Introduction: With the recent buffs for MsC, reapers, and the inherent buffs to protoss early game, the terran early game is becoming harder and harder to pull off, especially for meching players. In addition, although the midgame of mech has improved greatly with widow mines and hellbats, the mech army still has trouble moving out on the map at any point before 160 supply without the danger of engaging cost-inefficiently. In addition, most players playing mech complain that a single mistake (i.e. a misplaced tank, getting caught unsieged, not having mines in place in time, etc) will cost you the game with no chance to claw your way back with micro or clever tactics. While mech players are still having success with gas openings that kill a lot of workers or slow, creeping mech compositions, there is no room for error or allowance for success, particularly in the early and mid-game. Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.
Ironically, the warhound fits perfectly in this role.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm a masters level protoss player that's been following the beta fairly closely both on streams and through the forums, written various articles, etc. I've had somewhat flip-floppy opinions on HotS, but overall I have mostly supported 1) better space control and 2) positional balance over unit balance. While I was originally a hater of the warhound, I found it necessary to write this up and ask the community what they think.
I agree that something like the Warhound should be put back for Terran. They do need another earlygame unit option. It should come out at armory tech so that it won't come out too early, and a range nerf is in order.
Edit: Haywire missiles should also be scrapped in place of another ability.
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.
Can someone remind me why did blizzard go away from this? I feel like a lot of mech's problems stem from the unreliability of anti-air, which currently comes from only two sources, the slow and expensive thor, and the recently nerfed widow mine, which only works if they happen to fly over it. Why should the warhound not be a unit which is quick and strong against air, while being a fairly weak ground fighter?
I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?
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.
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. While your Haywire Missile idea is interesting, I can't see how it would be balanced, especially vs Siege Tanks in TvT. Warhounds would become walking Siege Tanks. You might argue then the Missiles could be made weaker, but if they get too weak, then the unit doesn't work. Too strong, then they are walking Siege Tanks.
Why not just let Tanks do their job and have other Factory Units just support Tanks?
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 variation, which is bad.
I'd rather see the Warhound return and replace the Hellbat, by doing big damage to Light Units and also move Javelin Missiles from the Thor to the Warhound for anti-air versus light units, while leaving the big anti-air cannons on the Thor.
There is a gap in the mech arsenal against protoss but if it is the warhound i'm not so sure. It's an alternative but i think that there could be other more exciting new units that could help about terran mech.
Just bring back the goliath in one form or another it fills this role just fine without being too all round and having more emphasis on AA. Thor needs to go, warhound should not come back with same design (antiground/antimech)
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.
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).
On January 05 2013 09:48 porygon361 wrote: I agree that something like the Warhound should be put back for Terran. They do need another earlygame unit option. It should come out at armory tech so that it won't come out too early, and a range nerf is in order.
Edit: Haywire missiles should also be scrapped in place of another ability.
On January 05 2013 09:55 porygon361 wrote: Lets make this thread more interesting instead of instantly putting it down. What changes/redesigns do you guys think will be great for the Warhound?
Thank you. And yes, you're totally right, Haywire Missiles should probably just be scrapped in favor of something a little more interesting. I just assumed that some kind of soft counter to immortals would be fairly good, and Haywire Missiles was all I had to go on.
On January 05 2013 10:03 algorithm0r wrote: I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?
Like what? The bio tech path is pretty clearly laid out. The air tech for terran is already pretty strong (although there are some serious transitioning problems (and the raven shhhhh!)). The only thing really lacking for terran is solid factory play, in my opinion.
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.
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.
It seems to me that on the one hand, Terran needs something. You can't launch an expansion and only give terran half a unit. However the Warhound was an outrageously bad unit, pretty much on the level with the Marauder in terms of 1A stupidity. Not to mention that even a cursory balance test would show mass Warhound crushes literally any Protoss composition, making them grossly overpowered.
Blizzard does not get it, and I am running out of hope that they ever will. It could be that Blizzard qua Blizzard simply does not care, since their real cash cow is World of Warcraft, and Starcraft is just the B-list and gets little resources or attention, and they are doing their best with what they have.
The design team seems to relish boring units. The Marauder, the Roach, the Colossus... practically every addition is a subtraction from the game's depth by flattening player choice. The Warhound was the same, and it needed a wholesale rework. Removing it was a good solution- although a complete redesign would have had the same effect, but also given Terran players a new toy. A 2 supply anti-air walker is all we Terran players really want.....
On January 05 2013 10:33 ledarsi wrote: It seems to me that on the one hand, Terran needs something. You can't launch an expansion and only give terran half a unit. However the Warhound was an outrageously bad unit, pretty much on the level with the Marauder in terms of 1A stupidity. Not to mention that even a cursory balance test would show mass Warhound crushes literally any Protoss composition, making them grossly overpowered.
Blizzard does not get it, and I am running out of hope that they ever will. It could be that Blizzard qua Blizzard simply does not care, since their real cash cow is World of Warcraft, and Starcraft is just the B-list and gets little resources or attention, and they are doing their best with what they have.
The design team seems to relish boring units. The Marauder, the Roach, the Colossus... practically every addition is a subtraction from the game's depth by flattening player choice. The Warhound was the same, and it needed a wholesale rework. Removing it was a good solution- although a complete redesign would have had the same effect, but also given Terran players a new toy. A 2 supply anti-air walker is all we Terran players really want.....
THe best thing that could happen for the esport of starcraft was if blizzard changed the business model of starcraft and found a way to monetize esports more efficiently. This would motivate them to hire better employees. The current one's are way too incompetent.
Again and again, I'm seeing evidence that Blizzard had really good design goals going into alpha, but then back tracked on nearly all of them by beta. I'm not sure why they doubted themselves so intensely, but their doubt cost us the initial design of every new unit but the Viper, but just barely the Viper at that.
The Carrier is stepping on the Tempest's toes, the Widow Mine is a balance nightmare, the Swarm Host is dead. It goes on and on. I don't know what the Hell happened, but all the problems in the beta can be attributed to Blizzard redefining the roles of all their new units.
When it comes to the Warhound, I'm not sure what Blizzard is going to do to make Mech a viable option against Protoss and Zerg, but the Warhound does seem awfully convenient for that aim.
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.
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.
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 and dps unit(tank), the anti air (new thor), harassment and quick burst damage(hellion and widow mine). What else is there?
I like your arguing for and against the war hound. Although the numbers probably could be adjusted to make it fit it would still seem like it overlaps too much with bio and provides even more reasons to not build tanks. It would be either to similar to the thor or the marauder and instead of them all being different options, whichever turns out to be the best would be used far more than the others.
Really just opinion here, though if bio offers high mobility, mech can be the more powerful force when in position. The war hound would seem the equivalent of creating a bio 'siege mode' unit.
Getting a good force of tanks and mines set up should be near suicide to push into without a specific plan to deal with it, while something like hellions/banshees can still provide mech with mobile units. With thors getting different AA allowing them to deal with every type of air unit, mech has some good potential.
I am not sure where the mine is just now, does it ignore immortal shields? the raven seeker missile did, i am guessing it still does and immortals are too slow to get away.
Realistically, the only ability that would work for the warhound to help counter immortals would be to give it something that has an effect like EMP in getting rid of shields. Making it exactly like ghost EMP would be stupid though. Maybe single target on a cooldown.
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.
I would like to see the warhound reintroduced as its original role, a mech goliath-like unit that counters armored air units like carriers, voidrays, and broodlords.
Agree with OP, Warhound wasn't balanced and it should be nerfed or buff the others against it instead of removing it
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 and dps unit(tank), the anti air (new thor), harassment and quick burst damage(hellion and widow mine). What else is there
Maybe it could fill anti-air, thors are not really Anti-Air because of its large size and supply. The main AA in mech army TvP still Vikings with thors support. Make Warhound like Goliath's role in BW Mech play and everything will be fine
Just bring back the damn goliath. That's what the warhound REALLY was before the haywire missile change anyways. I agree that we didnt really need another armored killer or anti-mech.. However, it did have specific intentions on its implementation.. First, it was supposed to be a mobile AA unit.. That was scrapped completely. Then, they said well lets make an anti-mech unit.. Something that can lighten up the TvT tank stalemate/shithole, etc. Then they remove the unit from the game and completely scrap that idea. It's ridiculous. Just give us the goliath (or make a new unit with a different name...Whatever floats your boat), it will satisfy the needs of the metagame. I cant be the only one here that has seen Blizzard introducing "new units" which were basically components BW units with new names and fancy 3D designs. hellbat= firebat, swarm host = flying defiler. We're hitting that "grey area" where people will hate Blizzard and say, SC2 is supposed to be a new game with new units and new strategies and the other half screaming that BW was the shit and it should be a continuation of its greatness. No matter what people will be left disappointed you can't please everyone.
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.
foxj- this was actually how they were originally designed. Goliaths able to lift off, rather than shitty Valkyries without splash that can land and be useless. Don't need a new unit if you just make Vikings able to use their AA attack from the ground.
No mistake at all. I made that big ol' In Defence of Mech blog that was a sideways critique of the Warhound and I still stand by it. I'm not exactly sure how being on separate tech trees get's rid of the unit design overlap. It's just different ways of getting more or less the same infantry unit. It actually overlaps with the marine, marauder, hellbat, Warhound, and Thor. Walking infantry units.
It wasn't mech except that it happened to come from a factory and we are better of without it. Far better to play around with the Mine and better moving micro for every unit rather than bringing that back. Comparing it to the roach for why it should be back is not a good thing in my opinion. And comparing it to the marine just demonstrates how awesome marines are and what exactly is the warhound bringing to the table that is different then slightly different stats.
Furthermore, Warhounds were designed to be anti-tank. I'm still not convinced we've got the positional game going on yet, but Warhounds with their mech-bonus damage is the anti-thesis to positional play.
On January 05 2013 11:19 foxj wrote: Agree with OP, Warhound wasn't balanced and it should be nerfed or buff the others against it instead of removing it
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 and dps unit(tank), the anti air (new thor), harassment and quick burst damage(hellion and widow mine). What else is there
Maybe it could fill anti-air, thors are not really Anti-Air because of its large size and supply. The main AA in mech army TvP still Vikings with thors support. Make Warhound like Goliath's role in BW Mech play and everything will be fine
With the new thors high impact payload, The thor is like a couple of goliaths glued together now. Would the addition of a goliath like warhound overlap too much with this?
On January 05 2013 11:34 ledarsi wrote: foxj- this was actually how they were originally designed. Goliaths able to lift off, rather than shitty Valkyries without splash that can land and be useless. Don't need a new unit if you just make Vikings able to use their AA attack from the ground.
Yea, I read about that too from Blizzard development note. I also think that the solution to mech in TvP would be Vikings sharing vehicle upgrades and also a slight unit size buff. With 2 attacks, it should shoots down immortal shields quite fast. And vikings being able to produced 2 at a time. It really should become the new buffer for mech play.
On January 05 2013 09:50 Hider wrote: no we didn't make a mistake - move on.
Second this.
On January 05 2013 11:24 Loccstana wrote: Possible Stats for New Warhound:
I am thinking of a goliath type units with a slight increase in stats to account for its increased cost.
Price: 150/75 Supply: 2 Buildtime: 40 seconds Life: 220 hp / 1 armor Ground Attack: 16(+2) with cooldown of 1 sec Air Attack: 16(+2) x 2 with cooldown of 1.5 sec Ground Attack Range: 6 Air Attack Range: 9.5 Movespeed: 2.81
Lategame Upgrade: Ability to target ground and air simutaneously?
Hilarious, rolf.
Do you realize that your """"New Warhound"""" is like a roach that move faster, have more hp, twice dps, hit air with huge radius and even more dps, at same suply cost, but only with twice cost? And the Upgrade is (hard to believe) at the same "level". A ball of these would be the ultimate deathball, even worse than the old warhound
The Warhound was better than the Marauder in every way, expept he couldn't stim. I was really upset when the removed them, but I think its fine now. But I really don't like the widow mine at all right now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 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 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.
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.
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...
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."
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.
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.
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
Oh, so you say that deathball is bad, but a slow, unbeatable deathball is actually good, right?
You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Now, curiously, the SC tank and marine are pretty similar to SC2 tank and marine, the reactors, UI and pathing making all the difference.
In SC:BW you only needed a few scouts for warning, and you could move your siege tank deathball pretty much without problem.
In SC2, doe to pathing, and tightly package marines can actually move in and rape siege tanks before they do a lot of damage.
I agree with OP. As a Zerg player I find Roach is a boring unit, but really, it does have a place
I think most people were too harsh on Warhound. Let's look at some "new" units, The Widow Mine, they changed it a lot. Remember the Oracle and it's 'harassing' ability? Wow thing does change.
The problem with Mech in HotS imo that they are as thin as paper. I mean Tank has Stalker HP and got 3 shot by Immortal. In BW not only Tank deal more damage, but because they are 2 supplies you can have more Tank = more durable army. Plus there are no hard counter to Mech in BW. Oh and the high ground give you 33% miss. We even have Defense Matrix and it's used surprisingly often.
The Hellbat is a stupid idea imo.
If they buff Tank directly, good, Mech will be fine. But Rock said they aren't interested in buffing Tank on Twitter recently...
If not, the better option would be bringing back Warhound and make it a paper weight. More HP/cost less damage maybe remove Armored tag as well. I don't think Mech is viable in HotS without something to soak up the damage
I agree with a lot of people here saying that the tank is the biggest problem with mech, but I think that it would be interesting to try and buff ground vikings to see if they can fill that hole. Viking do the job better because Viking give the player choice (ground or air) That's what makes the game fun, is giving players choices to express their style.
"I should also say that an improved mech in TvP was a goal many months ago. This may not be the goal in the future if we find that improved mech in TvP makes the game less diverse or is not fun for some other reason. We reserve the right to abandon this goal at any time if it proves to be destructive to the game."
//I guess the translation is, tank lines are boring.
"I should also say that an improved mech in TvP was a goal many months ago. This may not be the goal in the future if we find that improved mech in TvP makes the game less diverse or is not fun for some other reason. We reserve the right to abandon this goal at any time if it proves to be destructive to the game."
//I guess the translation is, tank lines are boring.
This is months old. But I'll agree that mech in TvP seems to have been dropped after removal of warhound.
On January 05 2013 11:24 Loccstana wrote: Possible Stats for New Warhound:
I am thinking of a goliath type units with a slight increase in stats to account for its increased cost.
Price: 150/75 Supply: 2 Buildtime: 40 seconds Life: 220 hp / 1 armor Ground Attack: 16(+2) with cooldown of 1 sec Air Attack: 16(+2) x 2 with cooldown of 1.5 sec Ground Attack Range: 6 Air Attack Range: 9.5 Movespeed: 2.81
Lategame Upgrade: Ability to target ground and air simutaneously?
Obscene. Do you work for Blizzard? 220 hp still for 2 supply and a build time of only 40 for such a monster? Greater Ground DPS than a hydralisk? The air damage is huge and you're suggesting all this, possibly the ability to shoot air and ground simultaneously and think it should only be TWO supply? That's 4 material. This isn't so different from the joke that it was when it existed. 2 supply and destroying 4 supply immortals.
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.
Exactly the point. Mines of some sort can help positional play, so the idea of the widow mine isn't as messed up for mech play as an A-moving machine that can kite to all buggery with 7 range and yet also has super high HP (and other stat faults like supply). Not interesting
Mech just needs a buff to siege tanks, that's all it really could use. Seriously. Preferably a late game buff, put an upgrade on the factory tech lab that requires fusion core like they did with caduceus reactor that increases siege tank damage or something. The new thor cannons I think are being underrated pretty good, the range on them is powerful and with decent upgrades they can really do some nice damage. You can upgrade air with your mech more easily now since the shared armor change, so getting vikings is a little more reasonable. You just need to be able to get some more punch to your mech army, and buffing the tank through a late game upgrade will allow you to put more supply into anti-air units and still have a strong siege tank line, or to really power through the ground army if air isn't a concern.
Maybe after a tank buff I would see if the problem still exists as much. A mobile unit to support tanks could definitely exist, but all iterations of the Warhound seems to go against it. And at what point does it no longer become tweaking and a completely redesigned unit? If Blizzard did bring one in, using the Warhound model even holds issues due to the stigma it has. Companies will relaunch products under a different name or campaign if there is stigma on there old one, and I think Blizzard would have to do the same.
@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.
The biggest issue is that for the Warhound to be good against what it needs to be, it would easily overshadow the tank as it becomes a very general unit, compared to the tank which is already not that great. You could of course buff the tank, but then we wouldn't be needing the Warhound to move out onto the map in the first place. And what about the Thor? We also still have the original Helion, Hellbat and Widow mine around. Not to mention Terran air units still exist, things like landed vikings could easily fill this role.
I would have said that the Colossi > Viking > HT > Ghost circle is one of the least interesting examples of strategy, simply because it's so predictable. He builds colossi, I build vikings. He has HT, I make ghost. It's very straightforward mostly as you don't feel like your adding to your composition your just responding to what they have. I'd say that things like using Ultralisk to soak up damage while your hydralisk are left alive at the back is a much more interesting example of strategy. Your thinking strategically with how to use your units, you'renot just using a pre-recorded response to pump out a counter.
Still, in the sense that you have to dance around the numbers and force switches etc it can be interesting. But with such a generally good unit, that also can be ready for air, when will it be bad to make them? Is there a bad time to make Warhounds? And even then, what will counter them? Will you even bother? Because in ZvT if Terran adds Marauders against Ling / Bling / Muta.... The zerg player doesn't really respond. He just has to micro better. Marauders just do stuff, there isn't a strategical response as far as units go, just in how you should engage.
And the units you are working with would generally feel the same. You have the Hellbat which is another unit that plays similar to bio. You have the tank to give positional play, but your unit still moves like bio (Just like in marine tank). But even worse is the interactions the Warhound has are still similar. The units it wants to deal with are even the same you would make marauders for if you could fit them into mech (which you can't due to stim / different upgrades / no medivacs / less factories)
TL;DR Problem can be solved without having to bring back the unit with existing units, since to keep the heavy positional play Tanks are pretty crucial. Pre-recorded responses to composition are less interesting that thinking strategically how you can use your units with each other. If the Warhound hits air and is a good general ground unit, if there ever going to be a bad time to make them, since they respond to everything. Having a unit exist just to solve a single problem in a single matchup as already said by MasterCynical is excessive when we have existing units that can do it. Mostly though it's just tanks are too weak as is and adding a new unit to counter what protoss has to beat them just seems to compound the problem.
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.
Agree with this, actually having change was just more important to him than what it was. If mech ended up being just a mechanical bio I doubt he would have enjoyed it.
Edit:
Oh, so you say that deathball is bad, but a slow, unbeatable deathball is actually good, right?
Yes, because a regular deathball just clashes head onto into another. Its all about winning that engagement there. With the unstoppable deathball, yes a single engagement would lose you the game, but you have the entire build up of the game to prepare for it and delay it. It makes the game more than a "army vs army", it almost gives it an objective. Delay the army the enemy is making while you get out an alternative force you usually couldn't get out in time to deal with it. And it still has the option to be caught out of position, which encourages the oppposing player to attack into you and to try and find winning engagements, like in TvT Bio vs Mech where the terran will stim in then run back, forcing both players to be active with there units.
You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Now, curiously, the SC tank and marine are pretty similar to SC2 tank and marine, the reactors, UI and pathing making all the difference.
In SC:BW you only needed a few scouts for warning, and you could move your siege tank deathball pretty much without problem.
In SC2, doe to pathing, and tightly package marines can actually move in and rape siege tanks before they do a lot of damage.
While true that weaker tanks help, it's not the only thing, don't forget things like the marauder helping, even things like the Medivac help out as a single unit doesn't just kill the unit that heals the Marines and Marauders. But your point on SC2 pathing is actually pro bio. Yes they clump up, but the current damage / area was designed for it. It's harder to just move your "Unstoppable Deathball" without problem, which is if anything a good thing as it gives the enemy more ways to delay / potentially catch it out of position so it is requires more skill from the mech player, not the mention that SC2 is generally a faster paced game, map vision is already a commodity. And like you said you can run in with tightly packed units. As is, we already see Marines & Marauders stim and run into tanks while splitting to minimize the damage, beating them.
The Warhound is almost impossible to balance, unfortunately, without completely changing it into a different unit that doesn't resemble the Warhound at all.
First off, the Warhound has to require a tech lab. You cannot give Terran a reactorable Factory unit that is good against armored, or allin rushes of Marines/Warhound/all your workers are simply impossible for Protoss to beat. Why do you think Marauders need a tech lab, have the worst cost/build time ratio in the game, and have concussive shells as a seperate upgrade? It's because if you could reactor them out, Protoss could never ever win a game against early game allins with all your SCVs.
Even if they require a tech lab I'm still skeptical if the allin rushes would be realistically defeatable. Siege Tanks in tank mode are expensive and horrible, but the fact that they have 7 range and deterred Stalker kiting enabled a build (1/1/1) that completely dominated Protoss from the top level of competition down for like a year. Now you want to give Terran a unit that's good against stalkers/immortals naturally? With a tech lab requirement, Photon Overcharge might enable Protoss to hold such rushes but that's by no means assured. Without that requirement, there's no way Protoss can ever survive.
After that, once you make everything in mech require tech labs, the viability of mech becomes very questionable. You simply need far too many resources wasted on production structures to get units out in a timely manner.
No matter how they tweak the number, in the end, it will just be another 1-A marauder. In fact it worst then marauder since marauder you can stim split/micro. A lot of good point already been covered in the earlier post so I wont go too much in detail. Even if you get it a fancy ability that allow you to manual target with haywire missile, it still terrible. That not really the micro we are looking for. The type of micro that make starcraft good is something similar to marine vs banelings. Hell, how hard is it to manual target haywire missle when your entire army is warhound hellbat with viking. Lets face it, you WONT be making tanks. The hellbat will be too slow to do any micro and you just gotta make sure your viking are roughly spread apart from storm. So in the end, all you are left with is 1-A your entire army and spam warhound haywire missile. I may be exaggerating it a little but i doubt the difficulty is anywhere near marine vs baneling split or any where near as interesting.
So no, my opinion stays the same. The fact that the warhound even made it into beta, made me completely lose hope in blizzard. Lets face it......how the hell did they did think unit would be interesting? Did they seriously envision mech to be based around warhound? It disgust me. Sorry for penting out my anger but this unit was a monstrosity. Without complete rework of it purpose, ability, and stats, it is better left forgotten.
"I should also say that an improved mech in TvP was a goal many months ago. This may not be the goal in the future if we find that improved mech in TvP makes the game less diverse or is not fun for some other reason. We reserve the right to abandon this goal at any time if it proves to be destructive to the game."
//I guess the translation is, tank lines are boring.
Nice quote.
Still, while many times Blizz is silly and states dumb arguments, that "translation" is on the same league.
While I'll love to see bw mech style back, an 1a gundam abomination will only make things worse.
On January 05 2013 15:47 Xequecal wrote: The Warhound is almost impossible to balance, unfortunately, without completely changing it into a different unit that doesn't resemble the Warhound at all.
First off, the Warhound has to require a tech lab. You cannot give Terran a reactorable Factory unit that is good against armored, or allin rushes of Marines/Warhound/all your workers are simply impossible for Protoss to beat. Why do you think Marauders need a tech lab, have the worst cost/build time ratio in the game, and have concussive shells as a seperate upgrade? It's because if you could reactor them out, Protoss could never ever win a game against early game allins with all your SCVs.
Even if they require a tech lab I'm still skeptical if the allin rushes would be realistically defeatable. Siege Tanks in tank mode are expensive and horrible, but the fact that they have 7 range and deterred Stalker kiting enabled a build (1/1/1) that completely dominated Protoss from the top level of competition down for like a year. Now you want to give Terran a unit that's good against stalkers/immortals naturally? With a tech lab requirement, Photon Overcharge might enable Protoss to hold such rushes but that's by no means assured. Without that requirement, there's no way Protoss can ever survive.
After that, once you make everything in mech require tech labs, the viability of mech becomes very questionable. You simply need far too many resources wasted on production structures to get units out in a timely manner.
I'm not sure you can say that protoss early-game would be too hard. With the improved MsC, they are kicking ass in the first 10:00 of the game. 1/1/1s are laughable now unless you manage to get like 20 probe kills off with harassment. I'm not saying that the warhound itself has to come back, but some form of it in that role could be useful for mech.
And I believe I'm correct in that they required a tech lab before anyway (maybe). An armory requirement wouldn't be too bad.
On January 05 2013 15:39 IndyO wrote: Maybe after a tank buff I would see if the problem still exists as much. A mobile unit to support tanks could definitely exist, but all iterations of the Warhound seems to go against it. And at what point does it no longer become tweaking and a completely redesigned unit? If Blizzard did bring one in, using the Warhound model even holds issues due to the stigma it has. Companies will relaunch products under a different name or campaign if there is stigma on there old one, and I think Blizzard would have to do the same.
@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.
The biggest issue is that for the Warhound to be good against what it needs to be, it would easily overshadow the tank as it becomes a very general unit, compared to the tank which is already not that great. You could of course buff the tank, but then we wouldn't be needing the Warhound to move out onto the map in the first place. And what about the Thor? We also still have the original Helion, Hellbat and Widow mine around. Not to mention Terran air units still exist, things like landed vikings could easily fill this role.
I would have said that the Colossi > Viking > HT > Ghost circle is one of the least interesting examples of strategy, simply because it's so predictable. He builds colossi, I build vikings. He has HT, I make ghost. It's very straightforward mostly as you don't feel like your adding to your composition your just responding to what they have. I'd say that things like using Ultralisk to soak up damage while your hydralisk are left alive at the back is a much more interesting example of strategy. Your thinking strategically with how to use your units, you'renot just using a pre-recorded response to pump out a counter.
Still, in the sense that you have to dance around the numbers and force switches etc it can be interesting. But with such a generally good unit, that also can be ready for air, when will it be bad to make them? Is there a bad time to make Warhounds? And even then, what will counter them? Will you even bother? Because in ZvT if Terran adds Marauders against Ling / Bling / Muta.... The zerg player doesn't really respond. He just has to micro better. Marauders just do stuff, there isn't a strategical response as far as units go, just in how you should engage.
And the units you are working with would generally feel the same. You have the Hellbat which is another unit that plays similar to bio. You have the tank to give positional play, but your unit still moves like bio (Just like in marine tank). But even worse is the interactions the Warhound has are still similar. The units it wants to deal with are even the same you would make marauders for if you could fit them into mech (which you can't due to stim / different upgrades / no medivacs / less factories)
TL;DR Problem can be solved without having to bring back the unit with existing units, since to keep the heavy positional play Tanks are pretty crucial. Pre-recorded responses to composition are less interesting that thinking strategically how you can use your units with each other. If the Warhound hits air and is a good general ground unit, if there ever going to be a bad time to make them, since they respond to everything. Having a unit exist just to solve a single problem in a single matchup as already said by MasterCynical is excessive when we have existing units that can do it. Mostly though it's just tanks are too weak as is and adding a new unit to counter what protoss has to beat them just seems to compound the problem.
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.
Agree with this, actually having change was just more important to him than what it was. If mech ended up being just a mechanical bio I doubt he would have enjoyed it.
Oh, so you say that deathball is bad, but a slow, unbeatable deathball is actually good, right?
Yes, because a regular deathball just clashes head onto into another. Its all about winning that engagement there. With the unstoppable deathball, yes a single engagement would lose you the game, but you have the entire build up of the game to prepare for it and delay it. It makes the game more than a "army vs army", it almost gives it an objective. Delay the army the enemy is making while you get out an alternative force you usually couldn't get out in time to deal with it. And it still has the option to be caught out of position, which encourages the oppposing player to attack into you and to try and find winning engagements, like in TvT Bio vs Mech where the terran will stim in then run back, forcing both players to be active with there units.
You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Now, curiously, the SC tank and marine are pretty similar to SC2 tank and marine, the reactors, UI and pathing making all the difference.
In SC:BW you only needed a few scouts for warning, and you could move your siege tank deathball pretty much without problem.
In SC2, doe to pathing, and tightly package marines can actually move in and rape siege tanks before they do a lot of damage.
While true that weaker tanks help, it's not the only thing, don't forget things like the marauder helping, even things like the Medivac help out as a single unit doesn't just kill the unit that heals the Marines and Marauders. But your point on SC2 pathing is actually pro bio. Yes they clump up, but the current damage / area was designed for it. It's harder to just move your "Unstoppable Deathball" without problem, which is if anything a good thing as it gives the enemy more ways to delay / potentially catch it out of position so it is requires more skill from the mech player, not the mention that SC2 is generally a faster paced game, map vision is already a commodity. And like you said you can run in with tightly packed units. As is, we already see Marines & Marauders stim and run into tanks while splitting to minimize the damage, beating them.
You fascinate me in that you type a lot and say very little. Colossi/viking/HT/ghost circle is really interesting and requires each player to respond to the other's composition with a little tweaking. Another example would be the muta->thor->roach->tank->zergling/ultra circle in ZvT against mech. Both are beautiful in their own ways.
I think it'd totally be fine to make warhounds paperweights with just a good anti-mech ability. There's no reason why they should break siege lines any better than marines, nor is there any reason to make them super powerful. They don't have to be good at everything. (Deep down, I know that specializing every unit by giving it a tag of (+30 damage vs. massive) and such is terrible). But SC2 has somehow been balanced thus far like that, so I don't see a reason not to just give warhounds a super niche role. The counter can be splash and gateway units, just like bio. As long as the fill the gap in mech.
Marine/tank is the most stable composition in the entire game for being both positional and fairly mobile. Why would you oppose making mech as stable as and dynamic as marine/tank? I know you want to think that it will be exactly the same, but you still have the positional aspects of mines, hellion harass, banshee harass, and a fairly safe mobile midgame army. Extending the midgame makes the lategame more interesting, and forcing the warhound into a midgame role denies any chance that it will ever be as good as the thor, which, in turn, forces a transition (and in SC, we love transitions).
None of those things would make it a more interesting unit. It just had no place in the mech composition. Why is it necessary when tanks and thors already exist? Just to counter immortals and other tanks? That is just lame.
i HATED the warhound when it was around, as said it was a unit that had EVERYTHING - high damage, high speed, good range, good toughness, and it absolutley mauled high-tech opposing units
that said, with the prevalence of Zerg and Protoss "ability wars", meaning fungals, blinding cloud, shields, forcefields, time warps....maybe give it some sort of "Dispel Magic"-esque ability, to remove such things and give it a support role rather than a pure offensive role...
and naturally lower its offensive capabilities, it should NOT be so fast AND so strong
On January 05 2013 16:56 GolemMadness wrote: None of those things would make it a more interesting unit. It just had no place in the mech composition. Why is it necessary when tanks and thors already exist? Just to counter immortals and other tanks? That is just lame.
Because a mobile counter to stalkers is also necessary even if it means that a unit is just a 'mechanical marauder'. And then there is the problem with the immortal. Those are the realities of SC2 units and their counters even if some may consider them 'lame'.
On January 05 2013 16:56 GolemMadness wrote: None of those things would make it a more interesting unit. It just had no place in the mech composition. Why is it necessary when tanks and thors already exist? Just to counter immortals and other tanks? That is just lame.
And yet, the problem exists. Hard to say that it's better to leave a hole in the game design than to fill it with a unit (that terran deserves). To be more specific, there is a hole in midgame mech armies; you can't quite afford to make thors and you can't quite afford to make ghosts, and you can't quite afford to move out of your base ever. So you just sit there in fetal position and try to score a lot of worker kills while turtling to 200/200.
On January 05 2013 16:56 GolemMadness wrote: None of those things would make it a more interesting unit. It just had no place in the mech composition. Why is it necessary when tanks and thors already exist? Just to counter immortals and other tanks? That is just lame.
And yet, the problem exists. Hard to say that it's better to leave a hole in the game design than to fill it with a unit (that terran deserves). To be more specific, there is a hole in midgame mech armies; you can't quite afford to make thors and you can't quite afford to make ghosts, and you can't quite afford to move out of your base ever. So you just sit there in fetal position and try to score a lot of worker kills while turtling to 200/200.
Then rework the current units. Adding in a redundant, boring unit for the soul purpose of filling a couple of holes is just bad design.
On January 05 2013 12:32 ejozl wrote: 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.
Exactly. Myself and others that blasted the Warhound for being a mech marauder and 1A unit at the start of beta...we all had the assumption that blizzard would replace the warhound with a mech unit with depth, a good anti-air unit, something...
Instead, Terran received nothing, no new mech unit, no re-designed warhound to have more depth, nada.
Terran does still need a new unit for this expansion.
On January 05 2013 14:48 naastyOne wrote: You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Bio is a non-starter in BW TvT because Vultures wreck bio.
I'm still interested on what Blizzard is doing with the Thor. I'm not too crazed about it's new current abilities, but I feel like some of your arguments for the Warhound can be implemented onto the Thor. Maybe? I'm not sure. Haven't used the Thor too much myself (and I certainly don't mech enough)...
Viking ground mode gets haywire missile, with the combined plating they are pretty good tanks, but still have this small issue against +armored ground damage. They can't kite like the Warhound could because of their speed/range . They should make the missile only be useable while it doesn't move though. With that you would have a tank and anti air as well. The hellbat is a great tank, but you lack the anti air with them. And unlike bw, airplay is actually viable most of the time. (Best solution for me would be to remove the armored tag from the assault mode, so viking hp is indirectly buffed on the ground)
Mech doesn't need the tankiness...it needs to be cheaper. 300/200, 150/125, 100 + the money you spend on air support and production buildings is extremely expensive. The cost from BW is almost doubled and tripled.
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
Oh, so you say that deathball is bad, but a slow, unbeatable deathball is actually good, right?
You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Now, curiously, the SC tank and marine are pretty similar to SC2 tank and marine, the reactors, UI and pathing making all the difference.
In SC:BW you only needed a few scouts for warning, and you could move your siege tank deathball pretty much without problem.
In SC2, doe to pathing, and tightly package marines can actually move in and rape siege tanks before they do a lot of damage.
None of those are why marines aren't feasible in a longer TvT game in Brood War. You can't use them because tanks more powerful and cost less supply, because of mines, and because marauders don't exist in Brood War.
On January 05 2013 15:47 Xequecal wrote: The Warhound is almost impossible to balance, unfortunately, without completely changing it into a different unit that doesn't resemble the Warhound at all.
First off, the Warhound has to require a tech lab. You cannot give Terran a reactorable Factory unit that is good against armored, or allin rushes of Marines/Warhound/all your workers are simply impossible for Protoss to beat. Why do you think Marauders need a tech lab, have the worst cost/build time ratio in the game, and have concussive shells as a seperate upgrade? It's because if you could reactor them out, Protoss could never ever win a game against early game allins with all your SCVs.
Even if they require a tech lab I'm still skeptical if the allin rushes would be realistically defeatable. Siege Tanks in tank mode are expensive and horrible, but the fact that they have 7 range and deterred Stalker kiting enabled a build (1/1/1) that completely dominated Protoss from the top level of competition down for like a year. Now you want to give Terran a unit that's good against stalkers/immortals naturally? With a tech lab requirement, Photon Overcharge might enable Protoss to hold such rushes but that's by no means assured. Without that requirement, there's no way Protoss can ever survive.
After that, once you make everything in mech require tech labs, the viability of mech becomes very questionable. You simply need far too many resources wasted on production structures to get units out in a timely manner.
I'm not sure you can say that protoss early-game would be too hard. With the improved MsC, they are kicking ass in the first 10:00 of the game. 1/1/1s are laughable now unless you manage to get like 20 probe kills off with harassment. I'm not saying that the warhound itself has to come back, but some form of it in that role could be useful for mech.
And I believe I'm correct in that they required a tech lab before anyway (maybe). An armory requirement wouldn't be too bad.
On January 05 2013 15:39 IndyO wrote: Maybe after a tank buff I would see if the problem still exists as much. A mobile unit to support tanks could definitely exist, but all iterations of the Warhound seems to go against it. And at what point does it no longer become tweaking and a completely redesigned unit? If Blizzard did bring one in, using the Warhound model even holds issues due to the stigma it has. Companies will relaunch products under a different name or campaign if there is stigma on there old one, and I think Blizzard would have to do the same.
@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.
The biggest issue is that for the Warhound to be good against what it needs to be, it would easily overshadow the tank as it becomes a very general unit, compared to the tank which is already not that great. You could of course buff the tank, but then we wouldn't be needing the Warhound to move out onto the map in the first place. And what about the Thor? We also still have the original Helion, Hellbat and Widow mine around. Not to mention Terran air units still exist, things like landed vikings could easily fill this role.
I would have said that the Colossi > Viking > HT > Ghost circle is one of the least interesting examples of strategy, simply because it's so predictable. He builds colossi, I build vikings. He has HT, I make ghost. It's very straightforward mostly as you don't feel like your adding to your composition your just responding to what they have. I'd say that things like using Ultralisk to soak up damage while your hydralisk are left alive at the back is a much more interesting example of strategy. Your thinking strategically with how to use your units, you'renot just using a pre-recorded response to pump out a counter.
