EPTWhy the Warhound should NOT be balanced - Page 14
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Osmoses
Sweden5302 Posts
| ||
|
aZealot
New Zealand5447 Posts
On September 11 2012 17:09 Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: Oh and tanks may visually be a bit more bland. But even first time players to BW quickly saw the awesomeness of 10+ tanks blasting any attacks agaist them to smithereens. Tanks are great because they feel awesome to use. Just had to agree with that last line. I know from when I played BW (casually only mind) the sound of siege tanks sieging up near my Protoss expansion was terrifying, and then THE BOOMS! *Shudder* It frightens me a little, even now.  | ||
|
Hds
France200 Posts
| ||
|
FATJESUSONABIKE
184 Posts
I got dead bored after a few weeks and stopped playing for months. A friend forced me back into it a while later and I (luckily) saw some of my random team allies do cool stuff with quick/smart creeping and/or fast expanding. Needless to say this was the moment I started getting miraculously addicted to RTS games, so I could achieve the same genre of moves (perfectly described in the article, it was hard but althemore rewarding). Everytime I was starting to get annoyed and was feeling the whole thing to become redundant I was quickly discovering a harder/better/funnier mechanical gimmick to pull out, I carried on playing and improving, and as I grew older, the game was actually getting younger. I was 15 when I massed wyverns for the first time, now I'm 22 and stupidly busier but I still can't cope without my monthly 5+ relatively high-level ladder games. And I still greatly enjoy it. As for SC2, I bought it the day of the release, I've played 1,5k+ games on it, and I'm still hopelessly looking for the rewarding and addictive enjoyment not of playing well, but of wanting to play well. I guess my point is, your article is great. And if it wasn't for watching esports and the whole beautiful and funny community ambiance around it, I would lose all interest in the game. I'm most likely not the only one. | ||
|
dOraWa
Korea (South)53 Posts
Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned. Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening You cannot do much about the current game, bot HotS still in beta, you have more chance to tell your point than ever. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
The topic was exact reason i started watching pro, them doing difficult stuff and me trying to mimic. my skills increased exponentially afterwards. The typical micro battles(heavily focused on spell) of sc2 are not impressive at all. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
Marauder --> Beefy, decent damage, fast, slowing shot, can be healed. Roach --> Beefy, decent damage, fast, cheap... (it is not very supply efficient tho... But that’s not enough). Colossus --> Beefy, awesome damage, fast, cliff walk, awesome range. Immortal --> It's main weakness is, that the Colossus outshines it except against timing pushes which hit before you can have enough Colossi and having 1-2 more Immortals instead would save you... Which tells tons about the lolworthy power of the Colossus.... Now the Warhound shows up and is just even more of this flawed principle... It's fast, it's long range, it's good DMG (against anything...), it's not expensive, it's not even high supply... It's just so fucking (above) average that it lacks any true identity. The Battlehellion is also such a "problem", they basically "patch out" the Hellions weakness (being low HP)... Marines and Zerglings die very fast to any sort of AE but do good DMG when surviving (for some reasons Zerglings are weaker than in SC/BW but well...) --> This unit works (the Hydralisk woul also belong here, but it's weaknesses are to big compared to the return it gives). Stalkers and Zealots are expensive for their stats but the Stalker is very fast (+ Blink) and the Zealot is pretty Beefy (+Charge). These work because they are different enough from everything else and do their job (which sadly mostly comes down to protecting Colossi/Templars...). Siege Tanks... Actually "worked", but Blizzard decided to "average" them and gave them less Siege-DMG but more "normal"-DMG. They actively tried to destroy the identity of this Unit (because they made too small maps and gave it instant dmg instead of overkill). A unit can be PURE 1A but still be "unique" and interesting because you have to handle it right... Many of the new SC2 units just don't have enough weaknesses compared to strengths which leads to boring games. Btw: Not being able to attack Air is just not enough of a weakness... | ||
|
gLFu_Ayr
United States23 Posts
I think it's safe to say that Terran has the least likelihood of succeeding with a straight up attack move. Would you really try to attack into banelings/fungals and storms/colossi? So give Blizzard a break if they're finally giving Terran a unit that 1) Makes it possible for Terran to finally attack into an opponent, and 2) Allows mech to become a viable strategy in all matchups. My main concern is the second point; I'd love for mech to be viable in HotS -- with or without the Warhound. If you're not going to allow the Warhound into the game, what else will make mech viable? | ||
|
Maghetti
United States2429 Posts
Why this setup? From what I can tell, mech was missing 4 things, a unit for map control, direct air attack units(they only have slow firing splash damage units in the thor), a unit that can fight things like lings and zealots, and something that can fight things like immortals. With a balanced functioning widow mine you have something for area control, and with battle hellions you have a unit to fight lings and zealots, now if you give the warhound a attack vs tanks and immortals in one mode and a direct damage air attack in another mode mech should pretty much be complete. In its ground form the unit would fire fairly slowly and only at one unit at a time, making it weak to things like zerglings, but with its reasonable speed it can do things like kite to make up this deficit if micro'd, but it would still have this disadvantage, balancing out its function. When it would go into siege mode the unit no longer has the ability to attack ground units, making it weak to ground attacks lol, but it would fill a real purpose with direct damage missle shots that fire mich faster than a thor would. It also doesn't overlap with a thor since thors fire slow flash damage shots at the air while the warhound would only be doing direct damage. Basically, this concept of a unit would be fun, skill based, and involve a great deal of decision making. The unit would gain a lot from target firing and proper control, making it extremely fun IMO. Thoughts anyone? | ||
|
Kreb
4834 Posts
On September 10 2012 15:39 -orb- wrote: Even if you do not agree with me about high skill mechanics being necessary and even vital to the success of Starcraft 2 as an esport, what is the justification for putting in a unit that fills exactly the same role as the marauder? Terran already has an attack move, hyper mobile, tanky, high dps unit that can only attack ground. Why do they need a second one? Didnt you just answer your own question. Because there is no mech-marauder. When was the last time you saw a Terran go mech+marauders unit comp? Warhound is the zealot of protoss, the zergling/roach of zerg, the marauder of bio. You could argue all those units should be redesigned and all made with heavy flavour abilities, but I dont see how you could argue mech was lacking one. From a balance standpoint, that was probably a very large part to mechs relatively low frequence of use in WoL. Boring? Yes. Filling a hole mech had? Absolutely. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On September 11 2012 18:02 Maghetti wrote: I gave it some thought and this is how I think they should change the warhound: Remove its standard attack, make a haywire like missle ability that does good damage against immortals etc be its primary ground attack, and give it the ability to siege, aiming its missles at the air switching it from a ground to ground unit to a ground to air unit. Why this setup? From what I can tell, mech was missing 4 things, a unit for map control, direct air attack units(they only have slow firing splash damage units in the thor), a unit that can fight things like lings and zealots, and something that can fight things like immortals. With a balanced functioning widow mine you have something for area control, and with battle hellions you have a unit to fight lings and zealots, now if you give the warhound a attack vs tanks and immortals in one mode and a direct damage air attack in another mode mech should pretty much be complete. In its ground form the unit would fire fairly slowly and only at one unit at a time, making it weak to things like zerglings, but with its reasonable speed it can do things like kite to make up this deficit if micro'd, but it would still have this disadvantage, balancing out its function. When it would go into siege mode the unit no longer has the ability to attack ground units, making it weak to ground attacks lol, but it would fill a real purpose with direct damage missle shots that fire mich faster than a thor would. It also doesn't overlap with a thor since thors fire slow flash damage shots at the air while the warhound would only be doing direct damage. Basically, this concept of a unit would be fun, skill based, and involve a great deal of decision making. The unit would gain a lot from target firing and proper control, making it extremely fun IMO. Thoughts anyone? Regarding the anti-air, I think thor + viking already is a great combination. low damage with splash and regular damage but single targeting, all with incredible range, is a great combination, on paper and in the game. The fact that both units move so ridiculously slow make them basically siege units. The only thing that stands against it is the production cost of the thor, plus the general fragility of clumping air units against fungal growth. All units in the mech composition are too gas intensive. What would be nice is if we had a low gas anti-air unit, which would then have to suck at everything else to make it balanced (hint: goliath). | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
On September 11 2012 18:03 Kreb wrote: Didnt you just answer your own question. Because there is no mech-marauder. When was the last time you saw a Terran go mech+marauders unit comp? Warhound is the zealot of protoss, the zergling/roach of zerg, the marauder of bio. You could argue all those units should be redesigned and all made with heavy flavour abilities, but I dont see how you could argue mech was lacking one. From a balance standpoint, that was probably a very large part to mechs relatively low frequence of use in WoL. Boring? Yes. Filling a hole mech had? Absolutely. You either missed his point, or justified it by treating a Bio player and a Mech player as two different races. Speaking on the latter, you're essentially wanting all races to be practically the same and not have any unique or defining characteristics. You're implying that Mech and Bio should be allowed to played and executed the same way, even though they're two entirely different unit compositions, and give Terran as a whole two ways to accomplish the same goal of an mobile aggressive army. That's pretty retarded, since it just takes away the fun in choosing a race, or playing a certain specific style, if it's all the same and simplified. There's no actual skill in playing both mech and bio, or one or the other when it's all practically the same. | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
Less is more. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10596 Posts
It's altering Mech to be Bio 2.0. | ||
|
aliquis
Austria38 Posts
I think everything has been said numerous times already,i faintly remember even years ago during the WOL Beta serious concern about the game/unit design was voiced but unfortunatly to no avail . To be honest, i feel frustrated about this topic. Although i have not played any SC2 games for months, i still love the community,but most important i know of SC2 latent potential but i am afraid the responsible people for SC2 will continue their way of doing things. A game should be first and foremost about fun, how to achieve that and keep that enjoyment in the long term is where the chaff is seperated from the wheat. But all i ever hear is people talk/write about balance. I played similar RTS-games for years that were really bad balanced but fun. I refuse to play a balanced game that is not fun. | ||
|
Embir
Poland567 Posts
On September 11 2012 18:13 Gamegene wrote: You either missed his point, or justified it by treating a Bio player and a Mech player as two different races. Speaking on the latter, you're essentially wanting all races to be practically the same and not have any unique or defining characteristics. You're implying that Mech and Bio should be allowed to played and executed the same way, even though they're two entirely different unit compositions, and give Terran as a whole two ways to accomplish the same goal of an mobile aggressive army. That's pretty retarded, since it just takes away the fun in choosing a race, or playing a certain specific style, if it's all the same and simplified. There's no actual skill in playing both mech and bio, or one or the other when it's all practically the same. Mech should be treated as separated race because Terran as only race in game has different ups for bio and mech (despite booth having ground units). If you choose one path in game you are probably bound to it. Warhound would be unnecessary if infantry would share ups with mech, it would also solve many other problems - Terran would be able to tech switch much better, mech would be playable versus Toss, Terran would gain a better reinforcement rate. As of now I think in WoL much bigger problem, if we talk about 1a move units, is a big part of Toss army. | ||
|
Hectic
Australia159 Posts
I also hate the warhound.Please remove the warhound blizzard. | ||
|
10734
340 Posts
On September 11 2012 18:18 Velr wrote: It's not filling a hole Mech had. It's altering Mech to be Bio 2.0. Yeah. The mech army in WoL is just too weak to take on Protoss. I feel like a buff to tanks in combination with the tanky battle hellion would fix alot. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland23732 Posts
On September 11 2012 17:21 dOraWa wrote: You'd think people would be really up in arms about collossi with all the reasons orb mentioned. Nope, let's just call the marauder an attack move unit (which it isn't) and equate the warhound to it.... I'm not saying I disagree; I play terran and I think the warhound is a terrible unit and should be redesigned from the ground up. Just the irony of a SC2 protoss player complaining about attack move units is sickening It's not ironic really, tons and tons of Protoss players have advocated the removal of warpgates, or Collosi and a rework of the game to make the race more fun to play with, and play against. Not everybody wants things tweaked so they can win games you know | ||
| ||
