EPTThe current situation where the best strategy seems to be stacking Warhounds at the expense of Siege Tanks, Thors and Hellions certainly doesn't seem right for a start. Positional play with Siege Tanks and the idea of "breaking the mech Terran" is far more interesting to watch than seeing 20 Mechwarrior Marauders on crack zooming into the Protoss (and Zerg LOL) army and steamrolling it with no regard for positioning or micro. The TvP Battle Report where the Terran had a more balanced mech army (with tanks) is what I was hoping for, but I imagine it's difficult to tune the Warhound and Siege Tank such that a Terran wants to have a mixture of the two in their army. It seems like it will be hard to get away from mass Warhound TvP when the Siege Tank is so disappointing in the matchup.
Why the Warhound should NOT be balanced - Page 7
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
iAmiAnC
United Kingdom317 Posts
The current situation where the best strategy seems to be stacking Warhounds at the expense of Siege Tanks, Thors and Hellions certainly doesn't seem right for a start. Positional play with Siege Tanks and the idea of "breaking the mech Terran" is far more interesting to watch than seeing 20 Mechwarrior Marauders on crack zooming into the Protoss (and Zerg LOL) army and steamrolling it with no regard for positioning or micro. The TvP Battle Report where the Terran had a more balanced mech army (with tanks) is what I was hoping for, but I imagine it's difficult to tune the Warhound and Siege Tank such that a Terran wants to have a mixture of the two in their army. It seems like it will be hard to get away from mass Warhound TvP when the Siege Tank is so disappointing in the matchup. | ||
|
Legio
Sweden235 Posts
If you nerf the WH as much as it needs to be nerfed, then it becomes the Thor that already exist. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
You're saying that: 1. The Warhound is powerful and easy to use. 2. That making a powerful unit that is difficult to use would be a good design. 3. Don't nerf the Warhound. What am I missing here? | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On September 11 2012 02:07 Zorkmid wrote: I don't understand this. You're saying that: 1. The Warhound is powerful and easy to use. 2. That making a powerful unit that is difficult to use would be a good design. 3. Don't nerf the Warhound. What am I missing here? get rid of the warhound obviously... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On September 11 2012 01:37 Condor Hero wrote: Yeah I hate unit clumping. You can hardly see shit in a max vs max fight. Yeah, that is one of the issues with SC2. Units "clumped" in BW, but they also took up more space on the screen, so it was less of an issue. Also, the units were sprites on a grid, displayed on a CTR screen in a resolution smart phones have surpassed; rather than 3d models on 3d map, showing in wide screen at 1920 x 1080. You would be hard pressed to get a max army all on one screen in BW, but is SC2 is no problem just because everything is so much smaller, faster and meaner. | ||
|
nocrA
Italy27 Posts
On September 11 2012 02:04 Brahoono wrote: Even in a game like Broodwar which was like super hard on the mechanics the very good players who are flash, jaedong or older ones like boxer usually won everything because they were the smartest guys out there. Also they have beastly mechanics...so there is NO reason not to have both sides to this game. Thats why its a REALTIME strategy game...it will and has to have a strong mechanical component. If you only want strategy in there you have to play a turnbased strategy game. Do you think that chess part of Chess Boxing has the same strategic value of a normal chess game because having both boxing("mechanics") and chess doesn't lower the strategy? (I'm using your reasoning) I think the more things you put in a game the more every aspect becomes less relevant. If we had less mechanics if the game was good we would focus more on the strategy. Unfortunately I think that RTS can't have very complex startegy, maybe it's because imperfect information hinders that(coin-flips) But I'm ready to change idea | ||
|
Bertolt
United States75 Posts
P.S. just realized who the OP was. <3 orb ^^ | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
| ||
|
kinglemon
Germany199 Posts
| ||
|
Brahoono
119 Posts
On September 11 2012 02:13 nocrA wrote: Do you think that chess part of Chess Boxing has the same strategic value of a normal chess game because having both boxing("mechanics") and chess doesn't lower the strategy? (I'm using your reasoning) I think the more things you put in a game the more every aspect becomes less relevant. If we had less mechanics if the game was good we would focus more on the strategy. Unfortunately I think that RTS can't have very complex startegy, maybe it's because imperfect information hinders that(coin-flips) But I'm ready to change idea That's where I disagree a lot. I really don't think that if you tone down mechanics a lot you will see a lot more strategy. You basically automate mechanics by training a lot. The decisionmaking in scbw even though it requires a lot more mechanics has way more strategic depth than sc2. Highground advantage and more units that allow you to control space a lot more for example give a lot of strategic depth. Also you don't have that deathball syndrom allowing you to do way more with your units. | ||
|
Zorkmid
4410 Posts
Oops! Guess I skipped over that part. | ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
- misleading sensationalist headline, just write what your real point is ("Get rid of the warhound") - SC2 has easier mechanics than broodwar, but there is still a very long way to master it totally. when you write that "Newbies get bored quickly, because they can do everything", I disagree heavily, out of own experience, your "newbies" are at least master players - Many people criticize that SC2 shouldnt become a battle of casters, instead there should be simple attack units who are then microed by moving back and forth and focus firing, there were tons of this kind in Broodwar I don't think that the Warhound is a great unit and I'm unsure about all updates of game mechanics, I mainly don't support orbs reasoning here. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