Still, in the sense that you have to dance around the numbers and force switches etc it can be interesting. But with such a generally good unit, that also can be ready for air, when will it be bad to make them? Is there a bad time to make Warhounds? And even then, what will counter them? Will you even bother? Because in ZvT if Terran adds Marauders against Ling / Bling / Muta.... The zerg player doesn't really respond. He just has to micro better. Marauders just do stuff, there isn't a strategical response as far as units go, just in how you should engage.
And the units you are working with would generally feel the same. You have the Hellbat which is another unit that plays similar to bio. You have the tank to give positional play, but your unit still moves like bio (Just like in marine tank). But even worse is the interactions the Warhound has are still similar. The units it wants to deal with are even the same you would make marauders for if you could fit them into mech (which you can't due to stim / different upgrades / no medivacs / less factories)
TL;DR Problem can be solved without having to bring back the unit with existing units, since to keep the heavy positional play Tanks are pretty crucial. Pre-recorded responses to composition are less interesting that thinking strategically how you can use your units with each other. If the Warhound hits air and is a good general ground unit, if there ever going to be a bad time to make them, since they respond to everything. Having a unit exist just to solve a single problem in a single matchup as already said by MasterCynical is excessive when we have existing units that can do it. Mostly though it's just tanks are too weak as is and adding a new unit to counter what protoss has to beat them just seems to compound the problem.
On January 05 2013 14:37 MasterCynical wrote:
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.
Agree with this, actually having change was just more important to him than what it was. If mech ended up being just a mechanical bio I doubt he would have enjoyed it.
Edit:
Oh, so you say that deathball is bad, but a slow, unbeatable deathball is actually good, right?
Yes, because a regular deathball just clashes head onto into another. Its all about winning that engagement there. With the unstoppable deathball, yes a single engagement would lose you the game, but you have the entire build up of the game to prepare for it and delay it. It makes the game more than a "army vs army", it almost gives it an objective. Delay the army the enemy is making while you get out an alternative force you usually couldn't get out in time to deal with it. And it still has the option to be caught out of position, which encourages the oppposing player to attack into you and to try and find winning engagements, like in TvT Bio vs Mech where the terran will stim in then run back, forcing both players to be active with there units.
You know what make SC2 TvT very dynamic and SC:BW a boring siege-line on siege line? The relativly weaker tanks.
Now, curiously, the SC tank and marine are pretty similar to SC2 tank and marine, the reactors, UI and pathing making all the difference.
In SC:BW you only needed a few scouts for warning, and you could move your siege tank deathball pretty much without problem.
In SC2, doe to pathing, and tightly package marines can actually move in and rape siege tanks before they do a lot of damage.
While true that weaker tanks help, it's not the only thing, don't forget things like the marauder helping, even things like the Medivac help out as a single unit doesn't just kill the unit that heals the Marines and Marauders. But your point on SC2 pathing is actually pro bio. Yes they clump up, but the current damage / area was designed for it. It's harder to just move your "Unstoppable Deathball" without problem, which is if anything a good thing as it gives the enemy more ways to delay / potentially catch it out of position so it is requires more skill from the mech player, not the mention that SC2 is generally a faster paced game, map vision is already a commodity. And like you said you can run in with tightly packed units. As is, we already see Marines & Marauders stim and run into tanks while splitting to minimize the damage, beating them.
You fascinate me in that you type a lot and say very little. Colossi/viking/HT/ghost circle is really interesting and requires each player to respond to the other's composition with a little tweaking. Another example would be the muta->thor->roach->tank->zergling/ultra circle in ZvT against mech. Both are beautiful in their own ways.
I think it'd totally be fine to make warhounds paperweights with just a good anti-mech ability. There's no reason why they should break siege lines any better than marines, nor is there any reason to make them super powerful. They don't have to be good at everything. (Deep down, I know that specializing every unit by giving it a tag of (+30 damage vs. massive) and such is terrible). But SC2 has somehow been balanced thus far like that, so I don't see a reason not to just give warhounds a super niche role. The counter can be splash and gateway units, just like bio. As long as the fill the gap in mech.
Marine/tank is the most stable composition in the entire game for being both positional and fairly mobile. Why would you oppose making mech as stable as and dynamic as marine/tank? I know you want to think that it will be exactly the same, but you still have the positional aspects of mines, hellion harass, banshee harass, and a fairly safe mobile midgame army. Extending the midgame makes the lategame more interesting, and forcing the warhound into a midgame role denies any chance that it will ever be as good as the thor, which, in turn, forces a transition (and in SC, we love transitions).
Sorry if that's the case, I'm used to having to provide reasoning and examples for my arguements, I'll be shorter. I guess we just disagree. I remember back at the start of SC2 there was a lot of discussion as to whether those type of interactions were as good as dynamic ones like the example I gave. They do have a place, but I personally think there is more room for strategy else where.
Still doesn't answer about making such a hugely specialized for 1 playstyle in a matchup. Other units may have niche roles but none exist soley for that. How do you ensure the anti mech ability won't break siegelines? They don't have to be good against everything, but your making a very general unit that can hit both air and ground. And with a counter like splash and zealots (since it beats stalkers with +armoured) it will play more like the marauder aswell. Also where is the cyclical strategy? Zealots and Colossi (I presume since Hellbats & mines) should already be built. You aren't forcing anything from them, and they "force" you to build this unit simply because you have no alternative.
I don't oppose making it as stable or dynamic as marine / tank. I oppose them playing the same. Which while you think I'm sure of, all of what you listed sounds like Bio. Mines will be utilized by Bio. The way they harass will be different you have that, but that isn't about how they play. I have no reason not to think making a mobile bio like unit alongside the hellbat / tank wouldn't lead to a similar experience. And the idea of a different playstyle would be to have a positional midgame, not a mobile one. We already have the option for that. A longer mid game does make the lategame more interesting though, that is true. But I don't see Terran players giving up there mobility that the Hellbat gives.
I stand by changing existing units over re-adding the Warhound, it was rejected by the community for good reason. I guess the best part of bringing back the Warhound is that you may get more play styles, as a mobile version of mech could be interesting to have alongside a positional one. But with how tanks are at the moment, there is no reason to make your deathball have to be sieged when the mobile one is just as good. Again, the solution is already present.
As a random in the beta, I really enjoy terran now. Hellbat with blue flame with def upgrade are awesome for tanking damage and very good against light. The combined def air/mech upgrade make all air units transition from mech or bio really viable. Mines help mapcontrol and defending new base or battle position. Thor are no longer feedback, reaper can be usefull sometimes, new medivac are really nice.
The power of Terran should not be make only factory unit amove and win, the fact that you can use some ghost emp or marauder slow or air unit with Mech is very interesting. Maybe we need to up terran a bit but I would prefer to add some nerf on some boring unit like colossus, infestor.
Edit : maybe make tank 160hp instead of 150 to nerf immo attack on it.
Mech wouldn't have a problem if tanks did way more damage. If they did, they would control areas alot better. But i know what people will say: But ZZEERRGGG will be murdered if they did more damage!!!!!! QQQQQQ. Well the simple fix for zerg is, move viper tech down to lair. If zerg see's tanks, make vipers and blinding cloud and or pull the tanks (Im sure people have seen how bloody effective that is by now). You know, i wish blizzard would stop being such pussy's and try a big chance like this.
Removing the original warhound (the Anti-Air mech warrior) was definitely a mistake. Reason: mech needs a good anti air unit, the thor just doesn't cut it. Removing the newer anti-mech warrior was definitely not a mistake. The design of this unit was just boring, everything automated, very massable and also a 1-a unit. Any unit that is easily massable is a bad unit design.
Imagine the awesome dynamic of mech vs air toss, with a decent anti-air ground unit. Currently void rays, tempests and immortals are incentive enough for a terran to avoid mech all together. Giving the terrans a good AA mech would at the very least give mech an answer to sky toss.
Have you ever tried to fight void rays with thors? To win a battle cost for cost you need the toss to clump up heavily. And even then, your supply is so tied up in the thors that a tech switch would annihilate the remaining thors.
So in conclusion: this game could benefit incredibly with a good AA ground mech warrior.
On January 05 2013 19:18 Chloroplaste wrote: As a random in the beta, I really enjoy terran now. Hellbat with blue flame with def upgrade are awesome for tanking damage and very good against light. The combined def air/mech upgrade make all air units transition from mech or bio really viable. Mines help mapcontrol and defending new base or battle position. Thor are no longer feedback, reaper can be usefull sometimes, new medivac are really nice.
The power of Terran should not be make only factory unit amove and win, the fact that you can use some ghost emp or marauder slow or air unit with Mech is very interesting. Maybe we need to up terran a bit but I would prefer to add some nerf on some boring unit like colossus, infestor.
Edit : maybe make tank 160hp instead of 150 to nerf immo attack on it.
i do not think that we should be whining about balance to much. people probably think that broodwar was amazing and perfect. and that may be true but do you guys realize how long it took for broodwar to be a bit balanced? it took blizzard 5 years to end game breaking gltiches and balance issues. instead of whining so much about balance you should realize that this is a BETA. and beta's are meant to be for things like bugs and balance issues. i believe that if the ones with beta keys just play the game and send balance feedback to blizzard(which should be possible considering this is a beta) then in the end it should all turn out fine right? i believe if we all have some faith in blizzard HOTS could turn out to be a great game. and it has issues yes but didnt WOL have those too (and still has some). removing the warhound may have been a mistake. me (as protoss player) found it to be an interesting unit. but in the end it fulfilled the wrong role. it served as a mid game cheap and cost effective thor which was not supposed to be that way. they should at least consider giving the warhound a different role. before i end this post and people saying that mech isn't viable against protoss. back in broodwar bio would get raped by protoss just as mech now gets destroyed by protoss. people back then were fine with it so why whine now.
the things i have stated here may not be 100% true. people who think different feel free to correct me .
[i]Introduction: With the recent buffs for MsC, reapers, and the inherent buffs to protoss early game, the terran early game is becoming harder and harder to pull off, especially for meching players. In addition, although the midgame of mech has improved greatly with widow mines and hellbats, the mech army still has trouble moving out on the map at any point before 160 supply without the danger of engaging cost-inefficiently. In addition, most players playing mech complain that a single mistake (i.e. a misplaced tank, getting caught unsieged, not having mines in place in time, etc) will cost you the game with no chance to claw your way back with micro or clever tactics. While mech players are still having success with gas openings that kill a lot of workers or slow, creeping mech compositions, there is no room for error or allowance for success, particularly in the early and mid-game. Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.
A mech army should always have trouble moving out before 160 Supply,that's just the way it is if you go for a beefy lategame army. Protoss going for a strong composition will also start moving out at 150 160 Supply.
A single misplaced tank will not lose you the game. If it does it is a really high level game since both players seemed to have the same mechanics so that the loss of one unit actually makes the difference. If that's the case, well, you made a mistake and paid for it. "Getting caught unsieged" means that you messed up big time. Having no idea of where your opponents army is, is a single mistake but it is probably the biggest you can make when moving out with a mech army. Same goes for the Mines in place.
So you cannot make errors in the early game to get to a powerful army? That is unfair? You should never play Protoss.
Also I see so many Terrans complain about Immortals. I don't get that at all. Once Terran got enough Tanks, infinite Immortals won't kill them. Plus, just getting Ghosts for EMP and Nukes is sooooooo good in mech. I know it is a lot of gas but it is so worth it.
Perhaps the mistake is not the Warhound but the Marauder, Blizzard introduced this mobile Anti Armour unit into the game at a cost of 25 gas, its fast( when stimmed), has a lot of hitpoints for the cost can be healed easy and can kite.
Simply fact is there is no room in the game for the Warhound.
I never understood why the Warhound was removed cuz its an A-Move unit, what about Colossi, Ultralisk and so on? I mean every race other than terran has strong A-Move units. Sure the Warhound was kinda imba but they could have balanced it, also i think the haywire misle should be a manual action so it needs micro. I think it would be good if there is another option for tvp other than bio play. And if we don't get viable tank-mech they should give us back a reworked Warhound. But hey I'm just a bad Diamond Terran who is sick of losing all the time cuz i dont have 100 times better multitasking and micro than my opponent.
A single target anti-armored-air Warhound instead of an anti-everything-on-the-ground-but-strangely-can't-shoot-up Warhound would be nice.
Problem is that Blizz used the Thor as a bandaid of sorts to fill that role with HIP mode. This means that HIP needs to be removed or reworked for the Warhound to come back. The question is, what will happen to the Thor then? You can't have both the current HIP and Warhounds, and I'm pretty sure no one wants a Thor with energy again.
On January 05 2013 19:24 Typhoon1789 wrote: Mech wouldn't have a problem if tanks did way more damage. If they did, they would control areas alot better. But i know what people will say: But ZZEERRGGG will be murdered if they did more damage!!!!!! QQQQQQ. Well the simple fix for zerg is, move viper tech down to lair. If zerg see's tanks, make vipers and blinding cloud and or pull the tanks (Im sure people have seen how bloody effective that is by now). You know, i wish blizzard would stop being such pussy's and try a big chance like this.
And then PvZ would be broken forever. You have to consider the implications elsewhere.
I think making vikings a light unit can help mech more than reviving the warhound...
the biggest changes I can think: TvT - Viking vs Viking fights are going to last 2x more. Thors are going to destroy vikings.
TvZ - Fungal is going to deal less damage.
TvP - Vikings are going to take less damage from stalkers. Phoenix are going to destroy Vikings but since Vikings have a 9 range they can stay near the main army for protection. Vikings are going to destroy Void-rays Vikings are going to take only 20 damage from Immortals if you land then.
On January 05 2013 21:36 MockHamill wrote: No. Nerf immortal shields, Tempest Hp and Void Ray DPS and mech will become viable. There is no need for another unit.
if you nerf immortal shields then stephano style roach-ling attack will only get stronger. how is toss supposed to counter mass roach in mid game if immortals tank less damage? tempests are already weak as shit so make them even weaker so a few terran players can finally play happy mech? why do terrans suddenly want to play mech vs toss?
On January 05 2013 21:36 MockHamill wrote: No. Nerf immortal shields, Tempest Hp and Void Ray DPS and mech will become viable. There is no need for another unit.
if you nerf immortal shields then stephano style roach-ling attack will only get stronger. how is toss supposed to counter mass roach in mid game if immortals tank less damage? tempests are already weak as shit so make them even weaker so a few terran players can finally play happy mech? why do terrans suddenly want to play mech vs toss?
Its not that we don't want to play mech against protoss its that we would like the option to. Right now they only viable tech path is bio. That doesn't make much sense. You do have a point that it might make zergs stronger against toss but the other way that people have been suggesting is buffing tank damage but that might make zerg to weak against tank then. It's all about balance and right now terran mech doesn't have that.
WE didnt make a mistake, Blizzard did. Terran mech needs a CHEAP GOLIATH with good anti air and useful anti-infantry attacks more than yet another ground-specialized walker.
On January 05 2013 22:28 aksfjh wrote: The biggest problem with the warhound removal is that we expected it to be replaced and it never was.
Yeah, I completely agree. I was 100% sure that blizzard would add a substitute to the warhound, not remove that slot completely. I'm sure that the majority of the people that wanted the warhound gone thought that a substitute was going to be introduced.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Zorgaz wrote: The only mistake we did was assuming blizzard would introduce a new mech unit (I would have been happy with the old Warhound (Goliath 2.0))
Removing the warhound at the time was the right choice, but widow mine + hellbat isn't enough to make mech viable.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Millet wrote: I'm sure that the majority of the people that wanted the warhound gone thought that a substitute was going to be introduced.
That's funny because nobody voiced any problem with the lack of replacement at the time. It was immediately made very clear that warhound and it's 'slot' are gone for good. This is just scapegoating Blizzard for community lack of thought.
On January 05 2013 19:55 SCguineapig wrote: i do not think that we should be whining about balance to much.
This is a retrospection thread and not about balance. HotS will go gold in less than 2 months and if Blizzard has any sense they will spend half of that time on fine tuning. There is not enough time left to properly tackle mech TvP let alone toy around introducing/reintroducing units.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Millet wrote: I'm sure that the majority of the people that wanted the warhound gone thought that a substitute was going to be introduced.
That's funny because nobody voiced any problem with the lack of replacement at the time. It was immediately made very clear that warhound and it's 'slot' are gone for good. This is just scapegoating Blizzard for community lack of thought.
No it wasn't immediately made clear that the warhound was not going to get a replacement. It took 4 days until browder said this, and this was made clear in a stand-alone thread, no huge announcement. I'm sure that the majority of people never even knew about this response.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Zorgaz wrote: The only mistake we did was assuming blizzard would introduce a new mech unit (I would have been happy with the old Warhound (Goliath 2.0))
Removing the warhound at the time was the right choice, but widow mine + hellbat isn't enough to make mech viable.
Now it's less then 3 months to release T_T
Less than 3 months?
Its 2 months and a couple days
Really, that's what you have to say? 2 months and a couple days is less then 3 months..... Yeah i could have been more exact but did i really need to?
On January 05 2013 21:36 MockHamill wrote: No. Nerf immortal shields, Tempest Hp and Void Ray DPS and mech will become viable. There is no need for another unit.
No need to nerf the Immortals shield if they seriously buff the damage of the tank (to 70 flat damage without any bonus damage). You will kill the non-Immortals easier that way and then your "rest of the army" can deal with the Immortals.
In TvZ the Siege Tank doesnt deal enough damage now to be really a good unit AND Zerg get their Viper with the abduct to directly counter the sieged up tank, so a boost isnt going to imbalance the matchup. Killing Zerglings only with the primary splash radius - as it is now - is frankly ridiculous and something needs to be done anyways.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Zorgaz wrote: The only mistake we did was assuming blizzard would introduce a new mech unit (I would have been happy with the old Warhound (Goliath 2.0))
Removing the warhound at the time was the right choice, but widow mine + hellbat isn't enough to make mech viable.
Now it's less then 3 months to release T_T
Less than 3 months?
Its 2 months and a couple days
Really, that's what you have to say? 2 months and a couple days is less then 3 months..... Yeah i could have been more exact but did i really need to?
No, i just find it funny that people default to thinking as a march release to 3 months, when in reality it is only 65 days
On January 05 2013 19:55 SCguineapig wrote: i do not think that we should be whining about balance to much. people probably think that broodwar was amazing and perfect. and that may be true but do you guys realize how long it took for broodwar to be a bit balanced? it took blizzard 5 years to end game breaking gltiches and balance issues. instead of whining so much about balance you should realize that this is a BETA. and beta's are meant to be for things like bugs and balance issues. i believe that if the ones with beta keys just play the game and send balance feedback to blizzard(which should be possible considering this is a beta) then in the end it should all turn out fine right? i believe if we all have some faith in blizzard HOTS could turn out to be a great game. and it has issues yes but didnt WOL have those too (and still has some). removing the warhound may have been a mistake. me (as protoss player) found it to be an interesting unit. but in the end it fulfilled the wrong role. it served as a mid game cheap and cost effective thor which was not supposed to be that way. they should at least consider giving the warhound a different role. before i end this post and people saying that mech isn't viable against protoss. back in broodwar bio would get raped by protoss just as mech now gets destroyed by protoss. people back then were fine with it so why whine now.
the things i have stated here may not be 100% true. people who think different feel free to correct me .
[i]Introduction: With the recent buffs for MsC, reapers, and the inherent buffs to protoss early game, the terran early game is becoming harder and harder to pull off, especially for meching players. In addition, although the midgame of mech has improved greatly with widow mines and hellbats, the mech army still has trouble moving out on the map at any point before 160 supply without the danger of engaging cost-inefficiently. In addition, most players playing mech complain that a single mistake (i.e. a misplaced tank, getting caught unsieged, not having mines in place in time, etc) will cost you the game with no chance to claw your way back with micro or clever tactics. While mech players are still having success with gas openings that kill a lot of workers or slow, creeping mech compositions, there is no room for error or allowance for success, particularly in the early and mid-game. Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.
A mech army should always have trouble moving out before 160 Supply,that's just the way it is if you go for a beefy lategame army. Protoss going for a strong composition will also start moving out at 150 160 Supply.
A single misplaced tank will not lose you the game. If it does it is a really high level game since both players seemed to have the same mechanics so that the loss of one unit actually makes the difference. If that's the case, well, you made a mistake and paid for it. "Getting caught unsieged" means that you messed up big time. Having no idea of where your opponents army is, is a single mistake but it is probably the biggest you can make when moving out with a mech army. Same goes for the Mines in place.
So you cannot make errors in the early game to get to a powerful army? That is unfair? You should never play Protoss.
Also I see so many Terrans complain about Immortals. I don't get that at all. Once Terran got enough Tanks, infinite Immortals won't kill them. Plus, just getting Ghosts for EMP and Nukes is sooooooo good in mech. I know it is a lot of gas but it is so worth it.
I DO play protoss. And there is actually nothing preventing protoss from moving out on the map before 160 supply in any of the matchups. IF you're going for an upgrade-heavy, macro-oriented style like Squirtle or Creator, it's quite possible that you'll just be sitting at home, getting up 3 expansions and all your tech for a maxed out push. However, you definitely have the option of doing blink stalker harass, warp gate pushes, immortal pushes, stargate harass, warp prism harass, etc. Mech really only can be aggressive with hellion runbys, widow mine drops, and harassing banshees, all of which are shut down fairly easily by a prepared opponent (we can talk about Mvp's failure to do damage vs. Life in GSL finals with his BFH opening TWICE; because he didn't do any damage with his hellion opening, Life was able to roll his advantage all the way to the lategame).
Mass tanks is terrible against immortals, actually. The best ground mech composition is 7-8 tanks, about 30 BFH, 4-5 fully charged ghosts, and a few vikings in case of colossus or stargate. Maybe with the addition of mines, a few burrowed in front of your army wouldn't hurt either.
On January 05 2013 21:32 rpgalon wrote: I think making vikings a light unit can help mech more than reviving the warhound...
the biggest changes I can think: TvT - Viking vs Viking fights are going to last 2x more. Thors are going to destroy vikings.
TvZ - Fungal is going to deal less damage.
TvP - Vikings are going to take less damage from stalkers. Phoenix are going to destroy Vikings but since Vikings have a 9 range they can stay near the main army for protection. Vikings are going to destroy Void-rays Vikings are going to take only 20 damage from Immortals if you land then.
there is probably more, but I can't see it now.
I've seen this here and there and I think it's possible that it could give vikings a more reliable role in anti-ground mech. However, I think the machine gun attack needs to be buffed A LOT if it's going to keep up with gateway units.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Zorgaz wrote: The only mistake we did was assuming blizzard would introduce a new mech unit (I would have been happy with the old Warhound (Goliath 2.0))
Removing the warhound at the time was the right choice, but widow mine + hellbat isn't enough to make mech viable.
Now it's less then 3 months to release T_T
Less than 3 months?
Its 2 months and a couple days
Really, that's what you have to say? 2 months and a couple days is less then 3 months..... Yeah i could have been more exact but did i really need to?
No, i just find it funny that people default to thinking as a march release to 3 months, when in reality it is only 65 days
Take deep breaths, keep OCD under control. ("LESS THAN 3 months" = any number LESS THAN 3 months. For example, 65 days is LESS THAN 3 months).
On January 06 2013 00:20 Millet wrote: I'm sure that the majority of the people that wanted the warhound gone thought that a substitute was going to be introduced.
That's funny because nobody voiced any problem with the lack of replacement at the time. It was immediately made very clear that warhound and it's 'slot' are gone for good. This is just scapegoating Blizzard for community lack of thought.
No it wasn't immediately made clear that the warhound was not going to get a replacement. It took 4 days until browder said this, and this was made clear in a stand-alone thread, no huge announcement. I'm sure that the majority of people never even knew about this response.
It is definitely a shame that warhound never got a replacement. I don't really think it's fair to blame either side; I know this thread is called "Did WE make a mistake?", but I don't mean to incriminate the community or say that Blizzard had no blame in it or whatever. One thing is for sure though: if the release isn't drastically different from how things are now, a lot of terran players are going to be incredibly disappointed. Terran has gotten 1.5 units and no new playstyles or midgames. While it might be interesting to play against different playstyles (roach/hyrdra or an aggressive protoss with recall), it still won't change the fact that terran players will still be playing pretty much the same way. And that's painful to think about.
Personally I would love to see tank numbers tweaked, the features such as isolated cliffs that made the tank unbelievably op are gone and tanks are incredibly weak in small numbers. by tweaking damage you would allow positional tanks to be more effective (+turret/mines) and space could properly be controlled.
I don't think we need the Warhound back, but stronger tanks, someone said earlier that by buffing tank damage you could kill the rest of the protoss army more easily leaving just the immortals to kill with your other units, I had never thought of this but if it could be made to work that would be awesome and hopefully not game breaking.
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.
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).
The biggest problem with bringing back the Warhound to cover for up lackluster Mech units, is that Mech without Tanks is just another deathball, and i think a lot of people would rather see Mech as unviable than a deathball. Right now in WoL Terran is the only race that does not benefit from sitting back and maxing out, and it would be such a shame to see HotS turn into a turtle fest into a clash of 200/200 armies, where the player to come out ahead of the fight has basicly won the game.
It was basically the perfect unit that mech needed, anti armour anti immortal shield, we all said WAHHH WE DONT WANT IT BECAUSE ITS LIKE A METALLIC ROACH and it's gone for good. It's not coming back. Lets all QQ in this thread, we will feel better later I'm sure.
The Warhound from early beta was one of the worst units Blizzard ever made,so no mistake there.
The mistake however, is that Blizzard brings units from BW but in an inferior design that fucks everything up. Mines at 2 supply are worhtless in late game, Thors are no where near as good anti air as Goliaths and Tanks are so damn sad. So the mistake is that they don't fix the problems they intentionally created (to be original...).
If they just can't be creative enough and bring new great units in to the game, then bring the old ones in their original form. How bad is it that after 2 years of development we can look at the "new" units as a Firebat,a worse Spider Mine and an interpretation of an existing unit (marauder) that has a "mech" description? That campaign better be the most amazing thing ever seen in a video game.
On January 06 2013 00:20 Zorgaz wrote: The only mistake we did was assuming blizzard would introduce a new mech unit (I would have been happy with the old Warhound (Goliath 2.0))
Removing the warhound at the time was the right choice, but widow mine + hellbat isn't enough to make mech viable.
Now it's less then 3 months to release T_T
Less than 3 months?
Its 2 months and a couple days
Really, that's what you have to say? 2 months and a couple days is less then 3 months..... Yeah i could have been more exact but did i really need to?
2 months and 6 days is a lot less than 3 months...
I'd write a longer reply to this, but I think it's clear to see the OP is a very low league player. How can you compare a marine or stalker to a warhound? Marines and stalkers are like the furthest from 1A a unit can possibly be. The roach? Sure you can make a small comparison there, but the roach is A SHITTY unit design wise and it arguably ruins PvZ.
Like I said before, the Warhound stepped on Marauder role so hard it made bio stupid. The only way for Warhound to work in mech is for it's combat abilities to be heavily nerfed from its last incarnation, and to make it a sort of light, electronic warfare unit that doesn't also step on the Thor's OR the BattleHellion's (I'm not saying hellba-- ahhh shit) role.
Ill admit, It's tempting to do something, anything to make mech (and Terran in general) more viable, particularly vs toss. Still, this is a bad idea. In adding an uninteresting unit like the warhound, You may make "mech" more viable, but it won't have any of the qualities that made people want mech to be viable in the first place. Tanks will still be irrelevant vs toss, and less prevalent in other matchups as warhounds take on the role of strong anti armor. Without tanks, the result will be more akin to bio than the positional, pushing, siege line play traditionally associated with mech.
For an example, look at OneGoal. They lamented (rightly) the weakness of gateway units in sc2 toss, and tried shifting the immortal to gateway to boost Gateway play back to the levels of raw power it once held. Unfortunately, the immortal is pretty boring, especially when compared against blink stalkers. The only exciting micro you will see involving immortals is thanks to warp prisms... Ff + immortal can be pretty ok in PvZ, but seeing as the enemy's ability to micro goes down in proportion to how well the toss uses his sentries... :/
In an ideal world, there would be some solid, microable unit on the factory capable of soft countering immortals and armored air. Unfortunately blizz's attempt at designing such a unit was too bland, one dimensional, and frankly unappealing art/concept wise.
And finally, real talk, there aren't going to be any new units (or old units re added) because we are too close to release. At this point the best we can hope for a tank buff (supply to 2 would be good) and maybe a dps buff on landed Vikings to make traditional tank mech viable.
Well blizzard stubbornly refuses to keep any sc1 units as well, they want it to be different as possible to bw. So we're stuck with the viking, a complete piece of shit that is flimsy with 0 armour but counts as an armoured unit.
The problem with the Warhound is it desperately needs to be the Goliath. That's pretty much it.
btw, mech doesn't need anything to combat the immortal. Pure immortals loses to pure tanks in a direct engagement if you have a big enough army and once you have ghosts it's not even close. Immortals are nessecary for Protoss to hold off things like the 1-1-1, but against true mech compositions the problems are air, blink and chargelots (in conjunction with Colossi).
Just remove the shitty marauder and give back the warhound with fixes, this will drastically change all gameplay, it will be more interesting cause actually HOTS = WoL. Blizzard has no gut.
nah the warhound was a terrible unit and deserved to be removed..
It was just an incredibly ugly 'fix' to make mech work by adding stuff like bonus against mechanical and an attack that negated hardened armor. It also just lead to new silly all-ins and made TvT completely silly.
Mech in it's core is tank based play but the tank is too weak against protoss. Buffing the tank is not a great solution with regards to TvT and TvZ because the tank feels fine there. The problem the warhound was addressing was just the strong mechanical units of protoss: blink stalkers and immortal. Immortal should just have hardened shield removed, that ability is a joke. Basically it ONLY serves as a hardcounter to the tank, practically no other unit in the game the immortal frequently faces does way more damage than 10. Just remove hardened shield and give the immortal slightly more shield instead. The widow mine should also fill the other gap of mech play, being very immobile and having no efficient counter for fast harassing units like blink stalkers. Instead they somehow turned the widow mine into more of an AoE unit terran didn't need AT ALL because they have hellions for that... Also the MsC providing detection makes widow mines even more of a joke..
Simple solutions to actually make TANK-based mech work instead of using the boring warhound: - make widow mine good against protoss not so much agianst zerg, ie give it higher single target damage and less splash.. - fix hardened shield to remove the silly hardcounter to the tank that is the immortal. Immortals should be great against roaches, thor's but not make tanks completely terrible. With 6 range and warp prisms flanking tanks with them is even possible but it should cost som trouble.. - remove detection from MsC and give it back to oracle. This fixes banshee and DT openings and doesn't make widow mines into such a joke which are already countered by stalkers with the MsC..
On January 06 2013 21:58 althaz wrote: The problem with the Warhound is it desperately needs to be the Goliath. That's pretty much it.
btw, mech doesn't need anything to combat the immortal. Pure immortals loses to pure tanks in a direct engagement if you have a big enough army and once you have ghosts it's not even close. Immortals are nessecary for Protoss to hold off things like the 1-1-1, but against true mech compositions the problems are air, blink and chargelots (in conjunction with Colossi).
Erm, are you sure? I'm pretty sure pure immortals versus pure tanks will win every time with very little problems.
It's not just immortals that cause tanks problems. it's the immortal archon mix that is impossible to deal with since it's very hard to get enough emps to even deal with it, let alone the instant remax of zealot archon from warp gates.
Both as a Terran player and as a spectator, I would prefere a unit that fits the mech play style.
I would enjoy so much having some tanks (not 15, but just a few) on a ramp, behind some depots, or even behind some new auto-turrets that would fill a new USEFUL role, and being like this :
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.
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).
The biggest problem with bringing back the Warhound to cover for up lackluster Mech units, is that Mech without Tanks is just another deathball, and i think a lot of people would rather see Mech as unviable than a deathball. Right now in WoL Terran is the only race that does not benefit from sitting back and maxing out, and it would be such a shame to see HotS turn into a turtle fest into a clash of 200/200 armies, where the player to come out ahead of the fight has basicly won the game.
I wanted the warhound to get out of the game. But blizzard made it too simple for themselfes. getting it out, without inventing a new unit. If i had known that before.... So yes
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.
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).
The biggest problem with bringing back the Warhound to cover for up lackluster Mech units, is that Mech without Tanks is just another deathball, and i think a lot of people would rather see Mech as unviable than a deathball. Right now in WoL Terran is the only race that does not benefit from sitting back and maxing out, and it would be such a shame to see HotS turn into a turtle fest into a clash of 200/200 armies, where the player to come out ahead of the fight has basicly won the game.
And there were certain others matches where terrain turtled untill maxed and then skirmished to the point of map mining out,
Well, this comment is kind of taken out of context. First of all, if both players sit back and max out on their tier 3 units, zerg will reach that point about 5:00 game time earlier, which means they can just keep doing BL pushes into ultras, rinse and repeat, and eventually win. This is why mech players have to score a TON of worker kills in the beginning of the game with the hellion/banshee harass; if you don't do economic damage, you might as well just GG then instead of playing out a 40-minute death sequence.
Second, we're talking about HotS. The lategame terran army of raven/ghost/battlecruiser is pretty weak against ultra/ling, so if you DO manage to take down the BL/infestor army, get ready to lose a base trade. In addition, Seeker Missile is terrible in HotS. In addition, zerg has vipers, making BL/infestor even more difficult for terran to deal with (especially because you just can't kill that many corruptors quickly).
That being said, I'm totally okay with just all the terran mech units tweaked so they don't suck instead of adding a new unit. I mean, it's a little disheartening to see that terran gets almost nothing from the expansion, but if they don't at least make mech somewhat viable in all matchups, terran got literally nothing from HotS.
I like the idea of a manual casting haywire missle. However, I if blizzard is going to be interested in using the warhound once more I'd consider that they should use a alpha stage map so players can experiment with it and see how it evolves. It seemed to work in the past
On January 06 2013 07:03 Zahir wrote: Ill admit, It's tempting to do something, anything to make mech (and Terran in general) more viable, particularly vs toss. Still, this is a bad idea. In adding an uninteresting unit like the warhound, You may make "mech" more viable, but it won't have any of the qualities that made people want mech to be viable in the first place. Tanks will still be irrelevant vs toss, and less prevalent in other matchups as warhounds take on the role of strong anti armor. Without tanks, the result will be more akin to bio than the positional, pushing, siege line play traditionally associated with mech.
For an example, look at OneGoal. They lamented (rightly) the weakness of gateway units in sc2 toss, and tried shifting the immortal to gateway to boost Gateway play back to the levels of raw power it once held. Unfortunately, the immortal is pretty boring, especially when compared against blink stalkers. The only exciting micro you will see involving immortals is thanks to warp prisms... Ff + immortal can be pretty ok in PvZ, but seeing as the enemy's ability to micro goes down in proportion to how well the toss uses his sentries... :/
In an ideal world, there would be some solid, microable unit on the factory capable of soft countering immortals and armored air. Unfortunately blizz's attempt at designing such a unit was too bland, one dimensional, and frankly unappealing art/concept wise.
And finally, real talk, there aren't going to be any new units (or old units re added) because we are too close to release. At this point the best we can hope for a tank buff (supply to 2 would be good) and maybe a dps buff on landed Vikings to make traditional tank mech viable.
I think the most realistic chance (if blizzards wants to try and make tank-mech viable) would be one of the following two "solutions"; 1) Give tanks a late game upgrade which increases damage against shield (like + 10 and ignores hardened shield) 2) Reduce shield on immortals but increase health.
Then they would probably make a statement regarding protoss air that terrans just needs to figure it out (like they always have to apparently). Obviously mech will still be hopelessly underpowered and there will never be any solution to dealing with protoss air when you go mech and thus Blizzards will have to redesign how protoss air works a couple of months into release.
That is at least my predicition based on past behaviour of how Dustin Browder and Blizzard thinks.
On January 06 2013 22:30 Ambre wrote: Both as a Terran player and as a spectator, I would prefere a unit that fits the mech play style.
I would enjoy so much having some tanks (not 15, but just a few) on a ramp, behind some depots, or even behind some new auto-turrets that would fill a new USEFUL role, and being like this :
[i]Introduction: With the recent buffs for MsC, reapers, and the inherent buffs to protoss early game, the terran early game is becoming harder and harder to pull off, especially for meching players. In addition, although the midgame of mech has improved greatly with widow mines and hellbats, the mech army still has trouble moving out on the map at any point before 160 supply without the danger of engaging cost-inefficiently. In addition, most players playing mech complain that a single mistake (i.e. a misplaced tank, getting caught unsieged, not having mines in place in time, etc) will cost you the game with no chance to claw your way back with micro or clever tactics. While mech players are still having success with gas openings that kill a lot of workers or slow, creeping mech compositions, there is no room for error or allowance for success, particularly in the early and mid-game. Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.
A mech army should always have trouble moving out before 160 Supply,that's just the way it is if you go for a beefy lategame army. Protoss going for a strong composition will also start moving out at 150 160 Supply.
A single misplaced tank will not lose you the game. If it does it is a really high level game since both players seemed to have the same mechanics so that the loss of one unit actually makes the difference. If that's the case, well, you made a mistake and paid for it. "Getting caught unsieged" means that you messed up big time. Having no idea of where your opponents army is, is a single mistake but it is probably the biggest you can make when moving out with a mech army. Same goes for the Mines in place.
So you cannot make errors in the early game to get to a powerful army? That is unfair? You should never play Protoss.
