|
Introduction:
Warhound was designed with the concept of breaking tank lines, give an option of mech in TvP.
Source: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=351659
"- Terran never goes factory against Protoss
- TvT is stale with tank lines, and the only way to break out of it is the sky battles."
A) Did blizzard really fix mech or just cheated?
The concepts of mech is immobile, powerful, slow, difficult to max.[/i]
In TvZ, TvT, the power of mech is the siege tank, because it is an unit that gives long range, high splash damage but in exchange, it is very immobile because it has to siege up.
But with the introduction of Warhound, which has the movement speed of 2.81 (Which is faster than marine marauda (2.75). Mech in TvP seems very fast and mobile.
Warhound's ability Haywire missile is an anti mech missile that is strong against most protoss units. This makes the warhound the core unit of mech, replacing the siege tank.
Warhound created a mobile powerful mech force. Which completely takes away the dynamic of mech style from WOL.
B) Why help break tank lines when tank position is part of the game we love?
Sc2 should be more about positioning, which I enjoy to see the introduction of SwarmHost. Afterall, Sc2 is a game of strategy but not game of "Macro" then "A- Move". A well positioned unit should be rewarded and gain exponential power.
TvT Tank line battle is evolving. Forward sensor tower to spot tank lines, Terran Mech with air dominance, Bio + Tank to have mobility to catch tanks unsiege. I do not wish to see Warhound as a unit that every players use to break tank lines.
Closing
I play both mech and bio. I enjoy the different dynamic of each style, but seeing Warhound in the beta videos makes me worry about the design of Warhound. Warhound should not be the core of a mech army but rather a "Buffer" or Support unit.
Simple Suggestion:
Give the Haywire Missile ability to the Thor. (Change it to Haywire 250mm Cannon)
It can cost 75 energy to activate. It can be balanced however you want.
1. Thor is not an easily massed unit, so it will not become the one-sided friendly A-move unit against the Protoss.
2. Haywire 250mm Cannon should be target fire against Immortals to rid the shield and protect the siege tanks. (More effective if micro-ed or can be auto-cast)
3. Thor remains as our siege breaker. But it is not an easy task to break siege line, because again, Thor is not easily massed.
4. Give Warhound the anti-air from Thor. (balance accordingly) GvG remain similar as to now. So, Warhound is now the meat of the mech army, which its role is to buffer the tanks as well as providing anti-air.
=================================================
On the Side:
My personal opinion on the design of Warhound:
The design of warhound just too look awkward for me...
Warhound Evolution:
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
How can we have such bad !@# thor, but such poorly design warhound...
Battle.net Link: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6522913181#5
|
Wait, so is mech now viable in T v P or not?
|
On September 10 2012 01:02 iamthedave wrote:
Wait, so is mech now viable in T v P or not?
Nobody knows as the beta is still new.
Most terrans still try to kill protoss midgame to the point of allining so there is no telling how lategame macro situations would look like.
I'd say that right now it's not a good idea to go pure mech without ghosts but only time will tell.
|
Viable or not will come in time with balance patches. But what I would hate to see is mass Warhound A-move against siege lines and win.
As well as Tanks being not viable in TvP, since people might just mass warhound...
|
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course
|
Thor cant seige break with their movement speed. The warhound needs to be fast to break seiege lines. WIth the BC and raven upgrades, I feel like sky terran is gonna be very prevelant in HotS
|
On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course
What? They get +7 instead of +5?
|
What upgrade did the BC and Raven get?
|
Raven has cheaper hunter-seekers and better speed. BC has better anti-ground and cheaper yamato.
|
On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5?
yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65
|
On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65
To armored you mean.
|
Warhounds are supposed to be golitaths, i really don't understand why blizzard is so stubborn, it's so obvious and i think the tank wars are part of the TvT and switching it from tank wars to a-move mech wars, is not better 
|
On September 10 2012 02:03 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 To armored you mean.
That's the point. Siege tanks + warhound support totally rape warhound spam.
|
On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65
I did no expect that, it's awesome, or at least a begining.
|
On September 10 2012 02:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:03 pmp10 wrote:On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 To armored you mean. That's the point. Siege tanks + warhound support totally rape warhound spam.
Spam perhaps but there are better ways to utilize that unit.
