|
On June 12 2012 14:41 johnny123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 14:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 12 2012 11:34 Falling wrote:
When warhounds targets mechanic units, it targets the supposed core of mech play. The counter to tanks was more tanks only controlled better or else tanks dropped on top of tanks. And even if doesn't wind up killing tanks, unless it's supposed to be the cheap cannon fodder then it contributes more to M&M mobile forces then mech playstyle.
This in a nutshell. TvX mech play was awesome because of the execution required to break a tank line, and the potential abuse of its immobility. Warhounds are not mech units, they are no different from immortals/stalkers/marauders. They do not have any of the weaknesses that "mech play" actually has. Mass goliath only had specific applications, they were only massed when the opponent went carriers, or for mass drop play, or Flash's metagame timing attacks that don't make sense in ladder play  . On their own, goliaths were pretty terrible. In the preview it seems you have this army of warhounds and battle-hellions and no tanks, which to me just looks like another form of Protoss deathball or MMM with different art. If we wanted a non-positional mobile army we would stick with MMM, but would much prefer to play strategic & positional warfare. What I loved in BW was "locking down" positions with mines, supply depots, turrets and tanks. I would play this game of conquest by taking territories down one by one, slowly engulfing the map and choking the opponent out. The reason I don't like SC2 is this does not exist, and plays less of a role even in the most positional based TvT. BW actually felt like an RTS. i kinda disagree with this, i mean it sounds good in theory, but to actually play this way takes so much patience that in truth its actually not fun to play at all. Maybe to look at its great seeing all this positioning and stuff, but playing it is extremely frustrating. Lets not forget that some people absolutely despise watching TvT sc2 as well, just because it takes so long to watch boring tank stalemates at times. So there are Pros and Cons to having these positional warfare tactics playing/watching wise. For me personally, i like the direction blizzard is going, where they are attempting to get both styles in use ( mech and or bio or a hybrid of Mech+bio). that to me creates the best TvT's. The buffs to get mech where you want it to be, will essentially make it be the most dominate strategy terran has thus they would always end up using mech . (case and point broodwar TvPand TvT) my point is, sc2 has it nice for terran in all matchups but against Protoss. Since mech cant actually be used outside of a mass thor all in . So a little buffing would be cool. Im Glad to see MMM strategy still in for Hots, So we might very well see 2 types of TvP players. That ones that go mech, and the ones that still do Bio focused gameplay. That to me is awesome.
That's just a way I liked to play. Doesn't mean mech couldn't be used in other ways.
Fantasy plays a guerilla style of mech
Flash plays a territorial or timing-attack style
Both of these players have the best TvP playing completely different styles.
This is discounting the fact that MMM is still viable.
In theory it sounds bad, but in practice its actually good. BW TvP packs a ton more action than SC2 TvP, even given these parameters. What produces stalemates is actually not being able to achieve map control and not enough defenders advantage, causing turtle to 200/200 because without positional units or defenders advantage, if you lose your army its gg.
|
On June 12 2012 14:41 johnny123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 14:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 12 2012 11:34 Falling wrote:
When warhounds targets mechanic units, it targets the supposed core of mech play. The counter to tanks was more tanks only controlled better or else tanks dropped on top of tanks. And even if doesn't wind up killing tanks, unless it's supposed to be the cheap cannon fodder then it contributes more to M&M mobile forces then mech playstyle.