Also I see so many Terrans complain about Immortals. I don't get that at all. Once Terran got enough Tanks, infinite Immortals won't kill them. Plus, just getting Ghosts for EMP and Nukes is sooooooo good in mech. I know it is a lot of gas but it is so worth it.
I was initially glad when the Warhound was removed, but I assumed they'd quickly add some other unit to replace it. It's kind of sad if Terran goes into HotS with only 1.5 new units. At least they eventually added some cool buffs to other stuff like the medevac, but still. Feels like we need another unit to inject some more variety into Terran.
So in consensus, the majority of people wanted the warhound removed, but expected something new for terran, and now feel that terran is a bit gimped in hots.
well, hope they do something in patch #11 *fingers crossed*
It's not us that did a mistake, it's blizzard. I will never ever be able to wrap my head around how 1 week of fucking retards on reddit qqing (when only very few people where even playing the beta, let alone any really good people) can make you scratch a unit you spent 2 years on. Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing, and removing the warhound will hurt sc2 long term, maybe they'll realize by the time lotv comes around.
There was no mistake in its removal, however, it should have been replaced with another unit. I don't count firebats, I mean hellbats as a new unit its just a new ability for the hellion. The question is, what unit should replace the Warhound? I think the problem lies with the theory that units should have no overlap, because as it stands with this philosophy there is no room for another unit really. If they let the unit step on the toes of some other units they wouldn't make it so difficult for themselves in creating this new unit. Maybe they should bring back the cobra or perhaps even the Nomad!
On January 07 2013 02:26 Lorch wrote: It's not us that did a mistake, it's blizzard. I will never ever be able to wrap my head around how 1 week of fucking retards on reddit qqing (when only very few people where even playing the beta, let alone any really good people) can make you scratch a unit you spent 2 years on. Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing, and removing the warhound will hurt sc2 long term, maybe they'll realize by the time lotv comes around.
They removed the warhound because he overlapped too much with the marauder. While I was initially against the removal, I think that the scrapping of the warhound will be good in the long term because it helps to keep each unit's roles more distinct.
Also with the warhound, the already very flexible got even more stuff. Thee current approach with adding just 1.5 new units helps to fix the issue in Wol that terrans are much more exciting that the other two races.
On January 07 2013 02:26 Lorch wrote: It's not us that did a mistake, it's blizzard. I will never ever be able to wrap my head around how 1 week of fucking retards on reddit qqing (when only very few people where even playing the beta, let alone any really good people) can make you scratch a unit you spent 2 years on. Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing, and removing the warhound will hurt sc2 long term, maybe they'll realize by the time lotv comes around.
They removed the warhound because he overlapped too much with the marauder. While I was initially against the removal, I think that the scrapping of the warhound will be good in the long term because it helps to keep each unit's roles more distinct.
Also with the warhound, the already very flexible got even more stuff. Thee current approach with adding just 1.5 new units helps to fix the issue in Wol that terrans are much more exciting that the other two races.
This isn't the right way tout think, you don't make a race less fun, you improve the others...
On January 07 2013 02:38 StreetWise wrote: There was no mistake in its removal, however, it should have been replaced with another unit. I don't count firebats, I mean hellbats as a new unit its just a new ability for the hellion. The question is, what unit should replace the Warhound? I think the problem lies with the theory that units should have no overlap, because as it stands with this philosophy there is no room for another unit really. If they let the unit step on the toes of some other units they wouldn't make it so difficult for themselves in creating this new unit. Maybe they should bring back the cobra or perhaps even the Nomad!
The Nomad is just the old name for the Raven. On the other hand, the Cobra and Predator were completely unique units not replaced by anything else. I think the Cobra would be a pretty cool addition, but it would kind of overlap the Hellion. Who knows, though?
On January 07 2013 02:38 StreetWise wrote: There was no mistake in its removal, however, it should have been replaced with another unit. I don't count firebats, I mean hellbats as a new unit its just a new ability for the hellion. The question is, what unit should replace the Warhound? I think the problem lies with the theory that units should have no overlap, because as it stands with this philosophy there is no room for another unit really. If they let the unit step on the toes of some other units they wouldn't make it so difficult for themselves in creating this new unit. Maybe they should bring back the cobra or perhaps even the Nomad!
The Nomad is just the old name for the Raven. On the other hand, the Cobra and Predator were completely unique units not replaced by anything else. I think the Cobra would be a pretty cool addition, but it would kind of overlap the Hellion. Who knows, though?
On January 07 2013 02:26 Lorch wrote: It's not us that did a mistake, it's blizzard. I will never ever be able to wrap my head around how 1 week of fucking retards on reddit qqing (when only very few people where even playing the beta, let alone any really good people) can make you scratch a unit you spent 2 years on. Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing, and removing the warhound will hurt sc2 long term, maybe they'll realize by the time lotv comes around.
Actually many pros were of the same opinion including terrans like demuslim. That TvP would remain virtually unchanged in HotS didn't seem to concern anyone.
Bringing the Warhound back is a solution, not the solution. I do feel that Terran got it bad in the way of new units, abilities for HOTS but release is way too close to messing with the introduction and balancing of a new unit.
I would not object to an addition as we wait for LoV, as we see how the meta game pans out. I think that anti-mechanical as a damage type was inherently a poor choice. We are talking about a unit that counters every Protoss unit besides Zealots, Archons, DTs and HTs. Granted Archons get extra damage against all biological, but I think it is safe to say that few are really up in arms about Archon balance (Toilet aside).
Removing the warhound was good for the game and TvT.
oh man, with all do respect, adding a new unit, great. Hey, even replacing the hellion since it does jack-sh@# for keeping tanks alive anyway or keeping mech a live in most matches, you don't make hellions to actually deal meaningful damage just delay death to your tanks. BUT, please no, not the warhound. Thors are annoying enough in this game, inferior to Goliaths in every way except HP. But to have another thor-like unit that does something kind of the same as a thor but not really, more specific counter unit, I don't know. I feel like that still makes mech...uninteresting and boring. Something more needs to exist to make a unit worth adding to mech.
Take Widow Mine vs thor. Significantly different in every way. Take Tank vs Thor vs helion vs Widow Mine. They are all different, require different types of control to maximize its impact, and require different actions and behavior to protect them. Add in warhound? and...I don't see a big enough difference to warrant the unit needing to be there without its role being overlapped by another unit.
I think the Mech tech tree of units has reached its max before you make units that just simply overlap each others roles. For serious changes, you will either have to replace the hellion or thor, or tweak settings and stats. But to add a brand new unit on top of what we already have? I'm not sure about that.
The warhound was the mistake. It should have never been put into the game. The thor obviously needs to be reworked and adding some other unit to fulfill the role of the thor is just ludicrous, but is typical of the type of band-aid fixing Blizzard has done for SC2 up until now.
Terran's ranged splash is obviously over-reliant on the siege tank, and as a result terran mech has the weaknesses of the siegetank at all times. Making some focus fire unit that's too strong doesn't address the issue of ranged splash being too finicky, it simply cause players to stop making siege tanks in favour of a unit that has none of the weaknesses. Tanks need to be slightly stronger (be it faster siege/unsiege, longer range, "shaped charge" or more damage in seige mode vs all armor types).
Hellions have been changed, but for the worse, AFAIC. They now fulfill a front-line tanking role (a-move - subject to tank fire) and overlap with what the thor should be due to their short range, fast speed, and relative immobility in hellbat mode (particularly when trapped in front of the tanks and/or thors.
Widow mines... can't stand 'em. They're slow attacking, feel like zerg units, and have terrible synergy with the rest of the mech army when it isn't sieged up or defending. I don't know how or why this is supposed to make mech more viable against Protoss when Protoss now gets free detection without a robotics facility, but apparently the great minds at Blizzard know.
On January 07 2013 02:21 Morton wrote: So in consensus, the majority of people wanted the warhound removed, but expected something new for terran, and now feel that terran is a bit gimped in hots.
well, hope they do something in patch #11 *fingers crossed*
The only reason Terran players are feeling gimped is because this is the first time a unit has been cut from beta. If it happened before beta was launched, we wouldn't have this problem. That was the only mistake by Blizzard. If you think Terran isn't receiving enough changes in HOTS, then you need to look again.
Many existing units are receiving rather substantial changes in addition to the two new units.
How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I never heard any one say "Remove the Warhound and don't add anything else". The Warhound could have been changed drastically enough so that it functioned completely differently, or they could have scrapped the unit and put forth a new unit to fill that new function. In the end it wouldn't have mattered either way. It didn't fit into the game in it's current design, and apparently Blizz didn't feel there was a new role needed to be filled. I tend to agree, I don't see one right now.
(outside of just adding a unit to make Mech vs Protoss good)
On January 07 2013 08:00 CikaZombi wrote: How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I really don't follow. The mechling could shift a la Firebat, or siege tanks, and alter the form of damage it does and I assume not kill itself? Or do you mean to imply that it would set it self faster?
Maybe something is going well above my head on what is being described here. Also siege tech is only 100/100 for cost, I would appreciate if you would elaborate here.
On January 07 2013 08:00 CikaZombi wrote: How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I really don't follow. The mechling could shift a la Firebat, or siege tanks, and alter the form of damage it does and I assume not kill itself? Or do you mean to imply that it would set it self faster?
Maybe something is going well above my head on what is being described here. Also siege tech is only 100/100 for cost, I would appreciate if you would elaborate here.
I wrote it down while in the middle of something so perhaps I wasn't clear. The upgrade would be the same as now (reducing mine burrow speed from 3 seconds to 1), but it would also affect things like siege mode transformation speed and thor cannon change speed. Maybe even hellion to hellbat transformation speed. They are all quite long now, and while I realize tanks really need that siege to unsiege delay, I was just throwing it out there as food for thought
On January 07 2013 08:00 CikaZombi wrote: How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I really don't follow. The mechling could shift a la Firebat, or siege tanks, and alter the form of damage it does and I assume not kill itself? Or do you mean to imply that it would set it self faster?
Maybe something is going well above my head on what is being described here. Also siege tech is only 100/100 for cost, I would appreciate if you would elaborate here.
I wrote it down while in the middle of something so perhaps I wasn't clear. The upgrade would be the same as now (reducing mine burrow speed from 3 seconds to 1), but it would also affect things like siege mode transformation speed and thor cannon change speed. Maybe even hellion to hellbat transformation speed. They are all quite long now, and while I realize tanks really need that siege to unsiege delay, I was just throwing it out there as food for thought
On January 07 2013 08:00 CikaZombi wrote: How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I really don't follow. The mechling could shift a la Firebat, or siege tanks, and alter the form of damage it does and I assume not kill itself? Or do you mean to imply that it would set it self faster?
Maybe something is going well above my head on what is being described here. Also siege tech is only 100/100 for cost, I would appreciate if you would elaborate here.
I wrote it down while in the middle of something so perhaps I wasn't clear. The upgrade would be the same as now (reducing mine burrow speed from 3 seconds to 1), but it would also affect things like siege mode transformation speed and thor cannon change speed. Maybe even hellion to hellbat transformation speed. They are all quite long now, and while I realize tanks really need that siege to unsiege delay, I was just throwing it out there as food for thought
On the contrary it could be fun to make Tanks siege and unsiege instantly. Tank stutter step ftw.
On January 07 2013 08:00 CikaZombi wrote: How about they resign the Mine transformation upgrade, into a 200/200 upgrade that affects the Mine (obviously), Siege Tank, and Thor's transformation speed? It could be called Neosteel Servos or something.
I still don't think it would make Tanks or Thors strong enough but at least they are more versatile this way.
I really don't follow. The mechling could shift a la Firebat, or siege tanks, and alter the form of damage it does and I assume not kill itself? Or do you mean to imply that it would set it self faster?
Maybe something is going well above my head on what is being described here. Also siege tech is only 100/100 for cost, I would appreciate if you would elaborate here.
I wrote it down while in the middle of something so perhaps I wasn't clear. The upgrade would be the same as now (reducing mine burrow speed from 3 seconds to 1), but it would also affect things like siege mode transformation speed and thor cannon change speed. Maybe even hellion to hellbat transformation speed. They are all quite long now, and while I realize tanks really need that siege to unsiege delay, I was just throwing it out there as food for thought
On the contrary it could be fun to make Tanks siege and unsiege instantly. Tank stutter step ftw.
Fun in a ums or something maybe. The last thing this game needs is another collossus. Lack of mobility and pushing forward methodically with well positioned siege lines is what defines mech. You gotta realize that limitations are just as important as strengths for creating dynamic, non deathbally units.
maybe heres an idea. give thors a "haywire" mode where they lose their anti-air attack, their DPS is greatly reduced, but they have bonus haywire missiles that shred mech. so the thors could in theory shred immortal shields and no longer get countered by feedback creating a "soft counter" to immortals
people might say when the hell then how do you counter thors? well you get zealots and immortals, thors in haywire mode will be weak to zealots, then if he gets battle hellions to beat your zealots you add in collossi which perform well vs battle hellions
and immortals would still counter tanks in the 1/1/1 and as long as you combine zealots with immortals they arent "too weak" against thors
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It was certainly dominant in Tvt, but handily countered by upgraded mass muta / hydra lurk defiler from Zerg, and simple zeal goon Templar from toss (lack of mines hurts a lot).
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It depends on the situation but you counter this by mass expanding. It incredibly hard to max out on golliath and tanks. By the time terran get this army, you should be up 2 bases atleast and can just widdle him down as he push across the map. Yes, it is strong but for being how immobile and expensive it is, I think it a fair trade. You are thinking to much of unit X counter unit Y. Sc2 mech is not strong enough for being how immobile and expensive it is.
Edit: Zahir also pretty much covered how to deal with it
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It depends on the situation but you counter this by mass expanding. It incredibly hard to max out on golliath and tanks. By the time terran get this army, you should be up 2 bases atleast and can just widdle him down as he push across the map. Yes, it is strong but for being how immobile and expensive it is, I think it a fair trade. You are thinking to much of unit X counter unit Y. Sc2 mech is not strong enough for being how immobile and expensive it is.
Edit: Zahir also pretty much covered how to deal with it
I just want to elaborate on what you said there. The biggest issue with mech is not being able to get anywhere on the map unless it's a mobile thor/hellion ball. With siege tanks involved, you practically have to have all of them in a group, slowly moving around and sieging when necessary. As a result, you never actually get anywhere because you can never permanently cover an area (which is why it's especially hard for mech to get a 4th or 5th base on most maps). That's why I believe that there's not really positional play in SC2. Either the tank needs a huge buff so that it can control space better or we just need to embrace that mech was never going to work the way it did traditionally and welcome back some form of mech walker.
Remove tank smart-fire, buff damage to 70 flat Late-game upgrade for +shields to tanks Widow mine hits ground only, supply to 1 Buff landed viking damage Thor smaller and cheaper
what about a unit for terren that was mainly anti air that could fire while moving but only in a short range if there were units right above it plus or minus a few hex. but if the unit was still for a certain amount of time lets say 2 seconds, its range vastly increased for the duration the unit for still. and this process starts over everytime you move the unit again
now i know this is a general idea but the numbers could be worked with. it seems to fit a general solution to alot of things people complain about new units. this unit would be a micro intensive unit. grouping them may have some benefit because of the short range but splitting them onto the edges of your mech army and near your tanks would also be a benefit. i understand its sort of like an anit air siege tank but the micro and commands could be made different enough and besides everyone seems to love the tank why not use it as bit of a template.
That mechanic as a sort of soft siege is actually interesting, but isn't really a Terran design. Terran machines are usually unwieldy, inconvenient, and dangerous to the operator and allies. That kind of soft-siege design seems quite convenient and fluid, and feels Protoss to me.
Maybe that should be the Tempest? It has a shorter range attack until it stands still for a couple seconds, and this extends its range until it moves again? Then it has to stop and wait (not a deploy- it can still do other things, just not move) a couple seconds to extend its range again. Hold position micro would be critical- something relatively foreign to SC2 right now, except to stop your units from making you look like an idiot against siege tanks.
On January 07 2013 02:26 Lorch wrote: It's not us that did a mistake, it's blizzard. I will never ever be able to wrap my head around how 1 week of fucking retards on reddit qqing (when only very few people where even playing the beta, let alone any really good people) can make you scratch a unit you spent 2 years on. Blizzard doesn't know what they are doing, and removing the warhound will hurt sc2 long term, maybe they'll realize by the time lotv comes around.
They removed the warhound because he overlapped too much with the marauder. While I was initially against the removal, I think that the scrapping of the warhound will be good in the long term because it helps to keep each unit's roles more distinct.
Also with the warhound, the already very flexible got even more stuff. Thee current approach with adding just 1.5 new units helps to fix the issue in Wol that terrans are much more exciting that the other two races.
This isn't the right way tout think, you don't make a race less fun, you improve the others...
Terrans are more fun on Hots than in Wol, it's just that the other races got more additional options compared to Wol. Now the overall race flexibility is more even.
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It depends on the situation but you counter this by mass expanding. It incredibly hard to max out on golliath and tanks. By the time terran get this army, you should be up 2 bases atleast and can just widdle him down as he push across the map. Yes, it is strong but for being how immobile and expensive it is, I think it a fair trade. You are thinking to much of unit X counter unit Y. Sc2 mech is not strong enough for being how immobile and expensive it is.
Edit: Zahir also pretty much covered how to deal with it
I just want to elaborate on what you said there. The biggest issue with mech is not being able to get anywhere on the map unless it's a mobile thor/hellion ball. With siege tanks involved, you practically have to have all of them in a group, slowly moving around and sieging when necessary. As a result, you never actually get anywhere because you can never permanently cover an area (which is why it's especially hard for mech to get a 4th or 5th base on most maps). That's why I believe that there's not really positional play in SC2. Either the tank needs a huge buff so that it can control space better or we just need to embrace that mech was never going to work the way it did traditionally and welcome back some form of mech walker.
It understandable if mech isnt what it is in BW and it might be like you said, impossible. But there is no way he hell is sc2 going to be better if warhound (current) is in the game. If mech is force to be nothing but thor, hellbat, and warhound (current) then we might as well not have mech. Even now, if mass thors + hellbat ever become viable, thor should be nerf again because honestly, that just terrible game play. It not just that it not the mech we truely desire but it lack any sort of skill to mass thor and hellbat and win. They are such slow unit that you simply cant micro or anything and take no skill. It worst then infestor BL because atleast with infestor BL, you have to actually spend APM to fungal. Thor hellbat is pretty much unmicroable and take very little skill to execute.
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It depends on the situation but you counter this by mass expanding. It incredibly hard to max out on golliath and tanks. By the time terran get this army, you should be up 2 bases atleast and can just widdle him down as he push across the map. Yes, it is strong but for being how immobile and expensive it is, I think it a fair trade. You are thinking to much of unit X counter unit Y. Sc2 mech is not strong enough for being how immobile and expensive it is.
Edit: Zahir also pretty much covered how to deal with it
I just want to elaborate on what you said there. The biggest issue with mech is not being able to get anywhere on the map unless it's a mobile thor/hellion ball. With siege tanks involved, you practically have to have all of them in a group, slowly moving around and sieging when necessary. As a result, you never actually get anywhere because you can never permanently cover an area (which is why it's especially hard for mech to get a 4th or 5th base on most maps). That's why I believe that there's not really positional play in SC2. Either the tank needs a huge buff so that it can control space better or we just need to embrace that mech was never going to work the way it did traditionally and welcome back some form of mech walker.
It understandable if mech isnt what it is in BW and it might be like you said, impossible. But there is no way he hell is sc2 going to be better if warhound (current) is in the game. If mech is force to be nothing but thor, hellbat, and warhound (current) then we might as well not have mech. Even now, if mass thors + hellbat ever become viable, thor should be nerf again because honestly, that just terrible game play. It not just that it not the mech we truely desire but it lack any sort of skill to mass thor and hellbat and win. They are such slow unit that you simply cant micro or anything and take no skill. It worst then infestor BL because atleast with infestor BL, you have to actually spend APM to fungal. Thor hellbat is pretty much unmicroable and take very little skill to execute.
Which brings back to the solution everyone wants and that is; BUFF SIEGE TANKS. The answer is so simple and their failure to consider this is appalling. If they were so concerned about early game imbalances, why not push it to later upgrade tech paths (starport requirement, research requirement), which will have no impact on all ins such as the 1 1 1.
On January 07 2013 10:37 Duncaaaaaan wrote: I thought goliath siege tank combos in Brood War were a bit overpowered. Can't approach it from the air, can't approach it from the ground etc.
It depends on the situation but you counter this by mass expanding. It incredibly hard to max out on golliath and tanks. By the time terran get this army, you should be up 2 bases atleast and can just widdle him down as he push across the map. Yes, it is strong but for being how immobile and expensive it is, I think it a fair trade. You are thinking to much of unit X counter unit Y. Sc2 mech is not strong enough for being how immobile and expensive it is.
Edit: Zahir also pretty much covered how to deal with it
I just want to elaborate on what you said there. The biggest issue with mech is not being able to get anywhere on the map unless it's a mobile thor/hellion ball. With siege tanks involved, you practically have to have all of them in a group, slowly moving around and sieging when necessary. As a result, you never actually get anywhere because you can never permanently cover an area (which is why it's especially hard for mech to get a 4th or 5th base on most maps). That's why I believe that there's not really positional play in SC2. Either the tank needs a huge buff so that it can control space better or we just need to embrace that mech was never going to work the way it did traditionally and welcome back some form of mech walker.
It understandable if mech isnt what it is in BW and it might be like you said, impossible. But there is no way he hell is sc2 going to be better if warhound (current) is in the game. If mech is force to be nothing but thor, hellbat, and warhound (current) then we might as well not have mech. Even now, if mass thors + hellbat ever become viable, thor should be nerf again because honestly, that just terrible game play. It not just that it not the mech we truely desire but it lack any sort of skill to mass thor and hellbat and win. They are such slow unit that you simply cant micro or anything and take no skill. It worst then infestor BL because atleast with infestor BL, you have to actually spend APM to fungal. Thor hellbat is pretty much unmicroable and take very little skill to execute.
Which brings back to the solution everyone wants and that is; BUFF SIEGE TANKS. The answer is so simple and their failure to consider this is appalling. If they were so concerned about early game imbalances, why not push it to later upgrade tech paths (starport requirement, research requirement), which will have no impact on all ins such as the 1 1 1.
How should TvT look with very strong siege tanks? 40 minutes turtle into 40 minutes of slow chess?
If positional mech should be attempted to see if it is possible. If not, then make mech into something different. BW mech was defined by tank being the back bone and the slow push style. If that is not possible, then make mech into something that is different. Something that is interesting, different, and not 1-A. Perhap it would be so different that we wouldnt even address it as "mech" anymore. It just has to feels different from bio and not 1-A death ball. Maybe a heavy harassment defensive style? Maybe a aggressively expanding style? Maybe a sucidal mech army that when each unit dies they self destruct and deal small aoe damage? I dont know but just something interesting, different and feels different that isnt A-move and require some what skill to execute.
Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
On January 07 2013 18:59 MarcH wrote: Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
Thoughts?
I don't think that SC2 gets better when it is partly reverted to BW.
Terran can wall himself in, preventing early scouting. He cannot have too many early options when the game should be a strategy game instead of a coinflip. And like in BW, it's not only the strategy but also the execution: Even if I know that he will do a certain strategy, I want to be required to execute my defense well.
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
I agree completly, a slow mech can only be a good thing for terran and SC2. The differant contrasting styles terran can use add dynamism to all their matchups and force differant styles of play from both P and Z as against an agressive bioing player they have to be safe and carefull but against a slow methodical meching player they need to be more agressive and expand more. How can that be bad for SC2?.
People say "chess match" like it is a bad thing. Starcraft fundamentally IS most closely analogous to chess, as games go.
Part of the reason why chess is such an interesting game is that the position of the pieces has many more possible variations than the simple count of the pieces.
Units in a strategy game are not like poker chips. You don't just push them into the middle and have a showdown. The position of the pieces relative to each other, and relative to the terrain features of the map, are what gives the game such depth for minimal surface complexity. Simple pieces, when there are many of them and with different relations to each other, creates a very complicated picture very quickly.
Blizzard has made there be fewer pieces in SC2 due to higher supply costs. They have made those pieces more mobile, increasing the space each piece occupies on the board. The result? Most of the time, every piece can be anywhere in such a short amount of time that position is almost irrelevant. Defense is almost irrelevant. Which Blizzard "remedied" by making there be fewer bases, and no need or even advantage in taking more bases, so there are fewer places to defend anyway. Fewer places, full stop, even.
The number of points of interest on the board, the movement of force concentrations across the board, all this is sort of missing from SC2. Even just having more pieces in more places would be an improvement. But you can't build half a Colossus, and you can't put one Colossus in two places. And you can't send a Colossus off with a small force- it will just die for free. So.... everyone make deathballs so we can have deterministic balanced gameplay, yes? That way we can vigorously point to balanced win rates and say everything must be OK right?
After all, it isn't like more skilled players should win a disproportionate amount of the time. A bad player should still be able to beat a good one, right? They just need to... build... the... right.... units............
Oh why do I even bother, Blizzard is far too stupid to understand sarcasm in text form. The point is that very good players should be able to win a fight even if they are outmatched. This is not rock-paper-scissors where me going X means I win against your Y. Different pieces have different mechanics, like pieces on a chess board. But they don't "counter" each other.
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
Well the thing with slow pushes is that it is playing aggressive and I think you have tank push and turtling mixed up. It a way gain map control when going tank based mech. If you leave the tank push alone, then he will just unseige everything and seige outside your door. Similar to how ling muta baneling was back in early release. The zerg had to keep pressure with threat of baneling so tank has to slow push when engaging on creep other wise they get ambush by lings and baneling kill terran bio. Slow push ISNT turtling because you are actually exerting pressure on the enemy because he knows that with every passing minute, the enemy is getting closer and will soon gain enough map control to deny expansion. THAT is tank push. What you are talking about is turtleing and when terran mass and have no pressence of map control. A good way to distinguish is that tank push you are fighting for map control and turtling you have no map control.
I do agree that TvT can get stale if terran just mass tanks but the thing TvT is that it is the MOST dynamic match up. You can go bio, mech, or bio mech. Most player generally rather go bio vs mech anyways so you dont see mass tanks vs mass tank war in TvT. In the rare situation that it does happen, the other terran is generally force to go air. This only happen because of WATCH TOWER. Which is already starting to fade away from map pool more and more over time, similar to yellow mineral. Even if they are present, they are not in retarded position like they were uses too where tank scan siege up and control half the map (ex: shatter temple, metalpolis). So the chance of this happening isnt that common. I would believe with a tank buff, it wouldnt change much. Dont forget medivac change too, along with map getting bigger, so mech is already getting weaker. Also hellbat does nothing in TvT match up except dropping purposes. I would think that a tank buff wouldnt affect TvT that much. (as long they make mine not hit air which is what I believe is to be going to happen soon).
Regarding tanks in TvT, they are what make TvT the most skill base match up. Nada once said that to test if a map is balance, he would play TvT because it is the strategic match up and ensure no place on the map can be exploited. There is NOTHING in TvT that when you lose, you can blame the game. It not like ZvZ where you get the most fungal or like PvP where who make the most collosus and win, it actually the most skill based match up in the game. If we wanted to find who is the best starcraft player is, everyone should play terran. This is all possible due to tanks. Some viewers might not like it but there are many way to be aggressive with going tanks, it just really depends on situation.
On January 07 2013 18:59 MarcH wrote: Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
Thoughts?
I don't think that SC2 gets better when it is partly reverted to BW.
Terran can wall himself in, preventing early scouting. He cannot have too many early options when the game should be a strategy game instead of a coinflip. And like in BW, it's not only the strategy but also the execution: Even if I know that he will do a certain strategy, I want to be required to execute my defense well.
The post is not directly suggesting reverting back toward BW from SC2 but is a response to the points made by the OP that terran lacks early game options and that mech needs the warhound to work. Also how many options do you think T has at the moment as its not that many. Besides 2rax all vs Z openings are fast expand into reactor hellion normally with a fast 3rd after that and against P their are some early proxys but those are all figured out now and only really work when P is being greedy and not even all the time and beyond that its fast expand into 3rax but you cant move out till you get medivacs really. The medic sugestion was a way to changr this and give small bio forces more map presence early game whilst not making it to OP so that it cant be killed or stopped and while this and a buff to tanks are heading bact towards BW that wasnt the purpose of the suggestions but was the result of me trying to find simple solutions to issues raised by the Op
On January 07 2013 18:59 MarcH wrote: Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
Thoughts?
I don't think that SC2 gets better when it is partly reverted to BW.
Terran can wall himself in, preventing early scouting. He cannot have too many early options when the game should be a strategy game instead of a coinflip. And like in BW, it's not only the strategy but also the execution: Even if I know that he will do a certain strategy, I want to be required to execute my defense well.
The post is not directly suggesting reverting back toward BW from SC2 but is a response to the points made by the OP that terran lacks early game options and that mech needs the warhound to work. Also how many options do you think T has at the moment as its not that many. Besides 2rax all vs Z openings are fast expand into reactor hellion normally with a fast 3rd after that and against P their are some early proxys but those are all figured out now and only really work when P is being greedy and not even all the time and beyond that its fast expand into 3rax but you cant move out till you get medivacs really. The medic sugestion was a way to changr this and give small bio forces more map presence early game whilst not making it to OP so that it cant be killed or stopped and while this and a buff to tanks are heading bact towards BW that wasnt the purpose of the suggestions but was the result of me trying to find simple solutions to issues raised by the Op
I would say that the OP extrapolates quite a bit. We don't know yet how Hots will develop. Terran should not get too many early options anyway so that he still can be scouted in time. We have to see if reapers can be useful in TvZ or if early widow mines are viable.
Sugessting big changes like the introduction of the medic has probably some consequences for the game we are not able to see due to lack of understanding. I never played the warhound (because I got beta access a bit later) so I don't know how much the warhound improves mech viability. So the following are just some thoughts about game design: What is the warhound? An anti-tank unit? That would be like the protoss immortal. A mini-thor? Then we don't really need the thor anymore. A mech-marauder? We have the marauder already.
The complete removal still feels a bit over the top. I like the artwork of the warhound and would have liked to build that unit just because it looks so mechanical. I also think that it would be acceptable to have a unit which overlaps with others. On the other hand, LotV is still to come. Introducing such units now could pose issues for Lotv.
On January 07 2013 18:59 MarcH wrote: Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
Thoughts?
I don't think that SC2 gets better when it is partly reverted to BW.
Terran can wall himself in, preventing early scouting. He cannot have too many early options when the game should be a strategy game instead of a coinflip. And like in BW, it's not only the strategy but also the execution: Even if I know that he will do a certain strategy, I want to be required to execute my defense well.
The post is not directly suggesting reverting back toward BW from SC2 but is a response to the points made by the OP that terran lacks early game options and that mech needs the warhound to work. Also how many options do you think T has at the moment as its not that many. Besides 2rax all vs Z openings are fast expand into reactor hellion normally with a fast 3rd after that and against P their are some early proxys but those are all figured out now and only really work when P is being greedy and not even all the time and beyond that its fast expand into 3rax but you cant move out till you get medivacs really. The medic sugestion was a way to changr this and give small bio forces more map presence early game whilst not making it to OP so that it cant be killed or stopped and while this and a buff to tanks are heading bact towards BW that wasnt the purpose of the suggestions but was the result of me trying to find simple solutions to issues raised by the Op
I would say that the OP extrapolates quite a bit. We don't know yet how Hots will develop. Terran should not get too many early options anyway so that he still can be scouted in time. We have to see if reapers can be useful in TvZ or if early widow mines are viable.
Sugessting big changes like the introduction of the medic has probably some consequences for the game we are not able to see due to lack of understanding. I never played the warhoung (because I got beta access a bit later) so I don't know how much the warhound improves mech viability. So the following are just some thoughts about game design: What is the warhound? An anti-tank unit? That would be like the protoss immortal. A mini-thor? Then we don't really need the thor anymore. A mech-marauder? We have the marauder already.
The issue with the warhound when it was first introduced was that it made bio play pointless as you had all tye mobility of bio with none of the drawbacks (well mech cant shoot up well but vikings) as its very durable and has greater potentioal to trade efficiantly.
If warhound was brought back, I agree that it shouldn't simply be and A-move unit. How about giving it an ability that has to be cast manualy (which can be called haiwire missiles, or something else). e.g.:
1. that has short range, but does rather heavy splashdamage (think spidermines). It would be a sort of crow control, but you would more or less have to sacrifice the warhound, as it would move forward and into rage of the whole protoss force. 2. or has short or medium range, has small AOE that momentarly disables units (can be all units, or just mechanical).
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
Well the thing with slow pushes is that it is playing aggressive and I think you have tank push and turtling mixed up. It a way gain map control when going tank based mech. If you leave the tank push alone, then he will just unseige everything and seige outside your door. Similar to how ling muta baneling was back in early release. The zerg had to keep pressure with threat of baneling so tank has to slow push when engaging on creep other wise they get ambush by lings and baneling kill terran bio. Slow push ISNT turtling because you are actually exerting pressure on the enemy because he knows that with every passing minute, the enemy is getting closer and will soon gain enough map control to deny expansion. THAT is tank push. What you are talking about is turtleing and when terran mass and have no pressence of map control. A good way to distinguish is that tank push you are fighting for map control and turtling you have no map control.
How do you cast those games? "He now controls this space for 10 minutes and his opponent still cannot find an opening and tries to expand while the terran uses drops to harass expansions." I don't think it would be the best for the game if all armies are constantly moving, but at least the caster can comment on the movements.
If positional tank games are rare, the commentators can point out how rare and therefore exciting this game is.
On January 07 2013 19:49 SheaR619 wrote:I do agree that TvT can get stale if terran just mass tanks but the thing TvT is that it is the MOST dynamic match up. You can go bio, mech, or bio mech. Most player generally rather go bio vs mech anyways so you dont see mass tanks vs mass tank war in TvT. In the rare situation that it does happen, the other terran is generally force to go air. This only happen because of WATCH TOWER. Which is already starting to fade away from map pool more and more over time, similar to yellow mineral. Even if they are present, they are not in retarded position like they were uses too where tank scan siege up and control half the map (ex: shatter temple, metalpolis). So the chance of this happening isnt that common. I would believe with a tank buff, it wouldnt change much. Dont forget medivac change too, along with map getting bigger, so mech is already getting weaker. Also hellbat does nothing in TvT match up except dropping purposes. I would think that a tank buff wouldnt affect TvT that much. (as long they make mine not hit air which is what I believe is to be going to happen soon).
Regarding tanks in TvT, they are what make TvT the most skill base match up. Nada once said that to test if a map is balance, he would play TvT because it is the strategic match up and ensure no place on the map can be exploited. There is NOTHING in TvT that when you lose, you can blame the game. It not like ZvZ where you get the most fungal or like PvP where who make the most collosus and win, it actually the most skill based match up in the game. If we wanted to find who is the best starcraft player is, everyone should play terran. This is all possible due to tanks. Some viewers might not like it but there are many way to be aggressive with going tanks, it just really depends on situation.
I would not declare TvT skill higher than ZvZ skill just because different areas of skill are required. Terran is incredible flexible but you need to know the right buildorder in beforehand to have the add-on switching timings right and so on. In Hots, mech and air units share the armor upgrade, this could make mech with air support better than before. (Especially as vikings are often used to get vision for the tanks.)
I am mostly concerned about diverse matches. I still want to have the possibility of a game as short as three minutes due to a successfull sixpool versus a greedy eco opening. I also want to see 45 minutes of tank contains.
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
Well the thing with slow pushes is that it is playing aggressive and I think you have tank push and turtling mixed up. It a way gain map control when going tank based mech. If you leave the tank push alone, then he will just unseige everything and seige outside your door. Similar to how ling muta baneling was back in early release. The zerg had to keep pressure with threat of baneling so tank has to slow push when engaging on creep other wise they get ambush by lings and baneling kill terran bio. Slow push ISNT turtling because you are actually exerting pressure on the enemy because he knows that with every passing minute, the enemy is getting closer and will soon gain enough map control to deny expansion. THAT is tank push. What you are talking about is turtleing and when terran mass and have no pressence of map control. A good way to distinguish is that tank push you are fighting for map control and turtling you have no map control.
I do agree that TvT can get stale if terran just mass tanks but the thing TvT is that it is the MOST dynamic match up. You can go bio, mech, or bio mech. Most player generally rather go bio vs mech anyways so you dont see mass tanks vs mass tank war in TvT. In the rare situation that it does happen, the other terran is generally force to go air. This only happen because of WATCH TOWER. Which is already starting to fade away from map pool more and more over time, similar to yellow mineral. Even if they are present, they are not in retarded position like they were uses too where tank scan siege up and control half the map (ex: shatter temple, metalpolis). So the chance of this happening isnt that common. I would believe with a tank buff, it wouldnt change much. Dont forget medivac change too, along with map getting bigger, so mech is already getting weaker. Also hellbat does nothing in TvT match up except dropping purposes. I would think that a tank buff wouldnt affect TvT that much. (as long they make mine not hit air which is what I believe is to be going to happen soon).
