|
On September 10 2012 08:45 Dox wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 06:13 gedatsu wrote:
Blizz doesn't understand what the problem is with Warhound. Give it time. They've stated in interviews that they'll often introduce something new during the design process that is blatantly overpowered, and they'll continue to gauge and scale it back until it reaches that "sweet spot." This gives them a great volume of test data, rather than putting something in the game that is too weak and no-one actually tests it.
That's the point, Dox. The issues with the Warhound aren't just about its power. The entire role it is designed to play is problematic.
|
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100
|
On September 10 2012 08:25 ref4 wrote:
fuck warhound, bring back goliath
fuck widow mine, enable vultures in multiplayer
fuck swarm host, bring back defiler
fuck viper, bring back devourer
fuck oracle and colossus bring back reaver and carrier
If Blizz did this they can end the beta and start selling HoTS tomorrow.
there SC2 is fun to watch again. None of this retarded stupid balancing and redesigning fail units like warhounds and vipers and shit.
Sorry, this is Starcraft 2, not Starcraft BW: HD version.
|
On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100
They probably didn't want a repeat of BW where mech >>>>> bio.
|
On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100
Because SC2 is easier in the mechanics department, that powerful of a board control unit would be way too good in this game.
|
I just wish i was in the beta 
|
On September 08 2012 06:37 Seiniyta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2012 06:27 purakushi wrote:
I don't understand why they would decrease preordain from 2 minute to 1 minute. That is the only thing that gives tempests a chance to attack from long range (observers are easy to snipe, since they have to stay there). I guess they really do not want the tempest to work. lol Pre-ordain gave me for a long period of time huge amounts of intel of which units were spawning from the hive for example which is incredible useful to react what the Zerg is producing. I can really see why they nerfed it. I also successful have won games by putting preordain on a factory along other production facilities for the terran so I knew for 2 full minutes what they were building was really handy. I think the nerf is reasonable as I actually thought that spell is, at the moment very underutilized but very powerful.
Yeah, too bad pre-ordain doesn't tell you what is spawning from the larvae.
Thanks for your input, though.
Imo, the spell is next to useless because more often than not you know what your opponent is building or researching ANYway. It's never going to be a wide range of things, especially late game. If you see a barracks with a tech lab, you pretty much know what he's building - same goes for factory with reactor or factory with tech lab. Pre-ordain is mostly for vision... which could be granted with an observer.
On September 10 2012 06:44 Nakwa wrote:They made the warhound with only one reason: So they can keep nerfing terran 
A little off topic, but I never really understood why Terran players complained about their so called massive nerfs.
Did you ever bother to look at all the nerfs that Protoss has accumulated?
The nerfs that occurred in the beta were insane, so I won't go there. I'll name a few just to give you an idea. Warpgate researched in 60 seconds (yes, I admit that that was op. You could do us the courtesy of admitting that T was op as well.)
But I supposed the WoL Beta is irrelevant so I'll move right into the good stuff.
KA was removed. Flux vanes was removed. Storm radius was decreased (That may have been WoL beta, I forgot). Blink research time was increased. Warpgate research time was increased (again). Pylon radius was decreased.
So tell me, how do your "nerfs" (stim research time increased oh noez) compare to what happened to Toss?
The fact is, David Kim and Dustin Browder have hard-ons for Terran. The truth of the matter is that they made the Winhound so that Protoss would be an even shittier race.
On September 10 2012 07:03 Duncaaaaaan wrote:
I fear the warhound will be pretty useless now that so much DPS has been taken off it. It's a failed unit.
That's rather dramatic. The dps nerf is not THAT massive, so I doubt a unit will go from dominating a match up - and let me tell you, PvT is damn near impossible - to being "pretty useless."
Don't worry, your new terran toy is still gonna be ridiculous.
|
Double posted by accident. Sawee. How do I delete? :o
|
On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100
Siege tanks for 2 supply would devestate zerg. Siege tanks are good vs zerg, no matter what any terran says they are good vs zerg. The only time they aren't good vs zerg is when it's late game and there are broodlords and what not. You have to think of more then one match up, tvz tanks are already good, if they were 2 supply they would be rediculously good in that match up. While it may fix tvp mech (i don't know) it would just make tvz bad.
|
On September 10 2012 14:21 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100 Siege tanks for 2 supply would devestate zerg. Siege tanks are good vs zerg, no matter what any terran says they are good vs zerg. The only time they aren't good vs zerg is when it's late game and there are broodlords and what not. You have to think of more then one match up, tvz tanks are already good, if they were 2 supply they would be rediculously good in that match up. While it may fix tvp mech (i don't know) it would just make tvz bad.
If STs would be 2 population, we would have some ridiculous things like Hydras and Roaches being 1 population, Ultras being 4 population etc.
|
Canada11218 Posts
On September 10 2012 16:32 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 14:21 blade55555 wrote:On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100 Siege tanks for 2 supply would devestate zerg. Siege tanks are good vs zerg, no matter what any terran says they are good vs zerg. The only time they aren't good vs zerg is when it's late game and there are broodlords and what not. You have to think of more then one match up, tvz tanks are already good, if they were 2 supply they would be rediculously good in that match up. While it may fix tvp mech (i don't know) it would just make tvz bad. If STs would be 2 population, we would have some ridiculous things like Hydras and Roaches being 1 population, Ultras being 4 population etc.