This in a nutshell. TvX mech play was awesome because of the execution required to break a tank line, and the potential abuse of its immobility. Warhounds are not mech units, they are no different from immortals/stalkers/marauders. They do not have any of the weaknesses that "mech play" actually has. Mass goliath only had specific applications, they were only massed when the opponent went carriers, or for mass drop play, or Flash's metagame timing attacks that don't make sense in ladder play . On their own, goliaths were pretty terrible. In the preview it seems you have this army of warhounds and battle-hellions and no tanks, which to me just looks like another form of Protoss deathball or MMM with different art. If we wanted a non-positional mobile army we would stick with MMM, but would much prefer to play strategic & positional warfare. What I loved in BW was "locking down" positions with mines, supply depots, turrets and tanks. I would play this game of conquest by taking territories down one by one, slowly engulfing the map and choking the opponent out. The reason I don't like SC2 is this does not exist, and plays less of a role even in the most positional based TvT. BW actually felt like an RTS. i kinda disagree with this, i mean it sounds good in theory , but to actually play this way takes so much patience that in truth its actually not fun to play at all. Maybe to look at its great seeing all this positioning and stuff, but playing it is extremely frustrating. Lets not forget that some people absolutely despise watching TvT sc2 as well, just because it takes so long to watch boring tank stalemates at times. So there are Pros and Cons to having these positional warfare tactics playing/watching wise. For me personally, i like the direction blizzard is going, where they are attempting to get both styles in use ( mech and or bio or a hybrid of Mech+bio). that to me creates the best TvT's. The buffs to get mech where you want it to be, will essentially make it be the most dominate strategy terran has thus they would always end up using mech . (case and point broodwar TvPand TvT) my point is,strategically sc2 has it nice for terran in all matchups But when facing against Protoss. Since mech cant actually be used outside of a mass thor all in in that matchup . So a little buffing would be cool. Im Glad to see MMM strategy still in for Hots, So we might very well see 2 types of TvP players. That ones that go mech, and the ones that still do Bio focused gameplay. That to me is awesome.
Then what the point of going mech in TvP if the it the same thing as bio? You mass up a ball and then 1-A them into their ball. Mech need to be highly cost efficient and very immobile and to be immobile, you need tanks. Protoss death ball is immobile too but not as much as terran simply because their shit are so damn expensive. There would be no point in making mech viable if it the same thing as bio. Sure you can say that battlehellion, thor, warhound death ball can be strong and could be cost efficient but where the micro? This death ball is even WORST than protoss death ball. All this death ball is going to do is 1-A because their so damn slow, it would be rather pointless to micro them. Atleast protoss can FF and storm and spread HT and stuff. I wouldnt call this fun at all....I would find this incredibly boring mech style. Which is why many people here are worried about this.
|
To the people saying the Warhound having an AA is bad because it would be to good against Protoss, couldn't they just make it terrible against non light units? The whole point of the Warhound in the beginning was the counter mutas since Thors are so garbage. And now with Abduct the Thor is such a massive target they will be even worse in HoTS.
|
I cant believe people are arguing over a bunch of youtube videos.
Things like this never change
|
On June 12 2012 10:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 07:39 NukeD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:43 MCDayC wrote:On June 12 2012 04:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: And yes, Warhound IS a boring unit. That I 100% agree with you on. High five! I haven't seen a single written, thought out defence of the warhound, in fact a lot of the people defending it think that it is still an mobile anti-air replacement for the Thor (an idea that I didn't mind, as long as it kept the aerial splash) but the current form is terrible, and I'd be interested to see why some people thought it was a great addition in the poll thread. Apparently im a complete nutcase for saying this but; I love the way it looks. I just think the model is fantastic it looks like a giant crane with lots of firepower ( sort of thing you would do in real life if you make a killing machine robot guy; just throw a bunch of guns on a bunch of iron bars and make it moveable). It isnt pretty, but it gets the job done.
However it does seem like a 1a unit which I dont like. That's the main thing really. Because if you think about it, they could just take the marauder, give it wheels and robotize their armour, and put it into the factory and say. There. You will now go mech more often. But functionally it's not a different play style. When Artosis waxes eloquent about mech play, I don't necessarily think he minds that 3 functional units come from the Barracks and we need a 4th unit from the Factory for more 'mech play.' Mech play is positional, it's incremental and it's all about controlling space. Aka tanks, vultures, mines- and for a hard push turrets, bunker/supply depots to hinder the Protoss army. And perhaps late game mobility with shuttle-tanks and/or breaking great siege lines with wraiths, battlecruisers, or nukes. It's a very chess style of play and not run around with one big group of fast troops and base trade if you get out of position. Warhound is a mech unit, certainly. But it doesn't help mech style play. In fact it looks like it is designed to kill mech style play because it is designed to the tank. So basically the anti-thesis of mech play despite coming from the factory.