Regarding tanks in TvT, they are what make TvT the most skill base match up. Nada once said that to test if a map is balance, he would play TvT because it is the strategic match up and ensure no place on the map can be exploited. There is NOTHING in TvT that when you lose, you can blame the game. It not like ZvZ where you get the most fungal or like PvP where who make the most collosus and win, it actually the most skill based match up in the game. If we wanted to find who is the best starcraft player is, everyone should play terran. This is all possible due to tanks. Some viewers might not like it but there are many way to be aggressive with going tanks, it just really depends on situation.
"Terran at the only ones that are good, all other races have no skill and are easy mode"
On January 07 2013 18:59 MarcH wrote: Personally i belive a buff to tanks is all thats needed and may even be required in hots with the viper.
The other point the OP mentions is terrans lack of early game options and a solution could be to remove medivacs and put medics and dropships back into the game. This gives terran bio more early map presence and sustainability you can keep the dropship speed upgrade aswell. The only issue i see with it at the moment are baneling ling surrounds early on being possibly too powerfull and bio lategame getting a nerf and collosus being less effective vs T (you only need a starport for vikings), this may also increase reaper use as T has a lot more rax about and could use them as a way to get multi pronged agression to work as a pure bio force.
TLDR is . Buff tanks in siege mode . Get rid of medivacs bring back dropship and medic
Thoughts?
I don't think that SC2 gets better when it is partly reverted to BW.
Terran can wall himself in, preventing early scouting. He cannot have too many early options when the game should be a strategy game instead of a coinflip. And like in BW, it's not only the strategy but also the execution: Even if I know that he will do a certain strategy, I want to be required to execute my defense well.
The post is not directly suggesting reverting back toward BW from SC2 but is a response to the points made by the OP that terran lacks early game options and that mech needs the warhound to work. Also how many options do you think T has at the moment as its not that many. Besides 2rax all vs Z openings are fast expand into reactor hellion normally with a fast 3rd after that and against P their are some early proxys but those are all figured out now and only really work when P is being greedy and not even all the time and beyond that its fast expand into 3rax but you cant move out till you get medivacs really. The medic sugestion was a way to changr this and give small bio forces more map presence early game whilst not making it to OP so that it cant be killed or stopped and while this and a buff to tanks are heading bact towards BW that wasnt the purpose of the suggestions but was the result of me trying to find simple solutions to issues raised by the Op
I would say that the OP extrapolates quite a bit. We don't know yet how Hots will develop. Terran should not get too many early options anyway so that he still can be scouted in time. We have to see if reapers can be useful in TvZ or if early widow mines are viable.
Sugessting big changes like the introduction of the medic has probably some consequences for the game we are not able to see due to lack of understanding. I never played the warhoung (because I got beta access a bit later) so I don't know how much the warhound improves mech viability. So the following are just some thoughts about game design: What is the warhound? An anti-tank unit? That would be like the protoss immortal. A mini-thor? Then we don't really need the thor anymore. A mech-marauder? We have the marauder already.
The issue with the warhound when it was first introduced was that it made bio play pointless as you had all tye mobility of bio with none of the drawbacks (well mech cant shoot up well but vikings) as its very durable and has greater potentioal to trade efficiantly.
Yes. But those things could have been fixed with numbers. I agree with qxc on his series "fixing the game" (though the title is a bit pretentious) that the most common disadvantage of a unit in SC2 is that the unit is slow. I guess that a balanced warhound would probably be a boring unit.
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.
Lol@gundam suit . Yes I feel that it was good the war hound was removed the unit was redonk and as much as a zerg player i like seeing protoss die , seeing them die to mass war hound was kinda sad
On January 07 2013 22:44 syroz wrote: Buff siege tank. That's all.
nah it's fine really, you don't want to force TvT and TvZ even more towards mech. Those matchups have almost the right balance between bio and mech imo where both or even a combination can work quite well, something BW never even achieved. Just fix the immortal and widow mine and mech can work in TvP too. Remove hardened shield (or let tanks ignore it, but that's an ugly fix) and let widow mines actually kill stalkers in one shot again..
On January 05 2013 10:03 algorithm0r wrote: I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?
Terran needs the Goliath back plain and simple. Mech can't be viable without it. Especially with the tempest. Terran will need a ground unit that can be effective against both air and ground and the Goliath fit that role especially with its ranged missiles.
On January 07 2013 21:55 gronnelg wrote: If warhound was brought back, I agree that it shouldn't simply be and A-move unit. How about giving it an ability that has to be cast manualy (which can be called haiwire missiles, or something else). e.g.:
1. that has short range, but does rather heavy splashdamage (think spidermines). It would be a sort of crow control, but you would more or less have to sacrifice the warhound, as it would move forward and into rage of the whole protoss force. 2. or has short or medium range, has small AOE that momentarly disables units (can be all units, or just mechanical).
Just wanted to chime in and say I think if warhounds were gonna be brought back, your #2 idea would be an excellent way to make them a 'mechanical counter' without being an a move unit. Make it like a 5 second version of lockdown from BW, a great way to stop a protoss ball from moving into you without incurring heavy losses, but relatively hard to use in TvT (in any mech vs mech scenario people tend to siege and whittle at each other rather than move straight in, so it'll be hard to get in range to cast) and obviously wont effect tvz.
Add this, give them a decent ground attack about the same speed as a stalker (allow for brief repositioning steps between shots) and a good anti armored single target attack... perhaps it will be a good unit.
On January 07 2013 22:44 syroz wrote: Buff siege tank. That's all.
nah it's fine really, you don't want to force TvT and TvZ even more towards mech. Those matchups have almost the right balance between bio and mech imo where both or even a combination can work quite well, something BW never even achieved. Just fix the immortal and widow mine and mech can work in TvP too. Remove hardened shield (or let tanks ignore it, but that's an ugly fix) and let widow mines actually kill stalkers in one shot again..
make Hardened shields a researchable which the user can use and had a 20 sec cooldown? (lasts for 10 seconds)
On January 05 2013 10:03 algorithm0r wrote: I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?
Terran needs the Goliath back plain and simple. Mech can't be viable without it. Especially with the tempest. Terran will need a ground unit that can be effective against both air and ground and the Goliath fit that role especially with its ranged missiles.
Range 8 Goliath vs a range 15 tempest i dont see that working out tbh. Terran already has the viking and thats good enough anti air for mech when you factor in the added bonus of them being able to spot for your tanks. A single reactor starport is all that you need to deal with any P air and BL's as goliaths will be next to useless against any number of those. The solution is to buff goliath AA range but that would break the unit.
I do feel like Terran needs a new unit, but Blizzard's initial design of Terran was well done, and almost all roles are filled, and it's really hard to find a missing role that needs to be filled. The warhound was a marauder built from a factory, it's really not something that makes me excited as a Terran player. The goliath is just boring and unimaginative to me as well, lets not bring back a unit simply because it existed in another RTS.
I would like to play with a new 3rd tier air unit, something that really complements mech well, similar to how the medivac complements bio and keeps that unit composition viable in to the late game. I'm thinking like the repair ability of the science vessel in the WoL campaign, and something that can counter the immortal's hardened shields.
I liked warhounds, prettymuch beause of their size. except stalkers, and in some situation roaches, units have to little occolusion size for their dmg output, which results in less need of good concaves. concaving was hupe in bw ans I think its one of the key elemets that we coudlt make good use of in sc2, except in zvz.
warhounds huge size meant they accually need a good and deep concave to be fully effective, even with their above avarage 7 range.
I think removing it was the right option, but removing it without replacing it was not. Clearly it was meant to fill up some sort of hole in the Terran arsenal which remains unfilled.
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
Well the thing with slow pushes is that it is playing aggressive and I think you have tank push and turtling mixed up. It a way gain map control when going tank based mech. If you leave the tank push alone, then he will just unseige everything and seige outside your door. Similar to how ling muta baneling was back in early release. The zerg had to keep pressure with threat of baneling so tank has to slow push when engaging on creep other wise they get ambush by lings and baneling kill terran bio. Slow push ISNT turtling because you are actually exerting pressure on the enemy because he knows that with every passing minute, the enemy is getting closer and will soon gain enough map control to deny expansion. THAT is tank push. What you are talking about is turtleing and when terran mass and have no pressence of map control. A good way to distinguish is that tank push you are fighting for map control and turtling you have no map control.
I do agree that TvT can get stale if terran just mass tanks but the thing TvT is that it is the MOST dynamic match up. You can go bio, mech, or bio mech. Most player generally rather go bio vs mech anyways so you dont see mass tanks vs mass tank war in TvT. In the rare situation that it does happen, the other terran is generally force to go air. This only happen because of WATCH TOWER. Which is already starting to fade away from map pool more and more over time, similar to yellow mineral. Even if they are present, they are not in retarded position like they were uses too where tank scan siege up and control half the map (ex: shatter temple, metalpolis). So the chance of this happening isnt that common. I would believe with a tank buff, it wouldnt change much. Dont forget medivac change too, along with map getting bigger, so mech is already getting weaker. Also hellbat does nothing in TvT match up except dropping purposes. I would think that a tank buff wouldnt affect TvT that much. (as long they make mine not hit air which is what I believe is to be going to happen soon).
Regarding tanks in TvT, they are what make TvT the most skill base match up. Nada once said that to test if a map is balance, he would play TvT because it is the strategic match up and ensure no place on the map can be exploited. There is NOTHING in TvT that when you lose, you can blame the game. It not like ZvZ where you get the most fungal or like PvP where who make the most collosus and win, it actually the most skill based match up in the game. If we wanted to find who is the best starcraft player is, everyone should play terran. This is all possible due to tanks. Some viewers might not like it but there are many way to be aggressive with going tanks, it just really depends on situation.
"Terran at the only ones that are good, all other races have no skill and are easy mode"
What i am trying to say is that TvT is more consistent compare to ZvZ and PvP. Honestly, what happens late game ZvZ and late game PvP? The current ZvZ meta game (Catz says something similar to this himself on stream), zerg are already starting to figure out how to survive early game and more and more game are heading toward mass infestor Broodlord. Generally, ZvZ comes down to who make more infestors. Same can be said about PvP, later on it comes down to who can make more collosus. ZvZ and PvP is very micro intensive in the early game but once that get past, it generally become who can make more. This generally wouldnt be an issue but macro in sc2 isnt that hard so this become rather problematic. TvT doesnt really have this kind of problem. If you start 3 tournament with one with TvT and the other PvP and the other ZvZ and is then played over and over with the same people many time, the TvT tournament would have a more consistent winner. In short, TvT is the more stable mirror match up. Can you honestly deny this?
On January 07 2013 18:57 [F_]aths wrote: A slow push style is hard to watch. Wol already has a lot of units which cannot be a-moved while getting the most out of them.
It depends, many people actually like watching slow push style. During the time when sc2 first got release and tank marine was standard for TvZ, it was VERY exciting. TvZ was definitely the most exciting match up by far because it was also the most dynamic. Slow push style also increase skill cap of the game and make the game not a big snow ball affect. It require skill, strategy etc etc. Compare to ZvZ, a watch up of heavy micro in the beginning and then later on just come down to fungal war and a-move roach hydra (with little micro on forming concave). I would think that all BW fan would appreciate and like slow push style while most of the complaint are from the sc2.
Indeed, I remember some TvT (tank versus tank, hehe) games from earlier GSL seasons, some of them developing into a viking or even battlecruiser massacre. Those game were very exciting.
But to keep them exciting, they should be rare I think. If we can expect a tank turtle in a TvT, the game gets stale. I guess that Blizzard also is afraid of the watchability for new viewers who get confused by a tank versus tank game of chess. I hope that SC2 will not be too much driven into pure action and still allow for strategic setups with slow pushes, but those game should not happen too often.
Well the thing with slow pushes is that it is playing aggressive and I think you have tank push and turtling mixed up. It a way gain map control when going tank based mech. If you leave the tank push alone, then he will just unseige everything and seige outside your door. Similar to how ling muta baneling was back in early release. The zerg had to keep pressure with threat of baneling so tank has to slow push when engaging on creep other wise they get ambush by lings and baneling kill terran bio. Slow push ISNT turtling because you are actually exerting pressure on the enemy because he knows that with every passing minute, the enemy is getting closer and will soon gain enough map control to deny expansion. THAT is tank push. What you are talking about is turtleing and when terran mass and have no pressence of map control. A good way to distinguish is that tank push you are fighting for map control and turtling you have no map control.
How do you cast those games? "He now controls this space for 10 minutes and his opponent still cannot find an opening and tries to expand while the terran uses drops to harass expansions." I don't think it would be the best for the game if all armies are constantly moving, but at least the caster can comment on the movements.
If positional tank games are rare, the commentators can point out how rare and therefore exciting this game is.
On January 07 2013 19:49 SheaR619 wrote:I do agree that TvT can get stale if terran just mass tanks but the thing TvT is that it is the MOST dynamic match up. You can go bio, mech, or bio mech. Most player generally rather go bio vs mech anyways so you dont see mass tanks vs mass tank war in TvT. In the rare situation that it does happen, the other terran is generally force to go air. This only happen because of WATCH TOWER. Which is already starting to fade away from map pool more and more over time, similar to yellow mineral. Even if they are present, they are not in retarded position like they were uses too where tank scan siege up and control half the map (ex: shatter temple, metalpolis). So the chance of this happening isnt that common. I would believe with a tank buff, it wouldnt change much. Dont forget medivac change too, along with map getting bigger, so mech is already getting weaker. Also hellbat does nothing in TvT match up except dropping purposes. I would think that a tank buff wouldnt affect TvT that much. (as long they make mine not hit air which is what I believe is to be going to happen soon).
Regarding tanks in TvT, they are what make TvT the most skill base match up. Nada once said that to test if a map is balance, he would play TvT because it is the strategic match up and ensure no place on the map can be exploited. There is NOTHING in TvT that when you lose, you can blame the game. It not like ZvZ where you get the most fungal or like PvP where who make the most collosus and win, it actually the most skill based match up in the game. If we wanted to find who is the best starcraft player is, everyone should play terran. This is all possible due to tanks. Some viewers might not like it but there are many way to be aggressive with going tanks, it just really depends on situation.
I would not declare TvT skill higher than ZvZ skill just because different areas of skill are required. Terran is incredible flexible but you need to know the right buildorder in beforehand to have the add-on switching timings right and so on. In Hots, mech and air units share the armor upgrade, this could make mech with air support better than before. (Especially as vikings are often used to get vision for the tanks.)
I am mostly concerned about diverse matches. I still want to have the possibility of a game as short as three minutes due to a successfull sixpool versus a greedy eco opening. I also want to see 45 minutes of tank contains.
I do give sc2 credit that it allow bio and mech to both be viable in TvT. It allowed TvT to be more diverse. Regarding casting and being contain for 10min, if you are contained for 10min then you probably already too far behind and lost. How is positional tank not castable? It was castable just fine in BW how is it not castable in SC2? A good player will know when he cant win and should gg out. This mean that after he foolishly let his opponent march up to his base and establish a strong contain uncontested without a lead in economy or anything, then he deserve to lose. The other way that a contain can happen is that your army got crushed while engaging in the middle so he contain you and took map control and start expanding. Either way if a contain was to happen, the person that is getting contain should understand that after his first few initial attempt of breaking out fails, he might as well leave the game. There is no way that a 45min tank contain should happen because a good player will know that he cant get out of the contain and is in a unwinnable position. Similar to chess game between grandmaster, if the person is down a few pawn and has no control over the center, then he generally just resign.
Are you talking about tank contain? Or are you talking about seige line split map?
On January 07 2013 22:44 syroz wrote: Buff siege tank. That's all.
nah it's fine really, you don't want to force TvT and TvZ even more towards mech. Those matchups have almost the right balance between bio and mech imo where both or even a combination can work quite well, something BW never even achieved. Just fix the immortal and widow mine and mech can work in TvP too. Remove hardened shield (or let tanks ignore it, but that's an ugly fix) and let widow mines actually kill stalkers in one shot again..
I say, either
1) remove hardened shields and give them about 40-50 extra shields OR 2) give terran a defensive matrix that will allow tanks to go toe to toe with immortals
Original plans were made to have an AoE defensive matrix, which I think would still be a great idea. It could be small enough to fit 2-3 tanks or hellbats and would improve the balance of engagements, even if it only tanks like 80 damage.
I just want to point out that your PvP assessment is slightly wrong. It was kind of who could make more colossus, now it's all about how many immortals you can make. We saw in some recent matches that immortals are definitely the defining unit in maxed out battles in PvP (~4 colossus, 8 immortals, 5 archons > 8 colossus, 3 immortals, 5 archons in a HUGE ARC). At this point, it really becomes a composition war and positioning or concave almost don't matter.
If we're gonna talk ideas regarding the Warhound, all we need to do, is to look another, very good game: Warcraft 3.
There are just so many untapped possibilities for the Warhound to borrow utility or abilities directly from Warcraft 3. Remember this from the Witch Doctor?
Stasis Trap Ward
Summons an invisible and immovable ward that stuns enemy units around it. The trap activates when an enemy unit approaches. The trap lasts 150 seconds. The stun lasts 6 (2.5) seconds.
I mean we're in agreement that we don't want something to be boring A-Move. Adding utility, which does not directly do damage, is the answer. If the Warhound had something interesting to add to the field in a tactical manner, this could do a lot for the game.
On January 08 2013 09:45 D_K_night wrote: If we're gonna talk ideas regarding the Warhound, all we need to do, is to look another, very good game: Warcraft 3.
There are just so many untapped possibilities for the Warhound to borrow utility or abilities directly from Warcraft 3. Remember this from the Witch Doctor?
Stasis Trap Ward
Summons an invisible and immovable ward that stuns enemy units around it. The trap activates when an enemy unit approaches. The trap lasts 150 seconds. The stun lasts 6 (2.5) seconds.
I mean we're in agreement that we don't want something to be boring A-Move. Adding utility, which does not directly do damage, is the answer. If the Warhound had something interesting to add to the field in a tactical manner, this could do a lot for the game.
But again - Warcraft 3 is the answer.
Pretty sure nobody wants more stun spells in the game - just look at all the complaints about fungal...
On January 07 2013 22:44 syroz wrote: Buff siege tank. That's all.
nah it's fine really, you don't want to force TvT and TvZ even more towards mech. Those matchups have almost the right balance between bio and mech imo where both or even a combination can work quite well, something BW never even achieved. Just fix the immortal and widow mine and mech can work in TvP too. Remove hardened shield (or let tanks ignore it, but that's an ugly fix) and let widow mines actually kill stalkers in one shot again..
I say, either
1) remove hardened shields and give them about 40-50 extra shields OR 2) give terran a defensive matrix that will allow tanks to go toe to toe with immortals
Original plans were made to have an AoE defensive matrix, which I think would still be a great idea. It could be small enough to fit 2-3 tanks or hellbats and would improve the balance of engagements, even if it only tanks like 80 damage.
A ground-targeted defensive matrix would be really interesting and fun.
I'd like to see it tank a reasonable amount of damage, but maybe take a little while to boot up, and maybe even work on 'mech units only. You could fit an awful lot of marines under a matrix big enough for 2-3 tanks, and that could be kind of gay. Even 80 damage means bio is suddenly immune to storms.
I dont get why we were all up in arms over the warhound being a "1a" unit. What the hell do you call the immortal, zealots (they charge! thats FREE MICRO!) collossus, zerglings + infestors, broodlords etc etc etc. I just dont get why that was one of the major arguments against the warhound being in the game. Hell, even the marine or the roach or the stalker isnt really that different from what the warhound was. It was certainly a unit that needed some work and couldnt enter the game as strong as it was, but was it really such a bad thing for terran to have a unit that benefited from good positioning that could punish mistakes by the other player, regardless of race?
On January 08 2013 12:28 Aveng3r wrote: I dont get why we were all up in arms over the warhound being a "1a" unit. What the hell do you call the immortal, zealots (they charge! thats FREE MICRO!) collossus, zerglings + infestors, broodlords etc etc etc. I just dont get why that was one of the major arguments against the warhound being in the game. Hell, even the marine or the roach or the stalker isnt really that different from what the warhound was. It was certainly a unit that needed some work and couldnt enter the game as strong as it was, but was it really such a bad thing for terran to have a unit that benefited from good positioning that could punish mistakes by the other player, regardless of race?
Most of those units you listed are among the least liked in starcraft 2, except marines (too fragile to 1a). The thread linked in the op went over some of the reasons warhounds were too one dimensional. It was a unit with good mobility and utility against all types of ground that's massable and doesn't require much micro.
However the optimism in this thread has kind of infected me. Why do warhounds HAVE to be boring? Why not give them something like a grenade launcher attack, grenades that collide and bounce over the ground and blow up after .5 seconds. Something that does good damage and is good for stopping enemy from 1aing into you, but bad for trying to attack forward into him. It's pointless speculation at this point, as I highly doubt the unit is coming back. But perhaps we shouldn't have shat on the warhound so hard, maybe blizz would have been able to retool it in an interesting fashion rather than leaving us in the lurch with no really groundbreaking new unit.
I think it would be better to start off discussing what current game play roles are unfulfilled/lacking at this time, with respect to the terran race. From here, it would be easier to generate a discussion about, 1st: Whether or not the warhound should have been removed, and 2nd: What changes could be made to it to allow it to better perform this role? According to the author of the OP, the terran race needs a unit to supplement mech because of the problem summarized in his statement below:
Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.
In other words he believes mech is countered too easily by certain units (immortal, blink stalkers, archons) and that it is too difficult to gain map control with a mech composition. Before moving on (I will edit in idea's later if a consensus is reached), do proficient terran players actually agree that this is a problem with mech? Taking into account game design, could you argue that these so called problems are actually more like tradeoff's (that another strength of mech makes up for their inherent immobility)?
Please let me know if you agree/disagree with what I've stated above and any adjustments that should be made to make it more accurate. As I've stated before, we need to determine what is fundamentally lacking (if anything) in regards to terran game play before moving on with this discussion.
Terran doesn't need warhound. They just need another viable spellcaster vs Z.
Ghosts are fun to watch and play with, it suits the terrans. the better your micro skills the stronger your ghosts will be. Watching the pros hitting those sick EMP's and snipes then run away and save em fucking makes me cum. But its not too viable against the zergs, especially when the gglords are out and your ghost can't get near to their infestors at all.
In my opinion, we don't need a new unit, just completely overhaul the raven will do. make it stronger, make it more microable, throw away the stupid auto turrets and heat seeking missle, give it some creative abilities that are practical yet the pros can show off their skills with.
[QUOTE]On January 08 2013 07:33 SC2John wrote: [QUOTE]On January 08 2013 04:41 SheaR619 wrote:
I just want to point out that your PvP assessment is slightly wrong. It was kind of who could make more colossus, now it's all about how many immortals you can make. We saw in some recent matches that immortals are definitely the defining unit in maxed out battles in PvP (~4 colossus, 8 immortals, 5 archons > 8 colossus, 3 immortals, 5 archons in a HUGE ARC). At this point, it really becomes a composition war and positioning or concave almost don't matter.[/QUOTE]
Really? That really interesting. I havent been keeping up with recent sc2 because it seems and felt to be mostly figured out now. Been putting more focus on HOTS so I need to check to see if immortal are the new meta atm.
No. No more spell-casting. There's already too much of that as it is. Cool positional tank-based play is what I want. Give us a tank buff, a redone goliath, and mines that actually can kill stuff.
What Terran Mech needs is a relative cheap unit to tank damage. Mech sould mean "armored", and what terran has? a siege tank with the main role to support in siege mode and helions wich are pretty fragile and mines. Thors are too big and expensive to tank damage.
A simple unit to protect siege tanks with enought armor to resist friendly fire and hold the line will be more useful than another caster unit and will help Mech play.
On January 08 2013 19:07 drkcid wrote: What Terran Mech needs is a relative cheap unit to tank damage. Mech sould mean "armored", and what terran has? a siege tank with the main role to support in siege mode and helions wich are pretty fragile and mines. Thors are too big and expensive to tank damage.
A simple unit to protect siege tanks with enought armor to resist friendly fire and hold the line will be more useful than another caster unit and will help Mech play.
On January 08 2013 19:07 drkcid wrote: What Terran Mech needs is a relative cheap unit to tank damage. Mech sould mean "armored", and what terran has? a siege tank with the main role to support in siege mode and helions wich are pretty fragile and mines. Thors are too big and expensive to tank damage.
A simple unit to protect siege tanks with enought armor to resist friendly fire and hold the line will be more useful than another caster unit and will help Mech play.
You mean a vulture with spidermines? :D
Well I was thinking more like an unsieged tank with more armor and/or hp, no spells, no bonus damage, shoots inmune to inmortal shield.... Maybe with a unit like this we will see things like blinking micro to "jump" behind this wall of units to focus on siege tanks and less inmortal A+forward, or more locust pinning the frontline while Viper Abduct tanks and less FG, who knows.
As with most other Terrans, I am utterly unimpressed with the failbat and the failmine. Bad excuse for new units, and aside from some gimmicky play early with the mine, these units do not change a thing with our playstyle. Only the warhound changed the way a terran can play.
I wholeheartedly agree with all the Terrans asking for better tanks and some kind of goliath unit. Is Blizzard so detached from the state of terran that they don't understand the issues of how horrible mech is vs toss, and how easily it is countered vs zerg? We need some terran players hired at Blizzard, there is clearly a major disconnect.
I would love to see if a gm player really like the warhound back, or is just a "casual" player request. I'm pretty sure there are thousands of better design options for mech out there better than a (even balanced) 1a unit.
On January 08 2013 09:45 D_K_night wrote: If we're gonna talk ideas regarding the Warhound, all we need to do, is to look another, very good game: Warcraft 3.
There are just so many untapped possibilities for the Warhound to borrow utility or abilities directly from Warcraft 3. Remember this from the Witch Doctor?
Stasis Trap Ward
Summons an invisible and immovable ward that stuns enemy units around it. The trap activates when an enemy unit approaches. The trap lasts 150 seconds. The stun lasts 6 (2.5) seconds.
I mean we're in agreement that we don't want something to be boring A-Move. Adding utility, which does not directly do damage, is the answer. If the Warhound had something interesting to add to the field in a tactical manner, this could do a lot for the game.
But again - Warcraft 3 is the answer.
Pretty sure nobody wants more stun spells in the game - just look at all the complaints about fungal...
No, but I saw an amazing concept for a Line of Sight blocking Smoke Bomb ability that you could cast from the warhound (would be cooldown/energy/max casts per warhound) that would essentially mean you could cast them and scan over the smoke wall or snipe the protoss's observer.
Coming from a lowly diamond Zerg, I agree with what the op said. Terran seems a little neglected in HotS. Blizzard has been showing love to the units Terran already has, but for an expansion, more units usually make things more interesting. So I think the war hound should make a return.
Mech has difficulty dealing with armor currently in TvP, relying on the late, expensive Thor to deal its much needed anti armor DPS. This encourages turtling terrans, waiting to max out with thors and hellions. As mentioned previously in this thread, these changes are what I feel would improve TvP mech and also make TvZ mech a little more interesting:
Thor javelin missiles removed. Warhound returns, with marauder-like anti armor DPS and javelin missiles. Warhound cost roughly 150mins 75gas Warhounds same speed as hellbats, and similar hp to rauders.
As for making the warhound more than just a better marauder that comes from the factory, maybe it could drop weak spider mines on a cooldown? They'd deal something like 40dmg in a small radius to ground only. Similar to a burrowed bane, but they'd have a limited lifespan. Could also experiment with the mines causing damage to its own teams units too, like a nuke, making placement and planning essential.
Dunno, these are just my noobie balance ramblings, I probably have no idea what I'm talking about!
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
Well, it takes 3 marines to chase off a MsC, and at least 2 to deal with any pressure at the front (you can get away with only 1 in bunker in WoL because it's a metagame play, not because you can actually get away with it). The more marines you have to make, the later your tech is going to get up. As for all of the other options, they require gas, which means your expansion is delayed. With protoss being able to go for tech, a safe expansion, and units all at the same time versus a terran who can only do 2 of those, there's clearly a bit of a problem. And, as always, there's always the looming threat of an all-in coming your way.
Perhaps removing the techlab requirement for reapers will help a lot in scouting all-ins and punishing protosses who move across the map with everything, but, (as far as I can tell), reapers probably need some kind of change like a build time reduction or a slightly improved damage (maybe just bumping it to 5 damage, making worker kills take 4 hits instead of 5). Otherwise, I can't see the advantage of getting early gas, delaying my expansion and marines, JUST to scout for what could be something like a 17 nexus with 2-3 stalkers defending.
Given the nature of starcraft, I think the determing element in this case should be units which require micro. Granted, needing to micro at a 400 apm level would just be too maddening, but this game has to encourage micro, that's almost the whole point and fun of this game!
On January 12 2013 08:19 WeddingEpisode wrote: Given the nature of starcraft, I think the determing element in this case should be units which require micro. Granted, needing to micro at a 400 apm level would just be too maddening, but this game has to encourage micro, that's almost the whole point and fun of this game!
That, I actually disagree on fully. Starcraft is a game of macro and it always has been, just as Warcraft has always been a game of micro. The best design goal Blizzard can have is to make positional balance and space control an option so that players must keep up with several areas of the map simultaneously. This promotes macro to its fullest by forcing players to keep up with expansion management. Micro is a cool side-effect of units being different and interesting, as well as the pathing system and the AI.
Given the true nature of starcraft, the determining element is not whether or not the unit promotes micro, but whether it promotes positional play. That being said, the upgraded hellbat helps a lot with small numbers of mech units and fills the role that the warhound would have filled fairly well. HOWEVER, I still believe that unless the supply numbers for tanks and mines are decreased, we will not see a truly positional game.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
This is why I think hellbats are way overpowered at every stage of the game. Today I was rushing to hellbats. Fac, armory, reactor, stargate. There is a 4 hellbat timing drop timing that is guaranteed damage. With the medivac speed boost you cannot see it coming or even catch up to it if you do. The fact that scvs and medivacs can heal them makes thor/hellbat/medivac composition unstoppable. I have beaten players much better than me with this build, better upgrades and micro didn't help them. I think this unit was a mistake.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
This is why I think hellbats are way overpowered at every stage of the game. Today I was rushing to hellbats. Fac, armory, reactor, stargate. There is a 4 hellbat timing drop timing that is guaranteed damage. With the medivac speed boost you cannot see it coming or even catch up to it if you do. The fact that scvs and medivacs can heal them makes thor/hellbat/medivac composition unstoppable. I have beaten players much better than me with this build, better upgrades and micro didn't help them. I think this unit was a mistake.
The problem is also that the battle hellion, a very mobile unit with its transforming mode, is also now the most efficient source of damage vs many other unit types, giving it too few weaknesses. Given its immobility the tank should be dealing the heaviest damage, with the hellions doing less damage or at least more specialized damage to balance out their mobility advantage.
On January 11 2013 08:04 Grae wrote: Mech has difficulty dealing with armor currently in TvP, relying on the late, expensive Thor to deal its much needed anti armor DPS. This encourages turtling terrans, waiting to max out with thors and hellions. As mentioned previously in this thread, these changes are what I feel would improve TvP mech and also make TvZ mech a little more interesting:
Why does mech have a problem with armored units when the core unit - the Siege Tank - has bonus damage against armored units and a long range? The answer is simple: It deals pitifully low damage which gets further reduced by the splash damage modification. Easy conclusion is to increase the damage of the Siege Tank.
The design of Starcraft is based on having FEW units and no units which do the same job as other units. Thor and Siege Tank both have +armored and that is BAD DESIGN.
On January 13 2013 17:17 Emuking wrote: Blizzard just needs to ask themselves before making a unit, "Can spending time microing this unit increase its value?"
They also need to ask themselves "Is this unit equally well useable at all levels of play AND play against?" At least for Stalkers - which require Blink/Forcefield to be worth it - and Banelings - which are a pain to be playing against - they failed.
On January 13 2013 17:17 Emuking wrote: Blizzard just needs to ask themselves before making a unit, "Can spending time microing this unit increase its value?"
They also need to ask themselves "Is this unit equally well useable at all levels of play AND play against?" At least for Stalkers - which require Blink/Forcefield to be worth it - and Banelings - which are a pain to be playing against - they failed.
I think banelings is "balanced" around the fact that the zerg has to use more time not watching the battle (but injecting and stuff like that), while the terran can look at the battle almost the whole time, those at mid skill levels muta/bling is actually balanced. At higher skill levels, the terran just becomes too good at marine/tank micro and the potential for muta/bling micro is just very limited (and so is the potential for harassing with them). This means that it (at least in wol) was slightly UP at highest level.
At low/mid level (not noob level but something like gold-diamnd I guess) the zerg has decent macro, but micro'ing tank/marine is too difficult for the terran so he can't be consistently cost effective --> Muta/bling is slightly zerg favored.
So in order to design units properly one needs to make each units as difficult to play against as to use optimally. Its possible that zerg should be less of a micro race than the other races, but then they should have a wide options of multitaskbased play (which doesn't really work efficiently today).
Every single unit should be easy to use and difficut to master. And for every single micro "trick" that player A can do with the unit, Player B needs to have way's to "remicro" against it.
if that's the case then you obtain two things: 1) Extremely entertaining games. 2) Balanceable across various skill levels.
Time after time though, we see Blizzard making terrible units that doesn't fulfill these criteria, which is bascially why the game becomes boring and difficult to balance, and the balance team (David Kim I guess) always have to weight whether to balance it at the top level or making it enjoyable for casuals as well.
Oh, and btw did I forget to note that muta/bling vs marine/tank is the best thing Starcraft 2 offers? And still, it has this fundemental design flaw, which just prooves how fucking awesome Starcraft could have been if every unit was designed properly.
I've been a long time lurker on TL and a long time Terran player as well. I decided to make an account and start posting specifically because of this issue.
The Warhound was an extremely overpowered unit. It was so imbalanced that I don't think any reasonable person could expect the community's reaction to its introduction as anything but cataclysmic. That's exactly what it was. The GIGANTIC thread to remove the Warhound was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, I've ever seen in my time spent on Team Liquid.
I think that this fervent outrage comes from the fact that the things that many people dislike about Starcraft 2 were all mashed together in the iteration of the Warhound that we saw. Players, viewers, and casters alike want to see awesome micro. We want to see insane multitasking and ridiculous holds. We want to see things that are impressive. The Warhound was not this. A seven colossi death ball is not this. A wall of Spinecrawlers with infestors and Broodlords slowly pushing forward is not this.
The thing is though, that in my opinion Terran is the only race that has the potential to meet all of the criteria that the community has to find a match entertaining. Every race can do drops, but the medivac and the efficiency of marines and marauders in small squads means that Terran drops are the best. In a perfect world, the Terran army can set up a defensive position and split his army multiple times in order to harass his opponents expansions while simultaneously protecting his own. The frenetic and visceral play style available to Terran is what people want to see.
Things like the Warhound keep this awesome hyper-active and aggresive playstyle from being the dominant playstyle Starcraft 2. I think it's important to note, however, that the other 2 races already have units that are "1a gg" such as the Colossus and Broodlord. Deathballs are bad. I personally would prefer it if the Warhound was changed into a very fast moving raider unit, and the Hellion removed in favor of only the Hellbat. This is not the point I wish to make with this post though. I don't think that my opinion on the optimal unit design in Starcraft is very important because I am only in platinum league.
There is something that I think needs to be discussed, and it is directly related to the enjoyment of the game and to the success of the eSports scene in this game and others.
Everyone always talks about balance. In every single game where people can compete, people will whine about things being imbalanced. Then, reasonable persons will inform the whiners that they are blowing things out of proportion. The complainers often are blowing things out of proportion, and at the absolute highest level of play where things actually matter Starcraft is impressively balanced for the number of units and the clever player base it has.
When people respond with perfectly logical statements to complaints about imbalance they often overlook one thing that I think turns off a lot of players. To take the TvP match up for example, HT and Colossi are not overpowered because the Terran has counters to them. This may very well be, but (I must admit I feel this way as well) people feel cheated because of the amount of effort needed on the Terran side of the engagement is far greater than the amount of effort on the Protoss side.
I'm sure such a comment will piss a lot of people off, but one only needs to look at the APM numbers for ultra high level Protoss and Terran players to see that the Terran needs to do a lot more than the Protoss to win.
This isn't fun. It's balanced, but it certainly isn't fair. I shouldn't have to outplay my opponent by say a 60% margin to win. I should have to outplay my opponent by a 1% margin to win. When Terran players whine about how Protoss becomes nearly invincible late game (along with Zerg to a slightly lessened degree) we are greeted with a response that is absolutely insulting: "Don't let them get there."
That's what everyone says. It is accepted that the Terran players need to constantly harass and delay Zerg and Protoss. There is no such need for the Protoss. No Protoss player is hanging out on three bases and thinking to himself, "Man I better go do some double drops to do economic damage, otherwise I won't be able to engage his tier 3."
The warhound was not perfect by any means in the format that we saw. The fact remains though that many of my Terran friends and I think that it is absolutely absurd to remove the unit completely. Let Terran have a good late game unit. We want our late game to not be a joke. The Warhound was a midgame unit, true, but with a little reworking it could actually provide Terran some hope in the lategame of TvP. When I watch a cast of a TvP game and I see that the video is over 15-20 minutes long, I know that there is a 90% chance that the Protoss won.
This needs to change. Maybe the Warhound is the way to change it, maybe it isn't. But, change is certainly needed and this expansion is the time to do it.
