|
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW
|
Tempest is looking too strong now... ah well we will see
|
On April 17 2012 16:07 Zanno wrote:
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW
But they would be too good of a detector with overlord speed, and if you got rid of that you would have to get rid of overlord drop since it would be useless. So no more baneling bomb or doom drops or anything...
I never played BW so it does seem counter intuitive, so how was Zerg by far the weakest race to DTs? Couldn't you just park a few over each base and be fine?
|
On April 17 2012 16:07 Zanno wrote:
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW
No Thors are awesome. That they are clunky leads to funky stuff to have them being ferried on Medivacs to be the Muta fire Brigade which is pretty awesome and funny. I'd say their only problem is the crap antiair vs non light.
As for DTs in Broodwar... are you kidding me? T was by far the more vulnerable to DTs. As a T you can outright lose to DTs in BW and Zerg they may do damage but its unlikely that they will outright win games.Hahaha, only a T would know that DTs are suffering
|
On April 17 2012 16:24 Ryder. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 16:07 Zanno wrote:
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW But they would be too good of a detector with overlord speed, and if you got rid of that you would have to get rid of overlord drop since it would be useless. So no more baneling bomb or doom drops or anything... I never played BW so it does seem counter intuitive, so how was Zerg by far the weakest race to DTs? Couldn't you just park a few over each base and be fine?
A popular midgame strat back in the day was corsair into dt harrass 
|
I'm still not liking the swarm host. Sounds like new tempest is intended to be antibroodlord.
|
I think the tempest would be as bad against broods as the carrier. Corruptors are so easy to get along with broods... Maybe if the mutalisk morphed into both kinda like BW?
|
On April 17 2012 16:07 Zanno wrote:
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW
Yes it is counterintuitive.
Zerg was weak to DTs, because Corsairs were good no matter what in the Broodwar ZvP metagame.
It was a whole different game and there are like a thousand factors why DTs were still playable in BW against Zerg that are different in SC2.
Giving OLs detection instead of Overseers would just be a huge buff - not only against DTs, but also against Banshees and all the little burrow stuff in ZvZ.
For the warhound... I don't know what they want.
As it was designed, it looked like they wanted a Thor/Goliath like unit that adresses the following issues:
-) Thors are not mobile enough (turning mech vZ in a turtlefest)
-) mass Thors are too 1a-ish and deal with too much stuff without ground superiority units - tanks (this is also the reason why they really can't buff siege tanks, as Tank/Thor right now)
-) Mech/Terran could use some factory units that are better vs Protoss ("+ vs mechanical")
-) as long as Thors are the only factory antiair and are a high tier, 60sec 300/200 unit, Mech play is restricted to Thorplay against Zerg due to mutas. (turning mech vZ in a turtlefest)
|
as long as they put a Good anti-air GROUND units, not a specific one like the stupid Thor that is strong only against certain units(i hate specific unit-role they make the game less enjoiable) but more like Liath/Warhound in the Terran arsenal, i'm happy, i do not want to build viking to cover from air and take another route in the upgrades department
|
Not sure if this was mentioned already. I think they should keep in the shredder, but in a different role. It should be a slowdown effect(not even a full snare), it could drop an oily substance in the area around it. I think it works best as a building with a solid building time(1 minute or something?), so it can't easily be deployed in the middle of battle. This way, it becomes harder for enemy units to move through certain areas. It should not work on harvesters( they float a bit, so it makes sense). While it does not deal direct damage, it does make bunker and especially tank defense of bases much more effective.
|
On April 17 2012 18:51 Domus wrote:
Not sure if this was mentioned already. I think they should keep in the shredder, but in a different role. It should be a slowdown effect(not even a full snare), it could drop an oily substance in the area around it. I think it works best as a building with a solid building time(1 minute or something?), so it can't easily be deployed in the middle of battle. This way, it becomes harder for enemy units to move through certain areas. It should not work on harvesters( they float a bit, so it makes sense). While it does not deal direct damage, it does make bunker and especially tank defense of bases much more effective.