As is I'm not convinced that (unlike warhound) siege tanks have any future in TvT.
|
On September 10 2012 02:51 pmp10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:33 Godwrath wrote:On September 10 2012 02:03 pmp10 wrote:On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 To armored you mean. That's the point. Siege tanks + warhound support totally rape warhound spam. Spam perhaps but there are better ways to utilize that unit. As is I'm not convinced that (unlike warhound) siege tanks have any future in TvT.
Could you elaborate why not ? Siege tanks are still a powerful tool to have, and warhounds doesn't neglect that.
|
On September 10 2012 03:01 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:51 pmp10 wrote:On September 10 2012 02:33 Godwrath wrote:On September 10 2012 02:03 pmp10 wrote:On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 To armored you mean. That's the point. Siege tanks + warhound support totally rape warhound spam. Spam perhaps but there are better ways to utilize that unit. As is I'm not convinced that (unlike warhound) siege tanks have any future in TvT. Could you elaborate why not ? Siege tanks are still a powerful tool to have, and warhounds doesn't neglect that.
I think it's a question of army build-up time.
Tanks become dis-proportionally more powerful as their number increase.
But that means that somewhere in mid-game a timing should exist when warhounds and other units can beat a player that has yet to build-up a substantial number of tanks.
But that's just theorycrafting.
|
On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65
Blizzard giving lots of love to  <3
|
not a big fan of the warhound. i think it's the only new unit i don't like, besides maybe the oracle, but the oracle at least hasn't broken anything yet. from what i've been watching the warhound has been making mech really uninteresting and actually less different from bio than it was before. so in the sense that terran can now mix and match more different units yeah it's more versatile, but it seems like less choice in strategy. i dunno i suck at terran so maybe i'm missing something, that's just my perspective as spectator to this beta.
|
Warhound needs to have ground power nerfed and given a more anti-air OR utility based role. Siege tank needs to be buffed. (apparently they changed the upgrade values but I have no confirmation)
The tank has to be the core. It's one of the best designed units ever created. Mech will then be fixed give or take a few widow mine changes.
|
On September 10 2012 03:30 SarcasmMonster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 Blizzard giving lots of love to <3
OMG they sure are! They are doing so well with making the less used terran units better. They have revamped every underused unit for terran. I'm really happy about these little tweaks
Please change at least one protoss unit now....
|
On September 10 2012 02:33 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 02:03 pmp10 wrote:On September 10 2012 02:01 Garmer wrote:On September 10 2012 01:34 Sapphire.lux wrote:On September 10 2012 01:21 Garmer wrote:
i think tanks are viable now with their +7 from upgrade and battle-hellion, but people always go for the easy way of course What? They get +7 instead of +5? yeah, you heard it right, +3 tank do 71 damage instead of 65 To armored you mean. That's the point. Siege tanks + warhound support totally rape warhound spam.
im not convinced on that. it seems the warhound has a big enough model that splash doesnt really matter on it. so it might just be more effective to have MORE warhounds than tanks. which changes it into no better than roach vs roach zvz.
|
The Warhound should have a jump jet upgrade from the factory that allows them to slowly accelarate into the air and melee air units.
|
On September 10 2012 12:37 Harbinger631 wrote:
The Warhound should have a jump jet upgrade from the factory that allows them to slowly accelarate into the air and melee air units.
Should have an upgrade to just blow up and be removed from the game due to the fact that it's a move and removes the best part of tvt from the game which is siege tank standoffs. Which leads to the only air battles we ever see, and are amazing to watch.
|
something about the warhound just bothers me, not sure what it is, just feels out of place to me
|
The warhound does not even feel like it needs to exist. Mech would even more viable with just stronger mines and no warhound. Besides with how good that kind of mech would against everything but immortals, it might require cool warp prism micro to drop on tanks to exploit mechs weak aa.
|
Just the hint of the idea that the carrier might have been removed because it was too good against the warhound makes me want to smash my head against the edge of my desk. But just about everything about the warhound makes me feel that way.
|
I thought of the same too, but would be against the energy to cast and to remove the strike cannons. Also remove anti air from thors. See below for explanation
My solution here: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/6521293507 on the blizz forums. Initially made an account to spread the thought but 3 day trial prevents me from posting.
Swap role of Thor & Warhound instead
Current state
Thors:
Anti air for terran mech primarily vs muta and also a front line unit to soak up damage
Warhounds:
Designed to be a siegebreaker - anti mech but ends up being a major anti protoss
However, currently it is also being used very effectively as a reaver and effective base D due to speed
Suggestion
Thor:
In WoL, thors arent used against protoss because theyre too slow, expensive and countered by immortals & chargelot. They are used vs zerg and sometimes in TvT for anti viking or to soak up damage against tank lines. If blizz wanted an anti siegeline unit, this should be it. It takes a lot of tank fire and isnt splashed much due to its' size, so a small group of would be capable of breaking siege lines if they were given haywire that HOTS warhounds have now. It would again be limited by cost, size and slow movement, which would make it not seen vs Protoss and would be difficult to mass unlike the warhound.
Take away its' anti air ability and it will be used for purely anti ground mech vs terran. It would still do ok against zerg with the normal auto attack, be used vs T against other mech (also effective vs warhounds) but too slow and expensive to make a large number of to be the primary army. An ability such as haywire SHOULD NOT be able to be massed
Warhound:
Give the warhound the ability to shoot air but due to the lower cost than thors either take away the splash or reduce the anti air damage significantly thus making the warhound the AA for mech play. Given their current speed, it is better suited to fend off fast moving mutas or drops for which mech is vulnerable. It would also still do sufficient damage against ground units and is easily massable.
With the proposed changes, the matchups would be affected as follows
Against T: Warhounds to act as the anti air and the main fodder in a mech army. Thors could be moved in or medivac dropped to haywire tanks if an opening is left or to flank effectively thus requiring positioning and careful use of the haywire ability to break siege lines rather than a simple A move warhounds. It would also make players have to balance between expensive, high dps units like tanks & thors with fodder units like marine, hellion and warhound rather than just massing warhounds.
A hard counter to a unit should not be more of that unit (see warhound vs warhound…). As such, if a lot of thors are made marine, marauder should be able to shred it so a balance has to be made in mech with tanks and hellions vs MM. Warhounds would just be the mech AA and fast response to drops.
Against Z: AA against muta would be still achieved using warhounds. Thors would likely not be made, therefore matchup stays similar to how it is currently. Furthermore, siegeline breakers would remain to be broodlords as it is currently, in addition to burrow charge ultra or swarmhost.
Also due to the viper cloud, it would be easy to blind the thors and have mutas mop up ALL of the mech if thors were left as the primarly mech AA. However, with more warhounds out on the field it would be harder to just hard counter mech with 1 spell on and a muta flock. This would also be augmented by the fact that thors are SLOW, which would make it difficult to move out of an AOE spell that prevents them from shooting air. Mutas should remain as harass units, not the hard counter to mech along w the viper. Z has a lot of options to break siege lines already.
Against P: No more massable haywire and makes thors slightly more viable due to their heavy anti mech ability so well placed thors would do significant damage to a deathball (which blizz wants to go away from). Mech will be extremely viable due to battle hellions vs zealot; tanks vs armored; haywire vs immortals and would take micro to make sure each units is attacking the right thing to pick apart a deathball, while a deathball would still do heavy damage, thus making this matchup a huge slugfest rather then deathball "A" moving over mech in WoL or warhounds+hellion "A" moving over deathball in HOTS. Taking away haywire from wahounds would prevent mech as anti everything protoss as it is right now. New protoss units have no effect
Also to note that terran ground AA is limited to marines. While probably the best AA in the game, late game marines have too low of HP which very die fast thus causing the problem of T having a weak end game. They need marines, but marines don't fare as well late game as the end game units of other races. For a stronger late game T, they can eventually replace marines with warhounds.
Also for ground AA
Protoss: stalker, archon, sentry
Zerg: queen, hydra, infested terran
Terran: marine, autoturret, thor
Turrets are so rarely seen and marines end up being the main AA for terran, yet are an inflated food supply much like a zerg army maxed on roaches seem like a high food count army, but do much less than you would expect. Swap out the thor in that list and put warhound in and you have a better late game ground AA that doesnt die in 1 hit and isnt dreadfully slow
EDIT: Reader solutions from the change added here so more people will see it
DeadWombat
The Thor was originally billed to be a "tip of the spear" unit anyway, which is ironically what the Warhound is doing now. Giving the Thor the Haywire would really let it fulfill the intended function that it originally had. I am rather certain no one would miss the Thor's 250mm cannons, either. Fun idea but it was never really able to be utilized that well.
So if the Thor loses the cannons (and its energy), that would leave High Templar with one less thing to counter as well, making Thors even MORE viable against protoss.
Laowai
Protoss and Terran players with the skill to outposition the thor user and target-fire it down before it can do much damage will force thor users in higher leagues to turn off autocast and spend their haywire missiles on high-priority units, like siege tanks or colossi. This micro would not be required at a lower level, but would add depth to the game... for better players than me, anyway.
Another issue it would fix is one that was actually brought up in the early design stages of HotS, and the reason the warhound was conceptualized in the first place: Thors are pretty bad against mutalisks. Two warhounds are less magic-boxable than one thor, on top of being smaller and more mobile. Their speed would also make them very useful against the new-and-improved air harass from Protoss, leading to small-army map control battles away from the deathball.
Tl;dr: Give thors haywire, warhounds anti air
|
I would honestly wait an extra month for HotS release if they decided to get rid of the unit and do a redesign.
If they keep the warhound, I think it should just as a soaker for the siege tanks. Give it really low damage but make it's survivability really good (It's actually probably good as it is)
|
On September 10 2012 01:31 Dagan159 wrote:
Thor cant seige break with their movement speed. The warhound needs to be fast to break seiege lines. WIth the BC and raven upgrades, I feel like sky terran is gonna be very prevelant in HotS
Just let Thors be able to move and shoot at the same time then? It's the only Massive unit out of the Collosus, Ultralisk, Thor triad that doesn't have a movement based ability, i.e. Colossus can cliff walk, Ultralisks can't be snared or rooted and Thors can move and shoot at the same time, wahlah Siege Breaker unit?
|
I agree witht he OP. But I have a question: how does the damage scale witht he upgrades.+7vs armored, but vs every other unit? still only+2?
|
I like your idea. Giving anti-air to Warhound and siege-breaking and anti-Protoss mech to Thors would really make mech more "mech". Giving a slight buff to tanks could also really help to make it a point that tanks should be the centre of the mech army.
|
On September 11 2012 17:13 MoonCricket wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2012 01:31 Dagan159 wrote:
Thor cant seige break with their movement speed. The warhound needs to be fast to break seiege lines. WIth the BC and raven upgrades, I feel like sky terran is gonna be very prevelant in HotS Just let Thors be able to move and shoot at the same time then? It's the only Massive unit out of the Collosus, Ultralisk, Thor triad that doesn't have a movement based ability, i.e. Colossus can cliff walk, Ultralisks can't be snared or rooted and Thors can move and shoot at the same time, wahlah Siege Breaker unit?
Just the thor attack normally but the 250mm can be fire as thor move. Like a "Siege-break" mode. I am trying to do something similar in the sc2 editor but I suck at it. It would be awesome if someone out there can try it! 
I am reminded how awesome 250mm thor look! It is so badass. Imagine that breaking lines of siege tanks!
|
thor and warhound are shit, they should be replaced with a goliath-like units, this is the best solution even blizzard know that, but they refuse because they do not want BW units...
|
Its because Warhound is OP!!!!!
|
On September 23 2012 09:00 Seigifried wrote:
Its because Warhound is OP!!!!!
ok this idiot is spamming to get 500 posts... bumping all these 'older' topics.
|
I think same way as OP. Remmoving the unit all together was wrong. They should make him cost more suply or whatnot. I'm not balance expert, but it's always better to tune the unit down a bit than remove it altogether.
|
On September 23 2012 15:03 Svizcy wrote:
I think same way as OP. Remmoving the unit all together was wrong. They should make him cost more suply or whatnot. I'm not balance expert, but it's always better to tune the unit down a bit than remove it altogether.
it does seem a little harsh to remove it, you never know what was going to happen or what will still happen. Beta is still going strong so I definatley could see it coming back down the road or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RTOBb.png)
![[image loading]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100817135554/starcraft/images/2/21/Thor_SC2_Rend1.jpg)