On January 14 2013 05:23 Sigil2 wrote: I've been a long time lurker on TL and a long time Terran player as well. I decided to make an account and start posting specifically because of this issue.
The Warhound was an extremely overpowered unit. It was so imbalanced that I don't think any reasonable person could expect the community's reaction to its introduction as anything but cataclysmic. That's exactly what it was. The GIGANTIC thread to remove the Warhound was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, I've ever seen in my time spent on Team Liquid.
I think that this fervent outrage comes from the fact that the things that many people dislike about Starcraft 2 were all mashed together in the iteration of the Warhound that we saw. Players, viewers, and casters alike want to see awesome micro. We want to see insane multitasking and ridiculous holds. We want to see things that are impressive. The Warhound was not this. A seven colossi death ball is not this. A wall of Spinecrawlers with infestors and Broodlords slowly pushing forward is not this.
The thing is though, that in my opinion Terran is the only race that has the potential to meet all of the criteria that the community has to find a match entertaining. Every race can do drops, but the medivac and the efficiency of marines and marauders in small squads means that Terran drops are the best. In a perfect world, the Terran army can set up a defensive position and split his army multiple times in order to harass his opponents expansions while simultaneously protecting his own. The frenetic and visceral play style available to Terran is what people want to see.
Things like the Warhound keep this awesome hyper-active and aggresive playstyle from being the dominant playstyle Starcraft 2. I think it's important to note, however, that the other 2 races already have units that are "1a gg" such as the Colossus and Broodlord. Deathballs are bad. I personally would prefer it if the Warhound was changed into a very fast moving raider unit, and the Hellion removed in favor of only the Hellbat. This is not the point I wish to make with this post though. I don't think that my opinion on the optimal unit design in Starcraft is very important because I am only in platinum league.
There is something that I think needs to be discussed, and it is directly related to the enjoyment of the game and to the success of the eSports scene in this game and others.
Everyone always talks about balance. In every single game where people can compete, people will whine about things being imbalanced. Then, reasonable persons will inform the whiners that they are blowing things out of proportion. The complainers often are blowing things out of proportion, and at the absolute highest level of play where things actually matter Starcraft is impressively balanced for the number of units and the clever player base it has.
When people respond with perfectly logical statements to complaints about imbalance they often overlook one thing that I think turns off a lot of players. To take the TvP match up for example, HT and Colossi are not overpowered because the Terran has counters to them. This may very well be, but (I must admit I feel this way as well) people feel cheated because of the amount of effort needed on the Terran side of the engagement is far greater than the amount of effort on the Protoss side.
I'm sure such a comment will piss a lot of people off, but one only needs to look at the APM numbers for ultra high level Protoss and Terran players to see that the Terran needs to do a lot more than the Protoss to win.
This isn't fun. It's balanced, but it certainly isn't fair. I shouldn't have to outplay my opponent by say a 60% margin to win. I should have to outplay my opponent by a 1% margin to win. When Terran players whine about how Protoss becomes nearly invincible late game (along with Zerg to a slightly lessened degree) we are greeted with a response that is absolutely insulting: "Don't let them get there."
That's what everyone says. It is accepted that the Terran players need to constantly harass and delay Zerg and Protoss. There is no such need for the Protoss. No Protoss player is hanging out on three bases and thinking to himself, "Man I better go do some double drops to do economic damage, otherwise I won't be able to engage his tier 3."
The warhound was not perfect by any means in the format that we saw. The fact remains though that many of my Terran friends and I think that it is absolutely absurd to remove the unit completely. Let Terran have a good late game unit. We want our late game to not be a joke. The Warhound was a midgame unit, true, but with a little reworking it could actually provide Terran some hope in the lategame of TvP. When I watch a cast of a TvP game and I see that the video is over 15-20 minutes long, I know that there is a 90% chance that the Protoss won.
This needs to change. Maybe the Warhound is the way to change it, maybe it isn't. But, change is certainly needed and this expansion is the time to do it.
Interesting. Although I will point out that protoss definitely has some extreme micro in max vs. max situations too. As a protoss player, you have to keep your colossus away from vikings, get blinks or storms under vikings if possible, spread templar (or micro a warp prism with templar in it), micro observers to the back of your army so they can't get sniped, wait to engage at the perfect angle, drop a guardian shield, make sure you don't A-move until your colossus get into range, blink stalkers out of the way of your zealots, spread your zealots as best you can, remember to ff marines instead of marauders with colossus, and make sure you are microing all of your templars to get the proper storms off, etc. There are a lot of whine threads about the protoss army being a 1-a army, but if the terran is controlling at a top level, the level of control needed from the protoss player is also quite high. All of that being said, you're probably quite right about TvP being extraordinarily unfair lategame for players below masters level, but on the highest levels, it's simply not true. What terran needs is not a strong unit lategame, but strong space control that can stand up to mass zealot warpins + big deathballs cost effectively; planetary fortresses help some, but are still quite weak against all of the options protoss has at its disposal. Tanks and widow mines probably need a buff or a supply decrease to ever give terran this lategame ability.
As far as removing hellions goes, that's a terrible idea since hellions are one of the few interesting and dynamic units in SC2, and hellbats are really not. As far as harassment options are concerned, I feel that between MMM drops, hellions, widow mines, and banshees, terran already has a fairly strong arsenal of harassment tools at their disposal; no need to give them another raider.
As far as the original role of the warhound, a support unit to mech in order to make mech more viable in TvP, the hellbat now fills that role rather well. There are still some issues with the early-game and lategame air army protoss can make, but we'll have to work on these things going forward. At this point, the best hope we could have for a reappearance of the warhound is a goliath-type unit that shoots up at like 10 range to counter the horrid carrier/tempest/HT endgame army for protoss.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
Well, it takes 3 marines to chase off a MsC, and at least 2 to deal with any pressure at the front (you can get away with only 1 in bunker in WoL because it's a metagame play, not because you can actually get away with it). The more marines you have to make, the later your tech is going to get up. As for all of the other options, they require gas, which means your expansion is delayed. With protoss being able to go for tech, a safe expansion, and units all at the same time versus a terran who can only do 2 of those, there's clearly a bit of a problem. And, as always, there's always the looming threat of an all-in coming your way.
Perhaps removing the techlab requirement for reapers will help a lot in scouting all-ins and punishing protosses who move across the map with everything, but, (as far as I can tell), reapers probably need some kind of change like a build time reduction or a slightly improved damage (maybe just bumping it to 5 damage, making worker kills take 4 hits instead of 5). Otherwise, I can't see the advantage of getting early gas, delaying my expansion and marines, JUST to scout for what could be something like a 17 nexus with 2-3 stalkers defending.
It's by no means bad that you have to make a few marines to make sure you can be safe. If you had to make 10+, then I think there would be a problem, but 4 or 5 is fine because you shouldn't be able to tech straight to mech off a single marine.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
Well, it takes 3 marines to chase off a MsC, and at least 2 to deal with any pressure at the front (you can get away with only 1 in bunker in WoL because it's a metagame play, not because you can actually get away with it). The more marines you have to make, the later your tech is going to get up. As for all of the other options, they require gas, which means your expansion is delayed. With protoss being able to go for tech, a safe expansion, and units all at the same time versus a terran who can only do 2 of those, there's clearly a bit of a problem. And, as always, there's always the looming threat of an all-in coming your way.
Perhaps removing the techlab requirement for reapers will help a lot in scouting all-ins and punishing protosses who move across the map with everything, but, (as far as I can tell), reapers probably need some kind of change like a build time reduction or a slightly improved damage (maybe just bumping it to 5 damage, making worker kills take 4 hits instead of 5). Otherwise, I can't see the advantage of getting early gas, delaying my expansion and marines, JUST to scout for what could be something like a 17 nexus with 2-3 stalkers defending.
It's by no means bad that you have to make a few marines to make sure you can be safe. If you had to make 10+, then I think there would be a problem, but 4 or 5 is fine because you shouldn't be able to tech straight to mech off a single marine.
Perhaps I need to put this in perspective in terms of timings. If you have to make an extra 2-3 marines (specifically 2-3 more marines than 3), you miss a lot of timings where protoss is somewhat vulnerable in the early game. The difference between the fastest reactor hellion play you can get up and a reactor hellion play that's 2-3 marines late is that you have a very small chance of success in killing workers because there will be approximately 2-3 stalkers, a sentry, and the MsC, as opposed to just A stalker and the MsC out of position. A widow mine drop can end up coming like 30 seconds late, which is more than enough time for protoss to get some kind of detection out. If you're going hellion/banshee, your banshee gets out around 30 seconds late, AFTER a gateway all-in can hit.
In addition, it makes 3CC builds impossible now. If your opponent can scout straight into your base with the MsC, they can catch you making a 3rd CC (or non-indicators such as a lack of marines, a lack of factory tech or gas, etc), and respond with gateway pressure.
Tank timings are luckily a little reset due to not having to research siege mode, I will give you that. But the core problem with the stalker/MsC poke is that you miss all of the reliable timings possible after 1rax gasless expand. This means that if you want to put on ANY early pressure before 3 bases, you have to go for some kind of a gas opening. Otherwise you're stuck playing a fairly defensive game of mech.
This just kind of sucks for anyone who wants to open with harassment. Instead, terran is kind of forced into doing either 1) a gas build in order to harass, 2) a very defensive 1rax gasless expand into tanks or widow mines, or 3) doing some kind of marine/tank or marine/hellbat push. The options become a lot more limited with the MsC + stalker poke, and the widow mine, hellbat, and siege tank changes aren't quite enough to overcome those limitations.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
Well, it takes 3 marines to chase off a MsC, and at least 2 to deal with any pressure at the front (you can get away with only 1 in bunker in WoL because it's a metagame play, not because you can actually get away with it). The more marines you have to make, the later your tech is going to get up. As for all of the other options, they require gas, which means your expansion is delayed. With protoss being able to go for tech, a safe expansion, and units all at the same time versus a terran who can only do 2 of those, there's clearly a bit of a problem. And, as always, there's always the looming threat of an all-in coming your way.
Perhaps removing the techlab requirement for reapers will help a lot in scouting all-ins and punishing protosses who move across the map with everything, but, (as far as I can tell), reapers probably need some kind of change like a build time reduction or a slightly improved damage (maybe just bumping it to 5 damage, making worker kills take 4 hits instead of 5). Otherwise, I can't see the advantage of getting early gas, delaying my expansion and marines, JUST to scout for what could be something like a 17 nexus with 2-3 stalkers defending.
It's by no means bad that you have to make a few marines to make sure you can be safe. If you had to make 10+, then I think there would be a problem, but 4 or 5 is fine because you shouldn't be able to tech straight to mech off a single marine.
Perhaps I need to put this in perspective in terms of timings. If you have to make an extra 2-3 marines (specifically 2-3 more marines than 3), you miss a lot of timings where protoss is somewhat vulnerable in the early game. The difference between the fastest reactor hellion play you can get up and a reactor hellion play that's 2-3 marines late is that you have a very small chance of success in killing workers because there will be approximately 2-3 stalkers, a sentry, and the MsC, as opposed to just A stalker and the MsC out of position. A widow mine drop can end up coming like 30 seconds late, which is more than enough time for protoss to get some kind of detection out. If you're going hellion/banshee, your banshee gets out around 30 seconds late, AFTER a gateway all-in can hit.
In addition, it makes 3CC builds impossible now. If your opponent can scout straight into your base with the MsC, they can catch you making a 3rd CC (or non-indicators such as a lack of marines, a lack of factory tech or gas, etc), and respond with gateway pressure.
Tank timings are luckily a little reset due to not having to research siege mode, I will give you that. But the core problem with the stalker/MsC poke is that you miss all of the reliable timings possible after 1rax gasless expand. This means that if you want to put on ANY early pressure before 3 bases, you have to go for some kind of a gas opening. Otherwise you're stuck playing a fairly defensive game of mech.
This just kind of sucks for anyone who wants to open with harassment. Instead, terran is kind of forced into doing either 1) a gas build in order to harass, 2) a very defensive 1rax gasless expand into tanks or widow mines, or 3) doing some kind of marine/tank or marine/hellbat push. The options become a lot more limited with the MsC + stalker poke, and the widow mine, hellbat, and siege tank changes aren't quite enough to overcome those limitations.
What if you don't 1 rax fe? For example, you go 12 barracks 15 gas, reactor on rax, produce marines while expanding, build factory and swap it with barracks? I don't know the timings, but obviously it allows the harassment to hit a little earlier.
On January 11 2013 09:22 SC2John wrote: If I may throw out a thought:
Although I wrote the OP, my biggest issue was that there was a hole in gameplay where terrans couldn't stay alive in the early-game and couldn't get an even footing with protoss in the midgame due to mech being inefficient in low numbers. The question was whether we need to bring back to warhound to fill that role?
I think with the latest patch, Blizzard is making headway in that direction as battle hellions now WRECK small numbers of gateway units, especially zealots. This allows mech players to play into the midgame more confidently, and perhaps will lead to a much easier style of mech. The only real issue now facing terrans is getting a comfortable early-game, as the stalker poke + MsC in the mineral still cause all kinds of problems for meching players and force terrans to have to make a minimum of 5 marines.
Thoughts?
You only need 4 marines, or 3 and a Widow Mine, or 1 Reaper and 3 Marines, as long as you are using a Bunker. I agree it's somewhat limiting, not as good as in WoL where you could have 1 marine and a Bunker, but I don't think it's really that much of a concern. I don't think it clearly needs a "fix".
Well, it takes 3 marines to chase off a MsC, and at least 2 to deal with any pressure at the front (you can get away with only 1 in bunker in WoL because it's a metagame play, not because you can actually get away with it). The more marines you have to make, the later your tech is going to get up. As for all of the other options, they require gas, which means your expansion is delayed. With protoss being able to go for tech, a safe expansion, and units all at the same time versus a terran who can only do 2 of those, there's clearly a bit of a problem. And, as always, there's always the looming threat of an all-in coming your way.
Perhaps removing the techlab requirement for reapers will help a lot in scouting all-ins and punishing protosses who move across the map with everything, but, (as far as I can tell), reapers probably need some kind of change like a build time reduction or a slightly improved damage (maybe just bumping it to 5 damage, making worker kills take 4 hits instead of 5). Otherwise, I can't see the advantage of getting early gas, delaying my expansion and marines, JUST to scout for what could be something like a 17 nexus with 2-3 stalkers defending.
It's by no means bad that you have to make a few marines to make sure you can be safe. If you had to make 10+, then I think there would be a problem, but 4 or 5 is fine because you shouldn't be able to tech straight to mech off a single marine.
Perhaps I need to put this in perspective in terms of timings. If you have to make an extra 2-3 marines (specifically 2-3 more marines than 3), you miss a lot of timings where protoss is somewhat vulnerable in the early game. The difference between the fastest reactor hellion play you can get up and a reactor hellion play that's 2-3 marines late is that you have a very small chance of success in killing workers because there will be approximately 2-3 stalkers, a sentry, and the MsC, as opposed to just A stalker and the MsC out of position. A widow mine drop can end up coming like 30 seconds late, which is more than enough time for protoss to get some kind of detection out. If you're going hellion/banshee, your banshee gets out around 30 seconds late, AFTER a gateway all-in can hit.
In addition, it makes 3CC builds impossible now. If your opponent can scout straight into your base with the MsC, they can catch you making a 3rd CC (or non-indicators such as a lack of marines, a lack of factory tech or gas, etc), and respond with gateway pressure.
Tank timings are luckily a little reset due to not having to research siege mode, I will give you that. But the core problem with the stalker/MsC poke is that you miss all of the reliable timings possible after 1rax gasless expand. This means that if you want to put on ANY early pressure before 3 bases, you have to go for some kind of a gas opening. Otherwise you're stuck playing a fairly defensive game of mech.
This just kind of sucks for anyone who wants to open with harassment. Instead, terran is kind of forced into doing either 1) a gas build in order to harass, 2) a very defensive 1rax gasless expand into tanks or widow mines, or 3) doing some kind of marine/tank or marine/hellbat push. The options become a lot more limited with the MsC + stalker poke, and the widow mine, hellbat, and siege tank changes aren't quite enough to overcome those limitations.
What if you don't 1 rax fe? For example, you go 12 barracks 15 gas, reactor on rax, produce marines while expanding, build factory and swap it with barracks? I don't know the timings, but obviously it allows the harassment to hit a little earlier.
Tried it out, ends up hitting at about the same time. The only difference is that you have less economy. Anyway, the timings and defense are so thin that you can barely hope to survive in case of a perfect 4-gate, blink all-in, or some kind of stargate all-in. My biggest problem is not that you can't make it work, but that you can only barely make it work; if mech is going to be so fragile that I can just outright die to a bunch of all-ins, why would I play mech over bio ever? This is not even taking into account the horrid lategame problems mech has.
On January 12 2013 08:19 WeddingEpisode wrote: Given the nature of starcraft, I think the determing element in this case should be units which require micro. Granted, needing to micro at a 400 apm level would just be too maddening, but this game has to encourage micro, that's almost the whole point and fun of this game!
That, I actually disagree on fully. Starcraft is a game of macro and it always has been, just as Warcraft has always been a game of micro. The best design goal Blizzard can have is to make positional balance and space control an option so that players must keep up with several areas of the map simultaneously. This promotes macro to its fullest by forcing players to keep up with expansion management. Micro is a cool side-effect of units being different and interesting, as well as the pathing system and the AI.
Given the true nature of starcraft, the determining element is not whether or not the unit promotes micro, but whether it promotes positional play. That being said, the upgraded hellbat helps a lot with small numbers of mech units and fills the role that the warhound would have filled fairly well. HOWEVER, I still believe that unless the supply numbers for tanks and mines are decreased, we will not see a truly positional game.
Uh, no? EDIT: This is a little bit too jackass'ish. I'll just say I disagree .
StarCraft at its best is a game of both macro AND micro.
The best design goal Blizzard can have is to promote more micro because it's severely lacking and leads to boring engagements where deathballs liquidize each other in 5 seconds.
More specifically I would love it if Blizzard would promote more MECHANICS (difficulty in all aspects of the game - we know they won't do that) but any option that promotes more micro (which is severely lacking) is a good thing.
Engagement micro is just as important as micro with little groups of units doing "cool things," as you say.
Positioning is also a form of micro. You're managing your units. Where they go and what they do.
On January 14 2013 05:23 Sigil2 wrote: I've been a long time lurker on TL and a long time Terran player as well. I decided to make an account and start posting specifically because of this issue.
The Warhound was an extremely overpowered unit. It was so imbalanced that I don't think any reasonable person could expect the community's reaction to its introduction as anything but cataclysmic. That's exactly what it was. The GIGANTIC thread to remove the Warhound was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, I've ever seen in my time spent on Team Liquid.
I think that this fervent outrage comes from the fact that the things that many people dislike about Starcraft 2 were all mashed together in the iteration of the Warhound that we saw. Players, viewers, and casters alike want to see awesome micro. We want to see insane multitasking and ridiculous holds. We want to see things that are impressive. The Warhound was not this. A seven colossi death ball is not this. A wall of Spinecrawlers with infestors and Broodlords slowly pushing forward is not this.
The thing is though, that in my opinion Terran is the only race that has the potential to meet all of the criteria that the community has to find a match entertaining. Every race can do drops, but the medivac and the efficiency of marines and marauders in small squads means that Terran drops are the best. In a perfect world, the Terran army can set up a defensive position and split his army multiple times in order to harass his opponents expansions while simultaneously protecting his own. The frenetic and visceral play style available to Terran is what people want to see.
Things like the Warhound keep this awesome hyper-active and aggresive playstyle from being the dominant playstyle Starcraft 2. I think it's important to note, however, that the other 2 races already have units that are "1a gg" such as the Colossus and Broodlord. Deathballs are bad. I personally would prefer it if the Warhound was changed into a very fast moving raider unit, and the Hellion removed in favor of only the Hellbat. This is not the point I wish to make with this post though. I don't think that my opinion on the optimal unit design in Starcraft is very important because I am only in platinum league.
There is something that I think needs to be discussed, and it is directly related to the enjoyment of the game and to the success of the eSports scene in this game and others.
Everyone always talks about balance. In every single game where people can compete, people will whine about things being imbalanced. Then, reasonable persons will inform the whiners that they are blowing things out of proportion. The complainers often are blowing things out of proportion, and at the absolute highest level of play where things actually matter Starcraft is impressively balanced for the number of units and the clever player base it has.
When people respond with perfectly logical statements to complaints about imbalance they often overlook one thing that I think turns off a lot of players. To take the TvP match up for example, HT and Colossi are not overpowered because the Terran has counters to them. This may very well be, but (I must admit I feel this way as well) people feel cheated because of the amount of effort needed on the Terran side of the engagement is far greater than the amount of effort on the Protoss side.
I'm sure such a comment will piss a lot of people off, but one only needs to look at the APM numbers for ultra high level Protoss and Terran players to see that the Terran needs to do a lot more than the Protoss to win.
This isn't fun. It's balanced, but it certainly isn't fair. I shouldn't have to outplay my opponent by say a 60% margin to win. I should have to outplay my opponent by a 1% margin to win. When Terran players whine about how Protoss becomes nearly invincible late game (along with Zerg to a slightly lessened degree) we are greeted with a response that is absolutely insulting: "Don't let them get there."
That's what everyone says. It is accepted that the Terran players need to constantly harass and delay Zerg and Protoss. There is no such need for the Protoss. No Protoss player is hanging out on three bases and thinking to himself, "Man I better go do some double drops to do economic damage, otherwise I won't be able to engage his tier 3."
The warhound was not perfect by any means in the format that we saw. The fact remains though that many of my Terran friends and I think that it is absolutely absurd to remove the unit completely. Let Terran have a good late game unit. We want our late game to not be a joke. The Warhound was a midgame unit, true, but with a little reworking it could actually provide Terran some hope in the lategame of TvP. When I watch a cast of a TvP game and I see that the video is over 15-20 minutes long, I know that there is a 90% chance that the Protoss won.
This needs to change. Maybe the Warhound is the way to change it, maybe it isn't. But, change is certainly needed and this expansion is the time to do it.
Interesting. Although I will point out that protoss definitely has some extreme micro in max vs. max situations too. As a protoss player, you have to keep your colossus away from vikings, get blinks or storms under vikings if possible, spread templar (or micro a warp prism with templar in it), micro observers to the back of your army so they can't get sniped, wait to engage at the perfect angle, drop a guardian shield, make sure you don't A-move until your colossus get into range, blink stalkers out of the way of your zealots, spread your zealots as best you can, remember to ff marines instead of marauders with colossus, and make sure you are microing all of your templars to get the proper storms off, etc. There are a lot of whine threads about the protoss army being a 1-a army, but if the terran is controlling at a top level, the level of control needed from the protoss player is also quite high. All of that being said, you're probably quite right about TvP being extraordinarily unfair lategame for players below masters level, but on the highest levels, it's simply not true. What terran needs is not a strong unit lategame, but strong space control that can stand up to mass zealot warpins + big deathballs cost effectively; planetary fortresses help some, but are still quite weak against all of the options protoss has at its disposal. Tanks and widow mines probably need a buff or a supply decrease to ever give terran this lategame ability.
As far as removing hellions goes, that's a terrible idea since hellions are one of the few interesting and dynamic units in SC2, and hellbats are really not. As far as harassment options are concerned, I feel that between MMM drops, hellions, widow mines, and banshees, terran already has a fairly strong arsenal of harassment tools at their disposal; no need to give them another raider.
As far as the original role of the warhound, a support unit to mech in order to make mech more viable in TvP, the hellbat now fills that role rather well. There are still some issues with the early-game and lategame air army protoss can make, but we'll have to work on these things going forward. At this point, the best hope we could have for a reappearance of the warhound is a goliath-type unit that shoots up at like 10 range to counter the horrid carrier/tempest/HT endgame army for protoss.
Firstly, let me just thank you for your thoughtful and level-headed response. I've though over your post for a bit and I can't say that I disagree with any of it.
Upon further reflection, Hellions are indeed an engaging unit because of their unique attack style. Most of my rationalization for changing the Warhound into a raiding type unit is based upon the style of the model and the name, I suppose.
Reading my post again I see that I definitely did not give enough credit to the Protoss players. I didn't mean to say that Protoss were "1a gg" I was simply just using that phrase because I see it often and find it somewhat silly. The tasks that you listed that are required during Protoss engagements, however, I think are less important than the tasks that the Terran must do. For example, missing a feed back on a ghost means losing a few storms and incurring more unit loss than necessary. On the other hand, missing EMP's on all of the HT's means that the Terran army gets destroyed within seconds.
Furthermore, when Protoss loses an engagement the amount of the Terran army that he takes out with him is usually a larger proportion than the Terran army takes our of the Protoss when the Terran loses an engagement.
Which brings me to the part of your post which I thought to be the most constructive: late game space control.
I'd like to see high-tech Terran units being feared, but perhaps that would take away from the awesome quasi-squad based skirmishing that many (including myself) enjoy watching and playing. What Terran needs though is better space control and this has been said time and time again. Widow mines and tanks don't really do it.
There are two main weaknesses to Terran late game, aside from being hyper vulnerable to AoE. Firstly, our production mechanics are slow and make it difficult to reinforce late game. I can't tell you how many games I've lost because my marines couldn't all congregate from the -literally- 12-16 racks Terran needs in late game. Secondly, Terran has very poor tools to combat harassment. In fact, our only real tool against harassment is to harass the opponent and hope that he doesn't have the multitasking necessary to do the same back to us.
Both of these issues are failures in space control. Terran needs the ability to defend his bases more rapidly from ground based attacks. Protoss and Zerg both have anti-ground and anti-air defense while Terran only has anti-air. Additionally, Protoss can warp in units and Zerglings effectively move at the speed of light.
Space control is most direly needed though to allow a staging platform to actually survive while Terran is reinforcing. Bunkers, turrets, and tanks can effectively stop any non-GGlord Zerg attack. Protoss however does not need to be wary of the Terran "meatgrinder." This is made especially problematic considering that Protoss can bring units to the Terran staging area BEFORE the Terran can.
The best option for space control that I can see being implemented is reducing the supply cost of either the tank or the widow mine. I like widow mines. Mostly because I think that they are incredibly adorable. That aside, I think that if the supply cost of the tank was lowered to 2 it would necessitate the supply cost of the WM being lowered to 1. Those two changes combined might make Terran too good at space control, however. I think just changing the WM supply to 1 while perhaps lowering the primary and/or splash damage slightly would be very helpful.
As for the Warhound as a reincarnated Goliath... While I understand the logic behind this, I just don't want to do it. I will be seriously disappointed if the Skytoss deathball is allowed to stay as absurd as it is now. It's quite literally the dreaded "1a gg" army in every way. Additionally, in a game with Broodlords the efficacy of any (mostly) dedicated GtA unit is low. I hate building Vikings. They are only slightly more interesting than Corrupters. At this point in the game though, I can't really think of anything that would fulfill the role Vikings fill in the Terran army more efficiently or in a more engaging manner.
In the current Mech army there is a support role to fill, and the Warhound certainly could fill it. How exactly that role is to be filled though, is still very unclear to me.
On January 08 2013 09:45 D_K_night wrote: If we're gonna talk ideas regarding the Warhound, all we need to do, is to look another, very good game: Warcraft 3.
There are just so many untapped possibilities for the Warhound to borrow utility or abilities directly from Warcraft 3. Remember this from the Witch Doctor?
Stasis Trap Ward
Summons an invisible and immovable ward that stuns enemy units around it. The trap activates when an enemy unit approaches. The trap lasts 150 seconds. The stun lasts 6 (2.5) seconds.
I mean we're in agreement that we don't want something to be boring A-Move. Adding utility, which does not directly do damage, is the answer. If the Warhound had something interesting to add to the field in a tactical manner, this could do a lot for the game.
But again - Warcraft 3 is the answer.
Pretty sure nobody wants more stun spells in the game - just look at all the complaints about fungal...
Huge difference though.
Stasis Trap are mines except instead of doing damage, they stun. Since they're like mines, you can clear them out with detection and avoid them (unlike Fungal, if you're hit, you can't do anything).
WC3 is a good source for new ideas IMO. There are a million spells from WC3 and a lot of them are in Dota (the classic windwalk which is on multiple heroes and an item in Dota is from WC3's Blade Master).
Edit - Besides that, I think the single player campaign and a lot of SC2 alpha have good ideas (though they never bothered). Like someone mentioned earlier, there was going to be an AoE defensive matrix field (units under the field gained defensive matrix). This would go well with mech's stationary play.
For the Raven, it had an ability to drop a stationary unit that regularly made mines (though TBH, it's basically like the Widow Mine in a way in the sense that instead of being a "one time use mine", it was always active until you destroyed the main unit).
In terms of making a new mech unit (I really like a mech spell caster idea) and/or changing the Warhound, they have plenty of ideas they could have used.
On January 08 2013 09:45 D_K_night wrote: If we're gonna talk ideas regarding the Warhound, all we need to do, is to look another, very good game: Warcraft 3.
There are just so many untapped possibilities for the Warhound to borrow utility or abilities directly from Warcraft 3. Remember this from the Witch Doctor?
Stasis Trap Ward
Summons an invisible and immovable ward that stuns enemy units around it. The trap activates when an enemy unit approaches. The trap lasts 150 seconds. The stun lasts 6 (2.5) seconds.
I mean we're in agreement that we don't want something to be boring A-Move. Adding utility, which does not directly do damage, is the answer. If the Warhound had something interesting to add to the field in a tactical manner, this could do a lot for the game.
But again - Warcraft 3 is the answer.
Pretty sure nobody wants more stun spells in the game - just look at all the complaints about fungal...
Huge difference though.
Stasis Trap are mines except instead of doing damage, they stun. Since they're like mines, you can clear them out with detection and avoid them (unlike Fungal, if you're hit, you can't do anything).
WC3 is a good source for new ideas IMO. There are a million spells from WC3 and a lot of them are in Dota (the classic windwalk which is on multiple heroes and an item in Dota is from WC3's Blade Master).
Edit - Besides that, I think the single player campaign and a lot of SC2 alpha have good ideas (though they never bothered). Like someone mentioned earlier, there was going to be an AoE defensive matrix field (units under the field gained defensive matrix). This would go well with mech's stationary play.
For the Raven, it had an ability to drop a stationary unit that regularly made mines (though TBH, it's basically like the Widow Mine in a way in the sense that instead of being a "one time use mine", it was always active until you destroyed the main unit).
In terms of making a new mech unit (I really like a mech spell caster idea) and/or changing the Warhound, they have plenty of ideas they could have used.
A mech spell caster would indeed be a very interesting thing to see with some spells taken from campaign. I wonder if it would be too much of an problem to balance it out.
Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
Well, the LAST thing mech needs is another supply-heavy unit that deals "okay" damage. It's far easier to have a unit with a relatively low supply cost that has a risk/reward factor to it. Perhaps it would have been best to make haywire missiles deal damage in a straight line or give them some kind of drawback. And, of course, tone the attacks WAY DOWN.
But anyway, I think that the hellbat is doing a good job of filling in the role the warhound left. The only things I think needs fixing now are terran's lategame space control issues, early-game fragility, and where the new hellbats leave >blue flame< hellions.
Rather than adding an anti-mech unit, the counter to another mech shouldn't be mech, it should be an upgrade for the ghost for a damage reducing shield for incoming heavy damage. A combination of the Immortal shield and a guardian shield. A cost of a 200 - 200 upgrade, would make it mid / late game, and researchable from the Ghost Academy of cause! It would change the whole game a lot! A T bio army having an option to be more protective from, Siege tanks, ultras and other heavy stuff. By implementing such an ability should of cause affect, another ability currently in the game. What the opinion on this?
On January 17 2013 00:59 AtlasEU wrote: Rather than adding an anti-mech unit, the counter to another mech shouldn't be mech, it should be an upgrade for the ghost for a damage reducing shield for incoming heavy damage. A combination of the Immortal shield and a guardian shield. A cost of a 200 - 200 upgrade, would make it mid / late game, and researchable from the Ghost Academy of cause! It would change the whole game a lot! A T bio army having an option to be more protective from, Siege tanks, ultras and other heavy stuff. By implementing such an ability should of cause affect, another ability currently in the game. What the opinion on this?
I think it's a good idea. Originally in SC2, there was a design for a flying caster unit like the science vessel that did kind of an AoE defensive matrix, and now that we've reached this point in SC2, I feel it might be necessary. Perhaps it would be better on the raven (or a new starport unit); the ghost already has enough of its own role. I think, in a way, it would be a more elegant solution that having to buff mech units across the board, and it would also play an interesting role in bio.
Two units that haven't really been looked at with regards to any ability change/addition/rework are the Banshee and Battlecruiser. These units have energy bars which they cannot utilize without research, Would it not make sense for these units to have some method of spending their energy pre-research?
The Banshee is a very logical anti-mech unit, and its counters aren't mech (mainly Viking and Marine- Thor is actually quite bad), creating composition diversity. Perhaps the Banshee might acquire a missile type ability that costs energy? Ravens are being used to counter mech with their timed-delay Seeker, since the tanks cannot flee while sieged. The time delay during which the unit can flee makes this ability naturally useful against immobile targets.
The Battlecruiser is another very logical anti-mech unit. Defense Matrix on the Battlecruiser, no research required, allowing it to support ground units against high damage enemies like tanks or colossi?
On January 17 2013 08:55 ledarsi wrote: Two units that haven't really been looked at with regards to any ability change/addition/rework are the Banshee and Battlecruiser. These units have energy bars which they cannot utilize without research, Would it not make sense for these units to have some method of spending their energy pre-research?
The Banshee is a very logical anti-mech unit, and its counters aren't mech (mainly Viking and Marine- Thor is actually quite bad), creating composition diversity. Perhaps the Banshee might acquire a missile type ability that costs energy? Ravens are being used to counter mech with their timed-delay Seeker, since the tanks cannot flee while sieged. The time delay during which the unit can flee makes this ability naturally useful against immobile targets.
The Battlecruiser is another very logical anti-mech unit. Defense Matrix on the Battlecruiser, no research required, allowing it to support ground units against high damage enemies like tanks or colossi?
If BC gains another useful ability, it has to cost at least 75 energy, otherwise it would be far too powerful to have BCs engage a shield then yamato everything in existence. I honestly liked the little boost idea they had in alpha, not sure why they decided to get rid of it.
I would be overly nervous about changing the banshee, as it has a very nice balance already. I feel like the design of it is pretty great: high DPS paperweight with the ability to cloak. I'm not sure I like the idea of giving it even more DPS, else it ends up like the marine: good against anything and everything as long as it doesn't die first.
On January 17 2013 08:55 ledarsi wrote: Two units that haven't really been looked at with regards to any ability change/addition/rework are the Banshee and Battlecruiser. These units have energy bars which they cannot utilize without research, Would it not make sense for these units to have some method of spending their energy pre-research?
The Banshee is a very logical anti-mech unit, and its counters aren't mech (mainly Viking and Marine- Thor is actually quite bad), creating composition diversity. Perhaps the Banshee might acquire a missile type ability that costs energy? Ravens are being used to counter mech with their timed-delay Seeker, since the tanks cannot flee while sieged. The time delay during which the unit can flee makes this ability naturally useful against immobile targets.
The Battlecruiser is another very logical anti-mech unit. Defense Matrix on the Battlecruiser, no research required, allowing it to support ground units against high damage enemies like tanks or colossi?
Actually adding an option of haywire missiles for banshees could be a good idea as form of ghost alternative. But first you'd have to convince Blizzard that their whole approach to mech is wrong and it cannot be made to work by just number tweaking on existing units.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
As long as it has 7 range (preventing stalker kiting) it breaks TvP entirely. Just make a bunch of marines/warhounds, pull all your workers, and go kill them. There's nothing they can do about it, zealots can't get past the wad of blocking SCVs and stalkers can't kite 7 range anti-armored. You can't forcefield them out either as with 7 range the warhounds can just stand behind the FFs and shoot at the stalkers trying to pick off units in front of the FFs.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
As long as it has 7 range (preventing stalker kiting) it breaks TvP entirely. Just make a bunch of marines/warhounds, pull all your workers, and go kill them. There's nothing they can do about it, zealots can't get past the wad of blocking SCVs and stalkers can't kite 7 range anti-armored. You can't forcefield them out either as with 7 range the warhounds can just stand behind the FFs and shoot at the stalkers trying to pick off units in front of the FFs.
That's actually a good point. If you look at it from that perspective, there's almost no point to making a warhound at all if it has to have less than 6 range; might as well let the hellbat fill the warhound role. I'm trying to think if raising the build time and/or the cost would help, but...I don't think it would. That's actually the most solid reasoning I've heard to the warhound being immediately removed from the game.
That being said, I'm fairly certain terran doesn't have a hard time killing mechanical units. HOWEVER, (up until recently), they've had a nearly impossible time dealing with stalkers/immortals/colossus, and Blizzard has done a pretty good job of addressing those units so they don't straight-up roll over terran mech. It would honestly be nice if hardened shields were tweaked a little bit, but I suppose Blizzard is trying to change as little from WoL as possible.
I would just like to throw out an idea. It may sound stupid, but at least think about it.
