The Warhound: Did We Make a Mistake? - Page 7

Nightshade_

United States549 Posts

January 05 2013 20:15 GMT

#121

On January 06 2013 01:28 Zorgaz wrote:

Really, that's what you have to say? 2 months and a couple days is less then 3 months..... Yeah i could have been more exact but did i really need to?

2 months and 6 days is a lot less than 3 months...

Krakoskk

United Kingdom51 Posts

January 05 2013 20:53 GMT

#122

I'd write a longer reply to this, but I think it's clear to see the OP is a very low league player. How can you compare a marine or stalker to a warhound? Marines and stalkers are like the furthest from 1A a unit can possibly be. The roach? Sure you can make a small comparison there, but the roach is A SHITTY unit design wise and it arguably ruins PvZ.

TheFish7

United States2824 Posts

January 05 2013 21:04 GMT

#123

I only have one thing to say

Goliath

tehemperorer

United States2183 Posts

January 05 2013 21:18 GMT

#124

Like I said before, the Warhound stepped on Marauder role so hard it made bio stupid. The only way for Warhound to work in mech is for it's combat abilities to be heavily nerfed from its last incarnation, and to make it a sort of light, electronic warfare unit that doesn't also step on the Thor's OR the BattleHellion's (I'm not saying hellba-- ahhh shit) role.

Zahir

United States947 Posts

January 05 2013 22:03 GMT

#125

Ill admit, It's tempting to do something, anything to make mech (and Terran in general) more viable, particularly vs toss. Still, this is a bad idea. In adding an uninteresting unit like the warhound, You may make "mech" more viable, but it won't have any of the qualities that made people want mech to be viable in the first place. Tanks will still be irrelevant vs toss, and less prevalent in other matchups as warhounds take on the role of strong anti armor. Without tanks, the result will be more akin to bio than the positional, pushing, siege line play traditionally associated with mech.

For an example, look at OneGoal. They lamented (rightly) the weakness of gateway units in sc2 toss, and tried shifting the immortal to gateway to boost Gateway play back to the levels of raw power it once held. Unfortunately, the immortal is pretty boring, especially when compared against blink stalkers. The only exciting micro you will see involving immortals is thanks to warp prisms... Ff + immortal can be pretty ok in PvZ, but seeing as the enemy's ability to micro goes down in proportion to how well the toss uses his sentries... :/

In an ideal world, there would be some solid, microable unit on the factory capable of soft countering immortals and armored air. Unfortunately blizz's attempt at designing such a unit was too bland, one dimensional, and frankly unappealing art/concept wise.

And finally, real talk, there aren't going to be any new units (or old units re added) because we are too close to release. At this point the best we can hope for a tank buff (supply to 2 would be good) and maybe a dps buff on landed Vikings to make traditional tank mech viable.

Duncaaaaaan

United Kingdom101 Posts

January 06 2013 12:06 GMT

#126

Well blizzard stubbornly refuses to keep any sc1 units as well, they want it to be different as possible to bw. So we're stuck with the viking, a complete piece of shit that is flimsy with 0 armour but counts as an armoured unit.

althaz

Australia1001 Posts

January 06 2013 12:58 GMT

#127

The problem with the Warhound is it desperately needs to be the Goliath. That's pretty much it.

btw, mech doesn't need anything to combat the immortal. Pure immortals loses to pure tanks in a direct engagement if you have a big enough army and once you have ghosts it's not even close. Immortals are nessecary for Protoss to hold off things like the 1-1-1, but against true mech compositions the problems are air, blink and chargelots (in conjunction with Colossi).

LloydPGM

85 Posts

January 06 2013 13:04 GMT

#128

Just remove the shitty marauder and give back the warhound with fixes, this will drastically change all gameplay, it will be more interesting cause actually HOTS = WoL.
Blizzard has no gut.

Markwerf

Netherlands3728 Posts

January 06 2013 13:18 GMT

#129

nah the warhound was a terrible unit and deserved to be removed..