You are forgeting though something, it comes from the factory which means that having lots of factories can help you adapt to the opponents play better not that you have two more viable solutions to various problems (battle helion and warhound). You can control space with tanks, protect them from zealots with battle helions and from air with warhounds. This is not possible in WOL
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On June 12 2012 16:03 nvrs wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 10:06 Falling wrote:On June 12 2012 07:39 NukeD wrote:On June 12 2012 04:43 MCDayC wrote:On June 12 2012 04:29 Sapphire.lux wrote: And yes, Warhound IS a boring unit. That I 100% agree with you on. High five! I haven't seen a single written, thought out defence of the warhound, in fact a lot of the people defending it think that it is still an mobile anti-air replacement for the Thor (an idea that I didn't mind, as long as it kept the aerial splash) but the current form is terrible, and I'd be interested to see why some people thought it was a great addition in the poll thread. Apparently im a complete nutcase for saying this but; I love the way it looks. I just think the model is fantastic it looks like a giant crane with lots of firepower ( sort of thing you would do in real life if you make a killing machine robot guy; just throw a bunch of guns on a bunch of iron bars and make it moveable). It isnt pretty, but it gets the job done.
However it does seem like a 1a unit which I dont like. That's the main thing really. Because if you think about it, they could just take the marauder, give it wheels and robotize their armour, and put it into the factory and say. There. You will now go mech more often. But functionally it's not a different play style. When Artosis waxes eloquent about mech play, I don't necessarily think he minds that 3 functional units come from the Barracks and we need a 4th unit from the Factory for more 'mech play.' Mech play is positional, it's incremental and it's all about controlling space. Aka tanks, vultures, mines- and for a hard push turrets, bunker/supply depots to hinder the Protoss army. And perhaps late game mobility with shuttle-tanks and/or breaking great siege lines with wraiths, battlecruisers, or nukes. It's a very chess style of play and not run around with one big group of fast troops and base trade if you get out of position. Warhound is a mech unit, certainly. But it doesn't help mech style play. In fact it looks like it is designed to kill mech style play because it is designed to the tank. So basically the anti-thesis of mech play despite coming from the factory. You are forgeting though something, it comes from the factory which means that having lots of factories can help you adapt to the opponents play better not that you have two more viable solutions to various problems (battle helion and warhound). You can control space with tanks, protect them from zealots with battle helions and from air with warhounds. This is not possible in WOL
They don't attack air!
As far as I can tell, they are slightly more limited marauders, but even without the interesting building sniping mechanic, or the risk reward of stim, which means they even lack Bio plays mobility.
|
Canada11340 Posts
On June 12 2012 14:41 johnny123 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 12 2012 14:27 sluggaslamoo wrote:On June 12 2012 11:34 Falling wrote:
When warhounds targets mechanic units, it targets the supposed core of mech play. The counter to tanks was more tanks only controlled better or else tanks dropped on top of tanks. And even if doesn't wind up killing tanks, unless it's supposed to be the cheap cannon fodder then it contributes more to M&M mobile forces then mech playstyle.
This in a nutshell. TvX mech play was awesome because of the execution required to break a tank line, and the potential abuse of its immobility. Warhounds are not mech units, they are no different from immortals/stalkers/marauders. They do not have any of the weaknesses that "mech play" actually has. Mass goliath only had specific applications, they were only massed when the opponent went carriers, or for mass drop play, or Flash's metagame timing attacks that don't make sense in ladder play . On their own, goliaths were pretty terrible. In the preview it seems you have this army of warhounds and battle-hellions and no tanks, which to me just looks like another form of Protoss deathball or MMM with different art. If we wanted a non-positional mobile army we would stick with MMM, but would much prefer to play strategic & positional warfare. What I loved in BW was "locking down" positions with mines, supply depots, turrets and tanks. I would play this game of conquest by taking territories down one by one, slowly engulfing the map and choking the opponent out. The reason I don't like SC2 is this does not exist, and plays less of a role even in the most positional based TvT. BW actually felt like an RTS. i kinda disagree with this, i mean it sounds good in theory, but to actually play this way takes so much patience that in truth its actually not fun to play at all. Maybe to look at its great seeing all this positioning and stuff, but playing it is extremely frustrating. Lets not forget that some people absolutely despise watching TvT sc2 as well, just because it takes so long to watch boring tank stalemates at times. So there are Pros and Cons to having these positional warfare tactics playing/watching wise. For me personally, i like the direction blizzard is going, where they are attempting to get both styles in use ( mech and or bio or a hybrid of Mech+bio). that to me creates the best TvT's. The buffs to get mech where you want it to be, will essentially make it be the most dominate strategy terran has thus they would always end up using mech . (case and point broodwar TvPand TvT) my point is,strategically sc2 has it nice for terran in all matchups But when facing against Protoss. Since mech cant actually be used outside of a mass thor all in in that matchup . So a little buffing would be cool. Im Glad to see MMM strategy still in for Hots, So we might very well see 2 types of TvP players. That ones that go mech, and the ones that still do Bio focused gameplay. That to me is awesome.