What if we made Warhounds melee units with bonus damage vs mechanical, a bit slower than stalkers, around the same health, and made haywire missiles a manual ability? Idk why it would make sense, but I just felt like giving it some thought
On January 17 2013 12:44 Obeast96 wrote: I would just like to throw out an idea. It may sound stupid, but at least think about it.
What if we made Warhounds melee units with bonus damage vs mechanical, a bit slower than stalkers, around the same health, and made haywire missiles a manual ability? Idk why it would make sense, but I just felt like giving it some thought
War hound was meant to be siege breaker, widow mines do that job, but better.
A player that just a-moves with his marine/tank blindly onto a well spread minefield will find himself quickly w/o any army.
With 1s upgrade, you can even drop them on top of tanks and burrow, wiping out four to six tanks if clumped.
On January 17 2013 00:59 AtlasEU wrote: Rather than adding an anti-mech unit, the counter to another mech shouldn't be mech, it should be an upgrade for the ghost for a damage reducing shield for incoming heavy damage. A combination of the Immortal shield and a guardian shield. A cost of a 200 - 200 upgrade, would make it mid / late game, and researchable from the Ghost Academy of cause! It would change the whole game a lot! A T bio army having an option to be more protective from, Siege tanks, ultras and other heavy stuff. By implementing such an ability should of cause affect, another ability currently in the game. What the opinion on this?
I think it's a good idea. Originally in SC2, there was a design for a flying caster unit like the science vessel that did kind of an AoE defensive matrix, and now that we've reached this point in SC2, I feel it might be necessary. Perhaps it would be better on the raven (or a new starport unit); the ghost already has enough of its own role. I think, in a way, it would be a more elegant solution that having to buff mech units across the board, and it would also play an interesting role in bio.
Adding a defence matrix to the Raven would be great. Removing the Turret for the sake of a defence matrix shielding X spaces on the map, and not just a single unit! IMO the turret arent that great - so it wouldent be a loss to get rid of that. Having a defence matrix shield your units for X sec, maybe 5 sec. at the cost of 50 energy. Reducing incomming damage to 0 up and till 500 damage something. it would make it "easyer" for a bio player to handle T tank play, and Z ultra play, and P Collosi play.
On January 17 2013 12:44 Obeast96 wrote: I would just like to throw out an idea. It may sound stupid, but at least think about it.
What if we made Warhounds melee units with bonus damage vs mechanical, a bit slower than stalkers, around the same health, and made haywire missiles a manual ability? Idk why it would make sense, but I just felt like giving it some thought
War hound was meant to be siege breaker, widow mines do that job, but better.
A player that just a-moves with his marine/tank blindly onto a well spread minefield will find himself quickly w/o any army.
With 1s upgrade, you can even drop them on top of tanks and burrow, wiping out four to six tanks if clumped.
I would hardly call widow mines or widow mine drops a siege breaker. Imo the most reliable siege breaker the Terran have been given in the beta is the new seeker missile.
Edit: Why is this still even being discussed? The Warhound was a travesty.
On January 17 2013 12:44 Obeast96 wrote: I would just like to throw out an idea. It may sound stupid, but at least think about it.
What if we made Warhounds melee units with bonus damage vs mechanical, a bit slower than stalkers, around the same health, and made haywire missiles a manual ability? Idk why it would make sense, but I just felt like giving it some thought
War hound was meant to be siege breaker, widow mines do that job, but better.
A player that just a-moves with his marine/tank blindly onto a well spread minefield will find himself quickly w/o any army.
With 1s upgrade, you can even drop them on top of tanks and burrow, wiping out four to six tanks if clumped.
I would hardly call widow mines or widow mine drops a siege breaker. Imo the most reliable siege breaker the Terran have been given in the beta is the new seeker missile.
Edit: Why is this still even being discussed? The Warhound was a travesty.
I would argue +2/+2 well split mass marines/medivac being a better breaker that SM, my suggestion for those opening mech.
no. The warhound was a boring unit. mech is interesting because it's asymmetrical. bw style mech was interesting because it played differently than other things. calling the warhound "mech" because it was technically a mechanical unit is not a good reason for it to exist.
I still don't understand why the Thor is still in the game though. I hated the Thor from Day 1 and was happy when it was to be removed and a smaller more mobile unit was to be introduced for a similar purpose.... . Ground Units should not be this slow and clunky .
On January 19 2013 10:45 s3rp wrote: I still don't understand why the Thor is still in the game though. I hated the Thor from Day 1 and was happy when it was to be removed and a smaller more mobile unit was to be introduced for a similar purpose.... . Ground Units should not be this slow and clunky .
I agree. We can always cross our fingers for LotV!
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
Well, the LAST thing mech needs is another supply-heavy unit that deals "okay" damage. It's far easier to have a unit with a relatively low supply cost that has a risk/reward factor to it. Perhaps it would have been best to make haywire missiles deal damage in a straight line or give them some kind of drawback. And, of course, tone the attacks WAY DOWN.
But anyway, I think that the hellbat is doing a good job of filling in the role the warhound left. The only things I think needs fixing now are terran's lategame space control issues, early-game fragility, and where the new hellbats leave >blue flame< hellions.
The thing which made the Warhound quite "pointless" is the fact that it was anti-mech ... when there are already two units coming out of the factory which have bonus damage against armored. The fact that it was easier to use and more powerful than both the Siege Tank and the Thor just made that stupidity totally obvious.
They have their internal "we MUST make our new stuff different from BW units no matter how stupid the units get" rule and followed it through. They should really abolish this arrogance / urge to prove their own superiority (to the BW design team) and get a boatload of common sense and humility instead to make a really great game.
I would actually like, to see a melee warhound with battletech style fists to punch holes in the faces of other units. It would fill the gap while not being just another marauder
or make it some kind of electronic warfare spellcaster as an alterative to the ghost.
On January 21 2013 07:41 shin ken wrote: I would actually like, to see a melee warhound with battletech style fists to punch holes in the faces of other units. It would fill the gap while not being just another marauder
or make it some kind of electronic warfare spellcaster as an alterative to the ghost.
Well, mech no longer needs a mechanical melee unit now that they have the hellbat, which is as good as melee already. At this point, I'm actually fairly happy with how they changed the hellbat, and I think it fills the void of the warhound rather well. I honestly would consider this topic closed for further discussion.
On January 21 2013 13:47 ke_ivan wrote: every race has a 1a unit except terran now. Mass oracle is in essence a 1a unit. Mass Swarm host is the same. Which unit does terran have?
And the metagame is full of marauders now. mmm or marauder/ siege tank/ viking. bleah
I see a terran user. Vikings are 1a. Marines are 1a. Marauders are 1a. Thors are 1a. Battlecruisers are 1a. The whole "stutter step blah blah" you have to do that with cols, stalkers, you have to find the fine line between your zealots getting too far from the army without having too many die thing. The entire point of 1a is that your army is so much better it doesn't matter. In which case every unit is 1a.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
Well, the LAST thing mech needs is another supply-heavy unit that deals "okay" damage. It's far easier to have a unit with a relatively low supply cost that has a risk/reward factor to it. Perhaps it would have been best to make haywire missiles deal damage in a straight line or give them some kind of drawback. And, of course, tone the attacks WAY DOWN.
But anyway, I think that the hellbat is doing a good job of filling in the role the warhound left. The only things I think needs fixing now are terran's lategame space control issues, early-game fragility, and where the new hellbats leave >blue flame< hellions.
The thing which made the Warhound quite "pointless" is the fact that it was anti-mech ... when there are already two units coming out of the factory which have bonus damage against armored. The fact that it was easier to use and more powerful than both the Siege Tank and the Thor just made that stupidity totally obvious.
They have their internal "we MUST make our new stuff different from BW units no matter how stupid the units get" rule and followed it through. They should really abolish this arrogance / urge to prove their own superiority (to the BW design team) and get a boatload of common sense and humility instead to make a really great game.
I agree.
Someone posted this in another thread but this really show cases why BW is better than SC2:
(Fun highlight - At around 4:15 minutes... The Arbiter manages to dodge "TWO" EMPs and then Stasis both Science Vessels. In SC2, this is almost impossible because the SC2 is like 2x faster and 2x more chaotic and random than BW. Everything is clumped up, etc.)
I posted this before (in that same thread) but here's why BW and WC3 are better than SC2 (IMO):
One of the main problems is the deathball syndrome and the fact that game encourages the use of the deathball (for example, if you split your units to attack two places at once, that's a high risk and low reward, not encouraged at all in SC2 because if you get attacked by your opponent's death ball, while your own is split into 2 smaller groups, then you lose).
Wasn't a problem in BW or WC3, you were actually encouraged to split up your units and the battles looked good from spectator point of view too. Watching that BW montage video, the game looks a lot nicer than SC2 in terms of gameplay (how the units are spread out and the wave of science vessels and air units and everything in general... epic game).
(Also, cool stuff can happen in SC2 too but in BW, it's much less "luck based" and more skill and player factored. In SC2, everything is clumped up and everything happens much faster than in BW. It's much more chaotic and random and while there are times when epic stuff happens, it's really rare and most cases, it's players being caught in bad position or something.)
Though not specific to deathballs in general, the way the pathing worked did play a huge role in battles in BW.
I remember reading from the WC3's Project Revolution developers stating how one of the huge differences in the game would be the way pathing worked.
(WC3 naturally has no deathballs due to how units grouped and always moved in a formation.)
Anyway, SC2's battles and a lot of things in SC2 is a bit more random and more chaotic than both BW and WC3. If you're caught out of position one time (or screw up once), it can severely put you behind because of that one mistake.
Due to the fog of war and not always knowing where the enemy is (even with a lot of scouting), this makes SC2 a lot more random in the sense that those types of random events are more costly.
In both BW and WC3, there were much less potential for game changing mistakes. A lot of stuff is more gradual and slower (though while BW is *slower than SC2, it was still a relatively fast paced RTS).
*Slower is good in some cases. I said before but in that BW montage video, the Arbiter at 4:15 managed to dodge two EMPs, then stasis two spread out Science Vessels. In SC2, a lot of stuff is faster and mistakes are more costly in general.
Things like the deathball syndrome make the problem worse.
Also when I say deathball syndrome, I don't just mean the pathing but how in general (in SC2), you're not encouraged to split up your main fighting force. In both BW and WC3, you had lots of opportunity to split up your army (for example, if you had 100 army supply, splitting them to 50 / 50 and attacking two places at once was viable).
In SC2, it's very risky and generally not encouraged to split up your army (also I mean when both you and your opponent have relatively equal army supply), unless it's some weird base trade scenario. Generally, the player that keeps most of their army in one place, wins and lots of things in SC2 reinforce that with how fast armies die and how fast everything in general happens.
In BW, the game was much more gradual so even if both you and your opponent had equal army supply, there were lots of moments and times where splitting up was viable with little risk. Also even if your attacking forces were destroyed, there were plenty of time to reproduce units. BW, bases and everything were spread out and maps feel a lot bigger than maps in SC2 (in SC2, even on a huge map like Whirlwind, you still want to keep your army in one place generally).
So overall, I feel that one of the more understated (and the most important IMO) reasons that BW is better than SC2 is the fact that in BW, things were slower and more gradual, battles were all over the place, and the game was less random and chaotic.
Here are SC2's problems (reasons why the game is still worse than BW):
1. Everything I said above on why the game is more random and chaotic (death ball syndrome, everything is much faster and all mistakes are much more costlier and makes things much more random overall and less based on actual player skill). (That's also my reasoning on why we rarely have consistent players in SC2. The overall game design is just leads to more randomness than needed. I mean, we may have players stay relatively close to the top 10, but they'll rarely do something crazy like win 2 GSLs in a row.)
2. Units are more boring. The Reaver should be added back to SC2 IMO. I'm not a BW elitist. Things were done better in BW but I want SC2 to succeed the things that made BW good.
The Reaver is one of the best designed (in terms of gameplay) unit in any RTS and call it a day. Again, this isn't me being BW elitist, I like the Swarm Host over the Lurker. A lot of new units replaced the old units in terms of design or concept. Banelings are similar to Scourges, except on the ground. Lurkers, while a staple and one of reasons BW made SC1 good, is not that unique of a unit and is just a typical line splash damage unit. However... nothing in SC2 is like the Reaver. It needs to come back.
I really dislike the new VR too. I posted this in the balance update thread but basically, the old Void Ray had an interesting mechanic which required micro (micro your VRs to prevent over attacking one unit, basically "cloning" your VRs to attack different units to have it charge up) and I felt that they could have better tuned that instead of what they have now with the manual activation (which doesn't require that much thought to use considering the duration, 20 seconds, is huge and the cooldown isn't that long either).
On January 14 2013 05:23 Sigil2 wrote: I've been a long time lurker on TL and a long time Terran player as well. I decided to make an account and start posting specifically because of this issue.
The Warhound was an extremely overpowered unit. It was so imbalanced that I don't think any reasonable person could expect the community's reaction to its introduction as anything but cataclysmic. That's exactly what it was. The GIGANTIC thread to remove the Warhound was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, I've ever seen in my time spent on Team Liquid.
I think that this fervent outrage comes from the fact that the things that many people dislike about Starcraft 2 were all mashed together in the iteration of the Warhound that we saw. Players, viewers, and casters alike want to see awesome micro. We want to see insane multitasking and ridiculous holds. We want to see things that are impressive. The Warhound was not this. A seven colossi death ball is not this. A wall of Spinecrawlers with infestors and Broodlords slowly pushing forward is not this.
The thing is though, that in my opinion Terran is the only race that has the potential to meet all of the criteria that the community has to find a match entertaining. Every race can do drops, but the medivac and the efficiency of marines and marauders in small squads means that Terran drops are the best. In a perfect world, the Terran army can set up a defensive position and split his army multiple times in order to harass his opponents expansions while simultaneously protecting his own. The frenetic and visceral play style available to Terran is what people want to see.
Things like the Warhound keep this awesome hyper-active and aggresive playstyle from being the dominant playstyle Starcraft 2. I think it's important to note, however, that the other 2 races already have units that are "1a gg" such as the Colossus and Broodlord. Deathballs are bad. I personally would prefer it if the Warhound was changed into a very fast moving raider unit, and the Hellion removed in favor of only the Hellbat. This is not the point I wish to make with this post though. I don't think that my opinion on the optimal unit design in Starcraft is very important because I am only in platinum league.
There is something that I think needs to be discussed, and it is directly related to the enjoyment of the game and to the success of the eSports scene in this game and others.
Everyone always talks about balance. In every single game where people can compete, people will whine about things being imbalanced. Then, reasonable persons will inform the whiners that they are blowing things out of proportion. The complainers often are blowing things out of proportion, and at the absolute highest level of play where things actually matter Starcraft is impressively balanced for the number of units and the clever player base it has.
When people respond with perfectly logical statements to complaints about imbalance they often overlook one thing that I think turns off a lot of players. To take the TvP match up for example, HT and Colossi are not overpowered because the Terran has counters to them. This may very well be, but (I must admit I feel this way as well) people feel cheated because of the amount of effort needed on the Terran side of the engagement is far greater than the amount of effort on the Protoss side.
I'm sure such a comment will piss a lot of people off, but one only needs to look at the APM numbers for ultra high level Protoss and Terran players to see that the Terran needs to do a lot more than the Protoss to win.
This isn't fun. It's balanced, but it certainly isn't fair. I shouldn't have to outplay my opponent by say a 60% margin to win. I should have to outplay my opponent by a 1% margin to win. When Terran players whine about how Protoss becomes nearly invincible late game (along with Zerg to a slightly lessened degree) we are greeted with a response that is absolutely insulting: "Don't let them get there."
That's what everyone says. It is accepted that the Terran players need to constantly harass and delay Zerg and Protoss. There is no such need for the Protoss. No Protoss player is hanging out on three bases and thinking to himself, "Man I better go do some double drops to do economic damage, otherwise I won't be able to engage his tier 3."
The warhound was not perfect by any means in the format that we saw. The fact remains though that many of my Terran friends and I think that it is absolutely absurd to remove the unit completely. Let Terran have a good late game unit. We want our late game to not be a joke. The Warhound was a midgame unit, true, but with a little reworking it could actually provide Terran some hope in the lategame of TvP. When I watch a cast of a TvP game and I see that the video is over 15-20 minutes long, I know that there is a 90% chance that the Protoss won.
This needs to change. Maybe the Warhound is the way to change it, maybe it isn't. But, change is certainly needed and this expansion is the time to do it.
I don't think APM is a fair way to justify that Terran is the skilled race and Protoss are drooling idiots. I just think Terran unit micro lends to faster alteration of simple commands. Like doing a beat at 150 bpm vs 250 bpm. Stutter frequency with Marines vs. Stalkers for example. I still think strategic depth on both sides is relatively equal, just that when Protoss gets a strategic advantage in lategame, they're rewarded a little more heavily, but that's been pretty obvious for most of WoL. We'll see where the dust settles for HotS.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
Well, the LAST thing mech needs is another supply-heavy unit that deals "okay" damage. It's far easier to have a unit with a relatively low supply cost that has a risk/reward factor to it. Perhaps it would have been best to make haywire missiles deal damage in a straight line or give them some kind of drawback. And, of course, tone the attacks WAY DOWN.
But anyway, I think that the hellbat is doing a good job of filling in the role the warhound left. The only things I think needs fixing now are terran's lategame space control issues, early-game fragility, and where the new hellbats leave >blue flame< hellions.
The thing which made the Warhound quite "pointless" is the fact that it was anti-mech ... when there are already two units coming out of the factory which have bonus damage against armored. The fact that it was easier to use and more powerful than both the Siege Tank and the Thor just made that stupidity totally obvious.
They have their internal "we MUST make our new stuff different from BW units no matter how stupid the units get" rule and followed it through. They should really abolish this arrogance / urge to prove their own superiority (to the BW design team) and get a boatload of common sense and humility instead to make a really great game.
(Fun highlight - At around 4:15 minutes... The Arbiter manages to dodge "TWO" EMPs and then Stasis both Science Vessels. In SC2, this is almost impossible because the SC2 is like 2x faster and 2x more chaotic and random than BW. Everything is clumped up, etc.)
I posted this before (in that same thread) but here's why BW and WC3 are better than SC2 (IMO):
One of the main problems is the deathball syndrome and the fact that game encourages the use of the deathball (for example, if you split your units to attack two places at once, that's a high risk and low reward, not encouraged at all in SC2 because if you get attacked by your opponent's death ball, while your own is split into 2 smaller groups, then you lose).
Wasn't a problem in BW or WC3, you were actually encouraged to split up your units and the battles looked good from spectator point of view too. Watching that BW montage video, the game looks a lot nicer than SC2 in terms of gameplay (how the units are spread out and the wave of science vessels and air units and everything in general... epic game).
(Also, cool stuff can happen in SC2 too but in BW, it's much less "luck based" and more skill and player factored. In SC2, everything is clumped up and everything happens much faster than in BW. It's much more chaotic and random and while there are times when epic stuff happens, it's really rare and most cases, it's players being caught in bad position or something.)
Though not specific to deathballs in general, the way the pathing worked did play a huge role in battles in BW.
I remember reading from the WC3's Project Revolution developers stating how one of the huge differences in the game would be the way pathing worked.
(WC3 naturally has no deathballs due to how units grouped and always moved in a formation.)
Anyway, SC2's battles and a lot of things in SC2 is a bit more random and more chaotic than both BW and WC3. If you're caught out of position one time (or screw up once), it can severely put you behind because of that one mistake.
Due to the fog of war and not always knowing where the enemy is (even with a lot of scouting), this makes SC2 a lot more random in the sense that those types of random events are more costly.
In both BW and WC3, there were much less potential for game changing mistakes. A lot of stuff is more gradual and slower (though while BW is *slower than SC2, it was still a relatively fast paced RTS).
*Slower is good in some cases. I said before but in that BW montage video, the Arbiter at 4:15 managed to dodge two EMPs, then stasis two spread out Science Vessels. In SC2, a lot of stuff is faster and mistakes are more costly in general.
Things like the deathball syndrome make the problem worse.
Also when I say deathball syndrome, I don't just mean the pathing but how in general (in SC2), you're not encouraged to split up your main fighting force. In both BW and WC3, you had lots of opportunity to split up your army (for example, if you had 100 army supply, splitting them to 50 / 50 and attacking two places at once was viable).
In SC2, it's very risky and generally not encouraged to split up your army (also I mean when both you and your opponent have relatively equal army supply), unless it's some weird base trade scenario. Generally, the player that keeps most of their army in one place, wins and lots of things in SC2 reinforce that with how fast armies die and how fast everything in general happens.
In BW, the game was much more gradual so even if both you and your opponent had equal army supply, there were lots of moments and times where splitting up was viable with little risk. Also even if your attacking forces were destroyed, there were plenty of time to reproduce units. BW, bases and everything were spread out and maps feel a lot bigger than maps in SC2 (in SC2, even on a huge map like Whirlwind, you still want to keep your army in one place generally).
So overall, I feel that one of the more understated (and the most important IMO) reasons that BW is better than SC2 is the fact that in BW, things were slower and more gradual, battles were all over the place, and the game was less random and chaotic.
Here are SC2's problems (reasons why the game is still worse than BW):
1. Everything I said above on why the game is more random and chaotic (death ball syndrome, everything is much faster and all mistakes are much more costlier and makes things much more random overall and less based on actual player skill). (That's also my reasoning on why we rarely have consistent players in SC2. The overall game design is just leads to more randomness than needed. I mean, we may have players stay relatively close to the top 10, but they'll rarely do something crazy like win 2 GSLs in a row.)
2. Units are more boring. The Reaver should be added back to SC2 IMO. I'm not a BW elitist. Things were done better in BW but I want SC2 to succeed the things that made BW good.
The Reaver is one of the best designed (in terms of gameplay) unit in any RTS and call it a day. Again, this isn't me being BW elitist, I like the Swarm Host over the Lurker. A lot of new units replaced the old units in terms of design or concept. Banelings are similar to Scourges, except on the ground. Lurkers, while a staple and one of reasons BW made SC1 good, is not that unique of a unit and is just a typical line splash damage unit. However... nothing in SC2 is like the Reaver. It needs to come back.
I really dislike the new VR too. I posted this in the balance update thread but basically, the old Void Ray had an interesting mechanic which required micro (micro your VRs to prevent over attacking one unit, basically "cloning" your VRs to attack different units to have it charge up) and I felt that they could have better tuned that instead of what they have now with the manual activation (which doesn't require that much thought to use considering the duration, 20 seconds, is huge and the cooldown isn't that long either).
SC2:BW is the future ! I'd be so happy if it was to take over.
On January 19 2013 10:45 s3rp wrote: I still don't understand why the Thor is still in the game though. I hated the Thor from Day 1 and was happy when it was to be removed and a smaller more mobile unit was to be introduced for a similar purpose.... . Ground Units should not be this slow and clunky .
I've always found the Thor a bit confusing. It's basically a capital ship that waddles around. It's like a BC/Carrier in cost, supply, and tier. It's similar thematically in that it is supposed to be a crowning achievement of the Terran war machine. In actuality it's a big stupid block that has a model constantly clipping with everything. Not to harp on the whole micro-issue but... Broodlords can be micro'd more than Thors. When a unit has less of an ability to be micro'd than BL's, that's a problem.
Before anyone gets mad, I realize that BL's require significant attention in positioning and spreading to avoid seekers/toilets. Thors make BL's look like speedlings at 8x.
On January 14 2013 05:23 Sigil2 wrote: I've been a long time lurker on TL and a long time Terran player as well. I decided to make an account and start posting specifically because of this issue.
The Warhound was an extremely overpowered unit. It was so imbalanced that I don't think any reasonable person could expect the community's reaction to its introduction as anything but cataclysmic. That's exactly what it was. The GIGANTIC thread to remove the Warhound was one of the biggest, if not the biggest, I've ever seen in my time spent on Team Liquid.
I think that this fervent outrage comes from the fact that the things that many people dislike about Starcraft 2 were all mashed together in the iteration of the Warhound that we saw. Players, viewers, and casters alike want to see awesome micro. We want to see insane multitasking and ridiculous holds. We want to see things that are impressive. The Warhound was not this. A seven colossi death ball is not this. A wall of Spinecrawlers with infestors and Broodlords slowly pushing forward is not this.
The thing is though, that in my opinion Terran is the only race that has the potential to meet all of the criteria that the community has to find a match entertaining. Every race can do drops, but the medivac and the efficiency of marines and marauders in small squads means that Terran drops are the best. In a perfect world, the Terran army can set up a defensive position and split his army multiple times in order to harass his opponents expansions while simultaneously protecting his own. The frenetic and visceral play style available to Terran is what people want to see.
Things like the Warhound keep this awesome hyper-active and aggresive playstyle from being the dominant playstyle Starcraft 2. I think it's important to note, however, that the other 2 races already have units that are "1a gg" such as the Colossus and Broodlord. Deathballs are bad. I personally would prefer it if the Warhound was changed into a very fast moving raider unit, and the Hellion removed in favor of only the Hellbat. This is not the point I wish to make with this post though. I don't think that my opinion on the optimal unit design in Starcraft is very important because I am only in platinum league.
There is something that I think needs to be discussed, and it is directly related to the enjoyment of the game and to the success of the eSports scene in this game and others.
Everyone always talks about balance. In every single game where people can compete, people will whine about things being imbalanced. Then, reasonable persons will inform the whiners that they are blowing things out of proportion. The complainers often are blowing things out of proportion, and at the absolute highest level of play where things actually matter Starcraft is impressively balanced for the number of units and the clever player base it has.
When people respond with perfectly logical statements to complaints about imbalance they often overlook one thing that I think turns off a lot of players. To take the TvP match up for example, HT and Colossi are not overpowered because the Terran has counters to them. This may very well be, but (I must admit I feel this way as well) people feel cheated because of the amount of effort needed on the Terran side of the engagement is far greater than the amount of effort on the Protoss side.
I'm sure such a comment will piss a lot of people off, but one only needs to look at the APM numbers for ultra high level Protoss and Terran players to see that the Terran needs to do a lot more than the Protoss to win.
This isn't fun. It's balanced, but it certainly isn't fair. I shouldn't have to outplay my opponent by say a 60% margin to win. I should have to outplay my opponent by a 1% margin to win. When Terran players whine about how Protoss becomes nearly invincible late game (along with Zerg to a slightly lessened degree) we are greeted with a response that is absolutely insulting: "Don't let them get there."
That's what everyone says. It is accepted that the Terran players need to constantly harass and delay Zerg and Protoss. There is no such need for the Protoss. No Protoss player is hanging out on three bases and thinking to himself, "Man I better go do some double drops to do economic damage, otherwise I won't be able to engage his tier 3."
The warhound was not perfect by any means in the format that we saw. The fact remains though that many of my Terran friends and I think that it is absolutely absurd to remove the unit completely. Let Terran have a good late game unit. We want our late game to not be a joke. The Warhound was a midgame unit, true, but with a little reworking it could actually provide Terran some hope in the lategame of TvP. When I watch a cast of a TvP game and I see that the video is over 15-20 minutes long, I know that there is a 90% chance that the Protoss won.
This needs to change. Maybe the Warhound is the way to change it, maybe it isn't. But, change is certainly needed and this expansion is the time to do it.
I don't think APM is a fair way to justify that Terran is the skilled race and Protoss are drooling idiots. I just think Terran unit micro lends to faster alteration of simple commands. Like doing a beat at 150 bpm vs 250 bpm. Stutter frequency with Marines vs. Stalkers for example. I still think strategic depth on both sides is relatively equal, just that when Protoss gets a strategic advantage in lategame, they're rewarded a little more heavily, but that's been pretty obvious for most of WoL. We'll see where the dust settles for HotS.
I let a little bit of "protoss imba" whining into my post when I really didn't mean to. I don't actually attend the Terran universal and apparently mandatory religion, 'Our Lady of The Stutterstep'. Positioning, pulling back weakened units, and managing multiple fronts are all things that every single race must do, and they are all valid forms of micro.
Your point about the speed of the movements being different is quite accurate. That is not the difference in APM I am talking about. In my personal experience the Terran needs to damage the Protoss economically in the early to mid game and get favorable trades in skirmishes. If the Protoss is not damaged repeatedly, to the point of being crippled really, the strength of their army in a head on battle is too much for Terrans. Perhaps if you are Bomber or Thorzain you can just use your incredible and consistent micro and 300 apm to win these maxed engagements without the aforementioned damage dealing, but it seems to me that all but the best of the best T have trouble at this point.
Now here is where I think the core of terran's/the whole community's discontent comes from:
There once was a game called Starcraft: Brood War. In that game there were many skirmishes and small exchanges spread out over a large fronts. Defending multiple positions was necessitated because many bases were needed. Terran was pretty good at defending multiple things. The game was extremely balanced. We've had fourteen years of awesome competition.
In case you are reading this and don't lurk on TL ever, Brood War was actually a 100% perfect divine gift from the heaven's that we mortals can not possibly understand the majesty of. The Brood War extends life. The Brood War is key to space travel. The Brood War must flow.
Brood War is an awesome game, and let me tell you, SC2's Terran is an insanely awesome race. In Brood War. Terran units (well, bio units) function extremely well in skirmishes and squad sized engagements. Unfortunately, often times a Terran player can be being quite fancy with his multiple packs of units around the map dealing large portions of damage through great multitasking, and then they get curbstomped by a P or Z deathball.
Terran needs to function in the reality of Starcraft 2, not this made up world where SC2 is actually played exactly like BW and Terran is totally overpowered and they only ever lose because they are bad The lategame of SC2 is head on army vs. army. That's just how it is. Until the other races must break up their death balls, the reality is that Terran needs something more in the late game in head on fights.
This is why Terran needs a late game army:
1. Terran's strategies are limited by our late-game weakness. To use the absolute broadest of terms, all strategies can be classified into two categories in SC2: passive and aggresive. Passive can be interchanged with 'macro' oriented. 'Passive' play, ironically, is in my opinion the more strategically ACTIVE option. A macro-oriented player is putting the burden of aggression on their opponent. Then, the passive player can defend well until his macro pays off and he finds a significant strategic advantage. Terran has pretty awesome defensive tools. Unfortunately, playing a passive style of Terran is suicide. I realize that active styles of play are more fun to spectate. I think they are more fun to play. That's why I play Terran. However, it is not acceptable to have 1/2 of the spectrum of strategies to be unavailable to Terran.
2. Transitions are interesting. People whine quite a lot about how MMM for 40 minutes is boring. I agree. Unfortunately, Terran late game tech is just not good. Terran needs higher tech that is actually worthwhile to transition into so that we can stop getting carpal tunnel pressing A (and occasionally D) repeatedly. Transitions are fun for the player and spectator and at least help change up the game for the enemy.
3. TvP is stale. TvT and TvZ have a number of different ways and styles that they can be played. You can play a number of styles in TvP as well. All of them just suck aside from a highly standardized style of bio. I think it is really telling that Bomber uses the same build in every TvP he plays as far as I can tell. It's not fun to watch and it's not fun to play.
4. A strong late game Terran means P and Z's mid game abilities can be changed up. Every race currently needs something to deal with the MMM ball. Not only does Terran's reliance on "MMM+Vikings/Ghosts/Whatever Counter You Need To Not Insanely Lose" mean the Terran is effectively forced into minimally diversified builds, but it means that the other races must HAVE and USE the builds//tools they have to destroy MMM. The opposing race in TvP/vZ must always be defensive. The midgame for protoss especially can not be buffed because Terran needs to eek out an advantage in that time period.
Wow. I didn't realize how much I was text-walling it up.
On January 16 2013 05:53 Grapefruit wrote: Removing a unit that quickly was "full retard" mode. They could have easily balanced it. All they need to do was change the supply from 2 to 3 and tone down the damage.
Well, the LAST thing mech needs is another supply-heavy unit that deals "okay" damage. It's far easier to have a unit with a relatively low supply cost that has a risk/reward factor to it. Perhaps it would have been best to make haywire missiles deal damage in a straight line or give them some kind of drawback. And, of course, tone the attacks WAY DOWN.
But anyway, I think that the hellbat is doing a good job of filling in the role the warhound left. The only things I think needs fixing now are terran's lategame space control issues, early-game fragility, and where the new hellbats leave >blue flame< hellions.
The thing which made the Warhound quite "pointless" is the fact that it was anti-mech ... when there are already two units coming out of the factory which have bonus damage against armored. The fact that it was easier to use and more powerful than both the Siege Tank and the Thor just made that stupidity totally obvious.
They have their internal "we MUST make our new stuff different from BW units no matter how stupid the units get" rule and followed it through. They should really abolish this arrogance / urge to prove their own superiority (to the BW design team) and get a boatload of common sense and humility instead to make a really great game.
(Fun highlight - At around 4:15 minutes... The Arbiter manages to dodge "TWO" EMPs and then Stasis both Science Vessels. In SC2, this is almost impossible because the SC2 is like 2x faster and 2x more chaotic and random than BW. Everything is clumped up, etc.)
I posted this before (in that same thread) but here's why BW and WC3 are better than SC2 (IMO):
One of the main problems is the deathball syndrome and the fact that game encourages the use of the deathball (for example, if you split your units to attack two places at once, that's a high risk and low reward, not encouraged at all in SC2 because if you get attacked by your opponent's death ball, while your own is split into 2 smaller groups, then you lose).
Wasn't a problem in BW or WC3, you were actually encouraged to split up your units and the battles looked good from spectator point of view too. Watching that BW montage video, the game looks a lot nicer than SC2 in terms of gameplay (how the units are spread out and the wave of science vessels and air units and everything in general... epic game).
(Also, cool stuff can happen in SC2 too but in BW, it's much less "luck based" and more skill and player factored. In SC2, everything is clumped up and everything happens much faster than in BW. It's much more chaotic and random and while there are times when epic stuff happens, it's really rare and most cases, it's players being caught in bad position or something.)
Though not specific to deathballs in general, the way the pathing worked did play a huge role in battles in BW.
I remember reading from the WC3's Project Revolution developers stating how one of the huge differences in the game would be the way pathing worked.
(WC3 naturally has no deathballs due to how units grouped and always moved in a formation.)
Anyway, SC2's battles and a lot of things in SC2 is a bit more random and more chaotic than both BW and WC3. If you're caught out of position one time (or screw up once), it can severely put you behind because of that one mistake.
Due to the fog of war and not always knowing where the enemy is (even with a lot of scouting), this makes SC2 a lot more random in the sense that those types of random events are more costly.
In both BW and WC3, there were much less potential for game changing mistakes. A lot of stuff is more gradual and slower (though while BW is *slower than SC2, it was still a relatively fast paced RTS).
*Slower is good in some cases. I said before but in that BW montage video, the Arbiter at 4:15 managed to dodge two EMPs, then stasis two spread out Science Vessels. In SC2, a lot of stuff is faster and mistakes are more costly in general.
Things like the deathball syndrome make the problem worse.
Also when I say deathball syndrome, I don't just mean the pathing but how in general (in SC2), you're not encouraged to split up your main fighting force. In both BW and WC3, you had lots of opportunity to split up your army (for example, if you had 100 army supply, splitting them to 50 / 50 and attacking two places at once was viable).
In SC2, it's very risky and generally not encouraged to split up your army (also I mean when both you and your opponent have relatively equal army supply), unless it's some weird base trade scenario. Generally, the player that keeps most of their army in one place, wins and lots of things in SC2 reinforce that with how fast armies die and how fast everything in general happens.
In BW, the game was much more gradual so even if both you and your opponent had equal army supply, there were lots of moments and times where splitting up was viable with little risk. Also even if your attacking forces were destroyed, there were plenty of time to reproduce units. BW, bases and everything were spread out and maps feel a lot bigger than maps in SC2 (in SC2, even on a huge map like Whirlwind, you still want to keep your army in one place generally).
So overall, I feel that one of the more understated (and the most important IMO) reasons that BW is better than SC2 is the fact that in BW, things were slower and more gradual, battles were all over the place, and the game was less random and chaotic.
Here are SC2's problems (reasons why the game is still worse than BW):
1. Everything I said above on why the game is more random and chaotic (death ball syndrome, everything is much faster and all mistakes are much more costlier and makes things much more random overall and less based on actual player skill). (That's also my reasoning on why we rarely have consistent players in SC2. The overall game design is just leads to more randomness than needed. I mean, we may have players stay relatively close to the top 10, but they'll rarely do something crazy like win 2 GSLs in a row.)
2. Units are more boring. The Reaver should be added back to SC2 IMO. I'm not a BW elitist. Things were done better in BW but I want SC2 to succeed the things that made BW good.
The Reaver is one of the best designed (in terms of gameplay) unit in any RTS and call it a day. Again, this isn't me being BW elitist, I like the Swarm Host over the Lurker. A lot of new units replaced the old units in terms of design or concept. Banelings are similar to Scourges, except on the ground. Lurkers, while a staple and one of reasons BW made SC1 good, is not that unique of a unit and is just a typical line splash damage unit. However... nothing in SC2 is like the Reaver. It needs to come back.
I really dislike the new VR too. I posted this in the balance update thread but basically, the old Void Ray had an interesting mechanic which required micro (micro your VRs to prevent over attacking one unit, basically "cloning" your VRs to attack different units to have it charge up) and I felt that they could have better tuned that instead of what they have now with the manual activation (which doesn't require that much thought to use considering the duration, 20 seconds, is huge and the cooldown isn't that long either).
