 1a unit but there is little to differentiate it from the Thor aside from it kills things faster and doesn't shoot up.
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
On September 13 2012 09:44 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:41 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
No, actually watching people play it makes a huge difference. Playing it makes a bigger difference and that's what has changed. For instance, I wrote a very long blog on why I felt the the warhound was going in the opposite direction of good mech play. However, because I had only seen battle reports (which are notoriously bad for macro for one thing), I had to leave a back door/caveat at the beginning saying that we were not yet in beta. That's because one needs to see how the unit handles. Particularly on the off chance they included move-shot. The design of it hasn't changed, but more people will become convinced as they see pro's trying to make it work and how it interacts with the rest of the units.,
But how do you tell the difference between a critical mass of people becoming convinced that the early arguments were correct vs band wagoning? Or would you dismiss any general consensus on a topic as bandwagoning?
It can be both. The general consensus is that the Warhound is broken and not good. However, the band wagon is the further argument that is should be removed and replaced with a world shattering siege tank buff or some omega end game unit. People don't like the warhound, but the band wagon effect is causing people to just assume that Blizzard does not care about the game and just wants it to fail.
The second part of the issue, that Blizzard does not care or wants to make the game for casual players, is valid. However, on this weeks Inside the Game, you can see Idra and Incontrol address both of these topics. I will give you the highlights:
- Is Blizzard making the game easier to casuals: Yes and no, they are trying to put in features that will make the game more accessable for the newest players. However, they are keenly aware that they do not want to go to far are remove that allow high level players to succeed. They are openly discussing the topic with Pro players in a private beta forum. Both Idra and Incontrol both felt Blizzard was focusing on players just getting into the game, but not making it easier for mid or high level players.
- Blizzard is arrogant and unwilling to accept feedback on bad units: No. Blizzard is open to all feed back and is taking it in stride. Idra stated they seem very open to making changes and are aware of many of the issues.
- Does Blizzard know that the Warhound is crap: Yep. They are focusing on getting it a place in the match up and giving it abilities that make sense.
- Does Blizzard know that Protoss got a whole bunch of useless crap: Yep. They are working on that as well and are taking advice on how to change things.
People should go watch the episode. It will make you feel a whole lot better about the beta, the maps and that things are going to get better.
On September 13 2012 09:44 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:41 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:29 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 09:19 NicolBolas wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:59 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote:
On September 13 2012 08:25 jinorazi wrote:
On September 13 2012 07:50 [NSL]BansheeHero wrote: Oh no. Should african terrans be removed from HOTS too? Because they do not belong? Maybe we should build a minefield so they cannot cross over the borders of space.
Maybe we should save the sanctity of marriage and remove Archon made from Dark Templars. Starcraft had so many A move units and nobody gave a shit (Some of them even had developed into heavy micro depended units.). This is just another over blown opinion of somebody. If we seriously want these sensational statements to matter we should vote for Slasher to be the eSports president.
EDIT: He could have written this ever since the preview was out. The concept of Warhound never changed. All aboard the warhound bandwagon chuchuchu.
the point isnt warhound but design philosophy and warhound is the prime example of whats wrong with their design philosophy. and yes, people have spoken about this topic, good game design taking ques from bw, countless fucking times, even about warhound. but the problem is they are the minority, many with bw background(who understands whats good or bad better), that just gets ignored by sc2 people saying "go play bw then"
Seriously a big post about how Warhound should not be in the game at all is not about the concept of warhound? WOW. I like BW, never said anything about them playing Broodwar. Nor that it should matter., whether you do or dont.
All i said that this is just a chuchuchu train. Nobody should take beta seriously, unless they work with Blizzard. Making posts like these is not relevant at all to the Beta. It is just a statement of an opinion.(And in this case yet another sensational statement.....)
How is a post about units in the beta not relevant to the beta? And yes, it's "just a statement of an opinion;" that's the point! He's stating his opinion about why the Warhound is a bad unit. And while I agree that it's semi-sensationalist to disguise a "remove the Warhound" thread with the title "don't balance the Warhound", it's hardly senationalist to want it removed.
As for the "chuchuchu train" (which I presume is some kind of net-speak for "bandwagoning." Wagons aren't trains), yes, he's not alone in wanting the Warhound gone. Lots of people want it gone. But "bandwagoning" is basically accusing someone of not thinking. That they're agreeing with everyone else only because those other people are saying it. That they would not have come to this belief on their own.
Just because everyone is against something doesn't make it a bandwagon. Everyone hates drowning; that doesn't mean avoiding drowning is a bandwagon. It just means that we all see the downsides and would rather not do it.
I posted why this is a sensational band-wagoning. Warhound did not change from the first sneak peak. Nobody gave a crap about it, except the model being a ripoff of Warhammer.
People were talking about the Warhound being bad pretty much since it came to this form. Maybe not as many people; some people decided to adopt a wait-and-see approach. They waited, saw that it still wasn't good, and started complaining.
That's not band-wagoning. That's being mistrustful of Theorycrafting.
Futhermore, even if it is, how do you know that it's band-wagoning in this case? Did Orb ever once say that he liked the Warhound before? Did he ever once say that it was a good unit before? If not, then you don't know that it's a case of band-wagoning.
No thats why it is band wagoning. Nothing changed, except the popularity of the topic. Thats the whole point. If you do not agree with it, its fine.
No, actually watching people play it makes a huge difference. Playing it makes a bigger difference and that's what has changed. For instance, I wrote a very long blog on why I felt the the warhound was going in the opposite direction of good mech play. However, because I had only seen battle reports (which are notoriously bad for macro for one thing), I had to leave a back door/caveat at the beginning saying that we were not yet in beta. That's because one needs to see how the unit handles. Particularly on the off chance they included move-shot. The design of it hasn't changed, but more people will become convinced as they see pro's trying to make it work and how it interacts with the rest of the units.,
But how do you tell the difference between a critical mass of people becoming convinced that the early arguments were correct vs band wagoning? Or would you dismiss any general consensus on a topic as bandwagoning?
It can be both. The general consensus is that the Warhound is broken and not good. However, the band wagon is the further argument that is should be removed and replaced with a world shattering siege tank buff or some omega end game unit. People don't like the warhound, but the band wagon effect is causing people to just assume that Blizzard does not care about the game and just wants it to fail.
The second part of the issue, that Blizzard does not care or wants to make the game for casual players, is valid. However, on this weeks Inside the Game, you can see Idra and Incontrol address both of these topics. I will give you the highlights:
- Is Blizzard making the game easier to casuals: Yes and no, they are trying to put in features that will make the game more accessable for the newest players. However, they are keenly aware that they do not want to go to far are remove that allow high level players to succeed. They are openly discussing the topic with Pro players in a private beta forum. Both Idra and Incontrol both felt Blizzard was focusing on players just getting into the game, but not making it easier for mid or high level players.
- Blizzard is arrogant and unwilling to accept feedback on bad units: No. Blizzard is open to all feed back and is taking it in stride. Idra stated they seem very open to making changes and are aware of many of the issues.
- Does Blizzard know that the Warhound is crap: Yep. They are focusing on getting it a place in the match up and giving it abilities that make sense.
- Does Blizzard know that Protoss got a whole bunch of useless crap: Yep. They are working on that as well and are taking advice on how to change things.
People should go watch the episode. It will make you feel a whole lot better about the beta, the maps and that things are going to get better.
This gives me hope. There are a few encouraging posts from Dustin B on the NA forums to.
Now there is a massive difference between saying "i understand, we are looking in to it" and actually doing taking drastic measures.. We will see.
I agree 100%, too bad it's never going to work itself out, SC2 has had many design flaws (imo) since day1, and a lot of them have stood the test of time to annoy us today.
they have 1 more expansion after this to make everything right, and i actually think they are holding out on some units and stuff to make people wnat to buy LotV and get hyped about it
I agree completely. Thank you, Orb, for finally expressing your opinions publicly about this new unit and in a professional manner Please listen to him, Blizzard.
Orb, you are 100% correct and I wish Blizzard would listen. Unfortunately you can replace "Warhound 2012 beta" with "Colossus 2010 beta" and this article will not miss a beat. Blizzard doesn't care about their game being balanced, challenging or rewarding. They want eye-candy that anyone can pick up and do strategies they see on WCS or MLG to feel good about winning on ladder...and it is really a shame because of the amount of talent and passion people have for what boils down to an inferior product.
Thanks for pointing out all the facts ^_^, i think you're right about a lot of it, especially the reaver part; and I wish there was something like that in Starcraft2 now!
I would go as far as to say it's too late to remove the warhound or to redesign anything about the game because for one, It's activision-blizzard + bowder's design team who are in charge of th game, and two, that the game is already immersed more in the noob-friendly side of society.
This forum is unfortunately more biased towards the "high-difficulty, more enjoyment" side of gaming because most of us are old-school games who come from BW and other games with similar enjoyability. I have many friends on facebook who are just dazzled at the explosions in SC2 and they think it's already too hard because they can't stop a zergling rush and they have to micro individual groups of units already.
So while I agree wholeheartedly with your opinion on the warhound and the game in general, it's unfortunate that we are only about 20-40% of the sc2 community and Blizzard has to cater towards the majority of gamers.
@Plansix That's fair enough. I like they have a private forum for the pro's. Hopefully someone's taking up the cause for proper moving shot and a couple other things.
On September 14 2012 07:28 Falling wrote: @Plansix That's fair enough. I like they have a private forum for the pro's. Hopefully someone's taking up the cause for proper moving shot and a couple other things.
Terran finally gets a-click units, I find it great, I was extremely bored by the amount of skill required to do the same thing with terran while you can easily do it with the other races (and I play random). I don't like the warhound, but only because I find it ugly. Your post is just QQ in advance because you think it will be overpowered (I know you play protoss). You rage in advance to see that terran's micro is now as easy as the other races, meaning that players from your level will beat you. But I don't want to talk about imbalance, just think about what makes the warhound different than the colossus...
On September 14 2012 07:50 Cosmos wrote: Terran finally gets a-click units, I find it great, I was extremely bored by the amount of skill required to do the same thing with terran while you can easily do it with the other races (and I play random). I don't like the warhound, but only because I find it ugly. Your post is just QQ in advance because you think it will be overpowered (I know you play protoss). You rage in advance to see that terran's micro is now as easy as the other races, meaning that players from your level will beat you. But I don't want to talk about imbalance, just think about what makes the warhound different than the colossus...
Yep, you sure nailed the point of this thread. Go back to call of duty noob.
i really would love to see it removed; Terran is already a very complete race, i don't think they need something *major* to make mech viable. what it is that they actually need, i do not know as i am just a shitty zerg player, but i'd love to see pro/semi-pro Terran offer their input on what sort of "interesting" unit mech needs to help it become viable.
Lol by reading this thread SC2 professional gaming might die tomorrow. It will be fun to see how many of you will buy Hots day one, or even in the future.
Btw, Sc2 is probably the most carefully developed RTS that is being released, so I wouldn't be so worried about it
On September 14 2012 07:28 Falling wrote: @Plansix That's fair enough. I like they have a private forum for the pro's. Hopefully someone's taking up the cause for proper moving shot and a couple other things.
I wish I had read-only access to this forum T_T
It would be so interesting to read
Although I would love to see the discussion as well, I am glad it is private. Blizzard should really focus on getting feedback from the best and most critical of the professional community, rather than sifting through the masses of non-sense that fill a lot of the forums.
tekken tag 2 got a bad review from ign (mainstream) because...ITS HARD. watch the review on ign, he repeats how hard the game is for the new players and they gave a 7.5/10 meanwhile a lot of tekken fans say this is the best tekken so far (me including), gameplay wise and not story/1player, obviously.
in that sense, should the game be designed for the fans such as someone myself who played tekken since tekken 2, hating tekken 4 but still fan of it and will end up buying all sc2 regardless of bad they are because i'm a fan of starcraft, or the mass populous that has no interest in depth and just want to enjoy the game without having to invest so much time into it and then move onto something new? is sc2 better being angry bird or bw?
All I know is I still haven't stopped playing Mortal Kombat: Trilogy because that game is so hard I feel like a masochist when I sit down and play it for longer than half an hour without beating the first ladder on Very Easy with a new character. God, what a great game...
Agree with it mostly, also I find that for new players and such, a ton of my friends don't play sc2 simply because of "its just too hard" I don't agree that a simple unit change or even a race over haul will change their minds. To them they don't play starcraft2 because is starcraft2. It is just too hard and as casuals they don't want to put in the effort. Lets face it, the base game of sc2 is not a casual game, you won't gain decent skill unless you put in the time, no one is naturally really good at sc2 when you first pick it up like you can be with an FPS. Yes Blizzard is trying to appeal to the casuals with a more fluid custom game experience. Great! So they should focus on that for casuals and they should then focus on the base game of sc2 to appeal to us, the non casuals, the people who don't want anymore A-move units.
