Nice read and really hope blizzard changes their idea of mech.
Tank is and always will be one of if not the Iconic terran unit next to marine bcs e.t.c and I love mech play revolving around it :D

Dankleteer

United States1430 Posts

September 04 2012 23:13 GMT

#362

great post, so true. mech isn't about having robotic units- it's about the positional game, and how it transforms normal notions of attack vectors and positioning, pretty much a new game unto itself.

Garmer

1286 Posts

September 05 2012 16:40 GMT

#363

they really should make tank more viable and removing that stupid warhound/thor, reduce factory units only to 3 but more powerful and less specialized

attackmoveftw

45 Posts

September 05 2012 17:06 GMT

#364

This thread is so relevant after watching HotS streams. The new "mech" truely is the old bio. Great design once again Dustin Browder. Just great.

amazingxkcd

GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts

September 05 2012 18:40 GMT

#365

This is a fantastic post. IMO, zerg needs lurkers as well, since swarm hosts seem very lacking

HeavenResign

United States702 Posts

September 05 2012 21:01 GMT

#366

This blog pretty much nails it for HOTS - I know it's practically a joke to act like the metagame for HOTS is at all defined - but Terran players are going 'mech', but it's not positional mech play. Halfway through they often realize they don't need siege tanks and stick to thors/battle hellions/war hounds and just keep pushing. Warhounds could fill a role in protecting siege tanks from immortals - arguably the largest threat to mech, but they're too fast in their current state to be confined to that role of guarding the siege tanks.

And it's not that I'm saying it's imbalanced - Protoss usually goes mass tempest and kites the mech and from there it could probably go either way - but it looks just like bio that's not as good at dealing with air.

I still feel the Thor is a solid mech unit - it's a slow unit that when caught out of position can get crushed, but when combined with tanks can be very powerful. It is a great partner to mech.

HowardRoark

1146 Posts

September 05 2012 22:21 GMT

#367

Amazing post and I agree completely. I doubt however Mech as in Mech is possible in Star2 due to some horrible unit design all over the spectrum. For mech to work you have to redesign Protoss as well. We had our chance in HotS for a complete overhaul of the game, but sadly just poorly designed units are added. Blizzard is not what Blizzard used to be 10 years ago, and the people who made Starcraft are not around any longer. Basically the only thing that is the same is the name Blizzard. I doubt we can change anything this time since a lot of us tried to scream in WoL Beta and not even Colossus was scrapped.

Falling

Canada11379 Posts

September 06 2012 00:10 GMT

#368

From the stream, warhounds are looking pretty powerful compared to tanks, but the first days of beta will be really weird and super experimental. On the plus side, at least the warhounds have a form of attack-retreat micro. I'm not sure if they 'pop' or whether they have a sluggish feel to them, but it's something. Time to watch more streams

aZealot

New Zealand5447 Posts

September 06 2012 00:41 GMT

#369

Lovely post, good sir.

Much kudos.

Destroyr

Germany299 Posts

September 06 2012 06:46 GMT

#370

NICE ... EXCELLENT post... I am so sad

hitpoint

United States1511 Posts

September 07 2012 00:31 GMT

#371

This post is so beautiful. I really hate the direction HoTS is taking. I hope Browder or David Kim sees this post and rethinks sc2 terran in a BIG way.

HeavenResign

United States702 Posts

September 07 2012 02:34 GMT

#372

On September 06 2012 09:10 Falling wrote:
From the stream, warhounds are looking pretty powerful compared to tanks, but the first days of beta will be really weird and super experimental. On the plus side, at least the warhounds have a form of attack-retreat micro. I'm not sure if they 'pop' or whether they have a sluggish feel to them, but it's something. Time to watch more streams

I think you'll like this video falling - I didn't watch all 9 minutes, but the only scenario I saw where the warhounds lost was against the same supply of sieged tanks, and the tanks did not win by a lot. Honestly, the tanks should've CRUSHED with that much time to get that many clumped siege shots off.

Here

Falling

Canada11379 Posts

September 07 2012 03:19 GMT

#373

It's interesting, but there's limited value to lining them up in big mass battles. There is such a thing as critical mass and if 100 supply is a critical mass you could never get in an actual game (due to cost, build orders, meta, whatever), then what does it actually demonstrate? Basically, context matters. But it's a fair point in that a lot of streams seem to think Warhounds are quite strong compared to tanks which is rather what I expected. Tanks might just beat warhounds pound for pound, but warhounds have the mobility and firepower without the tank limitations. And they are very, very similar to marauders.

I just wouldn't take this video alone as indication.

HeavenResign

United States702 Posts

September 07 2012 03:36 GMT

#374

On September 07 2012 12:19 Falling wrote:
It's interesting, but there's limited value to lining them up in big mass battles. There is such a thing as critical mass and if 100 supply is a critical mass you could never get in an actual game (due to cost, build orders, meta, whatever), then what does it actually demonstrate? Basically, context matters. But it's a fair point in that a lot of streams seem to think Warhounds are quite strong compared to tanks which is rather what I expected. Tanks might just beat warhounds pound for pound, but warhounds have the mobility and firepower without the tank limitations. And they are very, very similar to marauders.

I just wouldn't take this video alone as indication.

Yeah you're totally right, this video is just one small piece of the puzzle and shouldn't be wholly referenced when wondering if the unit is balanced or not - probably got a little ahead of myself after watching it the first time.

bgx

Poland6595 Posts

September 07 2012 11:04 GMT

#375

Its sad for me that community does not speak up about this, Falling pretty much hit the nail in the head, but everyone seems to kinda settle down with whatever blizzard does.

Kortex22

France28 Posts

September 07 2012 12:22 GMT

#376

fascinating read, thanks a lot man. I hope blizzard will hear you !

Griffith`

714 Posts

September 07 2012 16:23 GMT

#377

anyone remember BW's 50 tank armies (which actually only cost 100 supply). now that was scary as fuck to deal with.

SC2 - 50 tank army = 150 food - lol

Falling

Canada11379 Posts

September 07 2012 21:16 GMT

#378

On September 08 2012 01:23 Griffith` wrote:
anyone remember BW's 50 tank armies (which actually only cost 100 supply). now that was scary as fuck to deal with.

SC2 - 50 tank army = 150 food - lol

That's true isn't. I can't believe in my 3K words, I had completely forgotten SC2 tanks cost 3 supply. lol Speaking of critical mass, even if you wanted to you couldn't make as big tank armies. But I think if you slowed down the tanks fire including having noticeable turret rotation and bumped up it's damage and added overkill, you could probably justify 2 supply tanks again. But just dropping the supply on tanks and nothing else wouldn't radically change the way the game was played I don't think.

Nazza

Australia1654 Posts

September 07 2012 23:55 GMT

#379

Hmmm... well, the way I see it is that tanks are meant to be fragile once their buffer/line is broken. But they should have a lot more stopping power than they do in BW. I understand that their damage output was nerfed in beta, but back then, tanks did the same amount of damage to light and armored. The main problem with the tank is that there's basically no point in using them because they give little reward for being fast with your leapfrog micro. In HotS Beta people are simply making warhounds because they cost less gas, less supply, and pretty much do the same job for less amount of work.