Why not qualify everything you say with, "in my opinion and in my opinion only"? I got into SC by watching BW games and really liked watching the very best players go at it, but found games where the best players weren't playing pretty dull and generally like SC2 way better. I found the lack of variety in unit compositions in BW, especially in certain match ups, extremely boring as well. I also played BW and SC2 and like SC2 way, way more. I don't find most of the units in BW to be interesting (although I agree the Reaver is pretty cool) and the game looks and feels extraordinarily clunky to me. Given the number of people on these fora posting about how great BW is and how there's so much action everywhere, I started watching "snipealot2" stream a bit and did not find the game that interesting (putting aside differences in graphics).
This is all just my opinion.
Also I don't understand the whining about the game being much faster and all mistakes being much costlier. What's the issue? Do you want to lower the skill cap? The very best players in SC2 win at a 60% + and in some cases 70% + clip, which means they've figured the game out and can generally avoid the mistakes you're complaining about (which I assume are things like, "banelings are hard to split against and your army might get fungaled and then you can't micro and you lose because of one engagement" etc.). SC2 games played at the very highest levels are quite often back and forth affairs. It can be turtly and death ball-y, no doubt, but it can also be very dynamic with more action on the field than in BW, because in SC2 unlike BW you don't have to spend so much APM and attention on making units, fighting your own units' stupid pathing, moving your army, etc. Whether an SC2 game is dynamic or a turtlefest will depend on the players, the map and the matchup.
They probably could've made it so the Warhound does reduced damage to Bio units and bonus damage to mechanical units.
Can't produce a Warhound without an armory. The haywire missiles have to be researched. The missiles do not fire automatically but require manual targeting on units to fire.
They could've tweaked the Warhound a whole lot more before they decided that it was unfit to be in the game anymore. I do believe the decision to remove the Warhound was made a bit too hastily.
I think a fairly interesting dynamic would be that upon hardened shields activating, the immortal is unable to move for a quite brieffect period of time. This wouldn't really affect other parts of the game except colossus and tank. Every other unit that activates hardened shields is usually within range of immortal. This .means that tanks can root immortals in place at distance with intense micro . The hardened shield cap my need to be tweaked to 12 or 14. This suggestion might be impossible to balance though. Edit: it might be necces sary to adjust the length of the rooting effect by how much overkill is negated by hardened shields. This way roaches are unable to really root a microing or running immortal.
Pretty much agree with everything Goldfish stated. I wish Blizzard had the balls to make bigger changes to HoTS than they currently have. Right now, if you didn't like WoL (which i don't), then you won't like HoTS either, since it's basically the same game, with a few extra units per race. They should slow the game down, change the unit clumping, remove boring units (colossus mainly), and replace them with more fun units (reavers).
Unfortunately this probably won't happen, but maybe if they just improve the custom game system we might as least be able to play Brood war within sc2 with our own ladder ^^
Also I don't understand the whining about the game being much faster and all mistakes being much costlier. What's the issue? Do you want to lower the skill cap? The very best players in SC2 win at a 60% + and in some cases 70% + clip, which means they've figured the game out and can generally avoid the mistakes you're complaining about (which I assume are things like, "banelings are hard to split against and your army might get fungaled and then you can't micro and you lose because of one engagement" etc.). SC2 games played at the very highest levels are quite often back and forth affairs. It can be turtly and death ball-y, no doubt, but it can also be very dynamic with more action on the field than in BW, because in SC2 unlike BW you don't have to spend so much APM and attention on making units, fighting your own units' stupid pathing, moving your army, etc. Whether an SC2 game is dynamic or a turtlefest will depend on the players, the map and the matchup.
The issue is from a viewer perspective. It sucks to have some matches be resolved in 20s in a big ball vs ball battle and one player not being to ever comeback (not all matches obviously). Battles are shorter and less impressive when it comes to unit movements, and losing a battle is very unforgiving.
I'm not saying SC2 never provides some good matches, it certainly do. But sadly, there are many that disappoint.
It's not like SC2 has nothing good, it certainly does some good stuff but it seems blizzard isn't willing to put an end to the death ball syndrome and that's a shame.
I disagree with goldfish that SC2 units are boring. Maybe some of them should be replaced by more skill-sensitive units like Colossi vs Reaver but verall I'm pretty ok with the unit design. What I don't like is the whole quick 200/200-units move in a ball- crazy dps in battle due to the whole ball firing thing.
I think they should give Vikings a mid/lategame upgrade to allow them to land. In addition buff their dmg and hp in ground mode to make them a viable counter to immortals. It would also help against TvZ bl ultra switches and makes tempests and voidray easier to deal with.
On January 22 2013 06:14 Aton wrote: I think they should give Vikings a mid/lategame upgrade to allow them to land. In addition buff their dmg and hp in ground mode to make them a viable counter to immortals. It would also help against TvZ bl ultra switches and makes tempests and voidray easier to deal with.
I'm not sure if vikings is good way to counter immortals, but terran really needs some fast shooting mech unit to deal with them. (Or maybe blizzard will fix that stupid unit, that's so lame in both PvMech and PvZ)
On January 22 2013 06:41 Mongolbonjwa wrote: Why did they change warhounds role at the first place? it was meant to be a renamed goliath and it would have solved all the issues
Oh course removing the warhound was a huge mistake, they never even considered changing the stats or role of the unit. Nope, let's just toss it because the community whined so much. The unit was intended to be a re skinned goliath, which is what Terran desperately need to make mech more viable against Toss. Instead of being given a chance to be reworked into that role, they completely remove the unit from the game.
The only odd thing about the whole debacle is that Blizzard was willing to take out a unit during beta because of community outrage, yet when the same community is outraged about lack of a true high ground advantage or introducing a scaled economy they do nothing. Truly odd.
On January 22 2013 09:14 TeslasPigeon wrote: Oh course removing the warhound was a huge mistake, they never even considered changing the stats or role of the unit. Nope, let's just toss it because the community whined so much. The unit was intended to be a re skinned goliath, which is what Terran desperately need to make mech more viable against Toss. Instead of being given a chance to be reworked into that role, they completely remove the unit from the game.
The only odd thing about the whole debacle is that Blizzard was willing to take out a unit during beta because of community outrage, yet when the same community is outraged about lack of a true high ground advantage or introducing a scaled economy they do nothing. Truly odd.
I've posted this before, but it keeps coming up.
1. Having a goliath does not make mech viable against Protoss. There is still no vulture, which was the powerhouse mech unit in BW against Protoss. Once again, in BW vultures beat every Protoss ground unit except the dragoon. (which itself was only a very soft vulture counter) It was the vulture that made mech so good against Protoss in BW, not the tank or the goliath. The BW tank is significantly weaker than the SC2 tank, it just had the godlike vultures supporting it.
2. A reactorable ranged unit from the Factory that does decent damage to armored units breaks TvP entirely, period. Make a bunch of marines + that unit, pull all your workers, go kill yourself a Protoss. There isn't jack shit he can do about it since the worker swarm will trap his zealots and stalkers have no DPS.
Worker-pull allins against P are balanced by two-things: Stalker kiting and Terran's inefficient early game production. The Warhound eliminates both those drawbacks which makes the allins unstoppable.
New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
Hellbat cannot replace warhound as it has no mechanical damage bonus or anti-immortal special ability. If anything hellbats will prove much more problematic to zergs that to protoss and the same holds true for nearly every other mech buff introduced so far. That's why if mech TvP is to work at pro-level a specific counter to protoss units is absolutely necessary.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
Hellbat cannot replace warhound as it has no mechanical damage bonus or anti-immortal special ability. If anything hellbats will prove much more problematic to zergs that to protoss and the same holds true for nearly every other mech buff introduced so far. That's why if mech TvP is to work at pro-level a specific counter to protoss units is absolutely necessary.
Hellbats actually fill the exact role that warhounds were meant to fill in terms of game design: mech's biggest problem was mobility in the midgame and being able to trade cost efficiently with protoss unit. The new hellbat solves both these problems by not only allowing smaller mech armies to step out onto the map without fear of losing their tank count and losing the game but also allowing mech to apply moderate pressure instead of having to count on massive worker kills from hellions/banshees in order to just stay even economically. It's a huge upgrade and it fills the role of the warhound quite well.
They should never create an "anti-mech" unit...there just doesn't seem to be a good niche in SC2 for such a unit.
I do, however, agree that the new hellbats are hella strong against zerg. I've been playing zerg recently, and the marine/hellbat pressure that's really common right now is really hard to deal with. Hellion/marauder all-ins are even harder to hold.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
Hellbat cannot replace warhound as it has no mechanical damage bonus or anti-immortal special ability. If anything hellbats will prove much more problematic to zergs that to protoss and the same holds true for nearly every other mech buff introduced so far. That's why if mech TvP is to work at pro-level a specific counter to protoss units is absolutely necessary.
Hellbats actually fill the exact role that warhounds were meant to fill in terms of game design: mech's biggest problem was mobility in the midgame and being able to trade cost efficiently with protoss unit. The new hellbat solves both these problems by not only allowing smaller mech armies to step out onto the map without fear of losing their tank count and losing the game but also allowing mech to apply moderate pressure instead of having to count on massive worker kills from hellions/banshees in order to just stay even economically. It's a huge upgrade and it fills the role of the warhound quite well.
They should never create an "anti-mech" unit...there just doesn't seem to be a good niche in SC2 for such a unit.
I do, however, agree that the new hellbats are hella strong against zerg. I've been playing zerg recently, and the marine/hellbat pressure that's really common right now is really hard to deal with. Hellion/marauder all-ins are even harder to hold.
The transformation is so slow that it undos all the mobility you might think you gain. Its the same for Vikings. Without the transformation you simply have Hellions and nothing new OR some slow lumbering heaps of metal with short range fire.
On January 22 2013 16:10 Rabiator wrote: The transformation is so slow that it undos all the mobility you might think you gain. Its the same for Vikings. Without the transformation you simply have Hellions and nothing new OR some slow lumbering heaps of metal with short range fire.
This. Thats why vikings almost never used to attack ground. By the time they have transformed, the workers have flee or the enemy units deals a lot of damage.
T needs a mech, small (like a landed viking or battle helion), low-medium dps, can use reactor, ranged unit that soft-counter inmortals (ignores hardened shield) and shoots air. This way T can focus fire inmortals while battlehelions are used as a meat shield.
Against air they can provide some defense, so T doesnt need to mass thors against air, with 3-4 thors suported with this ranged unit.
This way you can choose to skip barracks against P and use factory and starport.
BTW a stupid question: has anybody tried to combine helions, landed vikings and tanks against land P? Sometimes I feel that instead of create new units or buff siege damage we have to explore the possibilities of unsieged tanks and vikings.
On January 22 2013 16:10 Rabiator wrote: The transformation is so slow that it undos all the mobility you might think you gain. Its the same for Vikings. Without the transformation you simply have Hellions and nothing new OR some slow lumbering heaps of metal with short range fire.
This. Thats why vikings almost never used to attack ground. By the time they have transformed, the workers have flee or the enemy units deals a lot of damage.
T needs a mech, small (like a landed viking or battle helion), low-medium dps, can use reactor, ranged unit that soft-counter inmortals (ignores hardened shield) and shoots air. This way T can focus fire inmortals while battlehelions are used as a meat shield.
Against air they can provide some defense, so T doesnt need to mass thors against air, with 3-4 thors suported with this ranged unit.
This way you can choose to skip barracks against P and use factory and starport.
BTW a stupid question: has anybody tried to combine helions, landed vikings and tanks against land P? Sometimes I feel that instead of create new units or buff siege damage we have to explore the possibilities of unsieged tanks and vikings.
Landed Vikings is a nice idea, but their mobility (repositioning in a battle) is terrible AND you need to research a separate offensive upgrade to keep them efficient enough later in the game. They are simply boring and inefficient and not at all like a Robotech fighter plane ... (they lack the hybrid mode anyways). Now if they gave the Viking a limited number of charges of rockets (smaller versions of the Seeker Missile in its current form) which they could unleash in every form and against any target they might become actually cool, but as long as they stick to this "mono-targeting-concept" (exclusively air or ground only) with the slow transformation they will be terrible. At least they should be moving already / still while transforming, so they could have a chance to escape when they are on the ground, but as immobile as they are now they are really bad.
On January 22 2013 10:26 Xequecal wrote: 1. Having a goliath does not make mech viable against Protoss. There is still no vulture, which was the powerhouse mech unit in BW against Protoss. Once again, in BW vultures beat every Protoss ground unit except the dragoon. (which itself was only a very soft vulture counter) It was the vulture that made mech so good against Protoss in BW, not the tank or the goliath. The BW tank is significantly weaker than the SC2 tank, it just had the godlike vultures supporting it.
2. A reactorable ranged unit from the Factory that does decent damage to armored units breaks TvP entirely, period. Make a bunch of marines + that unit, pull all your workers, go kill yourself a Protoss. There isn't jack shit he can do about it since the worker swarm will trap his zealots and stalkers have no DPS.
Worker-pull allins against P are balanced by two-things: Stalker kiting and Terran's inefficient early game production. The Warhound eliminates both those drawbacks which makes the allins unstoppable.
Um BW tanks being significantly weaker than the SC2 tank?? Thats simply false. I think its been explained a million times why they are significantly stronger than SC2 tanks. Not only in terms of cost/supply but the damage it dealt. The advantages of smart fire don't really come into play when the BW counterpart will simply brute force its way out of the overkill syndrome.
Vultures were just a part of what made mech worked in BW, not the thing that made it possible. Its the synergy between the fast moving vulture + map control via spidermines backed up by the firepower of the tanks + zone controls supported by possibly the best GtA unit in the game against possible air threats.
Biggest issue in tvp is how to deal with air units efficiently, not mobility because that is just matter of smart play.
But there is problems too if blizzard did bring goliath back, because then terran would easily get that superior battlecruiser, viking, banshee, raven, tank mixture that would be broken in the game as it is. Goliath would be the answer for pure mech builds that lack good anti-air and this way it makes reaching that end game composition very viable option.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
Hellbat cannot replace warhound as it has no mechanical damage bonus or anti-immortal special ability. If anything hellbats will prove much more problematic to zergs that to protoss and the same holds true for nearly every other mech buff introduced so far. That's why if mech TvP is to work at pro-level a specific counter to protoss units is absolutely necessary.
Hellbats actually fill the exact role that warhounds were meant to fill in terms of game design: mech's biggest problem was mobility in the midgame and being able to trade cost efficiently with protoss unit. The new hellbat solves both these problems by not only allowing smaller mech armies to step out onto the map without fear of losing their tank count and losing the game but also allowing mech to apply moderate pressure instead of having to count on massive worker kills from hellions/banshees in order to just stay even economically. It's a huge upgrade and it fills the role of the warhound quite well.
They should never create an "anti-mech" unit...there just doesn't seem to be a good niche in SC2 for such a unit.
I do, however, agree that the new hellbats are hella strong against zerg. I've been playing zerg recently, and the marine/hellbat pressure that's really common right now is really hard to deal with. Hellion/marauder all-ins are even harder to hold.
The transformation is so slow that it undos all the mobility you might think you gain. Its the same for Vikings. Without the transformation you simply have Hellions and nothing new OR some slow lumbering heaps of metal with short range fire.
I disagree. Firstly hellbats are still created in hellion form, so reinforcement is very fast for a unit of its speed. Reinforcement and mobility may not be exactly the same thing, but it allows you to be more agressive with your force knowing you have such a quick reinforcement which indirectly allows you to move more quickly across the map. This also means that when an engagement is not going well and you decide to retreat your tanks, additional hellions/hellbats can be there more quickly to help defend their retreat further decreasing the chance of tank losses.
Secondly small packs of hellbats can be transformed back into hellions to perform counter attacks into additional bases mineral lines (or rallied to those locations from the factory while they are still in hellion form). And no they don't loose this mobility because of transformation times. The 4 (if you stay in hellion form for drone harass) to 8 (if you transform back into hellbat after travel) seconds of transformation time cuts 20-30 seconds off some paths. That is substantial.
And thirdly medivacs both heal and transport hellbats, so small drop detachements have a lot of mobility even in hellbat form via medivacs.
To me this new mech seems to have a lot more mobility. Not to the hellbat/tank core itself, but in other forms.
I just feel so powerless against toss. They have AOE everywhere, especially late game with archon/collosus/storm. I feel like I can never win, ever. Even when I do when an engagement a huge zealot warp in will happen somewhere on the map. Mind you, I'm not a pro player by any means.
At least with the Warhound in play we Terrans could have a way to combat the archon/collosus more effective.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
Even if they can not do damage they prevent the enemy from getting into your ball. They are meat shields at worst trade worthy or more at best.
I know this is going pretty far back in the thread but the discussion of a different special ability for the warhound or other factory unit to help terran early-midgame vs toss in particular gave me a neat idea
give the warhound (or hellbat, whatever) a special aoe attack that's quite weak, but which pushes units out of its area of effect (e.g. pushing chargelots back away from sieged tanks). like a big ass flamethrower with near-negligible aoe damage but a transient forcefield-like mechanic.
would help reduce the punishment a terran takes for being sieged / unsieged in the wrong place in early/midgame tvp maybe tvz, but requires decent micro and is interesting. maybe require research
I'm one of those Terran that kinda misses the warhound. Although it was a little bit to strong while also to easy to get to as Terran, some things it brought to an early game battlefield was very nice. Especially the microability because of it's high HP-high DPS combination.
I would love to see something done to the non-sieged Siegetank. I feel Terran has a very hard time applying pressure to a Zerg early when using tanks. It seems there never is a siegetank count, coupled with some other units, when an early tank pressure is effective or isn't either absolutely crushed by the opponent or a game ender. Also, all these pushes heavily focus on getting the tanks sieged up within an eventually effective range of the Zerg forces. The non-sieged tank addition to the effectiveness of the push is close to nihil.
What if the siege tank was a bit more versatile in its normal form? I would especially like to see it be faster and have higher amount of HP. Or like the Phoenix/Diamondback, being able to shoot while moving.
The coolest thing, imho, would be if the tank is really split in two parts, like the Hellion now is. The tank would be a (Warhound-ish) unit, until you gain the ability to siege, which might come a bit later (like on Armory). I feel this will add a lot of early versatility and might remove the passive play which seem to dominate the game recently. Also, I feel this would make a somewhat nicer stepping stone to reach a more Factory-based army versus a Protoss.
I'd love to hear what you all think about the non-sieged tank.
The non-sieged tank doesn't even need a gun. The unsieged mode is for driving to the next position to siege up. If you're shooting with an unsieged tank, you are doing it wrong (or are so far ahead it doesn't matter what you do). Take away the unsieged tank weapon entirely for all I care, and buff the sieged tank's weapon immensely.
Terran mech players want to siege their bloody tanks and control space. Siege tanks now are a complete waste of resources. End of story.
On January 24 2013 04:33 ledarsi wrote: The non-sieged tank doesn't even need a gun. The unsieged mode is for driving to the next position to siege up. If you're shooting with an unsieged tank, you are doing it wrong (or are so far ahead it doesn't matter what you do). Take away the unsieged tank weapon entirely for all I care, and buff the sieged tank's weapon immensely.
Terran mech players want to siege their bloody tanks and control space. Siege tanks now are a complete waste of resources. End of story.
The DPS in tank mode is higher than the DPS in siege mode, not including splash. The disparity is slightly bigger against armored units as well. There's certainly uses for it, whether it's mopping up after a midgame engagement (vs stalkers and zealots, especially the latter). There's Boxer's old drop harass but I haven't seen that one used in my games yet.
And no way in hell are we buffing the siege weapon again. The reduced damage for increased attack speed (BW vs SC2) was a nice touch, but it's definitely good where it is right now.
Anyways, warhounds. I like that whole push-the-units-out-of-the-way idea because honestly it's straddling the gap between the marauder, tank and thor right now and it can't go anywhere else. Although finding a balanced use for it is a different story. Or strictly anti-air attacks to make midgame less vulnerable to mutalisks and oracles until thors come out? And then somehow finding different purposes for warhound and thor.
I don't think WH removal will kill Terran, but should certainly make playing (and playing against) Terran more fun if they find something to do with it.
On January 24 2013 04:33 ledarsi wrote: The non-sieged tank doesn't even need a gun. The unsieged mode is for driving to the next position to siege up. If you're shooting with an unsieged tank, you are doing it wrong (or are so far ahead it doesn't matter what you do). Take away the unsieged tank weapon entirely for all I care, and buff the sieged tank's weapon immensely.
Terran mech players want to siege their bloody tanks and control space. Siege tanks now are a complete waste of resources. End of story.
TvZ Thorazine disagrees. On his stream I have seen both both advise people to and play unsieged himself vs Zerg until all swarm clouds have been planted. A lot of the time this takes place in Roach/Hydra/Viper builds where even unsieged tanks are thining out the roach count a fair bit during this time. Some Zerg don't even use the vipers just to force tanks to stay unsieged, so the fact that the tanks damage output is still have decent in this form is vital. TvT Dragon disagrees. You can kite enemy hellbats with unsieged tanks. This is going to become a very important part of TvT over the next year. I have seen dragon do it multiple times. It makes the battle look a little like a PvP with zealot/stalker.
TvP may be the only matchup where unsieged mode is not used.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
Basically a Zealot.
It's exactly like a zealot, except for:
1. Effective HP lower. 2. Can not be spawned anywhere on the map. 3. Doesn't have charge.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
Basically a Zealot.
It's exactly like a zealot, except for:
1. Effective HP lower. 2. Can not be spawned anywhere on the map. 3. Doesn't have charge.
If you're going to play that game:
1. Conal AoE, counters Zealots. 2. Can morph into amazing harass unit that can destroy mineral lines in seconds, regardless of static defense. 3. Better dance moves.
On January 24 2013 04:33 ledarsi wrote: The non-sieged tank doesn't even need a gun. The unsieged mode is for driving to the next position to siege up. If you're shooting with an unsieged tank, you are doing it wrong (or are so far ahead it doesn't matter what you do). Take away the unsieged tank weapon entirely for all I care, and buff the sieged tank's weapon immensely.
Terran mech players want to siege their bloody tanks and control space. Siege tanks now are a complete waste of resources. End of story.
TvZ Thorazine disagrees. On his stream I have seen both both advise people to and play unsieged himself vs Zerg until all swarm clouds have been planted. A lot of the time this takes place in Roach/Hydra/Viper builds where even unsieged tanks are thining out the roach count a fair bit during this time. Some Zerg don't even use the vipers just to force tanks to stay unsieged, so the fact that the tanks damage output is still have decent in this form is vital. TvT Dragon disagrees. You can kite enemy hellbats with unsieged tanks. This is going to become a very important part of TvT over the next year. I have seen dragon do it multiple times. It makes the battle look a little like a PvP with zealot/stalker.
TvP may be the only matchup where unsieged mode is not used.
Agreed. Tank mode is incredibly useful in almost every situation alongside helbats in TvP and TvZ. Despite tanks doing more DPS when splash is considered, the high normal dps is incredibly good in chipping immortal shields so that half of the sieged tanks can deal the finishing blow from the back line. I found that having a half unsieged with half sieged tank army made a significant difference in determining army outcome. With more unsieged tanks, they're far more useful against a zealot/archon/immortal composition and trade much better even without the use of EMPs. On the otherhand, all my game experiences have found that full sieging tanks do minimal damage since 1) Immortals take 10 damage regardless with a 2.5 CD on attack. 2) Siege splash only does 35 flat when targeted on an archon regardless of how clumped the army is. Also with TvT, helbats are becoming the straight up counter to mech with focus on siege tanks. As DeCoup pointed out, having unsieged tanks are CRITICAL in overcoming mass helbat attacks since they can be kited.
On January 22 2013 11:28 Doc Brawler wrote: New hellbat replaces warhound. Sort of... The new Hellbat, with its ridiculous damage is a great "addition" to the traditional SC2 mech army. It's basically a crazy strong pseudo-bio unit that supports tanks. T mech players can now multi-pronged harass with hellbat drops, just like a bio player would, and snipe tech structures or DECIMATE mineral lines. Plus their new damage, makes them great in straight up fights and helps deal with the dreaded immortal. Think about it: hellbats can be REACTORED and do almost their full damage to immortals, with a decently fast fire rate, and they are not considered armored. These things are definitely the missing link to mech TvP IMO. However, just like any T army vs protoss, a healthy balance in needed. Think of how good mass charge-lot archon does against marauder heavy compositions, or how colo armies will shread bio balls without vikings.
Ravens can be slowly accrued over the corse of a game to deal with literally any protoss unit composition, especially sky toss.
The Hellbat with it's pathetic range and slow moving speed is only useful against melee units anything else should never get hit by a Hellbat. They're incredibly easy to just outmaneuver.
Basically a Zealot.
As useful as a Zealot before charge. And unlike Zealots there's nothing special to upgrade to make them more useful . A meelee/short range unit that is pretty slow and has no special ability to counteract that is not that useful. Hellbats stink against anything but Zerg .
On January 25 2013 05:22 papalion wrote: Who is "we"?
We are the TeamLiquid community. We created a thread in protest to the Warhound that (arguably) led to the Warhound being removed within ten days of the thread's creation.
On January 25 2013 06:27 Sigil2 wrote: We created a thread in protest to the Warhound that (arguably) led to the Warhound being removed within ten days of the thread's creation.
And now we have switched to LoL and couldn't care less if HotS is an abysmal failure? As sad as that knee-jerk reaction was collective responsibility never works for anonymous masses. The real problem of the community is that we couldn't work after warhound removal to make it unnecessary. There was plenty of time to pressure Blizzard so that mech TvP would work without it.
Here is what I would like to see introduce a unit that is the foil to the siege tank this unit does ok AA for mech vs single targets Thor is re-purposed for Siege Breaking and when sieged does long range AA with splash
Terran already has more units and composition choices by far than either of the other races. Remove the Reaper (it's a joke unit anyway) and nerf the Widow Mine, then we'll talk.
On January 27 2013 20:02 cohen5250 wrote: Terran already has more units and composition choices by far than either of the other races. Remove the Reaper (it's a joke unit anyway) and nerf the Widow Mine, then we'll talk.
And this (the extra units and combinations) has - of course - nothing to do with the fact that Terran has the most complicated and non-integrated types of units which do not share the same upgrades for all ground units (like the other races have).
Yes and No. Yes because the mech army could use something smaller than a thor, that can support tanks and be a buffer for tanks. Yes you have the battle helion but its not like a golith. No because T has the most units and they should try to even up the unit count.
More than a few people seem to perceive Terrans as having the most units. However, if you take a look at: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/game/unit/ it may change some opinions.
According to Blizzard's unit count, seems Protoss have the most units. Of the Zerg list, I personally do not consider Larva and Nydus Worm a unit, but even if that was the case, Terran and Zerg would have even amounts of units, not more. Others may disagree with my opinion and view them as units, but if that is the case, then Terran would actually have the least amount of units...
As for the Warhound, I do think it was a bit premature to remove it so early. In its original form with Haywire Missile, it was not the best designed/balanced unit. But, it was well within Blizzards power to change the function and abilities to find the unit a new role. If they left the WH in the game, they would have had an additional option to shore up Mech weaknesses, instead of trying to transform the widow mine into such an awkward unit and relying on this one unit to fill in the gaps...
On January 28 2013 01:50 Duplicate wrote: More than a few people seem to perceive Terrans as having the most units. However, if you take a look at: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/game/unit/ it may change some opinions.
According to Blizzard's unit count, seems Protoss have the most units. Of the Zerg list, I personally do not consider Larva and Nydus Worm a unit, but even if that was the case, Terran and Zerg would have even amounts of units, not more. Others may disagree with my opinion and view them as units, but if that is the case, then Terran would actually have the least amount of units...
As for the Warhound, I do think it was a bit premature to remove it so early. In its original form with Haywire Missile, it was not the best designed/balanced unit. But, it was well within Blizzards power to change the function and abilities to find the unit a new role. If they left the WH in the game, they would have had an additional option to shore up Mech weaknesses, instead of trying to transform the widow mine into such an awkward unit and relying on this one unit to fill in the gaps...
The WH had no inherent strategic requirement for efficient deployment beyond 1 » A » left click. Anything else would have made the mech unit seem forced.
Edit:It was already a marauder from the factory with a burst damage ability. Remove Haywire Missile and it becomes a Terran roach, add a anti-air attack it becomes an ugly Goliath, remove all attacks and it becomes a Raven from factory or a High Templar for Terran.
There was literally no way to change the unit without duplicating an existing unit beyond gimping it beyond utility.
On January 28 2013 02:07 Hattori_Hanzo wrote: There was literally no way to change the unit without duplicating an existing unit beyond gimping it beyond utility.
Allow me to disagree there ... because they could have changed the Warhound into a Goliath and thats something which mech could REALLY use. Anti-armored is stupid, because Siege Tank and Thor already do that, but anti-light and some mobile AA is really missing. The Thor isnt really mobile at all, the short range and rather limited speed of the Battle Hellion really makes that a "blocker" instead of a "combat unit" and the Hellion itself doesnt really last that long.
The only thing which stopped them from doing the "sensible thing" was their "we will not recreate a BW unit, even if it is clearly better than our stuff and even if it kills us" top secret design motto.
On January 28 2013 03:08 Noocta wrote: Changing it into a cheap and average mobile mech with good AA guns would have make it so good.
Well some people would then have complained "oh you made another version of the Marine there you Blizzard fools and its a-move only without any nifty special skills to click".
Thats the same people who think that something is at a "discount price" in a shop when it has a brightly orange price tag on it without realizing that "if everything is special then nothing is special anymore and you need to set the bar even higher for the next generation of special". Fun and excitement is created by using units well and not by button-pressing-abilities and too many special stuff just overloads the game with stuff to be balanced. + Show Spoiler +
An excellent example is the Blink Stalker, which is rather weak because of the ability to blink.
I didnt like the warhound for various reasons (hated unit art - very ugly IMO, too powerful, too much of a hard counter to most protoss units), but I dont like the Widow mine much more, and I wouldnt mind seeing a better ground to air mech unit. While thors are ok, theyre too slow and dont deal with current air well enough, especially protoss tempests and carriers. I dont like the idea that you kind of need to go Vikings if you want to deal with aa as terran mech. Id honestly rather have 3 different tech paths open, and let the players decide instead of forcing the T players to do so by limiting the options.
On January 28 2013 14:57 vicml21 wrote: I didnt like the warhound for various reasons (hated unit art - very ugly IMO, too powerful, too much of a hard counter to most protoss units), but I dont like the Widow mine much more, and I wouldnt mind seeing a better ground to air mech unit. While thors are ok, theyre too slow and dont deal with current air well enough, especially protoss tempests and carriers. I dont like the idea that you kind of need to go Vikings if you want to deal with aa as terran mech. Id honestly rather have 3 different tech paths open, and let the players decide instead of forcing the T players to do so by limiting the options.
I agree- a small, relatively fast anti air mechanical unit with a relatively weak ground attack would complement mech well. It would need to stay within the protection of mech units to not die to ground units, but could deal with mass air units well. Bringing back the goliath would work, but there are other solutions that could also fill this role.
On January 25 2013 05:22 papalion wrote: Who is "we"?
We are the TeamLiquid community. We created a thread in protest to the Warhound that (arguably) led to the Warhound being removed within ten days of the thread's creation.
Thank us, now we remember :p
Srsly, I think they know why they removed it, I think forum threads, esp. on TL, are useful for developers, but I do not think they follow them blindly.
Yet I, from my casual pov, would like a unit like the Warhound much more than a Widow Mine. Properly adjust of course.
On January 27 2013 20:02 cohen5250 wrote: Terran already has more units and composition choices by far than either of the other races. Remove the Reaper (it's a joke unit anyway) and nerf the Widow Mine, then we'll talk.
I totally agree with this, we can choose between Marine Marauder Medibac or Medibac Marauder Marine or the less used Marauder Mediback Marine . Well we can choose the supporting units: tanks, vikings, ghost or ravens. And T is imba because they have 3 units specifically designed to kill the T3 deadliest unit: workers.
Jokes aside widowmines new helions and (hopefully) a new supporting unit will make TvP less predictable.
On January 25 2013 05:22 papalion wrote: Who is "we"?
We are the TeamLiquid community. We created a thread in protest to the Warhound that (arguably) led to the Warhound being removed within ten days of the thread's creation.
Thank us, now we remember :p
Srsly, I think they know why they removed it, I think forum threads, esp. on TL, are useful for developers, but I do not think they follow them blindly.
Yet I, from my casual pov, would like a unit like the Warhound much more than a Widow Mine. Properly adjust of course.
Its the "remove after 2 weeks" that is the big confusing part here. They dont do that with the Oracle or the Mothership Core and totally change their skills in opposite directions. So why couldnt they "change" the Warhound and fiddle around with its stats? The only explanation I can come up with is that the only reasonable end result would be a "Goliath Mk 2" and since they have to prove that they are better designers than the BW designers they are 100% set on not recreating that. Addint the Goliath would kinda be like admitting that the Thor is junk ... and that the BW solution is still better than the SC2 one.
On January 28 2013 00:42 HeeroFX wrote: Yes and No. Yes because the mech army could use something smaller than a thor, that can support tanks and be a buffer for tanks. Yes you have the battle helion but its not like a golith. No because T has the most units and they should try to even up the unit count.
T has the most units? Why do you say that? It is not true.
Terran: 16 CC: 2 (Worker Mule) Rax: 4 (M M R G) Fact: 5 (H S T BH WM) Star: 5 (M V B R BC)
Protoss: 17 Nexus: 3 (Worker MSC M) Gate: 5 (Z S S DT HT) Robo: 4 (O WP I C) Stargate: 5 (P O VR T C)
Zerg: 15 Hatch: 4 (Worker Z B R) Lair ground: 3 (H I SH) Lair air: 3 (M C V) Hive: 2 (U BL) "Free units": 2 (Locust and Broodling)
Protoss has the most units. They have the most while i'm counting the mule and a transforming hellion. I consider both of them units. So no complaining about the warp prism / MSC being a Mothership / etc.
So now that we have cleared out your no. We can conclude that you think that either WH would make a nice addition or Protoss needs units removed so that Zerg and Terran can catch up.
i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
On January 29 2013 02:07 achristes wrote: Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
Quite honestly, I think Blizzard made a really good move with the recent hellbat changes. It was a really clever way to patch a lot of the problems terran mech was having, particularly the problem of mech posing an ACTUAL midgame threat, and replace the main role of the warhound. Before the patch, terran's mostly had to either be balls to the wall aggressive with 1-1-1 openings or huge widow mine/hellion attacks, etc., or extraordinarily passive, taking bases slowly behind tanks while getting in little banshee/hellion harassments that may or may not have done much damage. With hellions now trading fairly cost effectively with gateway units FOR MINERALS ONLY, mech armies can actually deal with small engagements.
The hellion buff makes hellion/tank a fairly viable midgame option now, even without a tank buff, surprisingly. I would have enjoyed a tank buff, but after seeing the patch in action, I don't think it needs it. The difficulty for mech now lies in scouting the correct tech path and choosing the best response (either vikings or ghosts). With less reliance on mass tanks as well as the gas saved on siege mode research, it's much easier to get starport tech or ghost tech out earlier. Overall, I think this is a good thing, and this is a step in the right direction for mech.
While that's not really addressing the problem of lategame mech and how bad space control is in SC2, I think the fixes that they made to the hellion address the gap that the warhound left. There may still be a bit of a hole in terms of terran GtA, but for now, vikings trade well with just about everything in the air until there are huge balls of void rays and carriers. In my opinion, mech is in a good place now.
On January 29 2013 02:07 achristes wrote: Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
Quite honestly, I think Blizzard made a really good move with the recent hellbat changes. It was a really clever way to patch a lot of the problems terran mech was having, particularly the problem of mech posing an ACTUAL midgame threat, and replace the main role of the warhound. Before the patch, terran's mostly had to either be balls to the wall aggressive with 1-1-1 openings or huge widow mine/hellion attacks, etc., or extraordinarily passive, taking bases slowly behind tanks while getting in little banshee/hellion harassments that may or may not have done much damage. With hellions now trading fairly cost effectively with gateway units FOR MINERALS ONLY, mech armies can actually deal with small engagements.
The hellion buff makes hellion/tank a fairly viable midgame option now, even without a tank buff, surprisingly. I would have enjoyed a tank buff, but after seeing the patch in action, I don't think it needs it. The difficulty for mech now lies in scouting the correct tech path and choosing the best response (either vikings or ghosts). With less reliance on mass tanks as well as the gas saved on siege mode research, it's much easier to get starport tech or ghost tech out earlier. Overall, I think this is a good thing, and this is a step in the right direction for mech.
While that's not really addressing the problem of lategame mech and how bad space control is in SC2, I think the fixes that they made to the hellion address the gap that the warhound left. There may still be a bit of a hole in terms of terran GtA, but for now, vikings trade well with just about everything in the air until there are huge balls of void rays and carriers. In my opinion, mech is in a good place now.
The Battle Hellion is a nice unit, BUT it is only a combat unit if the opponent wants to fight it. That is a serious design flaw and a mobile but not so strong unit would be a better addition IMO. The Achilles heel of mech is the immobility and mech needs something to make up for that somewhat.