It was just an incredibly ugly 'fix' to make mech work by adding stuff like bonus against mechanical and an attack that negated hardened armor. It also just lead to new silly all-ins and made TvT completely silly.

Mech in it's core is tank based play but the tank is too weak against protoss. Buffing the tank is not a great solution with regards to TvT and TvZ because the tank feels fine there. The problem the warhound was addressing was just the strong mechanical units of protoss: blink stalkers and immortal.
Immortal should just have hardened shield removed, that ability is a joke. Basically it ONLY serves as a hardcounter to the tank, practically no other unit in the game the immortal frequently faces does way more damage than 10. Just remove hardened shield and give the immortal slightly more shield instead.
The widow mine should also fill the other gap of mech play, being very immobile and having no efficient counter for fast harassing units like blink stalkers. Instead they somehow turned the widow mine into more of an AoE unit terran didn't need AT ALL because they have hellions for that... Also the MsC providing detection makes widow mines even more of a joke..

Simple solutions to actually make TANK-based mech work instead of using the boring warhound:
- make widow mine good against protoss not so much agianst zerg, ie give it higher single target damage and less splash..
- fix hardened shield to remove the silly hardcounter to the tank that is the immortal. Immortals should be great against roaches, thor's but not make tanks completely terrible. With 6 range and warp prisms flanking tanks with them is even possible but it should cost som trouble..
- remove detection from MsC and give it back to oracle. This fixes banshee and DT openings and doesn't make widow mines into such a joke which are already countered by stalkers with the MsC..

Qikz

United Kingdom12022 Posts

January 06 2013 13:25 GMT

#130

On January 06 2013 21:58 althaz wrote:
The problem with the Warhound is it desperately needs to be the Goliath. That's pretty much it.

btw, mech doesn't need anything to combat the immortal. Pure immortals loses to pure tanks in a direct engagement if you have a big enough army and once you have ghosts it's not even close. Immortals are nessecary for Protoss to hold off things like the 1-1-1, but against true mech compositions the problems are air, blink and chargelots (in conjunction with Colossi).

Erm, are you sure? I'm pretty sure pure immortals versus pure tanks will win every time with very little problems.

It's not just immortals that cause tanks problems. it's the immortal archon mix that is impossible to deal with since it's very hard to get enough emps to even deal with it, let alone the instant remax of zealot archon from warp gates.

Ambre

France416 Posts

January 06 2013 13:30 GMT

#131

Both as a Terran player and as a spectator, I would prefere a unit that fits the mech play style.

I would enjoy so much having some tanks (not 15, but just a few) on a ramp, behind some depots, or even behind some new auto-turrets that would fill a new USEFUL role, and being like this :

naastyOne

491 Posts

January 06 2013 15:45 GMT

#132

On January 06 2013 03:22 Prog455 wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 05 2013 10:13 SC2John wrote:

On January 05 2013 10:06 BronzeKnee wrote:

On January 05 2013 09:40 SC2John wrote:

The main arguments about the warhound originally were:
1) It is a "1a unit", meaning that it has no real skill attached to it. It attacks into mechanical units, auto-casts Haywire Missiles, and crushes them. No amount of tweaking numbers will fix that the warhound has no real micro potential aside from pulling back weakened units.

Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +

Certainly the warhounds needed some huge nerfing, but an all-around unit like the roach, marine, or stalker that relies primarily on splits, positioning, and concaves has never been a bad thing for the game. If any particular change could be made, Haywire Missiles could be given a longer range and require manual activation (much like the old 250mm Strike Cannons), which would encourage players to have to spend extra APM to use and then reposition correctly. It might take some playing around with the damage of Haywire Missiles (as a manual cast could encourage mass sniping of immortals or something).

Counter Counterargument: "All-around" units like the Roach, Marine and Stalker you mention have lots of micro involved. The Warhound doesn't require the same micro, is about the same as Thor or Immortal, which is move into range and hope you do are stronger than your opponent.

