EPT[D] Warhound: Is it good or should it be changed? - Page 15
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
SolidMoose
United States1240 Posts
| ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On August 15 2012 11:05 Vindicare605 wrote: I have two suggestions for the Warhound that might make it more interesting and more balanced also. 1. Remove the auto-cast on the Haywire Missle, make it manual cast only. This change will eliminate a lot of the "a-click" stigma this unit has attached to it, by forcing the player using them to manually target mechanical units with the Haywire Missle, simply a-moving them will be a waste of their potential. 2. Change Haywire Missle from a cooldown ability to an energy ability similar to Graviton Beam. This gives Terran and Protoss players an additional counter to the unit in the form of Feedback and EMP. I think this dynamic would be a lot of fun to watch. Terrible idea to give any mech unit an energy bar. They already screwed mech once like that with the thor's energy bar. | ||
|
Absentia
United Kingdom973 Posts
On August 15 2012 14:02 Whitewing wrote: The viking is intended to fill that role. Them having a separate upgrade path is a valid complaint about that, but it is a reactor-produced powerful anti-air unit with really good range, so it's not like terran doesn't have good anti-air. Terran doesn't really need more anti-air. The role of the warhound is supposed to be a tank-line busting unit against a weak spot, so that mech vs. mech doesn't stalemate. I don't think it's necessary, but if blizzard wants to do that, I think the best way to do that would be to make it a defensively focused unit rather than a powerful damage dealer. Give them a self-cast defensive matrix instead of the missile cannon. Terrans get vikings reactively because the unit is one of those 'don't build it unless you need it'. It fills one role - strict AA. If you don't need them right there, the unit is a waste of resources and you're weakening your mech army. It's not interesting to play with one dimensional counter units, as should be obvious by the amount of people complaining about the warhound in this very thread. Giving mech some viable anti air doesn't do much to hurt the game - it could still be designed so that vikings are superior in the air, (in range, dps or whatever) and are still needed somewhat reactively. On the other hand it reduces the BS of 'well I didn't completely prepare for this in time' that's so prevalent in SC2's counter based game design. I don't want to build mech AA reactively all the time, I'd prefer it to be incorporated into a versatile mech unit that can keep me somewhat safe during the mid-game whilst still maintaining a level of utility late game. The thor design is not too dissimilar from what i'm thinking except its AA is awful, has energy to be feedbacked, is supply heavy and its high dps vs ground units in combination with low movement speed makes it redundant in the face of siege tanks. | ||
|
Scrubwave
Poland1786 Posts
| ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
This is how I see it. The warhound sucks. People have already gone over how it looks stupid. It serves too much as a backbone. 7 range, high dps, decent movement speed, lots of hp. The thing doesn't have any weaknesses. Needs to be changed in some way. Like at least one of those 4 things. I say change the range or the MS so that it isn't a good idea to A-Move em. I could accept the unit if it was much slower. Then it would be like a reaver. That would be fine by me. This unit is just too strong tho because it works well by itself and counters everything on the ground that battle hellions don't. | ||
|
VictorJones
United States235 Posts
On August 15 2012 14:42 Absentia wrote: Terrans get vikings reactively because the unit is one of those 'don't build it unless you need it'. It fills one role - strict AA. If you don't need them right there, the unit is a waste of resources and you're weakening your mech army. It's not interesting to play with one dimensional counter units, as should be obvious by the amount of people complaining about the warhound in this very thread. Giving mech some viable anti air doesn't do much to hurt the game - it could still be designed so that vikings are superior in the air, (in range, dps or whatever) and are still needed somewhat reactively. On the other hand it reduces the BS of 'well I didn't completely prepare for this in time' that's so prevalent in SC2's counter based game design. I don't want to build mech AA reactively all the time, I'd prefer it to be incorporated into a versatile mech unit that can keep me somewhat safe during the mid-game whilst still maintaining a level of utility late game. The thor design is not too dissimilar from what i'm thinking except its AA is awful, has energy to be feedbacked, is supply heavy and its high dps vs ground units in combination with low movement speed makes it redundant in the face of siege tanks. "I didn't completely prepare for this in time" is the kind of stuff that makes Sc2 a good game. You need to prepare for things. Strategy. If you don't prepare for your opponents strategies and compositions, you shouldn't deserve to win the game. You're essentially asking for a unit that allows you to not think about what you're building. That's kind of a cop out >.> | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
Carbonthief
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
Masayume
Netherlands208 Posts
You know, the Warhound could be made a lot more interesting with some simple changes.. -What if the Haywire missiles arent't autocast, and not anti mechanical ground unit. -What if they have to be manually cast, and serve as an anti air attack, this could be a Valkyrie like aoe, or a single target missile. -What if you have to produce a missile like an interceptor gets produced on a carrier, costing a small amount of minerals. -Then lastly a missile limit could be set depending on the nature and overall power of the new AA spell. Now you have a unit that has limited AA during battles and has to be used at the correct moment vs air units, but has a certain amount of firepower to it so that the enemy has to carefully time out air strikes and movement? Seems like a way better design that also takes away the A-move syndrome of the new unit and replaces it with strategical depth and micro (focused launch etc). This would probably be easier than to ask Blizzard to start from scratch after working on this unit since Blizzcon 2011, and makes Mech more interesting at the same time. That coupled with some slight changes being made to the widow mine would recreate the core mechanics that made BW mech so awesome, without actually copying BW. | ||