On September 14 2012 12:49 Digitalis wrote: Agree with it mostly, also I find that for new players and such, a ton of my friends don't play sc2 simply because of "its just too hard" I don't agree that a simple unit change or even a race over haul will change their minds. To them they don't play starcraft2 because is starcraft2. It is just too hard and as casuals they don't want to put in the effort. Lets face it, the base game of sc2 is not a casual game, you won't gain decent skill unless you put in the time, no one is naturally really good at sc2 when you first pick it up like you can be with an FPS. Yes Blizzard is trying to appeal to the casuals with a more fluid custom game experience. Great! So they should focus on that for casuals and they should then focus on the base game of sc2 to appeal to us, the non casuals, the people who don't want anymore A-move units.
100% agree.
Blizzard should concentrate on promoting Blizzard Dota to Casuals. RTS =/= Casual. They simply don't go together. And when you try you fail. For example: AOE Online, CC4, Halo Wars.
On September 14 2012 12:49 Digitalis wrote: Agree with it mostly, also I find that for new players and such, a ton of my friends don't play sc2 simply because of "its just too hard" I don't agree that a simple unit change or even a race over haul will change their minds. To them they don't play starcraft2 because is starcraft2. It is just too hard and as casuals they don't want to put in the effort. Lets face it, the base game of sc2 is not a casual game, you won't gain decent skill unless you put in the time, no one is naturally really good at sc2 when you first pick it up like you can be with an FPS. Yes Blizzard is trying to appeal to the casuals with a more fluid custom game experience. Great! So they should focus on that for casuals and they should then focus on the base game of sc2 to appeal to us, the non casuals, the people who don't want anymore A-move units.
100% agree.
Blizzard should concentrate on promoting Blizzard Dota to Casuals. RTS =/= Casual. They simply don't go together. And when you try you fail. For example: AOE Online, CC4, Halo Wars.
Casuals want to play checkers, not chess.
Right, because nobody plays Chess casually.
I will never understand this fervent belief that some people have that making a game reasonable for casual play automatically and irrevocably makes it bad for non-casuals.
I know it's been upwards of 14 years since SC1's release, but guess what? SC1 was a casual RTS game! It was later appropriated by the competitive scene because it had depth. But it was, at the time, a casual RTS game.
Casual play is important. There's a reason why Street Fighter is played by more pros than King of Fighters, regardless of the general concensus among pros that KoF is harder. The fact is this: you need casuals, because every generation of competitive players starts as casuals. They like some element of the game, so they keep playing and get better at it. They then become competitive.
Without those casuals-turned-competitive players, all you have are a closed, isolated group of players. And every year, some of them will stop playing. Without new casuals-turned-competitive to bolster numbers, your community slowly withers and effectively dies.
Now that doesn't mean I support things like the Warhound. But I also don't support this notion that making the game casual unfriendly makes it a better game.
any toss nerdraging about warhound right now should take a good look on how retarded toss is on WOL.
Basicly everything is hardcounter to bio, zealots with their retarded armor which makes them the best A move unit in the game, many pro terrans like thorzain almost lost to master toss doing zealot only build.
storms, archons, sentry, colo, everything is their just to counter bio, terrran army will basicly die in 10seconds even with perfect spread.
we were saying what orb is saying now during Wings of liberty beta about everything. Blizzard is not going to change anything and the game will continue to be mediocre
Some of the attitude among the "pro" players is just terrible.
You seem to think that you talk for the majority while posting on Teamliquid. The average player here on Teamliquid is waaaaaay above the average SC2 player. I have a lot of friends that play SC2 from time to time and guess what, they think lazers pew pew is fun and they like everything about HoTS, even the warhound.
Because they (and me too for that matter) only play SC2 like once a week.
BW for casuals (that is the majority of Blizzards customers, you know the majority of where the cash flow comes from) was absolutely terrible. Sure it was fun to watch Flash vs JD but playing was incredibly frustrating for someone that plays games once a week.
SC2 is replayable. The definition of replayability for a lot of people here seems to be "replayable 3 hours a day at least". For me, replayable means "replayable once a week" and SC2 absolutely delivers.
So I have a hard time understanding this so call "replayability" from players that play SC2 for hours per day.
Blizzard is doing an absolute fantastic job with SC2. I gave up on BW because it was exhausting to play. With SC2 me and my friends finally have a game we can enjoy and play each other once a week without feeling we have to relearn everything.
Thank god Blizzard has changed with time and adapted to the majority (the people you guys refer to as casuals) of players.
Well-said. It's by no means an idea alien to the community, but it was expressed well. Clearly the Warhound is fundamentaly flawed, and a few tweaks to make it "less imbalanced" won't fix the problem that the unit brings directly to the table.
I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm. I rarely play the game, maybe 10 games in the last 4 months, but I can still easily maintain masters level by just building what I feel like, completely ignoring build orders or timings etc. If that's possible.. whats the point really.
Interesting, I thought all you said was about colossus and which seems to make more sense.
You are guarantee to be able to play with low mechanics and it make some bad protoss player looks acceptable including many casters including ... It's brilliant to use reaver as an example instead of ... colossus.
Seriously, I really dont understand why colossus is allowed to in the game but warhound.
On September 14 2012 16:30 Jakkerr wrote: I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm.
Then why don't you play in the GSL and win $100,000? I'd do something easy that was worth that kind of money.
it's easy to play not to win, it's not easy to win simply because it also easy to play, for all the other players, julyzerg talked about this when he switched and there is basically almost zero skill GAP,
I don't think that this is a particularly strong or well put argument. I generally dislike the tribalism of SC. Toss vs terran vs zerg. BW vs. SC2. Pro vs. casual. The reason being is that it creates bias that clouds judgement.
You can see that in the thread.
-self identified "hardcore" players nod their heads in sage agreement. The warhound is bad. -self identified "casual" players are angry about perceived elitism. The warhound is fine.
And both camps make poor arguments based on personal bias and try to dress them up as fact.
I don't think this thread will do anything to change the warhound significantly as everything here will be entirely unsurprising to blizzard and unsurprising is ignorable. Although if the page count gets incredibly high very quickly it might get noticed. Which is why I made this post.
On a purely subjective and personal level: I have watched HoTs streams and the warhound looks like a unit ripped from a bad RTS circa 1990. An ed209 on cocaine with all the unique charm of a two week old banana. I dearly hope we can get it changed significantly and not just get it balanced. However I don't think this thread will do it and I don't think this argument deserved a spotlight.
On September 14 2012 16:30 Jakkerr wrote: I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm.
Then why don't you play in the GSL and win $100,000? I'd do something easy that was worth that kind of money.
it's easy to play not to win, it's not easy to win simply because it also easy to play, for all the other players, julyzerg talked about this when he switched and there basically almost zero skill GAP,
Anyone you specifically would like to face in Code A?
Flash: Not really. Everyone is really good in SC2.
Could this imply the low skill ceiling or am i reading to much in to it :p
On September 14 2012 16:30 Jakkerr wrote: I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm.
Then why don't you play in the GSL and win $100,000? I'd do something easy that was worth that kind of money.
it's easy to play not to win, it's not easy to win simply because it also easy to play, for all the other players, julyzerg talked about this when he switched and there basically almost zero skill GAP,
Anyone you specifically would like to face in Code A?
Flash: Not really. Everyone is really good in SC2.
Could this imply the low skill ceiling or am i reading to much in to it :p
You are reading into to much. Flash is just being polite. Korean players do not directly call each other out, they trash talking is more passive aggressive.
On September 14 2012 16:30 Jakkerr wrote: I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm.
Then why don't you play in the GSL and win $100,000? I'd do something easy that was worth that kind of money.
it's easy to play not to win, it's not easy to win simply because it also easy to play, for all the other players, julyzerg talked about this when he switched and there basically almost zero skill GAP,
Anyone you specifically would like to face in Code A?
Flash: Not really. Everyone is really good in SC2.
Could this imply the low skill ceiling or am i reading to much in to it :p
You are reading into to much. Flash is just being polite. Korean players do not directly call each other out, they trash talking is more passive aggressive.
You're probably right. Just wanted to add some fuel to the fire that's all.
On September 14 2012 12:49 Digitalis wrote: Agree with it mostly, also I find that for new players and such, a ton of my friends don't play sc2 simply because of "its just too hard" I don't agree that a simple unit change or even a race over haul will change their minds. To them they don't play starcraft2 because is starcraft2. It is just too hard and as casuals they don't want to put in the effort. Lets face it, the base game of sc2 is not a casual game, you won't gain decent skill unless you put in the time, no one is naturally really good at sc2 when you first pick it up like you can be with an FPS. Yes Blizzard is trying to appeal to the casuals with a more fluid custom game experience. Great! So they should focus on that for casuals and they should then focus on the base game of sc2 to appeal to us, the non casuals, the people who don't want anymore A-move units.
100% agree.
Blizzard should concentrate on promoting Blizzard Dota to Casuals. RTS =/= Casual. They simply don't go together. And when you try you fail. For example: AOE Online, CC4, Halo Wars.
Casuals want to play checkers, not chess.
The Casuals are the large numbers. The casuals therefore are the ones that are interessting for sponsors. 98% of the players are not masters. WIthout having casuals play oyur game the scene does not have the money income to sustain a professional scene.
On September 10 2012 18:51 Morphs wrote: The Warhound is no coincidence. Blizzard wanted exactly this, as stated in interviews. According to Blizzard, the Warhound was purposely created as an a-move unit since there's already so much micro involved in playing Terran...
And that's why warhound is such a biatch to ballance. The idea behind this unit is bad, not the creation, you can't ballance the idea.
The two units being way too similar in role isn't working out for us.
We're currently looking for ways for the Warhound to have a different role, and good suggestions in this area would definitely be welcome. The current Marauder vs. mech Marauder is not looking to be a very cool Starcraft choice.
On September 15 2012 01:12 Aenur wrote: Looks like they will change it in the near future, and not only in numbers. People with good ideas, now is your time to post on Battlenet forums.
This is a good sign and what I expected out of Blizzard. I am glad they just threw the unit out there so they could know for sure that it wouldn't be good and where the problems are. Although the community was pretty much on point with this one, we have been wrong about other stuff.
Also, people should Browder's posts in the Bnet forums. He is putting has been commenting on good suggestions about everything from Protoss play to how to make ladder runs more rewarding, even when you are on a fat losing streak. It is interesting stuff.
On September 14 2012 16:30 Jakkerr wrote: I agree with this post, SCII is way too easy atm.
Then why don't you play in the GSL and win $100,000? I'd do something easy that was worth that kind of money.
it's easy to play not to win, it's not easy to win simply because it also easy to play, for all the other players, julyzerg talked about this when he switched and there is basically almost zero skill GAP,
The game should be easy to play. Why the hell would you want to fight against the game rather than your opponent? If there is almost zero skill GAP then I refer to my original point: go win the GSL. The skill gap between you and the other players is almost zero, so I believe you can do it.
On September 15 2012 01:12 Aenur wrote: Looks like they will change it in the near future, and not only in numbers. People with good ideas, now is your time to post on Battlenet forums.
On September 14 2012 14:34 Granter wrote: any toss nerdraging about warhound right now should take a good look on how retarded toss is on WOL.
Basicly everything is hardcounter to bio, zealots with their retarded armor which makes them the best A move unit in the game, many pro terrans like thorzain almost lost to master toss doing zealot only build.
storms, archons, sentry, colo, everything is their just to counter bio, terrran army will basicly die in 10seconds even with perfect spread.
you couldn't be more wrong, TvP on WOL is fairly balanced
TvP on HOTS is an absolute joke, I picked T for fun yesterday for like 20 games and I have yet to lose TvPs
The two units being way too similar in role isn't working out for us.
We're currently looking for ways for the Warhound to have a different role, and good suggestions in this area would definitely be welcome. The current Marauder vs. mech Marauder is not looking to be a very cool Starcraft choice.
We don't think Terran anti air is lacking, but we are focusing on improving the Widow Mine which should help in this area as well.
For Terran in general, this is our latest thoughts:
1. Warhound is not working out at all 2. Seeing Reapers again early game is cool + we'd like to try pushing it more 3. Widow Mine improvements to bring them more into the Terran army
On September 14 2012 14:34 Granter wrote: any toss nerdraging about warhound right now should take a good look on how retarded toss is on WOL.