Furthermore, Mech play is traditionally based around positioning and it is exciting because it is different. Knowing where and when you siege your tanks takes skill and is a different than stutter stepping, Blink micro ect... To allow the Warhounds to be microed like those other "all-around" units would mean that Factory play is no longer based on when and where you position your siege tanks, but how well you can stutter step ect...

That reduces the variation of the game, and it is bad.

Although I haven't always had this viewpoint and I may not have it for very long....

I think positional mech in SC2 may just be...impossible? Maybe it's best that we have some kind of a mobile way to play mech, where we control space with packs of units covered by siege tanks and mines, than to try to focus on having perfect positioning in order to play. All of the other strategies of all other matchups have this in common. The only thing that doesn't allow for micro or tactical genius to pull through is terran mech. In addition, maybe we could MAKE warhound interesting instead of just dismissing it as kind of a beefy unit with an anti-mech attack?

And to those that say Immortals are not microed at all: let's go watch some PartinG games on Ohana and then let's talk about this truthfully. (Not at all comparing warhounds to immortals here, I'm just point out that Immortals can definitely be interesting).

The biggest problem with bringing back the Warhound to cover for up lackluster Mech units, is that Mech without Tanks is just another deathball, and i think a lot of people would rather see Mech as unviable than a deathball. Right now in WoL Terran is the only race that does not benefit from sitting back and maxing out, and it would be such a shame to see HotS turn into a turtle fest into a clash of 200/200 armies, where the player to come out ahead of the fight has basicly won the game.

http://day9.tv/d/Day9/day9-daily-528/
Mexh in TvZ definitely favours terran late gma due to Raven PDD, ghosts, and Battlecruisers.

And there were certain others matches where terrain turtled untill maxed and then skirmished to the point of map mining out,

SpecKROELLchen

Germany150 Posts

January 06 2013 15:48 GMT

#133

I wanted the warhound to get out of the game. But blizzard made it too simple for themselfes. getting it out, without inventing a new unit. If i had known that before.... So yes

EsportsJohn

United States4883 Posts

January 06 2013 16:10 GMT

#134

On January 07 2013 00:45 naastyOne wrote:

Show nested quote +

On January 06 2013 03:22 Prog455 wrote:

On January 05 2013 10:13 SC2John wrote:

On January 05 2013 10:06 BronzeKnee wrote:

Well, this comment is kind of taken out of context. First of all, if both players sit back and max out on their tier 3 units, zerg will reach that point about 5:00 game time earlier, which means they can just keep doing BL pushes into ultras, rinse and repeat, and eventually win. This is why mech players have to score a TON of worker kills in the beginning of the game with the hellion/banshee harass; if you don't do economic damage, you might as well just GG then instead of playing out a 40-minute death sequence.

Second, we're talking about HotS. The lategame terran army of raven/ghost/battlecruiser is pretty weak against ultra/ling, so if you DO manage to take down the BL/infestor army, get ready to lose a base trade. In addition, Seeker Missile is terrible in HotS. In addition, zerg has vipers, making BL/infestor even more difficult for terran to deal with (especially because you just can't kill that many corruptors quickly).

That being said, I'm totally okay with just all the terran mech units tweaked so they don't suck instead of adding a new unit. I mean, it's a little disheartening to see that terran gets almost nothing from the expansion, but if they don't at least make mech somewhat viable in all matchups, terran got literally nothing from HotS.

Pucca

Taiwan1280 Posts

January 06 2013 16:14 GMT

#135

I like the idea of a manual casting haywire missle. However, I if blizzard is going to be interested in using the warhound once more I'd consider that they should use a alpha stage map so players can experiment with it and see how it evolves. It seemed to work in the past

Hider

Denmark9341 Posts

January 06 2013 16:25 GMT

#136

On January 06 2013 07:03 Zahir wrote:
Ill admit, It's tempting to do something, anything to make mech (and Terran in general) more viable, particularly vs toss. Still, this is a bad idea. In adding an uninteresting unit like the warhound, You may make "mech" more viable, but it won't have any of the qualities that made people want mech to be viable in the first place. Tanks will still be irrelevant vs toss, and less prevalent in other matchups as warhounds take on the role of strong anti armor. Without tanks, the result will be more akin to bio than the positional, pushing, siege line play traditionally associated with mech.