|
SgtSlick
Australia92 Posts
On August 15 2012 01:45 Sircoolguy wrote: 1. Yes the warhound may not be the most asthetically appealing unit, but honestly does the supposed bad looks even matter. I don't think so, SC2 is a strategy game after all not a game about turning our units into runyway models, but the skin is not that hard to change It should look like this: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/europe/united_kingdom/wheeled_vehicle/simba_tow/Simba_TOW_missile_light_wheeled_anti-tank_armoured_vehicle_British_United_Kingdom_640.jpg) Surely futuristic terrans realise wheels are faster than walking not to mention more stable/balanced. | ||
|
Jarvs
Australia639 Posts
| ||
|
Gigaschatten
Germany79 Posts
Although i normally don't care much about art in a RTS game - the unit is really sluggish and ugly. They will hopefully replace it (as done before with the Night-Hawk if i remember correctly.) | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
MasterFischer
Denmark836 Posts
The beta aint even fucking out yet, let alone the full game.... so? Why whine about it now and not wait and see how it pans out? Theory crafting on baseless grounds is just dumb... I will agree that the unit DESIGN and look, of especially the warhound, looks kinda silly... but thats another thing  (also subject to change) | ||
|
Absentia
United Kingdom973 Posts
On August 15 2012 14:51 VictorJones wrote: "I didn't completely prepare for this in time" is the kind of stuff that makes Sc2 a good game. You need to prepare for things. Strategy. If you don't prepare for your opponents strategies and compositions, you shouldn't deserve to win the game. You're essentially asking for a unit that allows you to not think about what you're building. That's kind of a cop out >.> Where 'completely prepare' means 'I didn't have 20 vikings to deal with double robo into 6 colossus switch' late game TvP or 'I didn't have a vortex ready to deal with this broodlord army'. Is there anybody who genuinely finds games where player x loses because they didn't build enough vikings to beat y number of colossus interesting? Of course there's got to be some level of 'countering ' otherwise people would just build whatever they want. Yet SC2 hard counter units scale so ridiculously. Look no further than the warhound vs mechanical units at the moment. Why utilise superior strategical positioning, or bio drops to beat siege tank lines when you can build and A move warhounds. You can call building units strategy, sure, but building hard counter units to beat others? That's a cop-out in game design. It's lazy, unimaginative and undermines other elements of strategy like micro and positioning that I imagine most people find more interesting and dynamic. You need to be able to build some units without thinking about counters (e.g. marines) otherwise the game just ends up being a complete mess. Siege tanks should somewhat fulfil this role in a mech army but they only start reaching good levels of damage output once you start reaching a critical mass out of them. But where is mechs midgame AA? I can make vikings but I referenced the issues with this in my last post. I personally like the idea of 'buying time units/strategy' where if you don't have, say, enough vikings to beat a broodlord/infestor straight up, you can load up a lot of medivacs and go for a mass drop or push marines back and forth to make the zerg retreat for a few moments. It's that kind of versatility i'm interested in, not just 'build whatever you want and smash two armies together'. In that sense, I don't see any kind of versatile mech unit. | ||
|
Surriel
United Kingdom198 Posts
On August 15 2012 16:29 MasterFischer wrote: Enlighten me again, as to why people are overly whiny about balance in HOTS now? The beta aint even fucking out yet, let alone the full game.... so? Why whine about it now and not wait and see how it pans out? Theory crafting on baseless grounds is just dumb... I will agree that the unit DESIGN and look, of especially the warhound, looks kinda silly... but thats another thing (also subject to change)Maybe because if you dont voice your opinions now, nothing is going to change when the beta comes around. Let Blizzard knows what you think about the new units from what they show you! Despite what majority of the people seem to believe Im sure some of them read feedback online. Secondly if we do nothing and the beta comes around and the new stuffs do turn out to be horrible, there isnt much time to do any major changes is there, and certainly not major unit design overhaul. This is a unique period of time where Blizzard can make major changes and I really hope they make the best of it. If the warhound make it to the beta, it is not going anywhere. | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
| ||
|
Gben592
United Kingdom281 Posts
Also, everyone should read this: http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?topic_id=360325 | ||
|
dynwar7
1983 Posts
On August 15 2012 16:29 MasterFischer wrote: Enlighten me again, as to why people are overly whiny about balance in HOTS now? The beta aint even fucking out yet, let alone the full game.... so? Why whine about it now and not wait and see how it pans out? Theory crafting on baseless grounds is just dumb... I will agree that the unit DESIGN and look, of especially the warhound, looks kinda silly... but thats another thing (also subject to change)How many times must we tell you? We need to be vocal so Blizzard can get some feedback ............... | ||
|
Burns
United States2300 Posts
| ||
| ||