Basicly everything is hardcounter to bio, zealots with their retarded armor which makes them the best A move unit in the game, many pro terrans like thorzain almost lost to master toss doing zealot only build.
storms, archons, sentry, colo, everything is their just to counter bio, terrran army will basicly die in 10seconds even with perfect spread.
you couldn't be more wrong, TvP on WOL is fairly balanced
TvP on HOTS is an absolute joke, I picked T for fun yesterday for like 20 games and I have yet to lose TvPs
Wait, your telling me that the game is much easier when you have a unit is as fast as a stalker, hits harder than a marauder, with a special attack that makes it do nearly equal damage to an immortal and that costs less than either of those units?
We don't think Terran anti air is lacking, but we are focusing on improving the Widow Mine which should help in this area as well.
For Terran in general, this is our latest thoughts:
1. Warhound is not working out at all 2. Seeing Reapers again early game is cool + we'd like to try pushing it more 3. Widow Mine improvements to bring them more into the Terran army
Also David Kim on the battle.net forums
Thats awesome. Reapers in the early game are awesome/scary. I hope to see more battle hellions as well, since they look aweosme.
We don't think Terran anti air is lacking, but we are focusing on improving the Widow Mine which should help in this area as well.
For Terran in general, this is our latest thoughts:
1. Warhound is not working out at all 2. Seeing Reapers again early game is cool + we'd like to try pushing it more 3. Widow Mine improvements to bring them more into the Terran army
Also David Kim on the battle.net forums
This is so cool!
I gues with so much to change both with Terran and Protoss the next patch might take to time.
The two units being way too similar in role isn't working out for us.
We're currently looking for ways for the Warhound to have a different role, and good suggestions in this area would definitely be welcome. The current Marauder vs. mech Marauder is not looking to be a very cool Starcraft choice.
The Warhound should be a mech caster unit. No attack, just spells like Lockdown and Haywire missiles that you have to manual target vs mech units. Nerf its health. Give it Irradiate so it can be used vs bio. Boom! You got a mech support unit to complement Seige Tanks.
On September 14 2012 15:13 papaz wrote: Some of the attitude among the "pro" players is just terrible.
You seem to think that you talk for the majority while posting on Teamliquid. The average player here on Teamliquid is waaaaaay above the average SC2 player. I have a lot of friends that play SC2 from time to time and guess what, they think lazers pew pew is fun and they like everything about HoTS, even the warhound.
Because they (and me too for that matter) only play SC2 like once a week.
BW for casuals (that is the majority of Blizzards customers, you know the majority of where the cash flow comes from) was absolutely terrible. Sure it was fun to watch Flash vs JD but playing was incredibly frustrating for someone that plays games once a week.
SC2 is replayable. The definition of replayability for a lot of people here seems to be "replayable 3 hours a day at least". For me, replayable means "replayable once a week" and SC2 absolutely delivers.
So I have a hard time understanding this so call "replayability" from players that play SC2 for hours per day.
Blizzard is doing an absolute fantastic job with SC2. I gave up on BW because it was exhausting to play. With SC2 me and my friends finally have a game we can enjoy and play each other once a week without feeling we have to relearn everything.
Thank god Blizzard has changed with time and adapted to the majority (the people you guys refer to as casuals) of players.
I strongly disagree with this. Why? Because when I was in university, we recruited new people all the time for BW games. Once a week LAN's. Or maybe just every 2 weeks or once a month. Everyone was super casual except for me. But people had fun just the same. Something like the all-powerful tank, smashing through protoss lines will attract casuals I agree. But adding depth to the game doesn't make it more difficult for casuals. They just don't use it. It doesn't effect them at all.
If true casual has a hard time with spell-casters, they're just straight up not going to make them. Smart-casting or no smart-casting. They'll play the game without them and find other units that are fun to play. But if they do use it on occasion, and it's extremely powerful, because it's harder to use, it's AWESOME. Even for the casual because it still does lot's of damage rather than being nerfed into a mediocre spell because it's so easy for pro's to evenly distribute AoE damage.
In other words, you make it too easy on the pro's, the crazy, powerful spells get nerfed and make it less interesting for casuals as well when they make the odd foray into the harder aspects of the game. Crazy awesome damage is rewarding.
Other elements of depth just fly right over the heads of casuals and don't effect the game for them in the slightest. Move-shot doesn't interfere with play if you can't be bothered to learn it. You just don't use it and right click your units forward (because you don't even know how to A move units forward- or can't be bothered.)
So while it may be your experience that BW is terrible for casuals, I just can't believe that based on the number of people I've taught to play the game. And will still play the game on occasion if we ever meet up online (we're all spread out now). We just have to balance out the teams to make it fun.
On September 14 2012 15:13 papaz wrote: Some of the attitude among the "pro" players is just terrible.
You seem to think that you talk for the majority while posting on Teamliquid. The average player here on Teamliquid is waaaaaay above the average SC2 player. I have a lot of friends that play SC2 from time to time and guess what, they think lazers pew pew is fun and they like everything about HoTS, even the warhound.
Because they (and me too for that matter) only play SC2 like once a week.
BW for casuals (that is the majority of Blizzards customers, you know the majority of where the cash flow comes from) was absolutely terrible. Sure it was fun to watch Flash vs JD but playing was incredibly frustrating for someone that plays games once a week.
SC2 is replayable. The definition of replayability for a lot of people here seems to be "replayable 3 hours a day at least". For me, replayable means "replayable once a week" and SC2 absolutely delivers.
So I have a hard time understanding this so call "replayability" from players that play SC2 for hours per day.
Blizzard is doing an absolute fantastic job with SC2. I gave up on BW because it was exhausting to play. With SC2 me and my friends finally have a game we can enjoy and play each other once a week without feeling we have to relearn everything.
Thank god Blizzard has changed with time and adapted to the majority (the people you guys refer to as casuals) of players.
I strongly disagree with this. Why? Because when I was in university, we recruited new people all the time for BW games. Once a week LAN's. Or maybe just every 2 weeks or once a month. Everyone was super casual except for me. But people had fun just the same. Something like the all-powerful tank, smashing through protoss lines will attract casuals I agree. But adding depth to the game doesn't make it more difficult for casuals. They just don't use it. It doesn't effect them at all.
If true casual has a hard time with spell-casters, they're just straight up not going to make them. Smart-casting or no smart-casting. They'll play the game without them and find other units that are fun to play. But if they do use it on occasion, and it's extremely powerful, because it's harder to use, it's AWESOME. Even for the casual because it still does lot's of damage rather than being nerfed into a mediocre spell because it's so easy for pro's to evenly distribute AoE damage.
In other words, you make it too easy on the pro's, the crazy, powerful spells get nerfed and make it less interesting for casuals as well when they make the odd foray into the harder aspects of the game. Crazy awesome damage is rewarding.
Other elements of depth just fly right over the heads of casuals and don't effect the game for them in the slightest. Move-shot doesn't interfere with play if you can't be bothered to learn it. You just don't use it and right click your units forward (because you don't even know how to A move units forward- or can't be bothered.)
So while it may be your experience that BW is terrible for casuals, I just can't believe that based on the number of people I've taught to play the game. And will still play the game on occasion if we ever meet up online (we're all spread out now). We just have to balance out the teams to make it fun.
This, this a thousand times. Great post. I've always felt that catering to casuals makes the game just as frustrating to casuals as it does to more serious players. It also underestimates the large proportion of people who enjoy overcoming challenges.
I'll take the Call of Duty series as an example, given it's something of a casual staple. Each thing they added to help the new players, would become just as frustrating to them later on once they passed their initiation phase. A chief example was this ability called painkiller that would be activated upon a certain number of consistent deaths, and give you 3x the health for a short period. This would help to break spawn trappers and the like, but almost everybody in the game would be pissed off beyond belief about such an ability. Likewise, in almost every iteration there is just one, sometimes several 'noob cannons' aka weapons that have no real drawbacks. These don't help casual/new players because yeah they can pick up kills a bit easier than otherwise, but you'd be playing against 6 players on the opposing team with lots of experience using these obscenely good weapons and destroying the noobies. Don't even get me started on the gimmicky stuff that was added each franchise to give people 'cool' stuff that ended up reducing the game to a complete clusterfuck.
Anyway, matchmaking should surely maintain casual interest? It's not as if they're going up against people way better than them every game, they're playing players of a similar skill level on ladder. Bad players will be able to pick up wins, good players likewise because they're ostensibly playing against players of their skill level. Despite this the 'ladder anxiety' is a big issue, and again Blizz are adding unranked matches to try and mitigate this further
On September 15 2012 02:26 Code wrote: The Warhound should be a mech caster unit. No attack, just spells like Lockdown and Haywire missiles that you have to manual target vs mech units. Nerf its health. Give it Irradiate so it can be used vs bio. Boom! You got a mech support unit to complement Seige Tanks.
no, need unit with micro potential and rework raven so it actually has useful spells like irradiate. casting spells is whats ruining sc2, everything works around casting spells, least for terran but ghost is the staple of my tvp. give lockdown upgrade for ghost at battlecruiser-late tech timing.
Let us remember on this day, September 15 2012, Justice was served today with the death of the warhound. He will not be missed or cared. Those that do, are scrub that has no idea how to play the game and only wishes to destroy the game. Let us all gather together and hope that from this day onward, we can build a better future and if one day the warhound was the return, we shall remember it not as it was, but as it will be and hopefully that it has changed for the better.
On September 14 2012 15:13 papaz wrote: Some of the attitude among the "pro" players is just terrible.
You seem to think that you talk for the majority while posting on Teamliquid. The average player here on Teamliquid is waaaaaay above the average SC2 player. I have a lot of friends that play SC2 from time to time and guess what, they think lazers pew pew is fun and they like everything about HoTS, even the warhound.
Because they (and me too for that matter) only play SC2 like once a week.
BW for casuals (that is the majority of Blizzards customers, you know the majority of where the cash flow comes from) was absolutely terrible. Sure it was fun to watch Flash vs JD but playing was incredibly frustrating for someone that plays games once a week.
SC2 is replayable. The definition of replayability for a lot of people here seems to be "replayable 3 hours a day at least". For me, replayable means "replayable once a week" and SC2 absolutely delivers.
So I have a hard time understanding this so call "replayability" from players that play SC2 for hours per day.
Blizzard is doing an absolute fantastic job with SC2. I gave up on BW because it was exhausting to play. With SC2 me and my friends finally have a game we can enjoy and play each other once a week without feeling we have to relearn everything.
Thank god Blizzard has changed with time and adapted to the majority (the people you guys refer to as casuals) of players.
I strongly disagree with this. Why? Because when I was in university, we recruited new people all the time for BW games. Once a week LAN's. Or maybe just every 2 weeks or once a month. Everyone was super casual except for me. But people had fun just the same. Something like the all-powerful tank, smashing through protoss lines will attract casuals I agree. But adding depth to the game doesn't make it more difficult for casuals. They just don't use it. It doesn't effect them at all.
If true casual has a hard time with spell-casters, they're just straight up not going to make them. Smart-casting or no smart-casting. They'll play the game without them and find other units that are fun to play. But if they do use it on occasion, and it's extremely powerful, because it's harder to use, it's AWESOME. Even for the casual because it still does lot's of damage rather than being nerfed into a mediocre spell because it's so easy for pro's to evenly distribute AoE damage.
In other words, you make it too easy on the pro's, the crazy, powerful spells get nerfed and make it less interesting for casuals as well when they make the odd foray into the harder aspects of the game. Crazy awesome damage is rewarding.
Other elements of depth just fly right over the heads of casuals and don't effect the game for them in the slightest. Move-shot doesn't interfere with play if you can't be bothered to learn it. You just don't use it and right click your units forward (because you don't even know how to A move units forward- or can't be bothered.)
So while it may be your experience that BW is terrible for casuals, I just can't believe that based on the number of people I've taught to play the game. And will still play the game on occasion if we ever meet up online (we're all spread out now). We just have to balance out the teams to make it fun.
This, this a thousand times. Great post. I've always felt that catering to casuals makes the game just as frustrating to casuals as it does to more serious players. It also underestimates the large proportion of people who enjoy overcoming challenges.
I'll take the Call of Duty series as an example, given it's something of a casual staple. Each thing they added to help the new players, would become just as frustrating to them later on once they passed their initiation phase. A chief example was this ability called painkiller that would be activated upon a certain number of consistent deaths, and give you 3x the health for a short period. This would help to break spawn trappers and the like, but almost everybody in the game would be pissed off beyond belief about such an ability. Likewise, in almost every iteration there is just one, sometimes several 'noob cannons' aka weapons that have no real drawbacks. These don't help casual/new players because yeah they can pick up kills a bit easier than otherwise, but you'd be playing against 6 players on the opposing team with lots of experience using these obscenely good weapons and destroying the noobies. Don't even get me started on the gimmicky stuff that was added each franchise to give people 'cool' stuff that ended up reducing the game to a complete clusterfuck.
Anyway, matchmaking should surely maintain casual interest? It's not as if they're going up against people way better than them every game, they're playing players of a similar skill level on ladder. Bad players will be able to pick up wins, good players likewise because they're ostensibly playing against players of their skill level. Despite this the 'ladder anxiety' is a big issue, and again Blizz are adding unranked matches to try and mitigate this further
Agreed for the most part.
I think attracting casuals is a matter of two things:
1) Making sure they can win games. Match-making solves that issue.
2) Making sure that they feel that the game is being fair to them in some way.
From the perspective of RTS games nowadays, many interface restrictions in SC1 seem unfair. Low unit selection limits, no rally-mining, single-building-selection, these all are "grunt-work" to them. It's the interface saying, "Yes, I know exactly what you want to do, but I'm going to make it take more time." It doesn't feel fair to these players to have to do that; it seems like an artificial restriction. Your reward for doing it "right" is simply getting what you feel you already deserve.
Siege Tank placement, by contrast, feels like a part of the game. You pick where you want it to go, and you need to say to siege up in that location. It takes time to siege and unsiege, and it takes micro to do these things. And so forth. It's hard, but it's fair about it. And best of all, you're rewarded for getting it right by having Siege Tanks do their stuff, rather than being worthless.
If there is a blizzard rep reading through this thread, or just on this forum in general, thanks for listening to the community, we want this game to be amazing at least as much as you do.
Thanks for removing the warhound in it's current form.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
There are no words for how unbelievably retarded and naive this viewpoint is, or moreover, how naive the OP is. If you begin to make everything a headache to do, you take the fun out of StarCraft. The OP talks about essential elements of micro like concaving and drawing back weakened units like they're non-events. That's absurd. Unless you intend to tell everyone below Diamond that they are not welcome anymore, then easy to learn, hard to master is clearly a superior philosophy to "hard to learn and harder to master."
Blizzard has a long and proud history of telling the community to go pound sand and doing what it knows is best (this is sometimes what people QQ for, and often not). For the first time ever, Blizzard is getting weak in the knees, and what we are seeing in HOTS is "design by committee." Mark my words, if it continues the expansion pack will be an unbalanced, low quality cluster fuck, and we are all going to regret our whining.
agree with everything but they should replace with something else more fun, they are trying to make starcraft hots more dynamic and warhound is like a more stupid version of a marauder(cuz at least the marauder can slow and you can have some cute micro)
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
There are no words for how unbelievably retarded and naive this viewpoint is, or moreover, how naive the OP is. If you begin to make everything a headache to do, you take the fun out of StarCraft. The OP talks about essential elements of micro like concaving and drawing back weakened units like they're non-events. That's absurd. Unless you intend to tell everyone below Diamond that they are not welcome anymore, then easy to learn, hard to master is clearly a superior philosophy to "hard to learn and harder to master."
Blizzard has a long and proud history of telling the community to go pound sand and doing what it knows is best (this is sometimes what people QQ for, and often not). For the first time ever, Blizzard is getting weak in the knees, and what we are seeing in HOTS is "design by committee." Mark my words, if it continues the expansion pack will be an unbalanced, low quality cluster fuck, and we are all going to regret our whining.
Whomever wrote this clearly knows nothing about professional SC2 and is a complete FUCKTARD.
Now we just need a thread pushing the professional community to allow Orb to once again cast. Why? Well he is one of the best casters out there, period. Not just in knowledge, but also in HOW he casts, how he presents situations in game, and his ability to speak clearly and quite frankly very intelligently about what is going on in a game and how it is progressing. Please community, see past the mistakes Orb has made in the distant past, he is an amazing caster, he has made up for ANY wrong doing he has done over the past months/years. This man needs to be behind a mic again.
On September 15 2012 07:10 IamTheWhiteGuy wrote: Blizzard has a long and proud history of telling the community to go pound sand and doing what it knows is best (this is sometimes what people QQ for, and often not). For the first time ever, Blizzard is getting weak in the knees, and what we are seeing in HOTS is "design by committee." Mark my words, if it continues the expansion pack will be an unbalanced, low quality cluster fuck, and we are all going to regret our whining.
I understand and appreciate your discontent with the fact that Blizzard appears to be caving in to what the community wants. However, there's one fact that can't be overstated:
Shitty unit design is shitty.
Whether it's Blizzard realizing that it's shitty, or them being told it is shitty by everyone on these and other forums, that doesn't change the fact that ditching the Warhound for a better unit is a good move.
Now yes, I generally don't trust something when someone makes the right decision for the wrong reasons. The Warhound didn't need to go because of fan outcry; it needed to go because it is a shitty unit (that fact being what prompted the outcry).
So consider the possibility that they're not doing it because of the fan outcry specifically. That is, Blizzard isn't necessarily doing it to placate the fans. They could be doing it because the unit is bad, they've come to realize that, and thus are going back to the drawing board.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
There are no words for how unbelievably retarded and naive this viewpoint is, or moreover, how naive the OP is. If you begin to make everything a headache to do, you take the fun out of StarCraft. The OP talks about essential elements of micro like concaving and drawing back weakened units like they're non-events. That's absurd. Unless you intend to tell everyone below Diamond that they are not welcome anymore, then easy to learn, hard to master is clearly a superior philosophy to "hard to learn and harder to master."
They aren't "non-events", but they aren't everything either. There's a difference between "make everything a headache" and having the only micro be spellcasting and "concaving and drawing back weakened units". There is a happy medium between these two perspectives.
Good unit design should be something that is reasonably useable without much micro, but gains added teeth with micro. And ideally, different units should want to be microed differently; not everything should be about stutter-step, spells, and the usual micro tropes. Individual units should have individual micro features, just as they have individual basic attack features. The Warhound enjoys only the basic micro that every unit has.
Terran is the most micro-heavy of the races, in both SC1 and SC2. But that doesn't mean you can't 1a with them at the lower leagues and still be reasonably effective against enemies of similar skill (who are 1a'ing back at you). The point is that climbing the skill ladder should require better micro, more in-depth micro, etc from the player. It should require interesting uses of individual units and so forth.
It shouldn't just be a battle of who can build a concave or pull back weak units or such things. You get that in any game with units that attack. What is wanted is greater depth of micro by giving individual units specialized micro possibilities that are unique to that unit. Thus, while you can 1a, you can also do the usual micro tricks and you can master this special cool thing that they do that's kinda hard to pull off (while still macroing effectively, of course).
In the arms race of micro techniques, "concaving and drawing back weakened units" is the equivalent of the "pointy stick". Nice, powerful under the right circumstances, but I'd still rather have a bow and arrow or a good shotgun.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
There are no words for how unbelievably retarded and naive this viewpoint is, or moreover, how naive the OP is. If you begin to make everything a headache to do, you take the fun out of StarCraft. The OP talks about essential elements of micro like concaving and drawing back weakened units like they're non-events. That's absurd. Unless you intend to tell everyone below Diamond that they are not welcome anymore, then easy to learn, hard to master is clearly a superior philosophy to "hard to learn and harder to master."
Blizzard has a long and proud history of telling the community to go pound sand and doing what it knows is best (this is sometimes what people QQ for, and often not). For the first time ever, Blizzard is getting weak in the knees, and what we are seeing in HOTS is "design by committee." Mark my words, if it continues the expansion pack will be an unbalanced, low quality cluster fuck, and we are all going to regret our whining.
I completely disagree.
I believe blizzard has shown how amazing they are at being willing to remove a fully designed unit with complete voice recordings after realizing it might not fit in the esport scheme of things because it makes TvX just stupid.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
There are no words for how unbelievably retarded and naive this viewpoint is, or moreover, how naive the OP is. If you begin to make everything a headache to do, you take the fun out of StarCraft. The OP talks about essential elements of micro like concaving and drawing back weakened units like they're non-events. That's absurd. Unless you intend to tell everyone below Diamond that they are not welcome anymore, then easy to learn, hard to master is clearly a superior philosophy to "hard to learn and harder to master."
Blizzard has a long and proud history of telling the community to go pound sand and doing what it knows is best (this is sometimes what people QQ for, and often not). For the first time ever, Blizzard is getting weak in the knees, and what we are seeing in HOTS is "design by committee." Mark my words, if it continues the expansion pack will be an unbalanced, low quality cluster fuck, and we are all going to regret our whining.
I completely disagree.
I believe blizzard has shown how amazing they are at being willing to remove a fully designed unit with complete voice recordings after realizing it might not fit in the esport scheme of things because it makes TvX just stupid.
To be fair though, it's not like the model and voice recordings can't ultimately be reused for whatever they do create.
Blizzard still might change their minds, at this rate with all the QQ, they might just give in and put it back. Even on many pro streams, people have been complaining about how mech 'sucks' now, just check out dragon's stream, all bio play.
We really need more pros using the battle hellion and mine to make mech look better in its current state.
On September 15 2012 10:48 bluesteel22 wrote: Now we just need a thread pushing the professional community to allow Orb to once again cast. Why? Well he is one of the best casters out there, period. Not just in knowledge, but also in HOW he casts, how he presents situations in game, and his ability to speak clearly and quite frankly very intelligently about what is going on in a game and how it is progressing. Please community, see past the mistakes Orb has made in the distant past, he is an amazing caster, he has made up for ANY wrong doing he has done over the past months/years. This man needs to be behind a mic again.
Seriously this. Orb deserves to be on major events, he's one of the highest level casters skill wise, and his commentary is so spot on. I am obviously biased, but still.
Poll: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (67)
62%
Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output (41)
38%
108 total votes
Your vote: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
(Vote): Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (Vote): Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output
Please vote i'd like to reach at least 100 sample...
Poll: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (67)
62%
Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output (41)
38%
108 total votes
Your vote: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
(Vote): Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (Vote): Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output
Please vote i'd like to reach at least 100 sample...
Poll: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (67)
62%
Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output (41)
38%
108 total votes
Your vote: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
(Vote): Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (Vote): Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output
Please vote i'd like to reach at least 100 sample...
Oh god such an enormously silly poll...
Silly ? You probably don't understand the implications...
On September 15 2012 10:48 bluesteel22 wrote: Now we just need a thread pushing the professional community to allow Orb to once again cast. Why? Well he is one of the best casters out there, period. Not just in knowledge, but also in HOW he casts, how he presents situations in game, and his ability to speak clearly and quite frankly very intelligently about what is going on in a game and how it is progressing. Please community, see past the mistakes Orb has made in the distant past, he is an amazing caster, he has made up for ANY wrong doing he has done over the past months/years. This man needs to be behind a mic again.
Seriously this. Orb deserves to be on major events, he's one of the highest level casters skill wise, and his commentary is so spot on. I am obviously biased, but still.
I concur wholeheartedly. Great caster, great insight and a great voice for the genre! Hopefully we can see more of Orb in the future!
Amazing write up here and the result of this and other beta feedback is great to see. If only we could shake the fear of what might take the Warhound's place. lol
Poll: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (67)
62%
Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output (41)
38%
108 total votes
Your vote: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
(Vote): Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (Vote): Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output
Please vote i'd like to reach at least 100 sample...
Oh god such an enormously silly poll...
Silly ? You probably don't understand the implications...
Implications of what? A poll based on two options that presupposes that those are the only available choices?
We shouldn't want either of these. Goliaths were the best GtA unit in the game; they made Mech basically invulnerable to its supposed weakness: air. Mech should be weak to flying units.
But that doesn't mean we should have a Marauder-like unit either.
Given those as the only two options, I would rather that Blizzard scrap the Terran race entirely and rebuild it from scratch than see either the Warhound or the Goliath in the game.
Poll: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (67)
62%
Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output (41)
38%
108 total votes
Your vote: If u had to choose only ONE of these 2 options what would you...
(Vote): Goliath fast ground attack , great anti air, fills all the gap mech style has. (Vote): Marauder, promotes bio centric style , very strong stimpack/medivac combo , enormous damage output
Please vote i'd like to reach at least 100 sample...
Oh god such an enormously silly poll...
Silly ? You probably don't understand the implications...
Implications of what? A poll based on two options that presupposes that those are the only available choices?
We shouldn't want either of these. Goliaths were the best GtA unit in the game; they made Mech basically invulnerable to its supposed weakness: air. Mech should be weak to flying units.
But that doesn't mean we should have a Marauder-like unit either.
Given those as the only two options, I would rather that Blizzard scrap the Terran race entirely and rebuild it from scratch than see either the Warhound or the Goliath in the game.
We should not want mech-warrior units anyway. Like, it's so uncreative, especially when it's like marine, viking, battle hellion, thor, marauder that have elements of mech-warriors already.
''The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.''
Thats funny coming from a protoss player i can name atleast 3 units that are like that for toss. I hate the warhound tho and what you say is true.
a week in to the WoL beta I bet it looked like WoL was gonna be all a-moving, 5 mins games. Ofc everyone is useing the warhound right now, its SHINY AND NEW. Once it gets balanced things will change, once people get bored of messing around with it etc.
It might be a broken unit, it might need to go or be changed, but a week in to the beta isn't anywhere near enough time to make any clear conclusions. Obviously none of you have ever worked in science or technology or the arts, the piece of music you hear on the radio that you love so much didn't sound anything like that when it was first written, that film you loved was 3 hours long when it was written, had plot holes galore and terrible dialogue. These things take time to become the final product that everyone loves, that is the whole point of a FUCKING BETA
F*cking A!
The FIRST post in this thread that is smart and reasonable, yay! And seriously folks... this game is more about adaptation than "op" or "imba". There's always a way.
Uhm, I do not think you really get it here. It is the inherent design of the units that is at fault, which resembles Blizzards faulty design philosophy. We said this at the start of the previous BETA: "Its only the beta! It will get beter!" Yes, some problems got fixed and the games have gotten better, especially if no protoss is involved. But the game keeps getting easier, keeps getting these type of silly units and keeps being designed to attract the masses of weak players [which, ironically, as Orb rightfully points out, Blizzard still does a crappy job at]. Final product sucked last time too.. >_>
Yes i know, i was using counter psychology or even sarcasm with that post :D you're right about that... now, what i really think is similar to yours; blizz nowadays (sadly) is onle after profit it seems, no decent products. We saw that from D3 also... total crap, but blizz made huge cash flow with it, even took over the sales of items. BUT this guy has a point that in sc2 (and in many fields irl) there must be sufficient testing before making any final conclusions.
On September 16 2012 01:09 jinzo123 wrote: ''The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.''
Thats funny coming from a protoss player i can name atleast 3 units that are like that for toss. I hate the warhound tho and what you say is true.
Which 3 would that be? The only two I can really think of are zealots and collosi, and honestly, collosi still require some micro if you actually want to win a fight. Zealots I will agree with, but you still need to make good decisions with zealots, e.g. when to pull back and when to engage. With charge, once you engage, you are going to lose many of those zealots. Stalkers, sentries, DTs, and HT all require lots of micro. Immortals also require a lot of micro as they are terrible against light units. VRs are mostly used as a harass/all-in unit, and in those cases they do require plenty of micro. Phoenix are one of the most micro intensive units in the game. Carriers? I suppose that can be your third a-move only unit?
i just want a game that will definitely favour the more skilled player. i.e. in starcraft 2, the chance of a worse player beating a better one is much higher, because of units like the collosus, etc whereas in broodwar, basically every game was won by the better player by simply outmacroing or outmicroing him.
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
THANK GOD they removed Warhound, that unit was OP as heck :S It kills stalkers, it kills zealots, it kills immortals, it kills collosus. It is too good for its price, at least they should have made it cost more supply and more, like an immortal at least, i mean the thing costs as much as a stalker?! and same supply and stuff... it shouldve been 4 supply like immortal and 250/100 or 300/200 then they wouldnt whave had to remove it.
On September 10 2012 15:46 Megabuster123 wrote: I agree with everything you just said, but I'm like 99% sure we're all just fucked and blizzard is going to leave it in the game because they don't give a shit about anything you just said.
On September 16 2012 17:48 Diabulus wrote: THANK GOD they removed Warhound, that unit was OP as heck :S It kills stalkers, it kills zealots, it kills immortals, it kills collosus. It is too good for its price, at least they should have made it cost more supply and more, like an immortal at least, i mean the thing costs as much as a stalker?! and same supply and stuff... it shouldve been 4 supply like immortal and 250/100 or 300/200 then they wouldnt whave had to remove it.
I don't think you really understood the OP. The design behind the unit was bad, it doesn't matter how much you balance it so that it's not op, it's simply an a-move and easy to use unit. It doesn't add anything to the game when we already have a nice balance of a-move units.
Orb, why don't you also mention entomb? I mean could there be a most boring spell in the game? It's as cool to watch it as someone putting workers in gas.
What are you talking about apolo? The high level use of entomb is immense, you can prevent brood lord tech by 30-60 seconds with it easy if your opponent is mineral-light because you kept him on a low base count.
On September 17 2012 08:14 drazak wrote: What are you talking about apolo? The high level use of entomb is immense, you can prevent brood lord tech by 30-60 seconds with it easy if your opponent is mineral-light because you kept him on a low base count.
It's effective, but not very micro-intensive, and not very fun to watch.
On September 17 2012 12:53 drazak wrote: Not everything needs to be micro intensive to be interesting. This is high level, IMO, unlike the warhound, you have to know when and where to use it.
No, things in general don't need to be micro-intensive to be interesting. But it certainly helps. And while good use of Entomb can change games, it isn't interesting to watch. You're watching someone fly a unit in at a critical time so that it can do one thing and then leave.
It just isn't very exciting. If it succeeds, all you saw was the Oracle fly in, cast a spell once, and fly out. If it fails, you see it die. That is not the stuff that good television is made of.
The Oracle's Entomb is just too binary: either you succeed, in which case it works perfectly, or you fail, in which case nothing happens. Some element of being able to succeed better than another player would be nice.
On September 17 2012 12:53 drazak wrote: Not everything needs to be micro intensive to be interesting. This is high level, IMO, unlike the warhound, you have to know when and where to use it.
No, things in general don't need to be micro-intensive to be interesting. But it certainly helps. And while good use of Entomb can change games, it isn't interesting to watch. You're watching someone fly a unit in at a critical time so that it can do one thing and then leave.
It just isn't very exciting. If it succeeds, all you saw was the Oracle fly in, cast a spell once, and fly out. If it fails, you see it die. That is not the stuff that good television is made of.
The Oracle's Entomb is just too binary: either you succeed, in which case it works perfectly, or you fail, in which case nothing happens. Some element of being able to succeed better than another player would be nice.
I think in the early stages of the beta people should refrain from making such sweeping statements. In the early stages YES the oracle seems binary. And its very boring because either its stopped or it succeeds and it really comes down to if the opponent expects it or not.
But just wait. Sooner or later this unit will be expected 100% of the time. It will be the prime Protoss harass unit (the balance changes so far look like it will improve its usage). Then Protoss will have to invent new ways to sneak in.
I forsee the tension build up and the "sneakyness" to be the real draw to this unit. The usage of it is quick and easy and doesnt really require much micro. The movement of the unit will be more critical in the future and since its so fast and maneuverable, it will become exciting.
Think: Using hallucinations of other air units to draw fire to protect a lagging behind oracle.
Or using real air units (pheonix) in tandem to draw fire as well as harass.
Further out expansions being harder to defend and therefore camped by multiple oracles as the game goes on
Air v Air battles of mixed compositions to help protect the oracle
On September 17 2012 12:53 drazak wrote: Not everything needs to be micro intensive to be interesting. This is high level, IMO, unlike the warhound, you have to know when and where to use it.
No, things in general don't need to be micro-intensive to be interesting. But it certainly helps. And while good use of Entomb can change games, it isn't interesting to watch. You're watching someone fly a unit in at a critical time so that it can do one thing and then leave.
It just isn't very exciting. If it succeeds, all you saw was the Oracle fly in, cast a spell once, and fly out. If it fails, you see it die. That is not the stuff that good television is made of.
The Oracle's Entomb is just too binary: either you succeed, in which case it works perfectly, or you fail, in which case nothing happens. Some element of being able to succeed better than another player would be nice.
I think in the early stages of the beta people should refrain from making such sweeping statements. In the early stages YES the oracle seems binary. And its very boring because either its stopped or it succeeds and it really comes down to if the opponent expects it or not.
But just wait. Sooner or later this unit will be expected 100% of the time. It will be the prime Protoss harass unit (the balance changes so far look like it will improve its usage). Then Protoss will have to invent new ways to sneak in.
I forsee the tension build up and the "sneakyness" to be the real draw to this unit. The usage of it is quick and easy and doesnt really require much micro. The movement of the unit will be more critical in the future and since its so fast and maneuverable, it will become exciting.
Think: Using hallucinations of other air units to draw fire to protect a lagging behind oracle.
Or using real air units (pheonix) in tandem to draw fire as well as harass.
Further out expansions being harder to defend and therefore camped by multiple oracles as the game goes on
Air v Air battles of mixed compositions to help protect the oracle
Just give it time.
It doesn't matter how many ways there are to sneak it in; it's still very binary. Either it gets in and X economic damange is done, or it doesn't. Drops aren't binary; drops could do lots of economic damage, or they could do none. But they could also do less than the maximum, depending on how the enemy reacts. A Banshee can clear an entire mineral patch, or it can snipe a couple of workers, all depending reactions and micro.
You can "forsee" a lot of things; that doesn't mean it's going to happen. One could "forsee" Zerg players using burrow-micro to save Roaches like Protoss players use Blink-micro. But they usually don't.
On September 17 2012 12:53 drazak wrote: Not everything needs to be micro intensive to be interesting. This is high level, IMO, unlike the warhound, you have to know when and where to use it.
No, things in general don't need to be micro-intensive to be interesting. But it certainly helps. And while good use of Entomb can change games, it isn't interesting to watch. You're watching someone fly a unit in at a critical time so that it can do one thing and then leave.
It just isn't very exciting. If it succeeds, all you saw was the Oracle fly in, cast a spell once, and fly out. If it fails, you see it die. That is not the stuff that good television is made of.
The Oracle's Entomb is just too binary: either you succeed, in which case it works perfectly, or you fail, in which case nothing happens. Some element of being able to succeed better than another player would be nice.
I think in the early stages of the beta people should refrain from making such sweeping statements. In the early stages YES the oracle seems binary. And its very boring because either its stopped or it succeeds and it really comes down to if the opponent expects it or not.
But just wait. Sooner or later this unit will be expected 100% of the time. It will be the prime Protoss harass unit (the balance changes so far look like it will improve its usage). Then Protoss will have to invent new ways to sneak in.
I forsee the tension build up and the "sneakyness" to be the real draw to this unit. The usage of it is quick and easy and doesnt really require much micro. The movement of the unit will be more critical in the future and since its so fast and maneuverable, it will become exciting.
Think: Using hallucinations of other air units to draw fire to protect a lagging behind oracle.
Or using real air units (pheonix) in tandem to draw fire as well as harass.
Further out expansions being harder to defend and therefore camped by multiple oracles as the game goes on
Air v Air battles of mixed compositions to help protect the oracle
Just give it time.
It doesn't matter how many ways there are to sneak it in; it's still very binary. Either it gets in and X economic damange is done, or it doesn't. Drops aren't binary; drops could do lots of economic damage, or they could do none. But they could also do less than the maximum, depending on how the enemy reacts. A Banshee can clear an entire mineral patch, or it can snipe a couple of workers, all depending reactions and micro.
You can "forsee" a lot of things; that doesn't mean it's going to happen. One could "forsee" Zerg players using burrow-micro to save Roaches like Protoss players use Blink-micro. But they usually don't.
Oracle entomb does different amounts of economic damage based on what kinds of defenses there are in place.
Its not straight binary.
With just drones killing the tombs it does tons of damage. With a pack of marines there it does almost no damage.
But there are plenty of in between scenarios that could occur and its all situational just like all harass so I think you're saying too much when you call its damage binary.
I agreed with you on it binary life span because its either sniped or its not but like I said above, that relationship will most likely change.
This is all situational talk so yes I say I foresee things. If you want to talk balance about a beta that's been out for two weeks then you must talk in this way.
@R3demption. You're talking about the defender's response. The actual entomb spell is binary. Either you get in or you don't. There's no better or more skilled way to do entomb. The best way is to entomb every x amount of time. It's like a sneaky anti-chrono boost or an anti-mule. There's not a way to make entomb do more damage than another entomb user, it's just better to do it than not. Sure you can sneak them in, but that was true for high templar drops or reaver drops. They relied on sneakiness as a base level amount of micro. But then damage starts raining down and that's where the true skill and mastery of micro comes in.
On September 15 2012 07:49 Blazinghand wrote: you don't balance pro fencing swords for noobs to use, IamTheWhiteGuy. Anyone with a basic knowledge of game design knows what's up here
This is emblematic of just why this notion of "skill balance" is colossally retarded.
You don't balance pro fencing swords for noobs to use - you make good swords so that someone can pick one up and fence, and a master can make music with it.
The difference between adding a high skill ceiling and making a game difficult to play is COLOSSAL. As a consistent middling diamond player (this is before Master League) who is getting back into it, I'm shocked and appalled at the level of mimetic stupidity that e-sports frenzy has caused.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible. It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that this statement is bullshit. It can be as challenging as reaching the stars, but when you have to work three times as hard as your opponents in the lower tiers, just to compete with them, there is a problem with over-complicating something. It's the reason EvE online, which is an incredible, deep game, never took over the world. It was (and still is, despite many attempts at improving the early gameplay) just so fucking hard to play and learn, that it turned many players off.
Newbies don't get inspired. They don't watch pro games. They just see that as hard as they work, they never seem to get better, compared to their rival races, and this makes them stop playing.
I was a low masters player just after master was released. Every patch that came out for about six months did nothing but make me work harder, and I never seemed to get an edge up on my opponents. The times I played zerg, I was disgusted about how little micro I had to do for my skill level. Bear in mind, this isn't top tier play, but mid-high play. I micro'd my zerglings and all of a sudden my ratios were better than terran, which I had played since beta? That should tell you something about lower level brackets.
The constant nerfs, requirements that I play twice as well as my opponents to beat them, combined with the pissy, whiney player base that came straight from world of warcraft (I can complain about WoW because I used to play it professionally, lolz. It really does make you into a whiner) all contributed to why I basically never play anymore.
I liked the warhound in its overall simplicity. We needed a simple, do-all unit for mech, and the warhound has some great potential for beefing up what has been a shitty experience that is mech, when no matter how many tanks and thors you have, you will get rolled by mass a-move. Tanks are buffed now, along with ravens, so I don't know how the warhound fits in, but I will say this: Low level terran players still need a stable answer to the mutalisk. Thors just don't do it, marines are too hard to micro when you aren't mid-masters.
I will say that the warhound needs to go based solely on how retarded it looks. Make thors even smaller, like warhound sized, with a speed buff and less damage, 3 supply cost, armory requirement, and 150/75 cost, and give us that.
On September 18 2012 04:54 IamTheWhiteGuy wrote:
This is emblematic of just why this notion of "skill balance" is colossally retarded.
You don't balance pro fencing swords for noobs to use - you make good swords so that someone can pick one up and fence, and a master can make music with it.
The difference between adding a high skill ceiling and making a game difficult to play is COLOSSAL. As a consistent middling diamond player (this is before Master League) who is getting back into it, I'm shocked and appalled at the level of mimetic stupidity that e-sports frenzy has caused.
Have my babies. This is exactly the problem. Games need to be easy to learn, difficult to master. You can't just balance for the pro tiers, because then you're creating massive problems. If a unit can be micro'd to twice its effectiveness, then it needs to be balanced at that point, is the current idea. Problem is, only 5% of players can reach that. So blizzard is essentially shooting themselves in the foot by balancing the game in such a way that makes those units that are so great when micromanaged, terrible when they aren't. That's not how you increase your customer/player base.
On September 17 2012 13:30 R3demption wrote: I think in the early stages of the beta people should refrain from making such sweeping statements. In the early stages YES the oracle seems binary. And its very boring because either its stopped or it succeeds and it really comes down to if the opponent expects it or not.
But just wait. Sooner or later this unit will be expected 100% of the time. It will be the prime Protoss harass unit (the balance changes so far look like it will improve its usage). Then Protoss will have to invent new ways to sneak in.
This. Unless a unit makes the game unwinnable, don't fuck with it until more raw data is coming out. Blizzard is responding knee-jerk to things so early on. It would be like running a clinical trial, and changing the medication every two weeks based on results with a sample size of 75 people. That's a shit way to get solid data.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Pros: Newbies get inspired to actually spend time playing the game because they see professional players doing amazing moves that they didn't even know/think were possible. It encourages them to continue playing the game because they still have many things they haven't mastered.
I agree with you, but I just wanted to point out that this statement is bullshit. It can be as challenging as reaching the stars, but when you have to work three times as hard as your opponents in the lower tiers, just to compete with them, there is a problem with over-complicating something. It's the reason EvE online, which is an incredible, deep game, never took over the world. It was (and still is, despite many attempts at improving the early gameplay) just so fucking hard to play and learn, that it turned many players off.
Newbies don't get inspired. They don't watch pro games. They just see that as hard as they work, they never seem to get better, compared to their rival races, and this makes them stop playing.
I was a low masters player just after master was released. Every patch that came out for about six months did nothing but make me work harder, and I never seemed to get an edge up on my opponents. The times I played zerg, I was disgusted about how little micro I had to do for my skill level. Bear in mind, this isn't top tier play, but mid-high play. I micro'd my zerglings and all of a sudden my ratios were better than terran, which I had played since beta? That should tell you something about lower level brackets.
The constant nerfs, requirements that I play twice as well as my opponents to beat them, combined with the pissy, whiney player base that came straight from world of warcraft (I can complain about WoW because I used to play it professionally, lolz. It really does make you into a whiner) all contributed to why I basically never play anymore.
I liked the warhound in its overall simplicity. We needed a simple, do-all unit for mech, and the warhound has some great potential for beefing up what has been a shitty experience that is mech, when no matter how many tanks and thors you have, you will get rolled by mass a-move. Tanks are buffed now, along with ravens, so I don't know how the warhound fits in, but I will say this: Low level terran players still need a stable answer to the mutalisk. Thors just don't do it, marines are too hard to micro when you aren't mid-masters.
This paragraph is where your argument goes off the rails. The problem isn't that the Terrans are too hard; it's that Zerg and Protoss are too easy. The game needs to be reasonably balanced so that beating someone consistently requires play better than them consistently, for whatever skill level is involved.
This is emblematic of just why this notion of "skill balance" is colossally retarded.
You don't balance pro fencing swords for noobs to use - you make good swords so that someone can pick one up and fence, and a master can make music with it.
The difference between adding a high skill ceiling and making a game difficult to play is COLOSSAL. As a consistent middling diamond player (this is before Master League) who is getting back into it, I'm shocked and appalled at the level of mimetic stupidity that e-sports frenzy has caused.
Have my babies. This is exactly the problem. Games need to be easy to learn, difficult to master. You can't just balance for the pro tiers, because then you're creating massive problems. If a unit can be micro'd to twice its effectiveness, then it needs to be balanced at that point, is the current idea. Problem is, only 5% of players can reach that. So blizzard is essentially shooting themselves in the foot by balancing the game in such a way that makes those units that are so great when micromanaged, terrible when they aren't. That's not how you increase your customer/player base.
As long as all races are equally terrible when not microed, everything is fine.
On September 17 2012 13:30 R3demption wrote: I think in the early stages of the beta people should refrain from making such sweeping statements. In the early stages YES the oracle seems binary. And its very boring because either its stopped or it succeeds and it really comes down to if the opponent expects it or not.
But just wait. Sooner or later this unit will be expected 100% of the time. It will be the prime Protoss harass unit (the balance changes so far look like it will improve its usage). Then Protoss will have to invent new ways to sneak in.
This. Unless a unit makes the game unwinnable, don't fuck with it until more raw data is coming out. Blizzard is responding knee-jerk to things so early on. It would be like running a clinical trial, and changing the medication every two weeks based on results with a sample size of 75 people. That's a shit way to get solid data.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
For that matter, so were Hellions. Figure might as well point that out too ..
I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
Vultures weren't built around binary mechanics. They could lay Spider Mines, which are highly dangerous, and shoot stuff. They had potential.
Potential that Entomb lacks.
Also, let's not forget that the people who claimed that Vultures were weak were looking at the game from a non-professional perspective. Or at least, not from a modern perspective. We know a hell of a lot more now about what makes for a strong unit than we did then. Vultures are dangerous because people have the APM and micro ability to make them dangerous.
Speaking of which, if SC1's engine didn't have that little bug in it that allowed moving shot to work, Vultures wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as they currently are.
On September 18 2012 10:54 Grumbels wrote: I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
No, bugs are always bad for the game. The question is whether you remove them or legitimize them by making them an explicit feature. Blizzard choose the former rather than the latter.
orb makes very good/valid points, and i feel that blizzard's games have turned into marketing scheme to attract those players that are just looking for a game they can master quickly and quit.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
Vultures weren't built around binary mechanics. They could lay Spider Mines, which are highly dangerous, and shoot stuff. They had potential.
Potential that Entomb lacks.
Also, let's not forget that the people who claimed that Vultures were weak were looking at the game from a non-professional perspective. Or at least, not from a modern perspective. We know a hell of a lot more now about what makes for a strong unit than we did then. Vultures are dangerous because people have the APM and micro ability to make them dangerous.
Speaking of which, if SC1's engine didn't have that little bug in it that allowed moving shot to work, Vultures wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as they currently are.
On September 18 2012 10:54 Grumbels wrote: I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
No, bugs are always bad for the game. The question is whether you remove them or legitimize them by making them an explicit feature. Blizzard choose the former rather than the latter.
I don't understand how you can call bugs bad for the game by definition, yet praise how the vulture required skill because of a bug in the engine in the same post. Doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt your brain?
On September 16 2012 01:09 jinzo123 wrote: ''The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set.''
Thats funny coming from a protoss player i can name atleast 3 units that are like that for toss. I hate the warhound tho and what you say is true.
Which 3 would that be? The only two I can really think of are zealots and collosi, and honestly, collosi still require some micro if you actually want to win a fight. Zealots I will agree with, but you still need to make good decisions with zealots, e.g. when to pull back and when to engage. With charge, once you engage, you are going to lose many of those zealots. Stalkers, sentries, DTs, and HT all require lots of micro. Immortals also require a lot of micro as they are terrible against light units. VRs are mostly used as a harass/all-in unit, and in those cases they do require plenty of micro. Phoenix are one of the most micro intensive units in the game. Carriers? I suppose that can be your third a-move only unit?
archons/zealots/colosus and immortals dont require micro unless terran go tank wich is very rare or in PVP to focus colosi
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
Vultures weren't built around binary mechanics. They could lay Spider Mines, which are highly dangerous, and shoot stuff. They had potential.
Potential that Entomb lacks.
Also, let's not forget that the people who claimed that Vultures were weak were looking at the game from a non-professional perspective. Or at least, not from a modern perspective. We know a hell of a lot more now about what makes for a strong unit than we did then. Vultures are dangerous because people have the APM and micro ability to make them dangerous.
Speaking of which, if SC1's engine didn't have that little bug in it that allowed moving shot to work, Vultures wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as they currently are.
On September 18 2012 10:54 Grumbels wrote: I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
No, bugs are always bad for the game. The question is whether you remove them or legitimize them by making them an explicit feature. Blizzard choose the former rather than the latter.
I don't understand how you can call bugs bad for the game by definition, yet praise how the vulture required skill because of a bug in the engine in the same post. Doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt your brain?
That's not cognitive dissonance. The thing you missed was that I did not praise how Vultures gained skill from a bug. I simply stated the truth: the bug made Vultures more skillful.
Whether the ends (skillful Vulture) justify the means (random bug) is for you to decide; I made no statement claiming that it was a good thing or not.
On September 13 2012 20:53 Garmer wrote: a thing that really frightens me, is that in two years of development of HOTS, they can't come up with something better than the warhound
It seems like it, isn't it?
But what would you add to the Factory that are interesting but not gimicky/overpowered?
As much as I agree with many others, simply "Leave Terran as it is and make tanks stronger," "Just give mines to Hellions," "Buff Ravens and Thors," etc. WON'T HAPPEN.
Blizzard is a corporation of which No. 1 priority is to generate profit for its share holders. Not adding something new for Terran races -> All reviews/magazines make comments about it -> Mass public see it as a rip-off and not worth paying money.
And they would be right. You don't need an expansion to buff tanks or ravens. If Blizzard published an expansion with just buffed existing units for each race, they will be criticized to death. Most importantly, the expansion won't sell. Look at Street Fighter 4 and its "expansions." All those silly/overlapping tricks, painfully differentiated by number of frames, and ridiculous/hedious new charecters. But Capcom wants to make money and they can't simply publish expansions with existing units with more balanced stats. They have to add something new, no matter how "not new" that might be.
So it is an inevitable reality that Blizzard will have to add something "new" for Terrans. Tweaking existing units in WoL will not cut it. And Blizzard has never really been good at innovation. They are usually very good at borrowing and perfecting someone else's innovations, though.
I don't have good answers for what to add for Terran myself.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
Vultures weren't built around binary mechanics. They could lay Spider Mines, which are highly dangerous, and shoot stuff. They had potential.
Potential that Entomb lacks.
Also, let's not forget that the people who claimed that Vultures were weak were looking at the game from a non-professional perspective. Or at least, not from a modern perspective. We know a hell of a lot more now about what makes for a strong unit than we did then. Vultures are dangerous because people have the APM and micro ability to make them dangerous.
Speaking of which, if SC1's engine didn't have that little bug in it that allowed moving shot to work, Vultures wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as they currently are.
On September 18 2012 10:54 Grumbels wrote: I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
No, bugs are always bad for the game. The question is whether you remove them or legitimize them by making them an explicit feature. Blizzard choose the former rather than the latter.
I don't understand how you can call bugs bad for the game by definition, yet praise how the vulture required skill because of a bug in the engine in the same post. Doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt your brain?
That's not cognitive dissonance. The thing you missed was that I did not praise how Vultures gained skill from a bug. I simply stated the truth: the bug made Vultures more skillful.
Whether the ends (skillful Vulture) justify the means (random bug) is for you to decide; I made no statement claiming that it was a good thing or not.
"Bug creates skillful unit, which is good" equals praising the effect of a bug, when you also said that bugs are by definition bad. Not to be pedantic, of course. It's that I've read posts by you before where you're constantly upset about how having bugs as features was a terrible thing for Brood War and I disagree, becausenobody should care whether existing good gameplay was intended or unintended by the designers.
I come to this thread simply to agree with the op, in the hopes that more posts in support of that point will yeild a greater chance of blizzard recognizing it. I was in bronze league when I started, in the frickin beta. I am not good nor did I improve particularly quickly. I got very frustrated quite often, but I continued to play because I loved watching what the pros did and wanting to learn to do it myself (MKP vs. Kyrix live was big). Many games have suffered from a consistant decline in difficulty (increase in playability) but thats not reason for starcraft to continue down this path. Also just buff tanks for mech, everyone loves tanks.
Edited so I could add a suggestion for a new unit for terran (since everyone seems to be arguing about that). Maybe a terran bio unit that does some splash damage? Or has a spell that does actual damage, unlike emp from ghosts. Just a random idea.
They want mech to be viable against protoss. Terran was already a very complete race, the only thing that was missing was a good buffer unit for mech against protoss. Hellions didnt cut it. While i dont personnally like the warhound and think its a bit strong, i agree with a new goliath style unit to buffer tanks. Imo; they should make that unit cheaper, weaker, but decent overall unit ( goliath style). MAybe instead of the buffer unit beeing strong, make siege tanks do more dmg vs mechanicals? Not sure, but i dont disagree with the fact that the only unit they could add to terran was a mech buffer unit. Thats literally all terran was missing.. Hellions suck vs anything but zealots and zerglings.. At least vultures could put spider mine vs dragoon.. In high numbers vs low numbers vultures still destroyed dragoons cuz of surround+spidermines.
As it is, Warhound takes the place of the marauder pretty much.. other than for sneaky stim building sniping... Like i said, maybe make a mech unit that is good single target anti air and decent single target vs ground .. Good vs light, so so vs armored, single target. The siege tank should be the anti armored.
You know what, I want that unit to have a researchable ability at fusion core. It gives them a aoe shield against air ( or broodlords/carriers attacks) for a certain amount of range, I want a unit that can be really good to drop right under broodlords, focus target them, and run.
Imagine, drop PDD for anti corruptors, drop the super goliath under broodlords, kill them. THis way, you could go pure mech and somewhat fight against anything in the game with really good micro and speed. Obviously zerg could move the broodlords back out of the shield range, or have something like hydras or zerglings defending. But maybe this way zerg couldnt just go broodlord corrutors against mech.. Or if they did the meching player could do something against it with sick micro.
While I agree in the abstract that you need data to make balance changes, these are not balance changes. These are "quality of gameplay" changes. There's a difference.
A shitty unit is a shitty unit, no matter how balanced it is.
I will counter this entire argument with one statement: Vultures were considered to be a shitty unit, too.
Vultures weren't built around binary mechanics. They could lay Spider Mines, which are highly dangerous, and shoot stuff. They had potential.
Potential that Entomb lacks.
Also, let's not forget that the people who claimed that Vultures were weak were looking at the game from a non-professional perspective. Or at least, not from a modern perspective. We know a hell of a lot more now about what makes for a strong unit than we did then. Vultures are dangerous because people have the APM and micro ability to make them dangerous.
Speaking of which, if SC1's engine didn't have that little bug in it that allowed moving shot to work, Vultures wouldn't be nearly as dangerous as they currently are.
On September 18 2012 10:54 Grumbels wrote: I wish Blizzard had bothered with adding more subtlety to unit control. Yet they patch out every possible 'unintended' feature of the game, such as various micro tricks. They could have given vikings micro where you can avoid projectiles by switching forms, they could have added moving shot to hellions, they could have let the void ray do the phasing trick to increase dps, they could have kept the old carrier micro. All uses for stacking units with patrol micro are removed. Yet all of it is either not in the game or removed when discovered. It's honestly quite irresponsible for them to remove potential depth this way. I don't think all of the 'bugs' were good for the game, but they could have at least given them more of a chance.
All of the intricate micro involved with using a unit like the vulture is completely gone from this game and if you would ask Blizzard how that's defensible they'd just shrug and point to sales figures.
No, bugs are always bad for the game. The question is whether you remove them or legitimize them by making them an explicit feature. Blizzard choose the former rather than the latter.
I don't understand how you can call bugs bad for the game by definition, yet praise how the vulture required skill because of a bug in the engine in the same post. Doesn't the cognitive dissonance hurt your brain?
That's not cognitive dissonance. The thing you missed was that I did not praise how Vultures gained skill from a bug. I simply stated the truth: the bug made Vultures more skillful.
Whether the ends (skillful Vulture) justify the means (random bug) is for you to decide; I made no statement claiming that it was a good thing or not.
"Bug creates skillful unit, which is good" equals praising the effect of a bug, when you also said that bugs are by definition bad. Not to be pedantic, of course. It's that I've read posts by you before where you're constantly upset about how having bugs as features was a terrible thing for Brood War and I disagree, becausenobody should care whether existing good gameplay was intended or unintended by the designers.
Allow me to share one of my favorite TV show quotes:
"If you do the right thing, for the wrong reasons, the work becomes impure, corrupted, and ultimately self-destructive."
It's rather like logic. Consider:
All fish live in the sea. Sharks live in the sea. Therefore, sharks are fish.
The conclusion is right, but the reasoning is not (the fact that fish live in the sea does not prohibit the possibility of non-fish living in the sea, thus sharks are not necessarily fish just because they live in the sea). Could you trust someone's reasoning if that's how they got to the right answer? Of course not. He got the right answer by luck; if you apply that reasoning to something else, then you get bad information.
Yes, a bug can have good effects. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still a bug. Thus, you as a game designer need to look at that bug and figure out how to harness the positive aspects that the bug creates while also getting rid of the bug itself.
Using the above logical fallacy example, you fix the logic (by adding additional premises), but you do so in such a way that the conclusion remains the same. Thus, you're no longer relying on fallacious logic.
StarCraft is not special in this regard. Street Fighter 2 is a perfect example of this. They took what was originally a bug (namely, combos/move canceling) and turned it into a feature. They didn't leave it alone; they made changes to how it worked (in some cases, playing around with recovery times so that some combos didn't work anymore). They adapted it and their design to work together. They even added systems into the game to teach players how to use the "bug".
Or, to put it another way, it stops being a bug when it's in your instruction manual.
I'm not against serendipity; if you find something cool by accident, that's great. But by the time it gets to the shipping product, I as the player shouldn't see it as an accident. I should see it as your intended game design.
I don't agree. Glitches are discovered by the playerbase and belong to them, while features belong to the designers. For any game I prefer the former. Utilizing various bugs is often one of the most fun experiences, discovering the logic of what makes them work and how they came to be, what applications there are etc. I mean, the term bug is misleading. Mutalisk micro in BW is certainly unintended, but it's a direct result of how the game engine functions. Changing the behavior so it doesn't seem 'buggy' is taking something away from the player base, unless you can replicate it almost directly, which means you are conceding to them and might as well do nothing since it won't really affect how it works anyway. It's not that Blizzard should deliberately introduce bugs to the game (how does that even work?), but at the very least they can leave those alone that aren't really problematic and can add depth to the game.
On September 13 2012 20:53 Garmer wrote: a thing that really frightens me, is that in two years of development of HOTS, they can't come up with something better than the warhound
It seems like it, isn't it?
But what would you add to the Factory that are interesting but not gimicky/overpowered?
As much as I agree with many others, simply "Leave Terran as it is and make tanks stronger," "Just give mines to Hellions," "Buff Ravens and Thors," etc. WON'T HAPPEN.
Blizzard is a corporation of which No. 1 priority is to generate profit for its share holders. Not adding something new for Terran races -> All reviews/magazines make comments about it -> Mass public see it as a rip-off and not worth paying money.
And they would be right. You don't need an expansion to buff tanks or ravens. If Blizzard published an expansion with just buffed existing units for each race, they will be criticized to death. Most importantly, the expansion won't sell. Look at Street Fighter 4 and its "expansions." All those silly/overlapping tricks, painfully differentiated by number of frames, and ridiculous/hedious new charecters. But Capcom wants to make money and they can't simply publish expansions with existing units with more balanced stats. They have to add something new, no matter how "not new" that might be.
So it is an inevitable reality that Blizzard will have to add something "new" for Terrans. Tweaking existing units in WoL will not cut it. And Blizzard has never really been good at innovation. They are usually very good at borrowing and perfecting someone else's innovations, though.
I don't have good answers for what to add for Terran myself.
Then God help us when LOTV (the next expansion) comes out.
On September 18 2012 19:15 Grumbels wrote: I don't agree. Glitches are discovered by the playerbase and belong to them, while features belong to the designers. For any game I prefer the former. Utilizing various bugs is often one of the most fun experiences, discovering the logic of what makes them work and how they came to be, what applications there are etc.
I recognize that some people like that sense of getting one over on the game, of taking ownership of it, of creating some magical effect that could only be arrived at through weeks upon weeks of playtime. However, I refer you to my "right things, wrong reasons," argument: every such bug has the potential to utterly destroy game balance and gameplay.
The best example I have of this is Team Fortress Classic and Bunny Hopping. That bug utterly destroyed TFC for me; it transformed the whole thing into a completely different kind of game, a game I didn't want to play anymore. It ruined class balance, turned medics into dedicated flag runners, and generally ran roughshod with the experience of the game.
I know some people liked the game that way. But I was not one of them.
Game designers are ultimately responsible for the quality of gameplay within their games, not players. If players discover a bug, the onus is on game designers to evaluate it and decide if they want that gameplay in their games.
On September 18 2012 19:15 Grumbels wrote: I mean, the term bug is misleading. Mutalisk micro in BW is certainly unintended, but it's a direct result of how the game engine functions.
Crashing is also a "direct result of how the game engine functions". A bug is a bug, even if it has some positive consequences.
On September 18 2012 19:15 Grumbels wrote: It's not that Blizzard should deliberately introduce bugs to the game (how does that even work?), but at the very least they can leave those alone that aren't really problematic and can add depth to the game.
Deliberate introduction is exactly what you're asking for. Blizzard did not remove anything from SC2. Remember: SC2 does not run on the SC1 engine or codebase. If it has any SC1 code, it would only be in the most peripheral edges of the codebase, nothing that would be responsible for unit locomotion and AI.
In order for them to replicate SC1's behavior, they would have to deliberately introduce those bugs into the SC2's codebase.
Most of the "basic changes" made to the core mechanics have been made to make the game easier to play for newbies and thus the core design concept of Blizzard is to make an accessible game rather than a challenging game. Macroing boost mechanics, production speed boost mechanics, the unlimited unit selection and the "perfectly tight" unit movement AI are all together things which make it a lot easier to play SC2 compared to BW. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Warhound will be taken out and it doesnt make sense to start the process of making SC2 challenging at the expansion when it should be started at the beginning and at those things I mentioned above. Those are the real culprits which make the boring deathball possible and which remove any strategic positional play.
On September 19 2012 02:25 Rabiator wrote: Macroing boost mechanics, production speed boost mechanics,
Um, the macro mechanics were things the community asked for. The community talked long and often about how MBS, rally-mine, and so forth would make macro easier. So Blizzard added features that make macro harder to compensate.
You have to go back to your base to drop MULEs. You have to go back to your base to Chrono Boost. And so forth. You can't just sit in the field and select a bunch of buildings and press hotkeys all day while microing. You have to regularly return to base to do stuff.
If you fall behind on these and your opponent doesn't, that's a testiment to his macro skill and your lack thereof. And you lose because of it.
On September 19 2012 02:25 Rabiator wrote: Macroing boost mechanics, production speed boost mechanics,
Um, the macro mechanics were things the community asked for. The community talked long and often about how MBS, rally-mine, and so forth would make macro easier. So Blizzard added features that make macro harder to compensate.
You have to go back to your base to drop MULEs. You have to go back to your base to Chrono Boost. And so forth. You can't just sit in the field and select a bunch of buildings and press hotkeys all day while microing. You have to regularly return to base to do stuff.
If you fall behind on these and your opponent doesn't, that's a testiment to his macro skill and your lack thereof. And you lose because of it.
MBS and rally-mine arent the problem, but having a burst production (Warp Gate and massed Zerg larvae thanks to injecting) and a burst economy boost (MULE) are a problem, because you make the game MUCH faster in its economic turn-through and production. This has an impact on the way we play and throwing away units just because the players can reproduce them quickly enough and have the resources to do it will have a serious impact on balancing. Why do you think mech is so problematic? Because the important units cant be speed-reproduced with a reactor addon but rather require a tech lab for a single-file production.
Another problem also is the discrepancy between the mass-producion type, because Terrans can only mass-produce their basic units which doesnt give them a lot of choice, Protoss have a wider variety of choice in their speed-production but can only do it with a limited selection of their units, but Zerg can basically do whatever they please once the late game comes. This shifts the balance during the game and makes it very very hard for a Terran in a late game to do anything against Zerg once they have a sufficient economy and stack of larvae.
Even if "the community asked for it" that doesnt mean it is the right decision (and I doubt they asked for Warp Gate and this kind of stacking of larvae and a reactor and MULE). "The community" usually is a stupid and selfish bunch which only thinks about having more for themselves but not about the implications for balancing the game. Thus it should never be listened to without filtering it heavily and weighing the consequences. A faster game with battles involving a larger part of everyones army will make those battles "do or die" and that is a bad thing, because it doesnt allow for corrections to your own mistakes in time.
There are no maps anymore with gold minerals simply because of the MULE.
The balance had to be adjusted for tiny maps like Steppes of War and now you basically need all of your Siege Tanks to fight in an engagement and are vulnerable to run-bys on larger maps. The speed of the game is too fast and the tight unit movement has been instrumental in making a deathball possible and in getting AoE attacks nerfed.
Some time ago I had a nice idea to make the game more interesting and which would enable Blizzard to "save face". They could keep their somewhat terrible new unit concepts for HotS while giving the players a choice to actually use them or not. The idea is actually quite simple and works like this:
1. Blizzard adds the Warhound to the game and balances it against other units. 2. Blizzard adds the Goliath to the game and balances it against other units. 3. At the beginning of each game you decide if you want to use the Warhound or the Goliath. 4. Rinse and repeat for every unit except the three basic ones ... Zealot, Marine, Zergling. This would give a very wide variety of units - theoretically - but only a limited number of options each game AND you would make BW fetishists happy while giving the option to add in a bit of new stuff. You could screw up by not getting anti-air units against someone who plays with heavy air, but war isnt fair anyways and a certain degree of strategy has to be included into the game again after it got removed in favor of mass production and bigger battles.
This option would also make it possible to have tournaments with a required set of units like "BW" or "SC2-HotS" and thus we would have a wider variety in the games we could watch as eSport.
As I said above the production speed and economy boosts are a really terrible idea, because units are usually balanced in a fight, but that is only one side of the medal and thus the production speed and economy for all three races should be similar to keep that part of the balance from affecting the game.
On September 19 2012 02:25 Rabiator wrote: Macroing boost mechanics, production speed boost mechanics,
Um, the macro mechanics were things the community asked for. The community talked long and often about how MBS, rally-mine, and so forth would make macro easier. So Blizzard added features that make macro harder to compensate.
You have to go back to your base to drop MULEs. You have to go back to your base to Chrono Boost. And so forth. You can't just sit in the field and select a bunch of buildings and press hotkeys all day while microing. You have to regularly return to base to do stuff.
If you fall behind on these and your opponent doesn't, that's a testiment to his macro skill and your lack thereof. And you lose because of it.
MBS and rally-mine arent the problem, but having a burst production (Warp Gate and massed Zerg larvae thanks to injecting) and a burst economy boost (MULE) are a problem, because you make the game MUCH faster in its economic turn-through and production. This has an impact on the way we play and throwing away units just because the players can reproduce them quickly enough and have the resources to do it will have a serious impact on balancing. Why do you think mech is so problematic? Because the important units cant be speed-reproduced with a reactor addon but rather require a tech lab for a single-file production.
Mech is problematic for two reasons: it was substantially nerfed in SC2, and Protoss have Immortals, which is a giant "fuck you" to Mech. It's not problematic because of reactors-vs-tech-labs.
On September 19 2012 14:39 Rabiator wrote: Another problem also is the discrepancy between the mass-producion type, because Terrans can only mass-produce their basic units which doesnt give them a lot of choice, Protoss have a wider variety of choice in their speed-production but can only do it with a limited selection of their units, but Zerg can basically do whatever they please once the late game comes. This shifts the balance during the game and makes it very very hard for a Terran in a late game to do anything against Zerg once they have a sufficient economy and stack of larvae.
You're mis-identifying the source of the problem. In SC1, a maxed, fully-upgraded Terran Mech army was, cost-for-cost, stronger than a maxed, fully-upgraded Protoss army. But, the Protoss could rebuild their army faster; their primary production building cost only minerals, so they can have more of them than the much more expensive Factory. This allowed the Protoss a chance against the Terrans by taking more bases and being more mobile. After an engagement, the Terran army may have lost 2/3rds of what the Protoss did, but by the time they unsiege (and recover units in Stasis) and advance on the Protoss bases, the Protoss will be near max and able to potentially defend.
The problem with SC2 is that a maxed, fully-upgraded Terran Mech army is cost-for-cost about equal to a maxed, fully-upgraded Protoss army. In a death-ball on Mech clash, both players will lose about the same amount of stuff. That's bad, because the Protoss can remax much easier. Not because of the macro mechanics (though they do help) but mainly for the same reasons as SC1: their primary production building only costs minerals. They can max-out, then build lots of WGs. So the death-ball attacks, both lose most of their armies, and the Protoss re-maxes first. Protoss wins.
Similarly, the Reactor/Tech Lab issue is pointing the finger in the wrong direction. A Reactor isn't a production speed increase; a Barracks+Reactor is no different than two Barracks. The only difference is cost (and that the latter can't become two Barracks+Tech Lab). Barracks+Reactor costs 200/50, while two Barracks cost 300/0. That's 2 extra Marines.
When you look at Factories, the cost is more substantial. Factories cost 150/100, so Factory+Reactor costs 200/150, while two Factories+Tech Labs is 400/300. That's a whole Siege Tank of difference. Which is why you don't get to build Siege Tanks from Factory+Reactors.
Each race should have its own production advantages for different sets of units. That's good race differentiation. The problem is that the Terran units are not balanced correctly for their production. Mech units that require Tech Labs are underbalanced for the added cost of their production buildings (which affects production speed, but only indirectly). They're too cost-ineffective for what you have to do to get them.
On September 19 2012 14:39 Rabiator wrote: There are no maps anymore with gold minerals simply because of the MULE.
I agree more could be added to enhance the game micro wise but the warhound should stay. They made mech viable because terrans needed something to battle immortals or colossus and the warhound was it. If 250mm were fixed on the thor, i could accept losing the warhound because thors are even harder to manage because of their size. But, now I don't get that luxury either. Back to bio.
Immoral wasnt the issue....it was the chargelots. I dont understand why people keep complaining about immortal it was teh chargelots. There was nothing in mech composition that counter chargelots. Hellion? No, hellion are only good in hit and run situtation but if they are force to fight head on, they get owned. Also, during direct confrontation, hellion splash are not as effective, and without splash and the ability to hit and run against zealot, they get destroy. Also the splash on your own unit from the tank destroy them. That why the battle hellion was added.
Immortal can be counter by ghost, which is rare, but they can be overwhelmed by just massing hellion as meat shield and hellion do fairly well against them in small numbers. They are strong vs mech, but I dont think they were insanely to powerful and was the reason mech isnt viable.
Regarding collosus, the tank counter them fairly well if you just use your tank to focus fire the collosus down.
On September 23 2012 16:02 SheaR619 wrote: Immoral wasnt the issue....it was the chargelots. I dont understand why people keep complaining about immortal it was teh chargelots. There was nothing in mech composition that counter chargelots. Hellion? No, hellion are only good in hit and run situtation but if they are force to fight head on, they get owned. Also, during direct confrontation, hellion splash are not as effective, and without splash and the ability to hit and run against zealot, they get destroy. Also the splash on your own unit from the tank destroy them. That why the battle hellion was added.
Immortal can be counter by ghost, which is rare, but they can be overwhelmed by just massing hellion as meat shield and hellion do fairly well against them in small numbers. They are strong vs mech, but I dont think they were insanely to powerful and was the reason mech isnt viable.
Regarding collosus, the tank counter them fairly well if you just use your tank to focus fire the collosus down.
That's why conical AOE aka firebat was reintroduced in a CHEAPER (100m vs. 75m 25g) and VERSATILE version as battle hellion and ppl are bitching about "sense".
BH are now are direct counter to mass chargelots remaxed army. Switching factory out to Reactors will allow HOTS Terrans to effectively remax to deal with any kind of remaxed 3/3 T1 army (zealot/ling) all in late game counter-rush.
Should change the thor 250mm to a aoe barrage. Something to make it different from just firing normal, and also make it seem worht while that you mayu need ghosts to protect its energy.
On September 10 2012 15:51 yanot wrote: Agree completely. I didn't really like the "easy to learn, hard to master" way of designing. Sports, piano, guitar, are all hard to learn and hard to master. And they have a lot of depth. And I never understood that "casual" is associated as "easy" in the developer mind. One can play 1 hour a day and still want challenge, difficults things to overcome in a video game.
Ya I agree completely as well. At first SC2 was fun becuase I too had "AMAZING" force fields but it just got boring pretty quickly. Meanwhile, in BW, I could just spend all day only practicing muta-micro and never get bored.
I love it. All the protoss players are uniting in their QQ! """Omg Warhound so powerful all they need to do is 1a, whine, cry, QQ.""" Collosus anyone? Protoss is so rediculous op right now. They could give terran back all the stuff they nerfed now that Protoss has finally learned to play their race. OrbRAGEQQ
Yes, because Orb's perfectly coherent, rational argument against the Warhound is equal to balance whining.
Also, I don't think you'll find many Protosses who are in favor of the Colossus either (not on this forum at any rate). And most who are only want it because if it weren't replaced with something their race would lose.
On September 19 2012 02:25 Rabiator wrote: Most of the "basic changes" made to the core mechanics have been made to make the game easier to play for newbies and thus the core design concept of Blizzard is to make an accessible game rather than a challenging game. Macroing boost mechanics, production speed boost mechanics, the unlimited unit selection and the "perfectly tight" unit movement AI are all together things which make it a lot easier to play SC2 compared to BW. Thus it is highly unlikely that the Warhound will be taken out and it doesnt make sense to start the process of making SC2 challenging at the expansion when it should be started at the beginning and at those things I mentioned above. Those are the real culprits which make the boring deathball possible and which remove any strategic positional play.
Eh, yeah...no. The perfectly tight unit movement is what makes this game harder to play then bw, as you need to constantly keep attention on your army and spread it out properly every single time you move it, otherwise you will get wrecked by banelings, storms, fungal growth, siege fire, and other AoE that rips apart your army in mere seconds. Also you don't change core mechanics of a game in an expansion. Especially when it's a game that people make a living out of. You simply cannot do that.
On September 23 2012 18:12 Carnate wrote: Should change the thor 250mm to a aoe barrage. Something to make it different from just firing normal, and also make it seem worht while that you mayu need ghosts to protect its energy.
I like the aoe idea on the thor, right now 250mm cannon is pretty much a useless upgrade.But the aoe, in my opinion, needs to hit friendly units like the seige tank otherwise it will be too powerful. Also the aoe range should be a bit further than normal thor range and have an animation delay like the beams of collossus or else muta balls just disappear.
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: ... Since their AoE attack was clearly ridiculously overpowered, it was balanced out not by reducing the damage or some other boring stat change to make every unit equally powerful (which almost seems to be Blizzard's intention with SC2), but instead by making it hopelessly immobile and by making the ammunition cost resources and take time to build. ...
True that. Suspected this since I saw those videos in which Blizzard was letting certain unit compositions attack each other time after time ...