For an example, look at OneGoal. They lamented (rightly) the weakness of gateway units in sc2 toss, and tried shifting the immortal to gateway to boost Gateway play back to the levels of raw power it once held. Unfortunately, the immortal is pretty boring, especially when compared against blink stalkers. The only exciting micro you will see involving immortals is thanks to warp prisms... Ff + immortal can be pretty ok in PvZ, but seeing as the enemy's ability to micro goes down in proportion to how well the toss uses his sentries... :/

In an ideal world, there would be some solid, microable unit on the factory capable of soft countering immortals and armored air. Unfortunately blizz's attempt at designing such a unit was too bland, one dimensional, and frankly unappealing art/concept wise.

And finally, real talk, there aren't going to be any new units (or old units re added) because we are too close to release. At this point the best we can hope for a tank buff (supply to 2 would be good) and maybe a dps buff on landed Vikings to make traditional tank mech viable.

I think the most realistic chance (if blizzards wants to try and make tank-mech viable) would be one of the following two "solutions";
1) Give tanks a late game upgrade which increases damage against shield (like + 10 and ignores hardened shield)
2) Reduce shield on immortals but increase health.

Then they would probably make a statement regarding protoss air that terrans just needs to figure it out (like they always have to apparently).
Obviously mech will still be hopelessly underpowered and there will never be any solution to dealing with protoss air when you go mech and thus Blizzards will have to redesign how protoss air works a couple of months into release.

That is at least my predicition based on past behaviour of how Dustin Browder and Blizzard thinks.

Hider

Denmark9341 Posts

January 06 2013 16:36 GMT

#137

On January 06 2013 22:30 Ambre wrote:
Both as a Terran player and as a spectator, I would prefere a unit that fits the mech play style.

I would enjoy so much having some tanks (not 15, but just a few) on a ramp, behind some depots, or even behind some new auto-turrets that would fill a new USEFUL role, and being like this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4UfAL9f74I

so gandalf is essentially a siege tank?

Hider

Denmark9341 Posts

January 06 2013 16:38 GMT

#138

On January 05 2013 20:05 rEalGuapo wrote:

Show nested quote +

A mech army should always have trouble moving out before 160 Supply,that's just the way it is if you go for a beefy lategame army. Protoss going for a strong composition will also start moving out at 150 160 Supply.

A single misplaced tank will not lose you the game. If it does it is a really high level game since both players seemed to have the same mechanics so that the loss of one unit actually makes the difference. If that's the case, well, you made a mistake and paid for it.
"Getting caught unsieged" means that you messed up big time. Having no idea of where your opponents army is, is a single mistake but it is probably the biggest you can make when moving out with a mech army.
Same goes for the Mines in place.

So you cannot make errors in the early game to get to a powerful army? That is unfair?
You should never play Protoss.

Also I see so many Terrans complain about Immortals. I don't get that at all. Once Terran got enough Tanks, infinite Immortals won't kill them. Plus, just getting Ghosts for EMP and Nukes is sooooooo good in mech. I know it is a lot of gas but it is so worth it.

Wanna bet?

numberThirtyOne

United States294 Posts

January 06 2013 16:57 GMT

#139

I was initially glad when the Warhound was removed, but I assumed they'd quickly add some other unit to replace it. It's kind of sad if Terran goes into HotS with only 1.5 new units. At least they eventually added some cool buffs to other stuff like the medevac, but still. Feels like we need another unit to inject some more variety into Terran.

Morton

United States152 Posts

January 06 2013 17:21 GMT

#140

So in consensus, the majority of people wanted the warhound removed, but expected something new for terran, and now feel that terran is a bit gimped in hots.

well, hope they do something in patch #11 *fingers crossed*

Prev 1 5 6 7 8 9 19 Next All

Please or register to reply.

The Warhound: Did We Make a Mistake? - Page 7

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming