EPTOk, I read it again. Still seems like an accurate summary of the original post. Feel free to point out what I'm missing, if it is actually there.
Why the Warhound should NOT be balanced - Page 20
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Aragnis
Australia17 Posts
Ok, I read it again. Still seems like an accurate summary of the original post. Feel free to point out what I'm missing, if it is actually there. | ||
IntoTheWow
is awesome32269 Posts
The problem is units which create stall and boring match up situations and shitty learning curves. If you ever played FPSs an analogy could be made with bunny hopping, wall shooting, etc. Learning techniques to manouver and use units to the max is fun. Just like making skate tricks is fun for someone who likes going around in a board. The warhound creates no interesting relationship with any units. You simple attack move and that's that. It may looks flashy but what's to enjoy about a warhound attacking anything? Who makes the better arc? Pulling injuring ones behind? That applies even to probes and SCVs. There's a reason people get excited when a baneling army engages a bio infantry, or when a baneling bomb is planted. Because it takes, skill and perception of the match up to engage into those situations. | ||
|
Aragnis
Australia17 Posts
On September 12 2012 06:56 IntoTheWow wrote: The problem with the warhound is not that it's ranged. The problem isn't ranged units themselves either (else he would be complaining about the marine, the reaver, the mutalisk, the lurker; which you see he clearly doesn't). From the original post (emphasis mine): The warhound is an attack move unit. What I mean by this is that you do not need any fancy micro (nor is any possible) to make the warhound effective. You attack move into your opponent and you're set. Target firing and pulling back hurt warhounds is literally the ONLY form of micro you can possibly do to increase their effectiveness, and this can be said to be true for literally any possible ranged unit design (even marines). Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant? | ||
|
monomo
Germany150 Posts
I simply do not see the problem with low-micro units, and only a fool would actually call SC2 an easy game. It is way harder than most games I have ever played in fact. I just think that people complaining about the Warhound are overhyping the problem SC2 is still a macro-focused game and there has yet to come a player with perfect macro. TL;DR I wouldn't call SC2 easy -> i dont see a problem with easy units | ||
|
IntoTheWow
is awesome32269 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:04 Aragnis wrote: From the original post (emphasis mine): Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant? The marine is not an attack move unit, the vulture is not an attack move unit, the helion is not an attack move unit, the mutalisk is not an attack move unit. The warhound moves in, attacks and pulls out, dies or kills something. The marines are spread, helions move while shooting to maximize the aoe/harrass workers, the vulture is microed with patrol micro/lay mines, etc. The marine being so fragile and mobile creates interesting relationships with other units, such as banelings, stalker, etc. edit: I bolded the part which i think is interesting. (inside the nested quote). | ||
|
BluzMan
Russian Federation4235 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
Guess what, they didn't. I still think the Warhound design isn't worse then say the Collosi, but the point is we already have enough boring easy to learn units. Don't add more in the expansions!? Blizzard get in touch with reality, not even casuals appreciate that they can do the same thing as a pro after just a couple of tries, not in the long run. If we are to make Starcraft 2 a respected E-sport then we need to have a skill ceiling that is way up there. | ||
|
ShivaN
United States933 Posts
| ||
|
maybenexttime
Poland5417 Posts
On September 12 2012 03:01 renaissanceMAN wrote: That's not true though, I feel like Blizzard has done a pretty good job of balancing WOL; and I'll admit I have complained a ton in the past about how "underpowered" Terran is, etc. Right now I think WOL is balanced pretty well, and it seems as if Blizzard is taking more of an interest in making sure HoTS ends up the same way, which makes me confident that they'll get it right eventually. That being said, I do think the Warhound should be completely redesigned. It's not about balancing the game. First the gameplay flaws have to be addressed. Who cares if the game is balanced when it's boring, does not reward skill and promotes idiotic playstyle like deathballs and such... They should fix the damn game and only then think about balancing it. On topic, what do you think of such replacements for the Warhound and Thor? Morian Quaker (replacement for Warhound) Morian Quaker is Kel-Morian mining machine refitted for military purposes (think of an industrial looking Dreadnaught). The unit would have an awesome industrial design, obviously. Its role would be mainly as a support unit, especially for mech pushes, but also as a defence tool and possibly slowing down reinforcements. Basic characteristics: - average HP - movement speed of Siege Tank - no attack at all by default; after researching Close Combat Kit - above average melee attack (bonus vs. armored) - tier 2.5 (Factory+Lab), upgrades require Armory but are researched in Lab Abilities: Seismic Mode (deployable like the Siege Mode of the Siege Tank) - default ability; allows the Morian Quaker to deploy and slow down movement of all units within its range (somewhat bigger than Shredder's attack range) by X%; Quaker in the Seismic Mode cannot attack but using Defensive Matrix is possible Defensive Matrix - requires Close Combat Kit upgrade; gives Quaker 300 extra HP (up to balance) against ranged attacks that enables it to close the distance more easily but loses the advantage upon encountering other melee units; requires full energy to be activated, channeling "spell" that drains energy at such rate that the Matrix lasts for 10-15 seconds (up to balance, duh) Upgrades: Close Combat Kit - requires Armory, researched in Lab; allows the Morian Quaker to use its massive jackhammers in combat, giving the unit a formidable melee attack; unlocks Defensive Matrix ability; gives the unit energy pool - 3/4 of its default HP Enhanced Legs - requires Armory, researched in Lab; allows Quakers to move as fast as Warhounds currently do Morian Quaker would be an excellent support unit, mainly for a mech based army. Its role would be making sure that the enemy thinks twice before engaging your push as his units would stay within Siege Tanks' range much longer than usual, as well as guarding leap frogging Tanks from flanking enemy forces, giving Tanks enough time to deploy. They'd have to be carefully positioned in order not to slow down your own troops. Upon researching Close Combat Kit, Morian Quakers would gain an additional role as Tank line breaking units (ordefensive positions in general), but only if used correctly - using Defensive Matrix at the right time or Medivacs to close the distance, speed upgrade would come in handy is the former situation. Matrix would make them more durable in their Seismic Mode, too. Their weakness would be their energy pool - they'd be vulnerable to EMPs and Feedbacks (both could easily shut down Defensive Matrix), as well as light melee units (Lings, Banelings, Zealots) and air. So upgrading Close Combat Kit would come with a significant drawback. The player would have to decide whether he actually needs Close Combat Kit when using only Seismic Mode (no energy pool = no Feedback). Loki Missile Battery (replacement for Thor) Basic characteristics: - movement speed and HP similar to Goliath - attack speed and damage similar to Valkyrie; Valkyrie's splash damage - attack range similar to upgraded Goliath - has to deploy in order to attack Abilities: Shared Targetting - passive; requires no upgrade; allows deployed Lokis to share attack range with other Lokis if their range radii overlap. Target sharing would allow Lokis to drastically increase their range if positioned properly. E.g. Terran could place them in a triangle formation, with a tiny bit of range overlapping for all of them, allowing all of them to cover 3 times larger area! What do you think? | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:09 monomo wrote: I completely disagree with the OP (nothing personal, of course) I simply do not see the problem with low-micro units, and only a fool would actually call SC2 an easy game. It is way harder than most games I have ever played in fact. I just think that people complaining about the Warhound are overhyping the problem SC2 is still a macro-focused game and there has yet to come a player with perfect macro. TL;DR I wouldn't call SC2 easy -> i dont see a problem with easy units it is easy compared to bw, hence no one is impressed with pro's typical micro battle because anyone competent can do it as long as the game remains focused on spells and spells have smartcast. bw's unit efficiency increased depending on player's micro. the thread is pointing out that warhound is the epitome of lacking unit micro potential. having micro potential brings depth to the game and create great spectacles. | ||
|
LavaLava
United States235 Posts
| ||
|
Moonsalt
267 Posts
I really don't like what they did in HotS with Protoss and Terran... Zerg gets "terrain/space-control" units that allow the Zerg to easily defend and kinda like siege the opponent. So let's take a look at what Terran gets : Two Attack-Move units ( Warhound and Battle-mode Hellion) and a mine that you move around, borrow it and then it does it's thing alone. No need to micro at all. Protoss got a pretty good harrasment-spellcaster-unit, the Oracle, which is a flying paper that dies so easily and costs so much, kinda like the Shuttle/Reaver drop but less expensive, you can just lose it to 2 marines or a queen. They get that mothership core which has some pretty interesting role : Hit & Run using the Recall or to actually defend pushes with the Purify ability early-game. And last but not least, a very terrible capital-ship at dealing damage but kinda good at sniping important units and structures and in some situations force engagements. In conclusion, Protoss and Zerg got some units that makes your army a little bit harder to control at the later stages of the game aswell as some pretty sort of "APM required Spell-Casters" (Viper, Oracle and maybe the Mothership Core in the early-mid game). Terran got a tech choice that is really boring to even watch! | ||
|
Celestia
Mexico376 Posts
| ||
|
RifleCow
Canada637 Posts
| ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:44 LavaLava wrote: I still haven't seen he fact addressed that if Stalkers had 220 HP and 20 DPS they would seem just as A-movey as the Warhound. That means it really is a balance issue. If Warhounds were weaker people would be making fewer of them, kiting, using missiles manually, etc. They're just overpowered, not badly designed. This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On September 12 2012 08:08 Cloak wrote: This is a good point. While theoretically balance is irrelevant to unit dynamics, the drive to consider optimal play is only strong when there's a reason to work for it. Right now they're cost-effective in all situations, no there's little drive to kite or position properly. The base dynamics will be unchanged, but the consequences of those dynamics won't manifest until balance is at least reasonable. there are units like that in the terran arsenal already. it still adds nothing to the game. | ||
|
Aragnis
Australia17 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:10 IntoTheWow wrote: The marine is not an attack move unit, the vulture is not an attack move unit, the helion is not an attack move unit, the mutalisk is not an attack move unit. The warhound moves in, attacks and pulls out, dies or kills something. The marines are spread, helions move while shooting to maximize the aoe/harrass workers, the vulture is microed with patrol micro/lay mines, etc. The marine being so fragile and mobile creates interesting relationships with other units, such as banelings, stalker, etc. edit: I bolded the part which i think is interesting. (inside the nested quote). See, this is an argument that I can agree with. 100%. The warhound is a boring unit, simple to use and with very little scope for micro. It's also not what the original post said. The original post took that attack move argument and basically did a reductio ad absurdum on it, apparently without realising that reductio is a tool to be used on arguments you are opposing (and it was not used validly). The warhound has very little scope for microing, but "no scope for microing to improve efficiency" is emphatically not a trait inherant to all ranged unit designs. Yet that is what was claimed. Since we're just repeatedly agreeing with each other, there's not much more to say until/unless orb wants to join in. | ||
|
mcdrewbie
8 Posts
I, myself, trust these professionals with a proven track record, and a history of getting things right, over this annoying vocal minority flooding forums with their petty complaints on a unit based off very little than some beta streams and whatever info has been released about a still changing unit in a still changing gamestate. Furthermore, unless you have played in the Beta (and are high level) your opinions on new units don't really carry much weight (as to their power, balance, effectiveness, use . . .) I wonder how many other problem units/mechanics existed in the betas of SC2, SC1, SC:BW that when the game was released and actually played, turned out to be fine. Also I find it funny how they put so much weight into the fact that other people that echo them are posting as evidence that their views are popular, disregarding the fact that anyone that is fine with the warhound (or more likely, doesn't care or even know about this "issue,") is unlikely to spend the time to complain online. Lastly, even when they do make a mistake and some strategy becomes boring overpowered, they are rather quick to try to make changes to fix the problem. As an analogy, take Magic: The Gathering. Even though they playtest a lot in house, sometimes the either miss something or miss how powerful a strategy is. When this happens and the game stat in the big tournaments becomes so you either have to play a strategy or play against that strategy, they ban cards, and a new environment is created. So if say Warhound causes only terrans using warhounds to conquer the ladder, they will do something to either nerf warhounds (either power, cost, timing, speed, something . . .) or do something to amplify the counters other races have. | ||
|
thirtyapm
521 Posts
hence our feedback does not affect them. | ||
|
-orb-
United States5770 Posts
On September 12 2012 07:04 Aragnis wrote: From the original post (emphasis mine): Now, I agree that the warhound isn't interesting, and is probably too powerful. I'd rather see a complete redesign than a simple tweak of the numbers. But the argument presented was rubbish. Since you seem to know what he was saying better than he does, why did he say that the same can be said for literally any possible ranged unit, and even mention marines, if that's not what he meant? You are not comprehending my sentence structure properly, or perhaps I did not word it distinctly enough for it to be obvious. As I understand your argument, you seem to be interpreting that paragraph as me having said that any ranged unit including marines is an attack move unit. This is not the case. I was saying the warhound is an attack move unit. Then in a separate sentence, I say that the only way you can micro them is the most basic form of ranged unit micro -- the target fire and hurt-unit-save. In that same sentence I then mention that this can already be said to be true for any possible ranged unit design. The point was that other units already have this simple micro; it exists everywhere. What sets some of the other, less offensive examples out is that they have more interesting micro ON TOP of focus firing/pullback, such as blinking, marine splitting, roach burrowing, etc. Hope this clears up the misunderstanding. | ||
| ||