That's actually a great idea! :D
|
On April 17 2012 18:51 Domus wrote:
Not sure if this was mentioned already. I think they should keep in the shredder, but in a different role. It should be a slowdown effect(not even a full snare), it could drop an oily substance in the area around it. I think it works best as a building with a solid building time(1 minute or something?), so it can't easily be deployed in the middle of battle. This way, it becomes harder for enemy units to move through certain areas. It should not work on harvesters( they float a bit, so it makes sense). While it does not deal direct damage, it does make bunker and especially tank defense of bases much more effective.
yeah that is actually a pretty sick idea, however seems like it would be most applicable to in-base defence as opposed to being made out on the map. I mean if you make them at the near edge of tank range, then any range unit would go get them right?
i reckon it could work though
i'm just assuming edge of tank range would be most popular use, to get extra shots with them before armies collide, seems like the best use, off the top of my head.
|
On April 17 2012 19:20 InfernoStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 18:51 Domus wrote:
Not sure if this was mentioned already. I think they should keep in the shredder, but in a different role. It should be a slowdown effect(not even a full snare), it could drop an oily substance in the area around it. I think it works best as a building with a solid building time(1 minute or something?), so it can't easily be deployed in the middle of battle. This way, it becomes harder for enemy units to move through certain areas. It should not work on harvesters( they float a bit, so it makes sense). While it does not deal direct damage, it does make bunker and especially tank defense of bases much more effective. yeah that is actually a pretty sick idea, however seems like it would be most applicable to in-base defence as opposed to being made out on the map. I mean if you make them at the near edge of tank range, then any range unit would go get them right? i reckon it could work though i'm just assuming edge of tank range would be most popular use, to get extra shots with them before armies collide, seems like the best use, off the top of my head.
When Blizzard announced the Shredder, they said that they wanted it to be something that you couldn't add to your deathball, but rather something that could control parts of the map. So any implementation that makes it unsuitable for use in big army fights is good. Which is exactly why it originally had the feature of becoming inactive when friendly units were near.
|
On April 17 2012 16:25 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On April 17 2012 16:07 Zanno wrote:
I know it's probably been said 800 times in this thread but Blizzard is definitely going to be reading feedback here so I just want to throw in that I agree with everyone that the warhound is a good idea
The weakness of the thor is its collision size is just too big, when they first came up with the unit the idea was to make it so big that it cant even go down ramps and stuff and it just doesn't work out
They could literally copy and paste the stats of a thor onto the warhound as-is, probably give it a better ability than strike cannons, and it would be a significant improvement to the game overall. Or you could rebalance it so that two warhounds have the same cost effectiveness as one thor, either way would be fine
As for the overseer, I'm afraid the solution is actually just painfully obvious, there was never any reason to remove detections from overlords. overlords without speed are actually very poor detectors and as counter-intuitive as it seems zerg was by far the weakest to DTs of the 3 races in BW No Thors are awesome. That they are clunky leads to funky stuff to have them being ferried on Medivacs to be the Muta fire Brigade which is pretty awesome and funny. I'd say their only problem is the crap antiair vs non light. As for DTs in Broodwar... are you kidding me? T was by far the more vulnerable to DTs. As a T you can outright lose to DTs in BW and Zerg they may do damage but its unlikely that they will outright win games.Hahaha, only a T would know that DTs are suffering
i haven't seen DTs PvT in a pro BW game in forever, granted i dont watch ALL the BW pro matches out there.
|
Thor is the most powerful unit in the game, when they've made the strike cannons as a cooldown ability terrans simply throw off bio and get only thors against protoss because without energy there's no composition that can beat a mass thor full upgrades with scv's autorepair. Immortal simply doesn't work, cannon one-shot an immortal and the uber dps of thors just crush everything, and a mass thor have a really good air splash damage, so bye void or carriers (in small numbers, not a mass carriers full upgrades). This is why thors have energy, and why terran mech is so "bad" against protoss.. thors are a problem for terrans, in HotS or it will be a uber thor or it will be modified, smaller and more mobile, maybe with a better anti-air attack (oh wait.. goliath °_°).
I hope that protoss receive a new "cheap" micro-oriented gateway unit, not imba like marines.. but some kind of "reaper", just to put a little pressure to opponent without going allin or waste so many resources on tech path (DT/Stargate). Replicant has gone (for the grace of god), and tempest will be the "carrier of sc2 like it was on BW", maybe useful against a BL/infestor combo.. if u can hit broodlords out of range of fungals it will be great because if mothership will be removed there's no way to break up BL/infestors.