In BW the Vulture (plus the Spider Mines) did a lot of that, but the Hellion is less useful, because it is only strong against light armored units - which excludes a lot of infantry units already - while the Vulture was strong against all "small size" units - which included most infantry units except Dragoon and Hydralisk - plus the Spider Mine again, which is good against large size units. So the Vulture is a good allround damage unit AND it is fast and the Hellion is really rather limited in its utility. Due to the Space Control of the Spider Mines the versatility of the Vulture is MUCH greater than the Hellion ...
So the only solution for SC2 would be to add that versatility in another unit than the Hellion and since the air defense is severely lacking it would be a form of the Goliath. The Widow Mine is a total waste and should be removed from the game and replaced by a relatively potent AA Goliath with a machinegun ground attack without bonus damage, while the Hellion loses its transformation and gets a "napalm mine" (creates an area of burning on the floor for a few seconds) instead. It has zero synergy with a mech army and while it is nice to have something to cover bases with additional AA it doesnt really work as an "army unit" and thus only really helps against timings. Once people have learned how to deal with Widow Mines I expect them to become rather useless.
A unit with only a weak GtG attack, but with a skill similar to lockdown that stuns a single target unit and also locks air units down to the ground. Will be helpful against air, immortals and siegetanks. Spell will be energy based so that unit will be susceptible to feedback.
Yeah...I'd say they could have fixed warhound some other way...but meh
On January 29 2013 05:00 badname wrote: queen, overlord, overseer? if you count the mule you should count them.
You are right, i did not count them. This is how it currently stands:
Terran: 16 OC: 2 (Worker Mule) Rax: 4 (M M R G) Fact: 5 (H ST T BH WM) Star: 5 (M V B R BC)
Protoss: 17 Nexus: 3 (Worker MSC M) Gate: 5 (Z S S DT HT) Robo: 4 (O WP I C) Stargate: 5 (P O VR T C)
Zerg: 19 Hatch: 6 (Worker Q Z B R Olord) Lair ground: 4 (H I SH Oseer) Lair air: 2 (M C) Hive ground: 1 (U) Hive air: 2 (V BL) "Free units": 4 (Locust - Broodling - Changeling - Infested Terran)
Protoss and Zerg both have more units than Terran. So to anybody that says we need a balanced game around quantity, we can conclude that either Terran should get another unit or Zerg and Toss both get units removed.
Not that i ever agree with quantity over quality, but i'd like to point this out to anybody that says Terran has the most units, they do not. They have the least amount.
Terran is already the best structured race. Other races have gimmicks like fungal or ff that the race instantly dies if either of them are not present or really bad.
Unit count is good for game advertisement, but ultimately, how many responses you have to strategic permutations and how many permutations your opponent has to deal with is the deciding factor of whether or not a certain race is in need of additions/subtractions.
On January 29 2013 08:34 Brawny wrote: Terran is already the best structured race. Other races have gimmicks like fungal or ff that the race instantly dies if either of them are not present or really bad.
Terran has the weakest late game. The race revolves around killing Zerg and Protoss before late game arrives. How do they do this?
By hiding tech > pressure build > rely on your opponent making mistakes.
Isn't this a gimmick? Terran is a time bomb race in and of itself. Terran revolves around mistakes, aside from not defending a drop you have FF and Fungel. These are the 2 key spells for a Terrans victory since they can be messed up badly. If Z and P did not have these "gimmicks" but instead had any other form of defense than the Terran race would fall apart.
How is Terran late game? With Raven and ghosts. If you call FF and Fungel a gimmick than HSM, Auto Turret, PDD, Cloak, Snipe and especially EMP are gimmicks as well.
On January 29 2013 02:07 achristes wrote: Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 03:02 Rabiator wrote:
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
Quite honestly, I think Blizzard made a really good move with the recent hellbat changes. It was a really clever way to patch a lot of the problems terran mech was having, particularly the problem of mech posing an ACTUAL midgame threat, and replace the main role of the warhound. Before the patch, terran's mostly had to either be balls to the wall aggressive with 1-1-1 openings or huge widow mine/hellion attacks, etc., or extraordinarily passive, taking bases slowly behind tanks while getting in little banshee/hellion harassments that may or may not have done much damage. With hellions now trading fairly cost effectively with gateway units FOR MINERALS ONLY, mech armies can actually deal with small engagements.
The hellion buff makes hellion/tank a fairly viable midgame option now, even without a tank buff, surprisingly. I would have enjoyed a tank buff, but after seeing the patch in action, I don't think it needs it. The difficulty for mech now lies in scouting the correct tech path and choosing the best response (either vikings or ghosts). With less reliance on mass tanks as well as the gas saved on siege mode research, it's much easier to get starport tech or ghost tech out earlier. Overall, I think this is a good thing, and this is a step in the right direction for mech.
While that's not really addressing the problem of lategame mech and how bad space control is in SC2, I think the fixes that they made to the hellion address the gap that the warhound left. There may still be a bit of a hole in terms of terran GtA, but for now, vikings trade well with just about everything in the air until there are huge balls of void rays and carriers. In my opinion, mech is in a good place now.
The Battle Hellion is a nice unit, BUT it is only a combat unit if the opponent wants to fight it. That is a serious design flaw and a mobile but not so strong unit would be a better addition IMO. The Achilles heel of mech is the immobility and mech needs something to make up for that somewhat.
In BW the Vulture (plus the Spider Mines) did a lot of that, but the Hellion is less useful, because it is only strong against light armored units - which excludes a lot of infantry units already - while the Vulture was strong against all "small size" units - which included most infantry units except Dragoon and Hydralisk - plus the Spider Mine again, which is good against large size units. So the Vulture is a good allround damage unit AND it is fast and the Hellion is really rather limited in its utility. Due to the Space Control of the Spider Mines the versatility of the Vulture is MUCH greater than the Hellion ...
So the only solution for SC2 would be to add that versatility in another unit than the Hellion and since the air defense is severely lacking it would be a form of the Goliath. The Widow Mine is a total waste and should be removed from the game and replaced by a relatively potent AA Goliath with a machinegun ground attack without bonus damage, while the Hellion loses its transformation and gets a "napalm mine" (creates an area of burning on the floor for a few seconds) instead. It has zero synergy with a mech army and while it is nice to have something to cover bases with additional AA it doesnt really work as an "army unit" and thus only really helps against timings. Once people have learned how to deal with Widow Mines I expect them to become rather useless.
I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze.
Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well.
On January 29 2013 08:34 Brawny wrote: Terran is already the best structured race. Other races have gimmicks like fungal or ff that the race instantly dies if either of them are not present or really bad.
Terran has the weakest late game. The race revolves around killing Zerg and Protoss before late game arrives. How do they do this?
By hiding tech > pressure build > rely on your opponent making mistakes.
Isn't this a gimmick? Terran is a time bomb race in and of itself. Terran revolves around mistakes, aside from not defending a drop you have FF and Fungel. These are the 2 key spells for a Terrans victory since they can be messed up badly. If Z and P did not have these "gimmicks" but instead had any other form of defense than the Terran race would fall apart.
How is Terran late game? With Raven and ghosts. If you call FF and Fungel a gimmick than HSM, Auto Turret, PDD, Cloak, Snipe and especially EMP are gimmicks as well.
This is so false, and I don't know why people continue spewing it. Terran has, by far, the strongest lategame army in BC/thor/ghost. There is literally no army in the game that can take out that composition.
The problem is not in terran's lategame composition, it's in terran's lategame transition and terran's inability to reinforce quickly enough. The reason why most terran's can't transition into a lategame BC/ghost army against protoss is that they cannot control space except with their entire bio army, and that army trades fairly equally with the traditional protoss deathball; this means that you cannot free up supply for BCs as you need to constantly be defending and trying to avoid dying. There's a dance of death between not being able to free up supply and freeing up supply too quickly. In TvZ, this transition is a little easier because MMM/T/V trades pretty cost effectively with any zerg army, especially in a choke with planetaries. Mech trades even better. However, it's still difficult, which is why you see a lot of terran's dying to BL timings before they have a lot of vikings or just as they've started raven production.
As for reinforcement, terran reinforcement comes way too late to continue to stay aggressive, meaning that terrans generally need to stay defensive in the lategame and slowly starve their opponents in order to win. It's a little unfair compared to protoss that can be anywhere on the map or zerg that can defend with spine walls while doing slow pushes, but it's what terrans have.
That being said, I think the fair majority of the reasons why terrans extend the midgame (I do as well) is because lategame armies are expensive, and terran can trade more cost-effectively 90% of the time in the midgame. By extending the midgame, you force the zerg or protoss player to exhaust their minerals in their first 3 bases fairly quickly, making it difficult to defend further expansions while simultaneously being able to afford their massive, expensive armies.
Hope this helps. TL;DR: Lategame terran armies are the shit, the problems are in reinforcement and transitions. Stop saying that terran lategame sucks, because it's simply not true.
On January 29 2013 02:07 achristes wrote: Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 03:02 Rabiator wrote:
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
Quite honestly, I think Blizzard made a really good move with the recent hellbat changes. It was a really clever way to patch a lot of the problems terran mech was having, particularly the problem of mech posing an ACTUAL midgame threat, and replace the main role of the warhound. Before the patch, terran's mostly had to either be balls to the wall aggressive with 1-1-1 openings or huge widow mine/hellion attacks, etc., or extraordinarily passive, taking bases slowly behind tanks while getting in little banshee/hellion harassments that may or may not have done much damage. With hellions now trading fairly cost effectively with gateway units FOR MINERALS ONLY, mech armies can actually deal with small engagements.
The hellion buff makes hellion/tank a fairly viable midgame option now, even without a tank buff, surprisingly. I would have enjoyed a tank buff, but after seeing the patch in action, I don't think it needs it. The difficulty for mech now lies in scouting the correct tech path and choosing the best response (either vikings or ghosts). With less reliance on mass tanks as well as the gas saved on siege mode research, it's much easier to get starport tech or ghost tech out earlier. Overall, I think this is a good thing, and this is a step in the right direction for mech.
While that's not really addressing the problem of lategame mech and how bad space control is in SC2, I think the fixes that they made to the hellion address the gap that the warhound left. There may still be a bit of a hole in terms of terran GtA, but for now, vikings trade well with just about everything in the air until there are huge balls of void rays and carriers. In my opinion, mech is in a good place now.
The Battle Hellion is a nice unit, BUT it is only a combat unit if the opponent wants to fight it. That is a serious design flaw and a mobile but not so strong unit would be a better addition IMO. The Achilles heel of mech is the immobility and mech needs something to make up for that somewhat.
In BW the Vulture (plus the Spider Mines) did a lot of that, but the Hellion is less useful, because it is only strong against light armored units - which excludes a lot of infantry units already - while the Vulture was strong against all "small size" units - which included most infantry units except Dragoon and Hydralisk - plus the Spider Mine again, which is good against large size units. So the Vulture is a good allround damage unit AND it is fast and the Hellion is really rather limited in its utility. Due to the Space Control of the Spider Mines the versatility of the Vulture is MUCH greater than the Hellion ...
So the only solution for SC2 would be to add that versatility in another unit than the Hellion and since the air defense is severely lacking it would be a form of the Goliath. The Widow Mine is a total waste and should be removed from the game and replaced by a relatively potent AA Goliath with a machinegun ground attack without bonus damage, while the Hellion loses its transformation and gets a "napalm mine" (creates an area of burning on the floor for a few seconds) instead. It has zero synergy with a mech army and while it is nice to have something to cover bases with additional AA it doesnt really work as an "army unit" and thus only really helps against timings. Once people have learned how to deal with Widow Mines I expect them to become rather useless.
I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze.
Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well.
Flanks with helions? why would you ever do that.
Mech only works because hellbats tank damage and protect tanks. It is extremely difficult to foce a fight unless you managed to seige infront of a base, or perhaps dropping everywhere to the point where they just go for it.
I really cant think of a situation in which you would flank with helions, they just die sooo fast and damage is really not that good unless you can get into melee range.. which you cant because they die sooooo fast. Also what with hallucinate being free and overlords, widow mine as defense early pretty much blows if the guy knows what hes doing.
I think the problem is the thor is basically the goliath, except that because they made it "BIG AND BADASS YEEEAAAHHH" so they had to make it slow. pretty much everything is running circles around mech.
I kinda wish they would change the + damage on snipe from psychic to light, then I would feel much better about getting ghosts.
On January 29 2013 08:34 Brawny wrote: Terran is already the best structured race. Other races have gimmicks like fungal or ff that the race instantly dies if either of them are not present or really bad.
Terran has the weakest late game. The race revolves around killing Zerg and Protoss before late game arrives. How do they do this?
By hiding tech > pressure build > rely on your opponent making mistakes.
Isn't this a gimmick? Terran is a time bomb race in and of itself. Terran revolves around mistakes, aside from not defending a drop you have FF and Fungel. These are the 2 key spells for a Terrans victory since they can be messed up badly. If Z and P did not have these "gimmicks" but instead had any other form of defense than the Terran race would fall apart.
How is Terran late game? With Raven and ghosts. If you call FF and Fungel a gimmick than HSM, Auto Turret, PDD, Cloak, Snipe and especially EMP are gimmicks as well.
This is so false, and I don't know why people continue spewing it. Terran has, by far, the strongest lategame army in BC/thor/ghost. There is literally no army in the game that can take out that composition.
Hope this helps. TL;DR: Lategame terran armies are the shit, the problems are in reinforcement and transitions. Stop saying that terran lategame sucks, because it's simply not true.
While i feel that you are not adding anything to the point of the discussion. About Terran being a while structured race and Protoss / Zerg relying on gimmicks. I still think that you do indirectly reply to this by mentioning 2 core problems about Terran. 1: Production 2: Transition. Thank you for that.
On another note: I want to make it clear that I did never said that T late game sucked. I just said it was the weakest, without giving a proper explaination as to why it is the weaker of the 3. It seems to me that you are blowing of steam because of your exaggerated way of responding. Beside's you make it sound like you're responding to people in general, so i'll let you slide on this one.
TL DR: You read something i never said. Chill out and peace.
On January 29 2013 02:07 achristes wrote: Mech will probably never work until tanks get some kind of damage buff. Seriously, mass speedlot trades decently with sieged tanks unless there's like 20+ of them.
On January 29 2013 03:02 Rabiator wrote:
On January 29 2013 01:52 Doc Daneeka wrote: i really don't buy this 'sc2 design team is out to prove they're better designers than the bw designers' line of thought. we're talking about a professional game design studio with LOADS of cash invested in this project. i mean say what you want about sc2's design flaws, i probably agree with some and disagree with others, but the fact of the matter is that people waited a very long time for this game, so blizzard made a new game with new features and new units. otherwise what's the point?
there's also the implicit assumption that BW is all there is, and sc2 is a failure essentially because it's less like BW. it's pretty telling that most of these resentful posts don't have any useful ideas except 'that one BW unit, cos nothing could be better than BW, the perfectly designed RTS which will never be surpassed ever.' that doesn't really recommend you as an expert on game design, you know. it strikes me as really childish.
What other possible reason is there to NOT add in a "Goliath mech" and put in an "anti-armored mech" instead and then - after "the community" complains - take it out completely instead of trying to make it work in a different way? They did change other units A LOT, so why the total removal of the Warhound after just a few weeks?
They KNEW they would add in more than one Protoss AIR units and they KNEW that the Thor wouldnt cut it as AA. At the same time they declared they wanted to make mech TvP viable. Add that together and you *should* come to the conclusion that mech needs a small, cheap and somewhat mobile AA unit to be viable. That unit is called GOLIATH in BW and we didnt get it while they were removing a "small two-legged-mech" from the game. If you dont come to the conclusion that they have this urge to not put in BW units then I cant help you, but the facts look exactly like they want to make sure that Terrans can only fight a Protoss army with Vikings and Ravens. That is a terrible concept and the "three unconnected stacks of Terran units" + Show Spoiler +
(bio, mech, air ... due to the upgrades and the need to build LOTS of production buildings to get a high number of units of each type)
- which is one of the defining characteristics of the race - are being demolished by them to make "their vision" work by sacrificing racial style and making Terrans more like the other races.
Pure mech (with a dash of support units) is dead and got replaced by "50/50 mech-air" because the developers want it that way. The reason for that is probably that they dont want to buff the Siege Tank and that they like their mobile deathball gamestyle too much ...
Quite honestly, I think Blizzard made a really good move with the recent hellbat changes. It was a really clever way to patch a lot of the problems terran mech was having, particularly the problem of mech posing an ACTUAL midgame threat, and replace the main role of the warhound. Before the patch, terran's mostly had to either be balls to the wall aggressive with 1-1-1 openings or huge widow mine/hellion attacks, etc., or extraordinarily passive, taking bases slowly behind tanks while getting in little banshee/hellion harassments that may or may not have done much damage. With hellions now trading fairly cost effectively with gateway units FOR MINERALS ONLY, mech armies can actually deal with small engagements.
The hellion buff makes hellion/tank a fairly viable midgame option now, even without a tank buff, surprisingly. I would have enjoyed a tank buff, but after seeing the patch in action, I don't think it needs it. The difficulty for mech now lies in scouting the correct tech path and choosing the best response (either vikings or ghosts). With less reliance on mass tanks as well as the gas saved on siege mode research, it's much easier to get starport tech or ghost tech out earlier. Overall, I think this is a good thing, and this is a step in the right direction for mech.
While that's not really addressing the problem of lategame mech and how bad space control is in SC2, I think the fixes that they made to the hellion address the gap that the warhound left. There may still be a bit of a hole in terms of terran GtA, but for now, vikings trade well with just about everything in the air until there are huge balls of void rays and carriers. In my opinion, mech is in a good place now.
The Battle Hellion is a nice unit, BUT it is only a combat unit if the opponent wants to fight it. That is a serious design flaw and a mobile but not so strong unit would be a better addition IMO. The Achilles heel of mech is the immobility and mech needs something to make up for that somewhat.
In BW the Vulture (plus the Spider Mines) did a lot of that, but the Hellion is less useful, because it is only strong against light armored units - which excludes a lot of infantry units already - while the Vulture was strong against all "small size" units - which included most infantry units except Dragoon and Hydralisk - plus the Spider Mine again, which is good against large size units. So the Vulture is a good allround damage unit AND it is fast and the Hellion is really rather limited in its utility. Due to the Space Control of the Spider Mines the versatility of the Vulture is MUCH greater than the Hellion ...
So the only solution for SC2 would be to add that versatility in another unit than the Hellion and since the air defense is severely lacking it would be a form of the Goliath. The Widow Mine is a total waste and should be removed from the game and replaced by a relatively potent AA Goliath with a machinegun ground attack without bonus damage, while the Hellion loses its transformation and gets a "napalm mine" (creates an area of burning on the floor for a few seconds) instead. It has zero synergy with a mech army and while it is nice to have something to cover bases with additional AA it doesnt really work as an "army unit" and thus only really helps against timings. Once people have learned how to deal with Widow Mines I expect them to become rather useless.
I actually don't agree with you at all on this post lol. While hellbats are fairly immobile, there are still plenty of ways to push your opponent into engaging, namely through the use of flanks. I think it's something fairly under-utilized so far, but I think more and more terrans will be transforming half of their hellions into hellbats and leaving the other half in hellion form to flank and block a retreat (in the midgame). Perhaps they may just flank with 4 widow mines. It's a tactic we haven't seen much of, but it makes sense in the same way that zealots need to flank. In addition, hellbats trade fairly equally with zealots, stalkers, (small numbers of) marines/marauders, zerglings, roaches, and, of course, other hellions (AT THE COST OF ONLY MINERALS*). How is that different from the vulture's utility? If we're talking about giving mech more mobility in the mid-game, the hellbat/hellion pretty much fills this role perfectly. If we're talking about giving mech mobility in the lategame...well, that's a whole other story and needs a wall of text to really analyze.
Widow mines are really in a weird spot right now, and I agree that their utility is subpar. I think unless Blizzard makes some big changes like increasing the splash damage or dropping it in supply to 1, we're going to see widow mines fizzle out and only be used in either 1) cheesy 1-base plays, 2) 2-4 for early defense (~5:00-9:00), or 3) lategame aggressive tactics against air armies. While some of those are interesting, it honestly doesn't really help with controlling space that well.
You cant really "flank" with Widow Mines because they can only shoot once in a blue moon and die easily once discovered AND once people have learned how to deal with them. You cant really flank with mech units either, because everything else is more mobile than you.
Battle Hellions only trade "fairly equally" with Stalkers if the Stalkers want to attack them AND get into melee range themselves. The same is true for any other unit. Mobility of the Battle Hellion is at the lower end of everything, which was exactly the point I was making about its limited usefulness. Once the opponent decides to engage they are fine, but the choice isnt yours most of the time unless you are "ahead" and are pressuring your opponent.
The only way to "flank" with mech is a slow and methodical push supported by bunkers and turrets, but that doesnt work due to the lack of efficiency in the Siege Tank which can only work if you have all of them in one place.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I wouldn't mind a thor with a ridiculously slow attack but was able to one shot stalkers. Mostly because I'm imagining doing medivac micro with them as I do
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I wouldn't mind a thor with a ridiculously slow attack but was able to one shot stalkers. Mostly because I'm imagining doing medivac micro with them as I do
Well, you had better hope he doesn't have more than 4 stalkers or else he'll just snipe the medivac and you'll lose the thor lol. But yes, I agree that the thor really does need to be broken up into a smaller unit similar to the goliath. It just makes no sense to make it a walking tank.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
People had tons, but I think Blizzard wants the ground mode to only harass. Which fails because the aerial retreat takes way to long. Even an Ultra can burrow faster. Atleast that would explain the nerf to the damage in groundmode after it turned out they could massacre Hydras.
I was poking Blizzard since WoL release that they should make the Groundmode lose the armored flag. So the ground anti armored stuff doesn't melt them (Vikings are actually perfect to peel of Immortal shields if they would not get destroyed by Immortals). And then they create the Battle Hellion to tank and change their flags up so they can get healed. While they had the perfect unit already ingame, they would even provide the so needed anti air. But HotS for me is the expansion of the unneeded new units. All the units they created were basically already in the game and just needed little tweaks.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
well i will play hots for the campaign and watch my favorite events and players, but i do not think i will get into multiplayer once again, just too boring for terran as it is ~~ at least this is my conclusion after about 50 betagames.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
This hits the nail on the head perfectly and it is something I have said for some time. The problem of many SC2 designs is that the balance between two unit types shifts with the number of units involved and since that number can be "ridiculously high" it can shift far too much which makes the balance unstable in the end. Easy examples are Infestors in general or even my classic "Stalker vs Marines" example.
Warhounds probably only got "too good" because you could have too many in a tight clump, which added up to a lot of dps. This kinda reminds me of Thors, which were - once upon a time - great to be used against Protoss ... but had to be nerfed afterwards. The big problem of SC2 is really the stupid "massive numbers of units with perfect movement UI", but since Blizzard is unlikely to ever change that we will have to make do with whining about unit design ... which Blizzard will change (albeit pretty randomly as can be seen with their HotS units).
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
This hits the nail on the head perfectly and it is something I have said for some time. The problem of many SC2 designs is that the balance between two unit types shifts with the number of units involved and since that number can be "ridiculously high" it can shift far too much which makes the balance unstable in the end. Easy examples are Infestors in general or even my classic "Stalker vs Marines" example.
Warhounds probably only got "too good" because you could have too many in a tight clump, which added up to a lot of dps. This kinda reminds me of Thors, which were - once upon a time - great to be used against Protoss ... but had to be nerfed afterwards. The big problem of SC2 is really the stupid "massive numbers of units with perfect movement UI", but since Blizzard is unlikely to ever change that we will have to make do with whining about unit design ... which Blizzard will change (albeit pretty randomly as can be seen with their HotS units).
HotS is in beta, do not take this as reference that Blizz will change units randomly.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
Well in all honesty, ground viking arent that bad. They are actually pretty good but the fact that when you dont get air upgrade, they just become paper planes. 3-3 viking actually hold themselves quiet well on the ground against other 3-3 protoss infantry. Maybe not against zealot since they are suppose to counter them, similar to goliath vs zealots, in BW. Overall, viking do fairly decent even for their cost but no upgrade really hurts them considering when the meta atm revolve around getting really really fast upgrades in TvP. So by the time you get viking out, their already atleast 2-2 ground protoss.
I do believe that the warhound was a great unit to introduce to terran, and it certainly did fill up the gaps that terran needed. However, I feel as though if Blizzard were to try a nerfed version of the unit, then there would be more complaints of it still being OP. Yet, Blizzard should have given it a try. I feel very indifferent about this topic, but Blizzard definitely needed another try.
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
Well in all honesty, ground viking arent that bad. They are actually pretty good but the fact that when you dont get air upgrade, they just become paper planes. 3-3 viking actually hold themselves quiet well on the ground against other 3-3 protoss infantry. Maybe not against zealot since they are suppose to counter them, similar to goliath vs zealots, in BW. Overall, viking do fairly decent even for their cost but no upgrade really hurts them considering when the meta atm revolve around getting really really fast upgrades in TvP. So by the time you get viking out, their already atleast 2-2 ground protoss.
I was doing the math and I realized that a very easy fix to Vikings is to give them +2 ground attack per upgrade instead of +1
You see, if you look at supply as the main restriction to unit efficiency in the late game--ie I only have 200 supply worth of dudes is this unit actually worth the supply he's taking up? What I realized is this nice tidbit.
Two marines (2 supply) deals 12 damage per .86 seconds. One Assault Mode Viking (2 supply) deals 12 damage per 1 seconds.
Supply wise there isn't much difference between the two. However, 2 marines get +2 attack per upgrade (+1 for each marine) greatly outpaces the +1 per attack upgrade that Vikings get.
Lets assume an even game, both players max out.
Terran has half his army supply in Marines or Assault Mode Vikings (a realistic scenario when the other half of the army supply is taken up by Medivac/Marauders/Flight Mode Vikings/Ghosts/etc...)
So that should be about 70 supply of marines/Assault Mode Vikings.
70 Marines deal 6 damage x 70 marines x 1.2 attack speed = 504 damage per second 35 Vikings deal 12 damage x 35 Vikings x 1 attack speed = 420 damage per second
The vikings deal 20% less damage but have 125 health each (as opposed to the 120 combined health of 2 marines)
70 marines have 3850 total hitpoints between them 35 vikings have 4375 total hitpoints between them
Vikings are also less prone to being instantly killed by storms and are much more viable versus Archons.
However... Stim + upgrades makes the math lopsided in favor of marines...
The 504 damage of 70 marines gets +70 increased damage per upgrade (+210 damage for +3) The 420 damage of 35 vikings get s +35 increased damage per upgrade (+105 damage for +3)
Fully upgraded marines deal 714 damage and 1071 with Stim (Stim does cut the 3850 health pool down to 3150 hitpoints) Fully upgraded Vikings deal 525 damage total.
Dealing half as much damage per supply it doesn't matter that Vikings have 30% more hitpoints than stimmed marines, they deal 50% less damage!
With +2 attack per upgrade the numbers become more even.
Without stim, Marines only deal 12% more damage but are %12 more fragile (and even more fragile when you add in damage break points and archon damage to bio)
With stim, Marines only deal 40% more damage while being 30% more fragile.
This is of course assuming that we only have supply be the limiting factor (Vikings still cost 50minerals 75gas more than 2 marines)
But that is a testament to how good vikings are as a ground unit. *IF* you really want to make ground Vikings viable for lategame play then you give the ground mode +3 attack per upgrade.
Going back to our 70 marines vs 35 vikings scenario, +3 attacks on both becomes almost dead even at +3 ground attack for Vikings.
Fully upgraded marines still deal 714 damage (1071 with Stim) Fully upgraded vikings would deal 840 damage
The vikings would still be doing less damage than stimmed marines, but their increased cost will be for more hitpoints and relatively close damage output. (More damage if marines don't stim, less damage when marines do stim)
The limiting factor they have will be that they cost gas and would *need* to be fully upgraded before they become even with marines.
Anyway, sorry for pulling this topic away from Warhounds, just wanted to point out that Vikings don't actually need too much of a buff to become worth it to be ground mode.
TLDR: If we buff the upgrade coefficients of Assault Vikings we can make them viable during the late game without making them OP during the early/midgame because until they get +3/+3 they are weaker than simply having more marines.
Perhaps they should make it so you can morph 2 WarHounds into a Thor. Similar to how High Templars / Dark Templars morph into Archons, but with some Transformer flair.
Make the Transform ability researchable at the Armory, and increase the WHs gas cost to 100 (putting it on par with Thor cost), and last like 15 seconds or so.
We could make the WH an AA oriented unit, and make the Thor more ground DPS focused. Perhaps give the HayWire Missile to the Thor, and put the 2 different AA cannons on the WarHound.
Since the new way to build a Thor would be to make 2 WHs and transform them (60 secs), this would take up 2 Factories at a time to produce 1 Thor thus reducing the overall production rate of them. If this was the case we could argue to make the Thor a beefier T3 unit.
This late in the beta it is impossible to hope for such a drastic change, but we can dream can’t we.
On February 02 2013 04:22 Lunarvirus wrote: Perhaps they should make it so you can morph 2 WarHounds into a Thor. Similar to how High Templars / Dark Templars morph into Archons, but with some Transformer flair.
Make the Transform ability researchable at the Armory, and increase the WHs gas cost to 100 (putting it on par with Thor cost), and last like 15 seconds or so.
We could make the WH an AA oriented unit, and make the Thor more ground DPS focused. Perhaps give the HayWire Missile to the Thor, and put the 2 different AA cannons on the WarHound.
Since the new way to build a Thor would be to make 2 WHs and transform them (60 secs), this would take up 2 Factories at a time to produce 1 Thor thus reducing the overall production rate of them. If this was the case we could argue to make the Thor a beefier T3 unit.
This late in the beta it is impossible to hope for such a drastic change, but we can dream can’t we.
An even better idea would be to allow 5 hellions to transform into one Helltron who uses his fire sword to slay the Ultralisk.
On February 02 2013 07:38 Harbinger631 wrote: I remember seeing a youtube video where the Terran buildings could combine to form an Ultra Zord that was unbeatable.
That was a unit called "Terra-tron" and it was an april fools joke (from the time when Blizzard still did good ones).
On January 29 2013 13:37 GinDo wrote: I wish they would miniaturize the Thor. Yeah, its's "cool" and "badass". But, It's highly impractical. Were better off with more mobile Mini Thors.
Or give us a viable ground-mode Viking. Like the one in the HOTS preview , that takes on Ultras.
I cant think of any change I would love more than for ground mode Viking to become viable and a part of Terran mech play.
Seriously, doesn't anyone else think this is a good idea? Or have any ideas for how it could work?
There is nothing which can make the ground mode viable AND fair. The transformation process takes far too long and creates a vulnerability during that time, which basically means you cant run away in a close fight (unless your opponent cant shoot air obviously) ... only if you are the "last one standing" could you use it to escape from reinfocements. The whole concept is terrible and only used as an excuse to not give us the Wraith back. I would pick that one with a lower ground damage than Vikings over the sluggish transformers any time.
The whole SC2 concept is based around too many special abilities. This doesnt make the game "more interesting", only "more complicated" and since these abilities are not equally hard or easy to use it also makes some races easier to play compared with others. This is a bad idea for a competitive game and Viking transformation is just such a perfect example of a useless clicky. A few more examples: - Thor Strike cannon, which is replaced by another "meaningless clicky" (due to the terribly low damage of that alternate attack); - Blink is an example for Protoss, because you HAVE TO USE IT to make your Stalkers last in a straight up fight; - Roach-burrow-healing-micro was probably intended to be used in a similar fashion to blink, but Roaches have been kept strong enough to do without it so it never gets used and this leaves the Protoss at a disadvantage in a Roach vs. Stalker fight; - Creep tumor is yet another easy example, because Zerg units are good enough to fight off creep, but if you are able to spread this "spying stuff" well you get a "free maphack" and "anti-bunker-building-ward". They even give Hydralisks more speed in HotS, so what is the point of creep spreading tumors again? It has been negated and still Zerg can keep their "bonus terrain feature".
The game and its units should be kept nice and simple instead ... removing excessive stuff would be a good idea IMO and Viking transformation is one of these things.
Honestly I agree 100% with this. Every unit having it's own ability is beyond dumb. Whether passive or active almost every unit in this game is being given some sort of ability. It's too much of a game about hardcounters and not enough about skill. Things in BW traded much closer than here. He builds stalkers I build marauders he builds immortals i build marines he builds cols i build vikings and now it's back to stalkers. It's a terrible system. It's like rock paper scissors.
In fairness this happened in BW too (try fighting Dragoons with Wraiths for example)
But the UI was limiting enough that when you gained an advantage you couldn't just pour in 200 supply into their throats. There was always a chance to retreat (assuming equal skill)
It takes so many actions to manage a big army that your macro suffers. If it doesn't, then your army suffers. One or the other *will* suffer unless you're Bisu or JD. So it didn't matter that you brought stalkers to a marauder fight--the bad ai made it difficult to give chase and so your faster units would be able to get away. They bumped into each other, started stringing along instead of maintaining formation.
What you're complaining about is not a design issue, it's a UI issue.
The designs are sub-par, for sure, but your qualm has nothing to do with unit design.
Well in all honesty, ground viking arent that bad. They are actually pretty good but the fact that when you dont get air upgrade, they just become paper planes. 3-3 viking actually hold themselves quiet well on the ground against other 3-3 protoss infantry. Maybe not against zealot since they are suppose to counter them, similar to goliath vs zealots, in BW. Overall, viking do fairly decent even for their cost but no upgrade really hurts them considering when the meta atm revolve around getting really really fast upgrades in TvP. So by the time you get viking out, their already atleast 2-2 ground protoss.
I was doing the math and I realized that a very easy fix to Vikings is to give them +2 ground attack per upgrade instead of +1
You see, if you look at supply as the main restriction to unit efficiency in the late game--ie I only have 200 supply worth of dudes is this unit actually worth the supply he's taking up? What I realized is this nice tidbit.
Two marines (2 supply) deals 12 damage per .86 seconds. One Assault Mode Viking (2 supply) deals 12 damage per 1 seconds.
Supply wise there isn't much difference between the two. However, 2 marines get +2 attack per upgrade (+1 for each marine) greatly outpaces the +1 per attack upgrade that Vikings get.
Lets assume an even game, both players max out.
Terran has half his army supply in Marines or Assault Mode Vikings (a realistic scenario when the other half of the army supply is taken up by Medivac/Marauders/Flight Mode Vikings/Ghosts/etc...)
So that should be about 70 supply of marines/Assault Mode Vikings.
70 Marines deal 6 damage x 70 marines x 1.2 attack speed = 504 damage per second 35 Vikings deal 12 damage x 35 Vikings x 1 attack speed = 420 damage per second
The vikings deal 20% less damage but have 125 health each (as opposed to the 120 combined health of 2 marines)
70 marines have 3850 total hitpoints between them 35 vikings have 4375 total hitpoints between them
Vikings are also less prone to being instantly killed by storms and are much more viable versus Archons.
However... Stim + upgrades makes the math lopsided in favor of marines...
The 504 damage of 70 marines gets +70 increased damage per upgrade (+210 damage for +3) The 420 damage of 35 vikings get s +35 increased damage per upgrade (+105 damage for +3)
Fully upgraded marines deal 714 damage and 1071 with Stim (Stim does cut the 3850 health pool down to 3150 hitpoints) Fully upgraded Vikings deal 525 damage total.
Dealing half as much damage per supply it doesn't matter that Vikings have 30% more hitpoints than stimmed marines, they deal 50% less damage!
With +2 attack per upgrade the numbers become more even.
Without stim, Marines only deal 12% more damage but are %12 more fragile (and even more fragile when you add in damage break points and archon damage to bio)
With stim, Marines only deal 40% more damage while being 30% more fragile.
This is of course assuming that we only have supply be the limiting factor (Vikings still cost 50minerals 75gas more than 2 marines)
But that is a testament to how good vikings are as a ground unit. *IF* you really want to make ground Vikings viable for lategame play then you give the ground mode +3 attack per upgrade.
Going back to our 70 marines vs 35 vikings scenario, +3 attacks on both becomes almost dead even at +3 ground attack for Vikings.
Fully upgraded marines still deal 714 damage (1071 with Stim) Fully upgraded vikings would deal 840 damage
The vikings would still be doing less damage than stimmed marines, but their increased cost will be for more hitpoints and relatively close damage output. (More damage if marines don't stim, less damage when marines do stim)
The limiting factor they have will be that they cost gas and would *need* to be fully upgraded before they become even with marines.
Anyway, sorry for pulling this topic away from Warhounds, just wanted to point out that Vikings don't actually need too much of a buff to become worth it to be ground mode.
TLDR: If we buff the upgrade coefficients of Assault Vikings we can make them viable during the late game without making them OP during the early/midgame because until they get +3/+3 they are weaker than simply having more marines.
Good maths, but at the end marines will deal more damage because they can combine with medibacks, the combination of stim + medibacks is what makes marines sooo good. If you use your starports to build 30 vikings you lose your capacity to build essential support units like raven or mediback (to help hellbats for example).
Dont get me wrong, I like your idea of +2 upgrade for landed vikings. The upgrade, with faster transformation, would be awesome. But I think that factory needs a unit similiar a landed viking to have a decent movile mech army with hellbats as a frontline and a range unit as support (here comes the warhound) and vikings/ravens as air support.