|
On September 11 2012 03:52 Fairwell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
in pro games where terrans tried mech it was shut down handily by immortals
protoss spend money on collossi instead of immortals in MOST pvt games, because collossi counter bio even harder than immortals (but immortals counter mech harder than collossi)
right now warhounds OBLITERATE immortals in the unit tester in even food amounts. I believe thats wrong. I said in my OP I think it will be balanced if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, instead of obliterating them.
This way, if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, then zealots should be strong against warhounds because zealots beat immortals but are immune to warhounds missiles.
This would give terran a unit they need to complete mech, a unit that actually fights the immortal but is bad against zealots. Warhound speed should be reduced to thor speed as well so its slow like mech and cant kite zealots. By "lightly counter" are you actually talking about warhounds still countering immortals but not as hard as it is now (cause that's how I did understand your initial post) or do you mean that immortals should be more cost/supply efficient in a straight up only immortal vs warhound battle (which should never happen but just for the sake of comparing the unit counters in theory)? If it's the first one then I missunderstood you and I'm totally on your side (balance wise) but nevertheless the warhound would still have a pretty dumb unit design. If it's the latter then I'm a bit clueless as to why it should be this way.
Why should the Warhound counter the Immortal at all? Immortal has a lot more drawbacks: slower, less range, and more expensive, both in cost and supply. There's no good balance argument to say that the dedicated Protoss GtG should be beat by the Terran dedicated GtG. Terran has plenty of tools to make Mech viable even against Immortal compositions. EMP and Tanks are really good at killing ground units, including Protoss units already, the problem is that Tanks don't survive long enough usually because of Zealots causing friendly fire and tanking shots very well, but that's what Battle Hellions solved.
|
Your argument for a unit existing is a scenario that's never going to happen in any game? And that's how you want to balance it? That's absurd. Not to mention having a unit that exists just to "counter" another unit is stupid and makes for boring gameplay.
|
On September 11 2012 04:02 Cloak wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:52 Fairwell wrote:On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
in pro games where terrans tried mech it was shut down handily by immortals
protoss spend money on collossi instead of immortals in MOST pvt games, because collossi counter bio even harder than immortals (but immortals counter mech harder than collossi)
right now warhounds OBLITERATE immortals in the unit tester in even food amounts. I believe thats wrong. I said in my OP I think it will be balanced if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, instead of obliterating them.
This way, if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, then zealots should be strong against warhounds because zealots beat immortals but are immune to warhounds missiles.
This would give terran a unit they need to complete mech, a unit that actually fights the immortal but is bad against zealots. Warhound speed should be reduced to thor speed as well so its slow like mech and cant kite zealots. By "lightly counter" are you actually talking about warhounds still countering immortals but not as hard as it is now (cause that's how I did understand your initial post) or do you mean that immortals should be more cost/supply efficient in a straight up only immortal vs warhound battle (which should never happen but just for the sake of comparing the unit counters in theory)? If it's the first one then I missunderstood you and I'm totally on your side (balance wise) but nevertheless the warhound would still have a pretty dumb unit design. If it's the latter then I'm a bit clueless as to why it should be this way. Why should the Warhound counter the Immortal at all? Immortal has a lot more drawbacks: slower, less range, and more expensive, both in cost and supply. There's no good balance argument to say that the dedicated Protoss GtG should be beat by the Terran dedicated GtG. Terran has plenty of tools to make Mech viable even against Immortal compositions. EMP and Tanks are really good at killing ground units, including Protoss units already, the problem is that Tanks don't survive long enough usually because of Zealots causing friendly fire and tanking shots very well, but that's what Battle Hellions solved.
because terrans GTG attacker, the siege tank, is weak to immortals
so you can have siege tank be weak to immortals
then immortals will be weak to warhounds
warhounds will be weak to zealots
zealots are weak to battle hellions
battle hellions will be weak to collossi
and collossi will be weak to tanks
then to top off the circle, tanks will be weak to immortals which are weak to warhounds
all of these units attack only ground
On September 11 2012 04:08 GolemMadness wrote:
Your argument for a unit existing is a scenario that's never going to happen in any game? And that's how you want to balance it? That's absurd. Not to mention having a unit that exists just to "counter" another unit is stupid and makes for boring gameplay.
I admitted in this post that my opening premise that immortals beat bio is wrong. Mainly because immortals lose before max upgrades, immortals lose in a real game where toss will have some gateway units, and immortals lose EVEN IF its pure immortal because mules allow terran to have a 13supply larger army, and with a 13supply larger bio army the immortals lose EVEN WITH max upgrades
However immortals still decimate mech which is the problem blizzards trying to fix.
+ Show Spoiler +On September 11 2012 03:38 kaokentake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 03:26 tar wrote:On September 11 2012 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 09 2012 18:10 kaokentake wrote:
At 3-3-3 upgrades and 100food army, theres ZERO ground units in the terran race that can a-move a 100food immortal army and beat it with 100food. Even 3-3 marines with stim/shields lose.
I can see a point that its unfair for one unit to not have a counter-unit in another race.
This test reveals nothing. Marines would be mixed with Marauders, and have Medivacs supporting. I'm pretty sure a 100 food army of MMM balanced correctly with Stimpack used, would beat Immortals. Mix in a couple of Ghosts, and it becomes a cake walk. Of course, if your just blindly sending units to their death A-move style, then forget it. But that isn't realistic at all. yeah but OP's reasoning apparently evolves around the idea that medivacs are air units and therefore not legit in a ground army balance discussion :D i dont think the medivacs would change much because 3-3-3 immortals kill in the same number of shots even if full hp emp would let the terran win but then theres storm for toss. ill try 5 medivacs 50marines 20marauders in the tester right now the test was interesting 5 medivacs, 50marines, 20marauders got completely owned by 100food immortals. but thats only at max upgrades. immortals get stronger than marines when both are upgraded. marines beat them before upgrades are in play. and its very hard for protoss to get 3-3-3, and marines probably win when immortals are only 3-3 (before shield upgrades) however, with only 13 more food, 55 marines, 24 marauders, 5 medivacs, the terran army COMPLETELY SHREDS the immortals and has 30 food remaining. This is at max upgrades. before max upgrades the terran wins with 55+ food remaining because immortals dont 2shot marines until upgrades are maxed. I think this is a big deal because terran has mules allowing terran to easily be 13 or more army supply ahead of the protoss at all times. Because mules allow the terran to live with 40 SCV's lategame while protoss NEEDS 60+ to be competitive Also, the army was pure immortals. Throw in some gateway and the protoss loses extremely hard So i guess immortals arent as big of a problem vs bio as i sort of implied. Bio does shred immortals given these details, and obviously every protoss wants to use 100% of their robo production on collossi instead of immortals because collossi are much better against bio So I admit my details were a bit misleading. The terran wins if hes 13food up which he pretty much should always be. But thats when going bio he wins. When going mech blizzard probably still thought immortals were too strong against mech
EDIT: to be clear I think the warhound should just be removed. But in this thread im only brainstorming ways to actually BALANCE the stupid warhound unit
I believe warhounds should be removed and tanks should be buffed to be strong against immortals in a positional sense. I think the immortals should be strong against marauders and thors, but not tanks. Zealots and carriers should be strong against tanks
I think tempests and oracle are stupid units too. The mcore is pretty stupid too.
|
On September 11 2012 04:14 kaokentake wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2012 04:02 Cloak wrote:On September 11 2012 03:52 Fairwell wrote:On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
in pro games where terrans tried mech it was shut down handily by immortals
protoss spend money on collossi instead of immortals in MOST pvt games, because collossi counter bio even harder than immortals (but immortals counter mech harder than collossi)
right now warhounds OBLITERATE immortals in the unit tester in even food amounts. I believe thats wrong. I said in my OP I think it will be balanced if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, instead of obliterating them.
This way, if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, then zealots should be strong against warhounds because zealots beat immortals but are immune to warhounds missiles.
This would give terran a unit they need to complete mech, a unit that actually fights the immortal but is bad against zealots. Warhound speed should be reduced to thor speed as well so its slow like mech and cant kite zealots. By "lightly counter" are you actually talking about warhounds still countering immortals but not as hard as it is now (cause that's how I did understand your initial post) or do you mean that immortals should be more cost/supply efficient in a straight up only immortal vs warhound battle (which should never happen but just for the sake of comparing the unit counters in theory)? If it's the first one then I missunderstood you and I'm totally on your side (balance wise) but nevertheless the warhound would still have a pretty dumb unit design. If it's the latter then I'm a bit clueless as to why it should be this way. Why should the Warhound counter the Immortal at all? Immortal has a lot more drawbacks: slower, less range, and more expensive, both in cost and supply. There's no good balance argument to say that the dedicated Protoss GtG should be beat by the Terran dedicated GtG. Terran has plenty of tools to make Mech viable even against Immortal compositions. EMP and Tanks are really good at killing ground units, including Protoss units already, the problem is that Tanks don't survive long enough usually because of Zealots causing friendly fire and tanking shots very well, but that's what Battle Hellions solved. because terrans GTG attacker, the siege tank, is weak to immortals so you can have siege tank be weak to immortals then immortals will be weak to warhounds warhounds will be weak to zealots zealots are weak to battle hellions battle hellions will be weak to collossi and collossi will be weak to tanks then to top off the circle, tanks will be weak to immortals which are weak to warhounds all of these units attack only ground
I'm fine with that, so long as there is a cycle. The cycle is broken when certain units hardcounter too well. For example, if BHs annihilate Zealots, you need only a couple to deal with them so you can mass Warhounds, the supposed prey to the Zealot (but Warhounds counter Zealots at the moment). I can see it on the flip side too, Immortals probably counter Tanks too well, and discourage use of Mech in general, so Warhound can fill in the DPS needed to compensate for the Hardened Shields, but no more. Warhound's purpose is to enable Mech, not dominate Mech.
|
The Warhound is an unbalanceable unit that harms the game. It does not lend strength to Siege Tank positions, because it cannot attack up. It is only suitable as part of a mobile composition that is inferior strategically to bio because it cannot drop (or at least shouldn't). It is designed to counter robo units, which means the only Protoss answer is an identical army type: Chargelot/Archon is a ground-based blob with similar mobility (or air, which is going to be the utter boredom of Void Rays). The Warhound simply needs to be deleted. Removed from the game entirely. Once that's done, we can go about finding ways to appropriately strengthen Terran siege lines and offering interesting mech play.
|
I am still not getting your arguments at all. They just make no sense to me, so please clarify these:
On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
in pro games where terrans tried mech it was shut down handily by immortals
This is in WOL where mech in tvp is only viable as a form of 1-1-1 (including any deviation) or for some nasty 2 base timings/allins. This is a thread in the hots section and I thought the discussion of this topic here should be centered around warhound in hots. Nobody questions that immortals work well vs mech (as a lot of other things as well hence why mech is not viable in tvp in WOL) in WOL, but the issue people are having is the warhound countering the immortal in hots.
On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
right now warhounds OBLITERATE immortals in the unit tester in even food amounts. I believe thats wrong. I said in my OP I think it will be balanced if warhounds "lightly counter" immortals, instead of obliterating them.
I asked already once in a post above to please clarify how you understand this. So again, I don't get your point. Does this mean that in your opinion the warhound should still counter the immortal but just not as much as now (meaning that immortals will still lose in cost/supply vs warhounds although they are much slower etc) or does it mean that the warhound should actually lose to the immortal since the immortal should be countering such units since that's the only thing immortals are good for (why else build slow units that don't come out of warpgates, do like no dps compared to colossus vs non armored or bigger armies, etc etc)?
On September 11 2012 01:17 kaokentake wrote:
so you can have siege tank be weak to immortals
I see the point you are trying to make (rock, paper and scissors) on the ground but the immortal is not a counter to the tank. Yes, the immortal does good dps vs tanks but this can only work in small unit counters. Even vs the 1-1-1 it's not always so easy to get the immortals always nicely in range before they die to marine/banshee fire and really get their shots of. In normal sized armies (macro games not allins with way lower supply counts) there will be units in front of tanks shooting from range13 and immortals can't magically beam up right next to the tanks. So they will only be able to attack tanks once the meatshield is gone. But once the meatshield is gone you don't even need immortals any more. Any unit will kill tanks if it's only tanks left (unless you have a super tight choke with a lot of tanks obviously :-)). According to the logic you are using here immortals and marauders are also the counter to colossus firing at a range of 9 (way less range but can move unliked sieged up tanks) but still this only happens if the player using colossus has bad positioning once the army sizes are bigger or once the meatshield (chargelots) are gone. But again, if only colossi are left any unit (be it viking, marauder, marine ...) that can actually do dps will kill those colossi.
To sum it up, without looking at realistic unit compositions those "unit counters" mean nothing. It's like this zerg player who once made a thread here on TL to claim that broodlords are useless because marines kill them for cost. If only it was always so easy to get marines in range to fire directly at broodlords with all those broodlings + speedlings/banes + infestors with fg in front in a realistic game.
|
I asked already once in a post above to please clarify how you understand this. So again, I don't get your point. Does this mean that in your opinion the warhound should still counter the immortal but just not as much as now (meaning that immortals will still lose in cost/supply vs warhounds although they are much slower etc)
when i say "lightly counter" i mean this
2 warhounds cost 300/150/4
1 immortal costs 250/100/4
keep the missiles the same (bypassing hardened shields). Reduce warhound attackspeed until the following scenario is created
20 warhounds in a fight against 10 immortals, warhounds should win the fight, with 3-4 warhounds surviving (some highly damaged).
then reduce warhound speed to thor speed so they cant kite zealots. So warhounds would be weak to zealots but they would beat immortals.
just to clarify I believe warhounds should be removed and tanks should be buffed to allow position mech play (with zealots and carriers countering tanks)
however, IF the warhound exists, it should be a counter to the immortal and nothing more (and tanklines in tvt possibly), and the above is what I mean by that.
|
One of the (possibley THE) worst theory crafting that I have seen around here. Not sure where to even begin to criticize.
|
On September 11 2012 05:30 usethis2 wrote:
One of the (possibley THE) worst theory crafting that I have seen around here. Not sure where to even begin to criticize.
I actually want the warhound removed. I wish blizzard thought like you, because sadly, the horrible theorycraft of this thread is why blizzard wants to add a counter-unit to the immortal in the terran mech army (which the immortal is supposed to counter). If blizzard thought like you this horrible unit would have never made beta.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
I asked the staff and wasn't explicitly told not to do this, so here goes:
Am I taking crazy pills, or is this one of the most insane OPs (and responses from the OP afterward) ever? Like.... Seriously... WHUT?
Terran needs the warhound, because PURE IMMORTAL, beats PURE MARINE?!?!?? BASED ON A-MOVING!?!?!? WHAT?!?!?!
WHO BALANCES, BASED ON A-MOVING?!?!??!?!
YOU'RE INTENTIONALLY IGNORING AIR UNITS?!?!?! BECAUSE GROUND ONLY BALANCE IS FAIR?!?!?!?!??! WHAT!?!?!?! THATS INSAAANE!!!!
User was warned for this post
|
Yeah, no offense to the op, but this is just awful theory analysis.
|
On September 11 2012 06:29 MCDayC wrote:
I asked the staff and wasn't explicitly told not to do this, so here goes:
Am I taking crazy pills, or is this one of the most insane OPs (and responses from the OP afterward) ever? Like.... Seriously... WHUT?
Terran needs the warhound, because PURE IMMORTAL, beats PURE MARINE?!?!?? BASED ON A-MOVING!?!?!? WHAT?!?!?!
WHO BALANCES, BASED ON A-MOVING?!?!??!?!
i said in the OP that the main reason is not because of the marines beating immortals, but because of immortals beating mech. it seems you didnt read it properly.
I said in the OP at 113food vs 100food, the terran army smashes the protoss army, and because mules allow terran to always have 15 more army supply it means the "immortals beat bio" assumption is false
YOU'RE INTENTIONALLY IGNORING AIR UNITS?!?!?! BECAUSE GROUND ONLY BALANCE IS FAIR?!?!?!?!??! WHAT!?!?!?! THATS INSAAANE!!!!
sadly that is how blizzard is doing things. I wish it wasnt so and i wish the warhound was removed but blizzard feels immortals are too strong on the ground, and they feel that adding a terran ground answer to the immortal besides bio (because bio is crushed too hard by collossi) is needed. thats the whole point of the warhound
|
you can say the same for vikings air to air combat.
yeah exactly... i don't see your point other than a balance whine.
do you want cheese with that wine?
|
On September 11 2012 06:56 j.k.l wrote:
you can say the same for vikings air to air combat.
yeah exactly... i don't see your point other than a balance whine.
do you want cheese with that wine?
vikings lose cost for cost to carriers
vikings trade about evenly with corrupters so its a fungal vs hsm war
besides if you read the thread youd know i preferr it if warhounds were removed
im just brainstorming ways to take the stupidly designed unit blizzard has created, and hopefully make it not overpowered. it cant be allowed to obliterate immortals and trade evenly with zealots, thats all im trying to say, because thats overpowered.
|
i think with all the hate warhound is receiving, it will probably get a complete redesign in purpose as a unit, so this thread probably doesnt really mean much. heres to hoping
|
United States22154 Posts
please put this in one of the existing warhound threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