An attack move unit in itself doesn't need to be bad if it features in interesting strategies. For example hydra's are pretty much the same but they can be just fine. The warhound just sucks because it's intended to be part of the new mech which becomes boring with it. Mech is a slow positional style with huge strength but no mobility. The warhound changes this and makes it just a boring version of MMM. I don't want to see warhound fights in TvT or super slow warhound/battlehellion(maybe even BC) armies in TvP. Units need flavor of themselves or need to enable other units with flavor. Boring units that hardcounter fun strategies too much sucks. Nerfing it into the ground where it becomes useless in TvZ and hardly used in TvT will probably end up being the solution though. At some point blizzard will have to be pragmatic and start tweakign numbers instead of overhauling entire systems even if the chosen path they have sucks. Development choices from blizzard have just been terrible the past few years in both diablo and starcraft, they seem to opt for terrible lead designers | ||
|
Kranyum
77 Posts
Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units: - Roach - Corruptor - Collosus - Immortal - Thor - Marrauder Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list. | ||
|
nocrA
Italy27 Posts
On September 11 2012 02:26 Brahoono wrote: That's where I disagree a lot. I really don't think that if you tone down mechanics a lot you will see a lot more strategy. You basically automate mechanics by training a lot. The decisionmaking in scbw even though it requires a lot more mechanics has way more strategic depth than sc2. Highground advantage and more units that allow you to control space a lot more for example give a lot of strategic depth. Also you don't have that deathball syndrom allowing you to do way more with your units. My point was more general. For sc2 I think you are right(I said if the game is good meaning if it has the possibility for complex strategy) but I think my point in general still holds. BTW BW had 12 years to develop strategy where sc2 had 2 years and now we are gonna somewhat start again. But I agree with you that maybe sc2 doesn't support much strategic depth. But before Botvinnik's (first chess world champion) scientific approach to chess strategy, chess was thought to be a game about tactics and calculation were the first player to make a major mistakes loses and not about strategy (you can read E.A.Poe that in the 18th century thought draughts had more depth than chess + Show Spoiler + Form The Murders in the Rue Morgue The faculty of resolution is possibly much invigorated by mathematical study, and especially by that highest branch of it, which, unjustly, and merely because of its retrograde operations, has been called, as if par excellence, analysis. Yet, to calculate is not in itself to analyze. A chess player, for example, does one without the effort of the other. It follows that the game of chess, in its effects upon mental character, is greatly misunderstood. I am not now writing a treatise, but simply prefacing a somewhat peculiar narrative by observations very much at random; I will, therefore take occasion to assert that the higher powers of the reflective intellect are decidedly and more usefully tasked by the unostentatious game of draughts than by the elaborate frivolity of chess. In this latter where the pieces have different and bizarre motions, with various and variable values, what is only complex is mistaken (a not unusual error) for what is profound. The attention is here powerfully called into play. If it flag for an instant, an oversight is committed [“blunder”—the Editor] resulting in injury or defeat. The possible moves being not only manifold but involute, the chances of such oversights are multiplied; and in nine cases out of ten it is more concentrative rather than the more acute player who conquers. In draughts, on the contrary, where the motives are unique and have but little variation, the possibilities of inadvertence are diminished; and the mere attention being comparatively left unemployed, what advantages are obtained by either party are obtained by by superior acumen. | ||
|
ledgerhs
United States34 Posts
In theory, that should make air transitions or air play much more viable (I might horribly wrong). Thoughts? | ||
|
kaokentake
383 Posts
On September 11 2012 02:50 Kranyum wrote: Hey Orb, I fully agree: it was the kind of post I would have made, but sadly I have lost faith a while ago and I am too busy to care as much as before. Your point about the warhound is perfectly valid, but what about the following units: - Roach - Corruptor - Collosus - Immortal - Thor - Marrauder Seems to me that your arguement can be just as easily applied to all these units on the list. roach makes some pretty exciting zvp games. devourers were hardly seen and just existed to counter carrier / bc. same deal with corrupter collossus / immortal / thor / marauder. I believe each race can have a few a-move units as long as they are exciting to watch. I enjoyed MVP doing thor timings at IEM killing zergs right when they switched into broodlords with the anti-air thor attack. Each race already has their a-move units. Terran doesnt need another marauder | ||
|
Dsan
Italy6 Posts
So if Terran gets an amove unit that should be cutted off the game,why are Protoss and Zerg still on Starcraft 2? | ||
|
Ariuz
Germany39 Posts
but heres the sad truth, blizzard doesnt care. starcraft turns more and more noob friendly, attack move units help the casual gamers to win more. this may sound dumb, but blizzard only interests how many players are gonna play starcraft. I also think automine and the count of ur workers doesnt belong to starcraft, but blizzard seems like they dont care about the traditions of starcraft. its sad. but thats how it is. | ||
|
hnim
United States86 Posts
| ||
| ||