Actually, at this rate I don't think we're ever going to see mech style gameplay. I don't think both/and is going to work for bio and mech. At least not in the same match-ups and certainly not in Terran vs Terran. The problem with getting mech to work is I'm pretty sure it actually needs to completely shut down bio style play in the mirror match-up. If Terran bio is viable, then it can run in and snipe tanks and knock out bases. If that's the case, mech can't work because it's too slow to respond. It has to be able to shut down the quick manuevers or else delay it. Mobility is such a huge advantage the mech style is sacrificing to gain insane firepower, defensive capability and the ability to lockdown territory. If they just sacrifice mobility and get only nominal gains, I'm not sure it can work. We certainly don't have it now.
If bio/ mobile bio-mech works in Terran vs Terran, I think it means the tanks and their support units that can lock down positions have been nerfed like crazy which is going to have an impact on all the other match-ups (aka just heavy bio style or bio with tanks is possible.) I could be wrong, but Blizzards "bio and mech must work in the same match-up" actually means just bio style and bio with tanks will work and mech style will never work. But if Terran vs Terran is strictly mech style play, then you have the possibility of bio or mech in the other match-ups.
One thing I'm curious
Maybe to look at its great seeing all this positioning and stuff, but playing it is extremely frustrating. Have you played it? Because it seems to me that most BW Terran enjoyed playing this sort of thing. Or if not, then like me, they enjoy figuring out how to break the siege lines (from the Protoss side.)
You are forgeting though something, it comes from the factory which means that having lots of factories can help you adapt to the opponents play better not that you have two more viable solutions to various problems (battle helion and warhound). You can control space with tanks, protect them from zealots with battle helions and from air with warhounds. This is not possible in WOL
It comes from the factory, but from the looks of things, it behaves like a Barracks unit. I don't really see much new that's going to control space any better than what we already have and we don't have mech play currently. If the mines work out, then maybe. But I'm not sure you'll get them in the numbers you'd need to block off alternate routes, plus it pulls supply away from the main army to do any sort of blocking (Like perhaps a zergling runby or a group of marines looping around.) Mech play requires a defence in depth so that tanks have a greater amount of time to fire at the incoming army rather than the enemy charging right up beside so they shoot themselves.
Too be honest, the widow mine is the unit I'm most interested in for Terran. Who knows how it will turn out, but it's starting to push into the right direction. I was mostly focusing on warhounds as supposedly being this answer to the missing mech play whereas it seems to be its very opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Some place to see mech terran vs Protoss?
|
On June 12 2012 21:56 StarscreamG1 wrote:
Some place to see mech terran vs Protoss?
Nup. The entire argument is based on assumptions and bias at this stage.
|
"The widow mine really helps shut down attack path ways. These widow mines are like manually controlled spider mines from Starcraft 1." - Day[9] during the TvZ Battle Report
Does this mean that they only attack when commanded to? ie. Zerglings running over them won't force them to detonate? I hope so, that would make the unit quite good.
|
what happened to moving burrowed baneling only on creep? i thought that was cool. the widow mine in the vid looked so OP because it one shotted all the zerg units. and they added a UI timer for a unit? what? please don't mix UI with actual gameplay.
terrans look like it needs a new direction. only thing of interest is the battle hellions to me.
|
also, they should make more evolved units for the zerg, i don't like how swarm host and viper come from "no where", roach should morph in the swarm host and the mutalisk in to the viper.
|
On June 13 2012 00:00 Garmer wrote:
also, they should make more evolved units for the zerg, i don't like how swarm host and viper come from "no where", roach should morph in the swarm host and the mutalisk in to the viper.
roach into swarm host sounds good and feels right ... but muta into viper = =? it just feels wrong ...maybe it's because their physical form just looks too different ..... Since Viper is a caster, I do expect they would have some energy upgrades or an ability upgrade. Thus, they should have their own building ...
I still think the warhound can be good as long as Blizzard make the numbers reasonable.. regarding the other potential problems of the Terran addition, they are listed below.
+ Show Spoiler +On June 12 2012 13:21 Roarer wrote:
My take on the mines and warhound:
Widow Mines:
The major problem for them right now is that they either deal damage or they deal very limited damage. There is no in between. If your opponent can split well, the Terran can do nothing about it.
Suggestion : In order to allow more interaction with the mines and allow more room for the players to show skill difference. The mines shoule be allowed to manually detonate. The best way I can think of is to let the mines deal more damage the longer it attached to the unit. E.g. if you detonate @ the first second , it deals 1/10 of the full damage. If you detonate them @ 5 sec after they are attached, they will deal half damage. If you leave them alone... they will explode themselves after 10 sec dealing full damage. In this way, If the opponent split, Terran players who can react quickly can deal more damage than those who miss are worse at looking at the mini map. This also introduces the element of detonating vs spliting. Once mines are triggered, Terran players have to weight the splitting skill of the opponent and the damage increase per second.
Warhound :
The problem of the warhound is that it is absolutely useless in TvZ. The unit can only do 1 thing, thus a borin unit.
Regarding its ability to break seige lines. As long as Blizzard got the numbers right (damage & range of the missiles), tanks can still be viable to hold the lines. Since they are not immortals, they can be destroyed before raching the tanks. The key here is make number matters in the scenario. If someone have a critical amount of tanks, the warhound will still be unable to break it (so that they canot 1 A like colossi = =).
Suggestion: Give more abilities to the warhound so that it can interact with the game in more ways, such as :
give it an ability to fortify buildings (CoolDown base) temporary raise building's HP and armor. This makes it useful in all match up and can even help support bio plays. or
pair them up with a Thor to allow a better version of 250mm cannons. or
allow them to zone an area so that all anti-air missiles will have a wide splash with low dmg in the zone (vikings, turrets, thors).
|
I think the only slightly disappointing part of HotS is knowing I'll only get to use the new Zerg units in a tiny fraction of the games I play, because 90% of the time I'll be winning or losing based on the first timing attack and higher tech units won't help with that. No army and a small number of swarm hosts isn't going to be any more use than no army and a small number of mutalisks are now.
I suppose there will at least be a whole new slew of timing attacks with different units to fight off with roach/ling/bling/queen, which will make it more interesting.
|
I dunno about the Warhound having no AA, i would prefer seeing it work like a Goliath. It wouldn't necessary need to take the Thors role, because the Thor's AA can simply be changed to do extra damage against armoured instead of light.
The Warhound would take over the role of a ground AA against light units such as Mutas and the Thor would be a good unit against heavier air units like Brood Lords.
|
On June 12 2012 23:46 SarcasmMonster wrote:
"The widow mine really helps shut down attack path ways. These widow mines are like manually controlled spider mines from Starcraft 1." - Day[9] during the TvZ Battle Report
Does this mean that they only attack when commanded to? ie. Zerglings running over them won't force them to detonate? I hope so, that would make the unit quite good.
These are the things I want to know. If the mine will always attack if an enemy unit comes close enough, they are not that great. But if you can command to attack or just turn on the auto cast ability, they could be really deadly. You could plant them and set them off when a major engagement is taking place(not on the same screen) In late game, they could be used to deny expansions or be set in or behind the "future" mineral lines where players commonly take 4th bases. These could be set off during major battles to truely tax you opponent. I really hope that terrans can control when the mines attack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