Is that a bad thing? Zerg used to be the race of 1 or 1/2 supply massable units. Not all this high supply, tanky mid-tier stuff. Bring on more powerful tanks. You can always balance other things by adding overkill for instance.
|
I think Blizzard should increase the speed of the widow mine to something like the hellion otherwise it's useless . It's slow as hell from what i've seen and hardly a thread if your opponent sees where it burrows .
|
On September 10 2012 17:33 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 16:32 Ramiz1989 wrote:On September 10 2012 14:21 blade55555 wrote:On September 10 2012 11:36 Elvin wrote:
Why don't they just increase warhounds supply to 3 and decrease siege tank supply cost to 2?
I have always wondered why is SC2 siege tank (which is even worse than BW tank) 3 supply and 150/125 instead of 2 supply and 150/100 Siege tanks for 2 supply would devestate zerg. Siege tanks are good vs zerg, no matter what any terran says they are good vs zerg. The only time they aren't good vs zerg is when it's late game and there are broodlords and what not. You have to think of more then one match up, tvz tanks are already good, if they were 2 supply they would be rediculously good in that match up. While it may fix tvp mech (i don't know) it would just make tvz bad. If STs would be 2 population, we would have some ridiculous things like Hydras and Roaches being 1 population, Ultras being 4 population etc. Is that a bad thing? Zerg used to be the race of 1 or 1/2 supply massable units. Not all this high supply, tanky mid-tier stuff. Bring on more powerful tanks. You can always balance other things by adding overkill for instance.
It wasn't a bad thing in SC BW, but in SC2, units are different. Zerg used to be race of units that cost 1 or 1/2 supply when their units weren't that strong and because of that they were coming in great numbers. Same can be said for Zerglings in SC2, but not for Roaches that have tons of HP, low dps but really good focus fire, and are quite fast when upgraded. The whole concept of SC2 Zerg needs to be changed if you want again to mass units that cost 1 supply. Units need to be weaker, stat wise, Roaches have almost the same stats as Zealots or Stalkers, they almost feel like Protoss unit. The only reason why they feel like Zerg units is because they are quite fast and massable even though they are 2 supply. Roaches are way too strong for 1 supply, if you want 1 supply Roaches, you have to nerf them to compensate for the buff. I am all for it, but Blizzard won't do that, because they would have to completely change the Roach, or heavily nerf the stats.
And yes, I am all for buffing Tanks and adding overkill because not having overkill completely contradicts how Tanks should be countered and played. It was the most retarded change ever. But buff them differently, not through the supply, because you have to buff other units to compensate, and that is a lot of units.
|
United Kingdom12021 Posts
Thanks definately need a little bit of a damage buff. They get rolled over by every damn unit in the game. :/
|
all those things were repeated to death since the WOL beta, and guess what? nothing has changed, i don't care anymore, i will play this game for what it is, a bad BW sequel
|
United Kingdom12021 Posts
On September 10 2012 19:16 Garmer wrote:
all those things was repeated to death since the WOL beta, and guess what? nothing has changed, i don't care anymore, i will play this game for what it is, a bad BW sequel
I don't care if it was repeated a lot, now is the time they can actually change it.
Tanks need to be better. They get rolled by everything, period.
|
They have to nerf the warhound into the ground, to the point where it is only is better than bio if the bio is controlled real poorly. A flat unit like the warhound will never be able to be used together with dynamic bio play, it is going to be either or. Then it would become a skill baseline for terran; "If your micro sucks harder than this, build warhounds".
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On September 10 2012 19:17 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 19:16 Garmer wrote:
all those things was repeated to death since the WOL beta, and guess what? nothing has changed, i don't care anymore, i will play this game for what it is, a bad BW sequel I don't care if it was repeated a lot, now is the time they can actually change it. Tanks need to be better. They get rolled by everything, period.
see, you lose credibility when you say this, its just not true. They're bad vs Protoss, but great in both other matchups, we've been seeing top level Terrans using tanks consistently in TvZ and TvT, sprouting rubbish about them doesn't help anyone.
|
What saddens me is that Blizzard is still working around the same basic concepts that were presented during Blizzcon. I'm not even going to discuss the fact that all the HotS units are are a bad copy of BW units. The fact is that these are pretty much the only units that Blizzard has ever shown to the public.
It is very discouraging to see that these unit concepts have evolved so little and are simply being hammered down until they fit into the game. I no longer expect to see the Warhound being reinvented or new units being tested; we will be force-fed these units.
I would really like to see more experimentation, more unit concepts, more ideas and creativity. Unfortunately that is not Blizzard's mindset. Moreover, TL doesn't allow open discussions about new units and concepts which is peculiar, to say the least.
|
Good changes I'd say. Warhounds could still use a bit of nerfing imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
