|
On August 14 2012 11:19 Swords wrote:
I just don't get why you'd even bother making tanks in TvP. You can basically do the same thing for cheaper and more mobility with warhound/battle hellion. And as a result you have more money for vikings and anti-air.
There was nothing that seemed fun or interesting to me about this battle report and I have the distinct feeling that once HoTS comes out we're going right back to square one in terms of game design and balance.
They should have never done the 2nd nerf on tanks and rebalanced the game based on the new maps instead of steppes of war where tanks were op.
|
Poll: First impressions of HOTS TvPWorse (179) 81% Improved (34) 15% Same (9) 4% 222 total votes Your vote: First impressions of HOTS TvP (Vote): Improved
(Vote): Worse
(Vote): Same
|
Terrible casting.
Terrible insight.
Terrible collapsible rocks.
|
Northern Ireland26856 Posts
On August 14 2012 11:20 Xova wrote:
The fact that it tells you how many workers are on each base is so stupid. What the hell is the point of economy management if the game tells how saturated your bases are...
I asked this earlier on, I'd like to think it was an observer/replay tool, in which case it's actually pretty cool in terms of going back over your games and seeing when you were sub-optimally saturating etc.
Oh cool, I found a second potentially positive thing!
|
United States410 Posts
Really liked this battle report. I think TvP will be very similar in a lot of ways to how it was back in Brood War. Can't wait for beta!
|
- Vikings beat tempests for half cost, the same problem that makes carriers not viable in a more general sense
-> Obviously it's pre-alpha so all the numbers will change, but how do you address this without radically altering the unit designs? A pack of vikings all firing rapidly and dealing bonus damage SHOULD waste tempests despite the range difference
- Unsieged tanks are really good
- Tempest damage is incredibly poor (to the point of being useless), but if it's higher it's a 0 energy yamato cannon
->Nightmare design to balance (so fix the carrier instead, smart guy!)
- Would like to have seen preordain/cloak used more (since entomb is gonna get nerfed into obsolescence before release)
|
Hm... I get the idea people are whining waaaaaaay too much here
I'd like to see some pro players try their hand at this, this video is obviously just meant to showcase some stuff
What I dislike the most is probably the mothership core range, it makes early game sieges kinda lose their role, as terran can no longer force protoss to engage (nexus can wreck tanks now)
What I like the most are the widow mine and the tempest.
One big point I think is being a bit ignored is the aesthetics. Terran looks pretty bad, warhounds look silly and battle hellions are weird, while tempests are like "WTF is dis?!"
|
On August 14 2012 11:20 Xova wrote:
The fact that it tells you how many workers are on each base is so stupid. What the hell is the point of economy management if the game tells how saturated your bases are...
Thats probably only for observers, not players.
|
On August 14 2012 11:20 MCDayC wrote:
Warhounds are terrible. Everything else looked cool.
Rocks still terrible. idc for player vs map.
|
On August 14 2012 11:20 Xova wrote:
The fact that it tells you how many workers are on each base is so stupid. What the hell is the point of economy management if the game tells how saturated your bases are...
For observers only afaik.
|
I was hoping Blizzard would actually go back to their original plan and just remove the Thor, add Anti-Air missiles to the Warhound.
|
juicyjames
United States3815 Posts
On August 14 2012 11:20 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2012 11:20 Xova wrote:
The fact that it tells you how many workers are on each base is so stupid. What the hell is the point of economy management if the game tells how saturated your bases are... I asked this earlier on, I'd like to think it was an observer/replay tool, in which case it's actually pretty cool in terms of going back over your games and seeing when you were sub-optimally saturating etc. Oh cool, I found a second potentially positive thing!
I can confirm it is an observer/replay only tool and players are not able to see that. At least, that's how it was in the HotS build at MLG Anaheim.
|
Does anyone else get the feeling Blizzard is trying to promote Stargate builds in HotS when—at least from what we're seeing so far—they aren't actually viable?
|
Gentlemen...I realize that you are underwhelmed by a Battle Report featuring (essentially) terrible, one-dimensional play from both players. Nevertheless, in the face of about a hundred different comments about how (whatever HotS unit) is dumb, overpowered, underpowered, etc, allow me to remind you...
You do not know these things. You have just watched the equivalent of a pre-Beta HotS game involving Gold-level players. I cannot tell you how many comments I saw (and made) during the Alpha, Beta, and so on of SC2 about how useless/stupid/dumb/retarded every single WoL unit was...and most of them were, in retrospect, simply nonsensical.
So please, keep your opinions and state them, but be very prepared to change your mind completely on everything once Beta hits, and for the love of Pete do not let these instant reactions completely determine your opinion of every unit before you've actually tried them or seen them used competently.
Thank you.
|
So far, I'm not looking forward to HotS. It just doesn't look fun to play. I have limited time to play video games as I have real-life ambitions that require hours of practice, and this just doesn't look like time well spent. I'm definitely not going to be an early adopter of HotS, I'll wait and see what people think and how the games play out before making a decision whether I'll continue with SC2 or not.
|
On August 14 2012 11:21 DrakeFZX3 wrote:
I was hoping Blizzard would actually go back to their original plan and just remove the Thor, add Anti-Air missiles to the Warhound.
That would make it the goliath.
Viking is the new goliath.
|
Have there been other battle reports like this or is this their first one?
|
On August 14 2012 11:19 Swords wrote:
I just don't get why you'd even bother making tanks in TvP. You can basically do the same thing for cheaper and more mobility with warhound/battle hellion. And as a result you have more money for vikings and anti-air.
I remember people saying this about marauder.
|
On August 14 2012 11:21 yeastiality wrote:
- Vikings beat tempests for half cost, the same problem that makes carriers not viable in a more general sense
-> Obviously it's pre-alpha so all the numbers will change, but how do you address this without radically altering the unit designs? A pack of vikings all firing rapidly and dealing bonus damage SHOULD waste tempests despite the range difference
- Unsieged tanks are really good
- Tempest damage is incredibly poor (to the point of being useless), but if it's higher it's a 0 energy yamato cannon
->Nightmare design to balance (so fix the carrier instead, smart guy!)
- Would like to have seen preordain/cloak used more (since entomb is gonna get nerfed into obsolescence before release)
Why would entomb be nerfed? It already sucks. It takes all of 5 seconds for WORKERS to kill the shit. Let alone if you have cannons or spines that will autoattack it. Warhounds rape everything. I played this shit with my friend and warhounds kill zealots imms stalkers sentries, anything on the ground.
|
Warhounds look ridiculous. This has been said many times by many different people. Why is Blizzard ignoring all the complaints?
Actually, the Warhound should just be removed. Battlehellion/Thor/Tank/Viking would be strong enough against Protoss.
Entomb becomes useless as soon the the other player can afford to put static defense or a few units near his mineral line.
The Tempest only looked effective because the Terran never made enough vikings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