Zergs are actually the most "improved" race.. every new unit is cool and well designed, but I think that those units are a little bit copyed by BW, swarm host is like a lurker (not exactly.. but in some ways), you can do a swarm host contain, like on BW a common strategy was a lurker contain And the viper, omg.. viper is a freaking cool unit, also the wole of upgrades.. "charge ultralisks", "Speed Hydras", "burrowed-mobile Banelings".. so many things that will be discusses, and probably aborted.. but it's cool.
I think HotS will be great, more like BW but not BW.. With LotV, I hope this game will became another legend of multiplayer-games.
|
Solution to long ranged tanks is a longer ranged missile launcher. Godlike design, this can't possible be a short sighted fix.
|
4713 Posts
On April 17 2012 19:33 AngryPenguin wrote:Thor is the most powerful unit in the game, when they've made the strike cannons as a cooldown ability terrans simply throw off bio and get only thors against protoss because without energy there's no composition that can beat a mass thor full upgrades with scv's autorepair. Immortal simply doesn't work, cannon one-shot an immortal and the uber dps of thors just crush everything, and a mass thor have a really good air splash damage, so bye void or carriers (in small numbers, not a mass carriers full upgrades). This is why thors have energy, and why terran mech is so "bad" against protoss.. thors are a problem for terrans, in HotS or it will be a uber thor or it will be modified, smaller and more mobile, maybe with a better anti-air attack (oh wait.. goliath °_°). I hope that protoss receive a new "cheap" micro-oriented gateway unit, not imba like marines.. but some kind of "reaper", just to put a little pressure to opponent without going allin or waste so many resources on tech path (DT/Stargate). Replicant has gone (for the grace of god), and tempest will be the "carrier of sc2 like it was on BW", maybe useful against a BL/infestor combo.. if u can hit broodlords out of range of fungals it will be great because if mothership will be removed there's no way to break up BL/infestors. Zergs are actually the most "improved" race.. every new unit is cool and well designed, but I think that those units are a little bit copyed by BW, swarm host is like a lurker (not exactly.. but in some ways), you can do a swarm host contain, like on BW a common strategy was a lurker contain And the viper, omg.. viper is a freaking cool unit, also the wole of upgrades.. "charge ultralisks", "Speed Hydras", "burrowed-mobile Banelings".. so many things that will be discusses, and probably aborted.. but it's cool. I think HotS will be great, more like BW but not BW.. With LotV, I hope this game will became another legend of multiplayer-games.
I don't believe that Thor's are the end of Protoss unit. They have a lot of downsides that can be exploited, and they have been nerfed substantially ever since Thorzain used them to win the TSL3.
Their DPS vs ground was nerfed so they aren't as strong as before. They die to mass zealots in the open, or can be pinned with mass zealots while Colossus rape them from range. Colossus still out range Thors by a substantial amount.
In chokes Thors are even more terrible, its even easier to abuse their collision size and sluggishness and again, Colossus destroy them from range. Of course you should never actually try to attack up a choke vs Thors, but that goes for every other army or unit comp.
Lastly, Thors are as expensive as Colossus, and they need support to work, its easy to abuse their immobility and the movement restrictions they place on the army and to use that to harass and abuse the terran.
I agree that Zerg seems the most improved, but it disturbs me that the designers don't seem to have any clear direction regarding terran or protoss. Toss needs to rely less on deathballs and timing attacks, and even less on FF. Terran T3 needs improved somehow to make it more useful.
|
United Kingdom20284 Posts
Colossus still out range Thors by a substantial amount.
7 vs 9 with extended thermal lance, i dont think it is that substantial. If you stop to shoot at his thors you are going to take a ton of hits back
|
4713 Posts
2 range is substantial, especially in chokes, with high ground advantage or with zealots to pin the thors in place and as meatshields. Also, Colossus are faster then Thors, 1 acceleration 1.75 speed for a Thor, 2.25 speed for Colossus.
|
I dont understand why they cant keep the shredder in the game for map control and just make it so that it cant be deployed near minerals or gas? Just like a new nexus or CC cant be built next to mins or gas either.... terrans still need a better form of map control, I think they are just going backwards here instead of utilizing novel ideas for the good of the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
