|
In defense of the removal, I honestly think everyone was expecting a substitution, another unit that didn't fail in design. I still believe Terran lack an extra Factory unit, either a Spell Caster or some kind of Goliath(but not Goliath.) If Warhound should have a return, my suggestion would be to make it melee and give it an anti-armoured attack vs air. Currently in my opinion there's a lack of melee units in the game and fits perfectly for a buffer for Mech to keep enemies from the Siege Tanks. The Anti Air vs Armoured is because Mech has a severe lack of anti air, Thor takes care of light armoured aerial foes, Warhound can now take the rest.
|
On January 05 2013 10:39 rysecake wrote: no it wasn't a mistake.
the core of terran mech must be centered around the siege tank. not a marauder in a gundam suit.
And here's the fucking problem.
Whenever Blizzard tries to introduce a terran unit, there is a united cry of despair from the BW community: "BUT HOW DOES IT SUPPORT MY TANKS?"
The tanks are not the fucking core unit of terran. You don't NEED to have it in your army. So tank mech doesn't work, so fucking what? There are other styles of mech that are just as positional thanks to the general slow speed of mechanical / air units. If the tank isn't the best unit on the board, let it stay that way and play without it.
This serious fucking tank boner we've got as a community needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.
|
NO.
War-hound was a badly designed unit that overlapped with marauder and was very boring since it didn't even have stim. If you want to make mech TvP viable, simply buff tanks or widow mines or make some other unit (thor?) more position-oriented and stronger.
|
On January 05 2013 10:41 SC2John wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:28 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 05 2013 10:13 SC2John wrote:On January 05 2013 10:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 05 2013 09:40 SC2John wrote:The main arguments about the warhound originally were:1) It is a "1a unit", meaning that it has no real skill attached to it. It attacks into mechanical units, auto-casts Haywire Missiles, and crushes them. No amount of tweaking numbers will fix that the warhound has no real micro potential aside from pulling back weakened units.Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +Certainly the warhounds needed some huge nerfing, but an all-around unit like the roach, marine, or stalker that relies primarily on splits, positioning, and concaves has never been a bad thing for the game. If any particular change could be made, Haywire Missiles could be given a longer range and require manual activation (much like the old 250mm Strike Cannons), which would encourage players to have to spend extra APM to use and then reposition correctly. It might take some playing around with the damage of Haywire Missiles (as a manual cast could encourage mass sniping of immortals or something). Counter Counterargument: "All-around" units like the Roach, Marine and Stalker you mention have lots of micro involved. The Warhound doesn't require the same micro, is about the same as Thor or Immortal, which is move into range and hope you do are stronger than your opponent. Furthermore, Mech play is traditionally based around positioning and it is exciting because it is different. Knowing where and when you siege your tanks takes skill and is a different than stutter stepping, Blink micro ect... To allow the Warhounds to be microed like those other "all-around" units would mean that Factory play is no longer based on when and where you position your siege tanks, but how well you can stutter step ect... That reduces the variation of the game, and it is bad. Although I haven't always had this viewpoint and I may not have it for very long.... I think positional mech in SC2 may just be...impossible? Maybe it's best that we have some kind of a mobile way to play mech, where we control space with packs of units covered by siege tanks and mines, than to try to focus on having perfect positioning in order to play. All of the other strategies of all other matchups have this in common. The only thing that doesn't allow for micro or tactical genius to pull through is terran mech. In addition, maybe we could MAKE warhound interesting instead of just dismissing it as kind of a beefy unit with an anti-mech attack? And to those that say Immortals are not microed at all: let's go watch some PartinG games on Ohana and then let's talk about this truthfully. (Not at all comparing warhounds to immortals here, I'm just point out that Immortals can definitely be interesting). Immortals in PvZ are totally different than Immortals in PvT. When you play vs Mech you want to get your Immortals in range as quickly as possible to do damage, and you want them unencumbered by lots of Gateway units or Forcefields. Against Zerg it is the opposite. You want to keep Roaches away, and you use Gateway units and Forcefields to achieve this. You can also micro with the Warp Prism. Damage is dealt far slower in general in PvZ than PvT, allowing for more micro opportunities. With EMP and Marines, the opportunities in PvT are very limited because units die so quickly on both sides. The whole idea behind positional play is not that need to play perfect to make it work, but that positional units are far stronger when positioned than normal units. Thus the interesting dynamic occurs where both sides are playing totally different playstyles. One with slow moving powerful units, and one with less powerful by fast moving units. The problem with positional play in SC2 is that the positional units are hard countered by non-positional units (Immortals countering Siege Tanks for instance). That makes no sense at all. Okay, I totally agree with that sentiment. I'm honestly totally fine with a tank buff, but I revived the idea of the warhound to say that perhaps we don't need to mess with tanks, maybe we can just fill in the holes with another unit. I honestly think terran has air under control between turrets, mines, thors, and vikings...I just think the biggest issue is big blink stalker early-game armies, immortal/zealot midgame armies, and big chargelot/archon balls: the ground armies that trade evenly with mech, which, as you say, is ridiculous.
I think that Mech needs a way to deal with Archons and Immortals without resorting to Ghosts. The problem is that if the games goes too late, Ghost + Mech is unstoppable (unless the Protoss player has gone for their incredibly overpowered Stargate units in HOTS, which I am sure will be nerfed, especially because air units are the most boring unless they are weak and fast like Mutas...), while if the Terran can't get out Ghosts, then Protoss rolls them over.
On January 05 2013 12:34 iKill wrote: So tank mech doesn't work, so fucking what? There are other styles of mech that are just as positional thanks to the general slow speed of mechanical / air units. If the tank isn't the best unit on the board, let it stay that way and play without it.
This serious fucking tank boner we've got as a community needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.
I didn't even play BW, but the fact is that the Siege Tank offers a different playstyle than Bio, and that is why it needs to work. I play Protoss, but the game is more fun with more variety, so I can understand why Terran players want Mech to work. And there is no reason to trade the Siege Tank for some other unit that does the exactly the same thing when it comes to positional play, whether it be the Warhound, the Widow Mine, or whatever else Blizzard can come up with.
Just make the Siege Tank work.
This is basically the same argument regarding the Carrier and the Tempest... why introduce another long range Capital Ship that hits both air and ground units when the first one doesn't work because it isn't balanced properly and Blizzard never put any effort into balancing it...
|
1) It is a "1a unit", meaning that it has no real skill attached to it. It attacks into mechanical units, auto-casts Haywire Missiles, and crushes them. No amount of tweaking numbers will fix that the warhound has no real micro potential aside from pulling back weakened units.Counterargument for A: + Show Spoiler +Certainly the warhounds needed some huge nerfing, but an all-around unit like the roach, marine, or stalker that relies primarily on splits, positioning, and concaves has never been a bad thing for the game. If any particular change could be made, Haywire Missiles could be given a longer range and require manual activation (much like the old 250mm Strike Cannons), which would encourage players to have to spend extra APM to use and then reposition correctly. It might take some playing around with the damage of Haywire Missiles (as a manual cast could encourage mass sniping of immortals or something).
I disagree. With Mech there is a certain play style. Blizzard them selves had a realization of this. When people say Mech they don't mean they want to be bio with Mech units. Its should be a different approach to the match up. Focusing on zone control, positioning etc not on intense micro, drops etc. Units like the Marine, Stalker, Roach are designed to encourage a different type of playstyle to mech. On top of that, they are meant to be the meat of an army and (beyond the roach) are much, much more interesting than just a concave based units. Also the game itself has enough "spellcasters". While passive and small spells can make a unit intersting, big active spells in large numbers arent. You see something too often and it loses its appeal. Combined with spells usually being not incredibly difficult to cast makes it much less interesting. The way the Warhound plays is counter-intuitive to how Mech should play out. It encourages a "Bio playstyle with mech units". Which I don't think anyone wants, since the game ends up playing out the exact same just with different models.
In addition it doesn't have huge micro potential. Roaches for example, don't really either, and the playerbase has often brought them up as a potenitally problematic unit. Due to the design of the marine (Large numbers, small and clumping, fast with stim) and there appropriate counters (EG; Banelings in TvZ), it encourage splitting and large number of units and micro requirement already on the Terran makes it exciting. Stalkers start off faster than most of the Terran and Zerg army, giving it early potential, and Blink is one of the most basic and interesting spells. It doesn't make the stalker a spell caster, its easy to understand, it isn't just another way of doing damage, and gives it an exciting mobility option that gives it incredible micro potential.
TLDR for first argument + Show Spoiler + It's a combination of the unit having a simple desigin, one that already exists on some units and is dissaproevd of, limited micro usage beyond yet another damage spell, which to be fair doesn't take incredible skill or isn't exciting to watch (Reason being: + Show Spoiler +The most exciting moments with spells is when it is hard to pull off and there is a risk / reward. Things like Storm flanks with warp prisms. I don't think many people find blanket EMP's exciting, as you will ALWAYS see it, there is little variance. Even storm is that much more exciting as it can be dodged, the unit casting it is in small numbers and slow, and easily out of position) ) Rather than adding yet another all round unit to the game making Mech play or feel exactly like other playstyles, changes to current units would be much more exciting and also breathe new life into old units, even in other match ups as new unit relationships rise and some old ones change.
2) The role of the warhound overlaps far too much with the marauder. It is an anti-armor unit with a fairly fast move speed and attack. In fact, the marauder is a better unit, being both cheaper and coupled with stim and concussive shells.
Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +If marauders and warhounds came from the same tech tree, they would definitely overlap. Currently, if you're going bio, you certainly benefit from avoiding warhounds and sticking with marauders as they benefit from Stim, Concussive Shells, and upgrades. If you're going mech, it makes little sense to add marauders to your composition, investing in Stim and Concussive Shells, and units that don't benefit from your upgrades. In biomech situations, certainly marine/warhound could be a strong composition in the early parts of the game, but marauders would always be a part of compositions with focus on the lategame.
But it does overlap in the entire race without filling in any other different roles. In each tree for Protoss there may be AoE (which can also be attributed to race design: and is not necessarily a good thing always). But each way of doing it is different. How colossus is used and played against is much different to you use storm and how you must approach beating it. But the Warhound plays just like a mechanical marauder. Colossus engagements play out differently to storm ones, but one with marauders will look similar to one with Warhounds.
Again, you might not add marauders to your mech composition. But we shouldn't just give them a mechanical marauder: saying we should give mech a unit that helps cover the all the holes it has early on is bad design. Its the same issue people have with the infestor, where it covers all of the holes. The race (in this case, the playstyle) and matchups become balanced around it, rather than the race as a whole. We should look at giving Meching players options or ways to deal with these holes rather than saying "If you build this unit and control right, you are safe". Changes to current units are good, and I'm not opposed at all to giving Terran another unit if it needs it (or wants it, Terran does seem to get less in HotS comparatively). But a unit that adds options to the game rather than being something you just have to make. Re-adding the Warhound for the sake of it seems awful
TL;DR for second argument+ Show Spoiler + It does overlap in the race, and the two tech tree's should try to be different from each other: Asymmetry has proven to be more interesting than symmetry. Even then, Protoss shows you can have similar things in two tree's while having them feel entirely different. Making a unit be a blanket fix for Mech's issues isn't good design and where it exists already in Starcraft 2 is has received much negativity. A new unit doesn't have to be the fix, but maybe it is. But the Warhound is not at all it.
3) Warhounds are just uninteresting units, they don't do anything interesting. Why don't they drop mines or have some kind of GtA transformation mode? Even marines with Stim or roaches with Burrow and regen have more interesting potential.Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +Tweaking numbers can easily make the warhound interesting. Lowering the range of the warhounds to 3 or 4 would completely, wildly change the way they are used. Giving them a machine gun attack instead of a projectile attack completely changes the nature of unit kiting. Giving Haywire missiles a lower range and forcing warhounds to get inside their attack range to use it makes it interesting. Giving it speed and reducing its HP makes it a unit great at kiting. There are all kinds of way to redesign the unit some to make it more interesting.
What you are saying about changing the unit speed & range can help accomplish a more interesting unit, but the unit design is still awry. And again, the interesting things you are giving the Warhound come straight from the Bio playstyle or already existing units. No one wants Mech to be Bio 2.0, and that's what Blizzard learnt with the Warhound. It's not Mech being viable, its having an alternative approach to a match up, a different play style. One that in the past was much loved. The unit itself could be made more intersting by changing it's interactions yes. But that's not as all how the unit was designed. It was designed to be a 1a unit that was like a mechanical marauder and acted as a blanket fix for Mech. Even if the unit had fun interactions with other units and such, its role and design don't fit.
TL;DR for third argument + Show Spoiler +Yes, you can make the Warhound more interesting, but it still doesn't fit into the game for all of the reasons above. This is just a reason that was compounded into why it should be removed, as it was a boring 1a unit that didn't fit how people wanted mech to play, and was just a bio unit made mechanical.
Conclusion: While we never necessarily meant for the warhound to be completely ditched for good with no replacement, maybe we went too far by asking that it be completely removed from the game before playing with numbers or design changes first. Looking at all the problems terrans are having right now, especially with the rather stale metagame in HotS, we see that the warhound would fill a lot of holes well as well as freshening up terran strategy. Could we at least agree that Blizzard could have tried harder? Maybe we could send out a cry to Blizzard. We hated the tempest and oracle and almost had them removed, but they've turned out to be protoss's saving grace...maybe we should take a second look at the warhound.
The worst part was not getting a replacement. A unit shouldn't try to fill every hole, the players skill to adapt and manage should fill holes. It's what makes it interesting. There doesn't need to be a solution for everything if a player can use some of his skill to get part it. Look at marauders and how marines / baneling splits work. What's would be more interesting? Watching marauders soak up some of the hits so more marines live? Or watching the player split his marines to minimize the damage they banelings do. I think you can agree watching marine splits is much more fun.
You also forgot the argument that the Warhound encouraged a boring deathball style of play and conflicted with how Mech plays: The idea of moving out and being an army that you cannot engage directly (Unless you go and do some sort of exciting higher higher tech change, which is on timer. Aka how Carriers worked in BW TvP) I feel like the biggest thing you can say against it is that Mech is a boring playstyle and that we don't want to watch games where the Terran turtles up and then a moves across the map and wins. Yet no one would say Bio vs Mech is boring in TvT as one player harasses and tries to slow down the push, and depending on the game may use it to buy time for a sky terran switch. The concept that Mech is strictly turtling isn't entirely true proven by Mech vs Bio TvT (arguably the most dynamic matchup and two playstyles in it). If Mech is forced to turtle to 200/200, that should be looked at as to why in Starcraft 2 players aren't willing to move out on to the map, and that should be changed, as to avoiding the entire concept of Mech.
Note: + Show Spoiler +Mech already doesn't feel safe moving out at 200/200. So while the Warhound might make it possible to move out, the Mech army is still much weaker. This is where changes to existing units come in, as Tanks are just not as good as they used to be and a maxed Terran isn't as scary.
At the very least, if Terran has holes, give them possible ways to fix them, but don't give a unit that blanket fixes something. The Infestor has already been criticized as "carrying" the Zerg race, leading to it being balanced around it. Our goal should be to have all races feel as complete, skill based and with as many options as Terran did in WoL. + Show Spoiler +Some peopel disagree that Terran was the "most complete" race with WoL. However even Blizzard has agreed with it before (Saying about how in HotS they maybe will remove some units from Terran as they already kind of have everything they needed) Because of that I've kept this part in And I think trying to band aid fix problems with a single unit to cover everything is bad, and change to current units is the best solution. Drastically changing current units so that how they interact with other units is changed aswell, breathes new life and can fill the gaps without having to create a unit that overlaps. On top of this, changing current units can open up new holes, which can create room for a new unit to be added for Terran, making them feel like they got more in HotS.
Homogenizing the play styles should strictly be seen as a bad thing. When all match ups play out the same way the game won't be fun. Differences are interesting and should be encouraged. The playerbase LOVES seeing new different things. Always. When Sky Terran was being shown in TvT it was insane, everyone loved it and dreamed up possible future changes to match ups with it. Even when Sky Terran was shown in TvP (MvP vs Squirtle) it was considered amazing to watch. Changes in how people play are ALWAYS exciting and can be seen all the way back to Brood War, where some of the most popular players are those who changed the way people play match ups, and this can be seen even today with the players who brought change to how we play being extremely popular (HerO's unique playstyle, MVP / Nestea and there innovations in the match up. Stephano with his 3 base ZvP revolution. MKP popularising heavy bio play to counter Ling / Infestor)
Example comparing Zerg playstyles in ZvT, and how different is intersting: + Show Spoiler +Look at Zergling / Infestor compared to Ling / Bling / Muta. When it first came out, it was exciting to watch, as the two play styles were entirely different. Ling / Bling / Muta was all about harassing, counters and getting good connections with banelings. It was a defensive style as the zerg tried to get up enough units to defend the push while macroing up. Where as Ling / Infestor focused on being able to engage the Terran army head on, and encouraged the Terran player to drop as the Infestor player would feel spread to thin. The entire match up felt different because of it.
TL;DR+ Show Spoiler + The Warhound was not only was a 1a, boring, mechanical marauder that made viable only by making it play like Bio and giving up what peopel identify with as mech, it was horrible design. A unit to blanket fix everything is bad and the race becomes balanced around it. It has to be present and becomes dull to watch, which would compound with how dull it is. Just making it more interesting doesn't make it a better unit as it is inherently bad. I't is just another reason why we don't like it. It encouraged homogenizing playstyles and tree's when asymmetry is much more intersting and desirable. We want units that encourage options and different playstyles, we don't want them to look different but play out the same. Again, asymmetry. The strongest argument I see is why would we want Mech when turtling to 200/200 then moving across the map is boring, which is disproven by how Bio vs Mech TvT plays out. And yes moving out onto the map is an issue, but it is even at 200/200 showing that the current iterations of units just aren't strong enough, as Protoss can always make a death ball capable of beating it.
Sorry for the long post, I've tried to offer TL;DR's in spoilers to make it smaller that just offer my argument against it without backing it up. Read the actual responses if you want my reasons for it.
|
No mistake was made with warhound. It was a powerful terran unit that would force new compositions and tactics so it was removed. The idea that it cannot overlap the marauder was always a poor pretense as that's precisely what mech-play required at the time. Even worse were the arguments that unit with a lot of speed and range was somehow '1A'. As for the positional play argument - widow mine was nerfed just recently apparently because it was too positional. There is simply no satisfying people who don't want to adapt to changes.
In the end removal of warhound just pushes terran back into bio-play and 'kill him before he get's there' territory - clearly neither the community or Blizzard have any intention to change that. It's a shame as it will damage the spectators experience with the lack of novelty but if our collective egos get in the way of good of the game those things will happen.
And please don't go pretending that we didn't ask for a full on removal as it smacks of hypocrisy. Plenty of people celebrated at the news caring nothing about replacement or terran gameplay remaining exactly the same.
|
The day that unit comes back into Starcraft 2 before 3 year old, boring, one-dimensional, crap designed units like the Roach, Marauder, Colossus, Carrier, and BattleCrusier are fixed....is the day I put this game down and never come back.
Come on guys, you honestly think Blizzard is going to swoop in with this awesomely new designed Warhound that makes everything magical? This game is pretty much finalized by now with release being in ~2 months and they don't want to shake it up with a new unit at this point. Besides Blizzard has shown a very keen resistance to overhauls and large work load inducing changes.
Take my list for example of already boring and poorly designed units we STILL HAVE after YEARS! At least strive to get those issues rectified first. Don't add MORE units like that to the game.
|
I agree that terran needs another unit as good as warhound, if possible with some not-automated spell
|
On January 05 2013 09:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Yes I think the removal of the Warhound was a mistake, an overreaction by the community. Perhaps there were design flaws, but I have a question. Why was the warhound changed from its original design position in the first place? Originally it was to be the new mech anti-air unit, a mobile threat.
Then Blizzard remember the Goliath and in their ironclad conviction to not remake units from BW... they changed the design. It was just a Goliath with a worse model, then it became a marauder with a worse model. I say just bring back the goliath and be done with it.
|
Have anyone try mass ground vikings as buffer to the tank mech?
|
On January 05 2013 12:34 iKill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:39 rysecake wrote: no it wasn't a mistake.
the core of terran mech must be centered around the siege tank. not a marauder in a gundam suit. And here's the fucking problem. Whenever Blizzard tries to introduce a terran unit, there is a united cry of despair from the BW community: "BUT HOW DOES IT SUPPORT MY TANKS?" The tanks are not the fucking core unit of terran. You don't NEED to have it in your army. So tank mech doesn't work, so fucking what? There are other styles of mech that are just as positional thanks to the general slow speed of mechanical / air units. If the tank isn't the best unit on the board, let it stay that way and play without it. This serious fucking tank boner we've got as a community needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW.
Not apart of the BW community but even I can see the value in tanks. Other units are so easily turned into a death ball style play that we already see. Looks at how match ups play where the tank doesn't exist and compare it to TvT, which is incredibly positional. What other styles are just as positional as tanks that offer as much? Tanks can not only be caught out of position. If Tanks are caugh unsieged it's bad, but even then you have to siege them up in a good position and spread, you cant clump them all up to much, but you cant leave a single siege tank all out on its own. No other unit offers positional play in such or as many ways, that a single unit is strong but only when its in such an area. Yes positional play can exist without it, but not on the same level. It's not just mech players are after, its how it plays.
And even if you get positional play, another part of what has made Mech dynamics is the idea of an army that can't be beat head to head. You have to engage around it or fight a timer for a higher tech to beat it (using your own skills to buy time). Tanks also encourage this as you can force sieges and slow there push dramatically. Without siege tanks there is less options you have to slow them down, or they are weaker. Mech is fun as it is getting an unbeatable army and crushing your opponent with it. It's that kind of feeling that mech players want as well, and even past SC2 games have shown that it can be fun to watch when executed properly
See how fun it is watching Protoss players try to fend off and buy time against the zergs Broodlord / Infestor, buying time as they get out there giant air fleet. Yes, it has proven to not be effective, but every game it happens it people get excited as the Protoss uses there multitasking and units to buy time. Imagine how much more exciting that would be when it A) Isn't Broodlord / Infestor and B) You can actually catch that army out of position, offering more ways to slow it down and C) Have those tense moments of "Oh shit, he may not have enough to time, the Terran player has taken down his fourth and is moving towards his third, if he loses third he won't have the production to come back",
|
if we are discussing mech, the units mech struggle against in HOTS are the viper, tempest, and immortal, i could say roach but it seems to have balanced nicely in WOL. So mech would need some sort of way to deal with immortals most importantly.
I would say give them a sort of "true" damage, maybe an ability that does X damage regardless of armor, passive abilities or unit type. kind of like snipe for ghost, only let it work on immortals.
I feel that this would more or less break P's ability to deal with T mech however, so I am thinking that with the re-addition of the warhound the Thor could be tweaked to allow a better answer to heavy air play, but make it worst against ground. That way, Protoss can deal with T mech with some good force fields, but not get over-run by immortal killing units, and Terran has a way to deal with Tempest late game.
I feel this unit could upset the balance of TvZ however, it is a very fine balance.
|
On January 05 2013 13:13 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 09:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Yes I think the removal of the Warhound was a mistake, an overreaction by the community. Perhaps there were design flaws, but I have a question. Why was the warhound changed from its original design position in the first place? Originally it was to be the new mech anti-air unit, a mobile threat.
Then Blizzard remember the Goliath and in their ironclad conviction to not remake units from BW... they changed the design. It was just a Goliath with a worse model, then it became a marauder with a worse model. I say just bring back the goliath and be done with it.
Problem with that being the role overlap with thors.
Essentially, bringing back BW units is not possible without some significant changes to preexisting units
|
On January 05 2013 14:09 ktimekiller wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 13:13 emythrel wrote:On January 05 2013 09:56 IamTheArchitect wrote: Yes I think the removal of the Warhound was a mistake, an overreaction by the community. Perhaps there were design flaws, but I have a question. Why was the warhound changed from its original design position in the first place? Originally it was to be the new mech anti-air unit, a mobile threat.
Then Blizzard remember the Goliath and in their ironclad conviction to not remake units from BW... they changed the design. It was just a Goliath with a worse model, then it became a marauder with a worse model. I say just bring back the goliath and be done with it. Problem with that being the role overlap with thors. Essentially, bringing back BW units is not possible without some significant changes to preexisting units honestly I'd rather the Goliath than Thors
|
United States4883 Posts
On January 05 2013 11:29 MasterCynical wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:56 SC2John wrote:On January 05 2013 10:47 MasterCynical wrote: No. Not only did it overlap with the marauder and marine, it was also making the thor partially redundant. The playstyle it encouraged was turning mech into a more deathbally version of bio. The whole design of the Warhound was not mech like, it was bio like. It didn't add to positional play at all.
Part of their original design was to completely counter siege tanks, just as the same with the immortal. This would ruin TvT pretty much.
You could call for a complete redesign in role, but what role can it possibly fill in mech? Putting number tweaking and balance aside, we now have the meatshield/fodder unit (hellbat), the seige unit, the anti air (new thor), harassment and quick burst damage(hellion and widow mine). What else is there?
I was discussing this is my other thread, "Tanks, Widow Mines, And Space Control": Quite honestly, the most difficult things for the mech army in TvP are immortals and archons. Many argue that getting ghosts deals with this, and it does. HOWEVER, ghost tech is an extraordinarily gas-expensive and time-expensive investment; in most cases, you can't have ghosts until safely on 3 bases with a good tank count. Providing a tier 2 soft counter such as a softened warhound could provide mech with the ability to safely move around the map without fear of instantly losing the game to some kind of immortal/archon/chargelot army, allowing for a safer transition into the later stages of the game. You are too fixated on TvP pure mech. There are many better options to make pure mech TvP more viable than to add a better marauder into mech, that would be the lazy option. Options such as buffs to the tank, allowing the hellbat to absorb more damage or even give the thor an ability thats good at taking down shields. Stuff like that. We dont need an entire new unit just to make one playstyle work in one matchup, especially one that makes mech too similar to bio. The team at Blizzard have stated that this is one of their goals.
On January 05 2013 12:41 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:41 SC2John wrote:On January 05 2013 10:28 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 05 2013 10:13 SC2John wrote:On January 05 2013 10:06 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 05 2013 09:40 SC2John wrote:The main arguments about the warhound originally were:1) It is a "1a unit", meaning that it has no real skill attached to it. It attacks into mechanical units, auto-casts Haywire Missiles, and crushes them. No amount of tweaking numbers will fix that the warhound has no real micro potential aside from pulling back weakened units.Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +Certainly the warhounds needed some huge nerfing, but an all-around unit like the roach, marine, or stalker that relies primarily on splits, positioning, and concaves has never been a bad thing for the game. If any particular change could be made, Haywire Missiles could be given a longer range and require manual activation (much like the old 250mm Strike Cannons), which would encourage players to have to spend extra APM to use and then reposition correctly. It might take some playing around with the damage of Haywire Missiles (as a manual cast could encourage mass sniping of immortals or something). Counter Counterargument: "All-around" units like the Roach, Marine and Stalker you mention have lots of micro involved. The Warhound doesn't require the same micro, is about the same as Thor or Immortal, which is move into range and hope you do are stronger than your opponent. Furthermore, Mech play is traditionally based around positioning and it is exciting because it is different. Knowing where and when you siege your tanks takes skill and is a different than stutter stepping, Blink micro ect... To allow the Warhounds to be microed like those other "all-around" units would mean that Factory play is no longer based on when and where you position your siege tanks, but how well you can stutter step ect... That reduces the variation of the game, and it is bad. Although I haven't always had this viewpoint and I may not have it for very long.... I think positional mech in SC2 may just be...impossible? Maybe it's best that we have some kind of a mobile way to play mech, where we control space with packs of units covered by siege tanks and mines, than to try to focus on having perfect positioning in order to play. All of the other strategies of all other matchups have this in common. The only thing that doesn't allow for micro or tactical genius to pull through is terran mech. In addition, maybe we could MAKE warhound interesting instead of just dismissing it as kind of a beefy unit with an anti-mech attack? And to those that say Immortals are not microed at all: let's go watch some PartinG games on Ohana and then let's talk about this truthfully. (Not at all comparing warhounds to immortals here, I'm just point out that Immortals can definitely be interesting). Immortals in PvZ are totally different than Immortals in PvT. When you play vs Mech you want to get your Immortals in range as quickly as possible to do damage, and you want them unencumbered by lots of Gateway units or Forcefields. Against Zerg it is the opposite. You want to keep Roaches away, and you use Gateway units and Forcefields to achieve this. You can also micro with the Warp Prism. Damage is dealt far slower in general in PvZ than PvT, allowing for more micro opportunities. With EMP and Marines, the opportunities in PvT are very limited because units die so quickly on both sides. The whole idea behind positional play is not that need to play perfect to make it work, but that positional units are far stronger when positioned than normal units. Thus the interesting dynamic occurs where both sides are playing totally different playstyles. One with slow moving powerful units, and one with less powerful by fast moving units. The problem with positional play in SC2 is that the positional units are hard countered by non-positional units (Immortals countering Siege Tanks for instance). That makes no sense at all. Okay, I totally agree with that sentiment. I'm honestly totally fine with a tank buff, but I revived the idea of the warhound to say that perhaps we don't need to mess with tanks, maybe we can just fill in the holes with another unit. I honestly think terran has air under control between turrets, mines, thors, and vikings...I just think the biggest issue is big blink stalker early-game armies, immortal/zealot midgame armies, and big chargelot/archon balls: the ground armies that trade evenly with mech, which, as you say, is ridiculous. I think that Mech needs a way to deal with Archons and Immortals without resorting to Ghosts. The problem is that if the games goes too late, Ghost + Mech is unstoppable (unless the Protoss player has gone for their incredibly overpowered Stargate units in HOTS, which I am sure will be nerfed, especially because air units are the most boring unless they are weak and fast like Mutas...), while if the Terran can't get out Ghosts, then Protoss rolls them over. Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 12:34 iKill wrote: So tank mech doesn't work, so fucking what? There are other styles of mech that are just as positional thanks to the general slow speed of mechanical / air units. If the tank isn't the best unit on the board, let it stay that way and play without it.
This serious fucking tank boner we've got as a community needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW. I didn't even play BW, but the fact is that the Siege Tank offers a different playstyle than Bio, and that is why it needs to work. I play Protoss, but the game is more fun with more variety, so I can understand why Terran players want Mech to work. And there is no reason to trade the Siege Tank for some other unit that does the exactly the same thing when it comes to positional play, whether it be the Warhound, the Widow Mine, or whatever else Blizzard can come up with. Just make the Siege Tank work. This is basically the same argument regarding the Carrier and the Tempest... why introduce another long range Capital Ship that hits both air and ground units when the first one doesn't work because it isn't balanced properly and Blizzard never put any effort into balancing it...
I am not fixated at all. I literally just wrote an article on buffing the tank and changing the widow mine to better synergize with it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=389358. I wrote this as a second option. In my opinion, either widow mines, hellbats, and tanks need considerable tweaks or we need to fill some gaps with a goliath-type unit. I quite honestly would love to see a tank-based play, but I don't see why it can't be aided with with a more mobile unit.
@Indyo Because your post is too long to really cite specifically, I'll just address it in a general manner: Quite honestly, if they were to be made somewhat like goliaths...well, if they were to BE goliaths with some kind of additional anti-mech ability, they would work well without becoming too versatile or overpowered. Essentially, I think that some kind of tweak with the warhound could have gone well rather than simply removing it from the game. As for the role overlap with the marauder and how it plays, it may be that they play fairly similarly. However, in conjunction with completely different units, I would argue that they feel rather differently. Honestly, the richness of strategy in SC2 has come to resemble how you build your composition and skew your opponent's (i.e. the colossus->viking->HT->ghost circle), and some form of the warhound would add a certain richness to terran armies.
On January 05 2013 13:40 MetalxStorm wrote: if we are discussing mech, the units mech struggle against in HOTS are the viper, tempest, and immortal, i could say roach but it seems to have balanced nicely in WOL. So mech would need some sort of way to deal with immortals most importantly.
I would say give them a sort of "true" damage, maybe an ability that does X damage regardless of armor, passive abilities or unit type. kind of like snipe for ghost, only let it work on immortals.
I feel that this would more or less break P's ability to deal with T mech however, so I am thinking that with the re-addition of the warhound the Thor could be tweaked to allow a better answer to heavy air play, but make it worst against ground. That way, Protoss can deal with T mech with some good force fields, but not get over-run by immortal killing units, and Terran has a way to deal with Tempest late game.
I feel this unit could upset the balance of TvZ however, it is a very fine balance.
You know, you make a point (in a way): terran mech units are kind of spread too thin on roles at the moment. Any addition of a warhound or goliath would mean that thor has to be played with and changed some more to be less generalized as "big, high HP walker that deals a lot of ground damage, can use a small weak air splash attack, and, if it uses its 5-second transformation mode, can deal stronger, single target GtA damage."
|
The Warhound is definitely a unit that had some potential at least, which Artosis said a long time ago.
|
On January 05 2013 14:26 Mahanaim wrote: The Warhound is definitely a unit that had some potential at least, which Artosis said a long time ago.
Yes, potential to turn factory unit play into slower moving, more expensive bio play. I love Artosis, and usually agree with him, but he says some silly things I don't get from time to time.
|
On January 05 2013 14:26 Mahanaim wrote: The Warhound is definitely a unit that had some potential at least, which Artosis said a long time ago. I wouldn't put much stock in what Artosis says on the subject. He maintained the mech TvP worked for a year despite all evidence to contrary and hates marauders with a passion. In fact I suspect the whole reason he didn't mind the warhound despite being a protoss player is because he hoped it would make marauder obsolete.
|
On January 05 2013 14:26 Mahanaim wrote: The Warhound is definitely a unit that had some potential at least, which Artosis said a long time ago.
I think he would have grown to hate the unit. He did despise marauders after all. If you read his blog on his reaction to the whole destiny/warhound being cut episode, he was just ecstatic that TvP was vastly different in Hots. He just wanted a change not caring if it would be a good change or not.
|
The solution to mech problems is to make landed viking more usefull. It certainly could rip Immortals shields and kill light units.
On January 05 2013 12:34 iKill wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2013 10:39 rysecake wrote: no it wasn't a mistake.
the core of terran mech must be centered around the siege tank. not a marauder in a gundam suit. And here's the fucking problem. Whenever Blizzard tries to introduce a terran unit, there is a united cry of despair from the BW community: "BUT HOW DOES IT SUPPORT MY TANKS?" The tanks are not the fucking core unit of terran. You don't NEED to have it in your army. So tank mech doesn't work, so fucking what? There are other styles of mech that are just as positional thanks to the general slow speed of mechanical / air units. If the tank isn't the best unit on the board, let it stay that way and play without it. This serious fucking tank boner we've got as a community needs to stop, and it needs to stop NOW. This.
Siege tanks lead to boring turtle TvT and TvP. The SC2 TvT tank-marine is way better, and bio play in TvP is way more exiting than siege lines+vulture harras.
|
|
|
|