• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 05:06
CEST 11:06
KST 18:06
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall9HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL54Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?13FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster16Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation PiG Sty Festival #5: Playoffs Preview + Groups Recap The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Statistics for vetoed/disliked maps
Tourneys
Korean Starcraft League Week 77 Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series [GSL 2025] Code S: Season 2 - Semi Finals & Finals $5,100+ SEL Season 2 Championship (SC: Evo)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Player “Jedi” cheat on CSL BW General Discussion Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Unit and Spell Similarities
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET Small VOD Thread 2.0 [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
Blogs
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 638 users

The Warhound: Did We Make a Mistake?

Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS
Post a Reply
1 2 3 4 5 17 18 19 Next All
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
January 05 2013 00:40 GMT
#1
_

The Warhound: Did We Make a Mistake?

(The thread that started it all: "Why the warhound should NOT be balanced")
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=367581

Introduction: With the recent buffs for MsC, reapers, and the inherent buffs to protoss early game, the terran early game is becoming harder and harder to pull off, especially for meching players. In addition, although the midgame of mech has improved greatly with widow mines and hellbats, the mech army still has trouble moving out on the map at any point before 160 supply without the danger of engaging cost-inefficiently. In addition, most players playing mech complain that a single mistake (i.e. a misplaced tank, getting caught unsieged, not having mines in place in time, etc) will cost you the game with no chance to claw your way back with micro or clever tactics. While mech players are still having success with gas openings that kill a lot of workers or slow, creeping mech compositions, there is no room for error or allowance for success, particularly in the early and mid-game. Quite honestly, a lot of what mech needs is a mid-tier all-purpose unit to counter the really tricky units like immortals, blink stalkers, or archons and allow mech to secure map control more safely.

Ironically, the warhound fits perfectly in this role.



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).


2) The role of the warhound overlaps far too much with the marauder. It is an anti-armor unit with a fairly fast move speed and attack. In fact, the marauder is a better unit, being both cheaper and coupled with stim and concussive shells.

Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +
If marauders and warhounds came from the same tech tree, they would definitely overlap. Currently, if you're going bio, you certainly benefit from avoiding warhounds and sticking with marauders as they benefit from Stim, Concussive Shells, and upgrades. If you're going mech, it makes little sense to add marauders to your composition, investing in Stim and Concussive Shells, and units that don't benefit from your upgrades. In biomech situations, certainly marine/warhound could be a strong composition in the early parts of the game, but marauders would always be a part of compositions with focus on the lategame.


3) Warhounds are just uninteresting units, they don't do anything interesting. Why don't they drop mines or have some kind of GtA transformation mode? Even marines with Stim or roaches with Burrow and regen have more interesting potential.

Counterargument: + Show Spoiler +
Tweaking numbers can easily make the warhound interesting. Lowering the range of the warhounds to 3 or 4 would completely, wildly change the way they are used. Giving them a machine gun attack instead of a projectile attack completely changes the nature of unit kiting. Giving Haywire missiles a lower range and forcing warhounds to get inside their attack range to use it makes it interesting. Giving it speed and reducing its HP makes it a unit great at kiting. There are all kinds of way to redesign the unit some to make it more interesting.


Conclusion: While we never necessarily meant for the warhound to be completely ditched for good with no replacement, maybe we went too far by asking that it be completely removed from the game before playing with numbers or design changes first. Looking at all the problems terrans are having right now, especially with the rather stale metagame in HotS, we see that the warhound would fill a lot of holes well as well as freshening up terran strategy. Could we at least agree that Blizzard could have tried harder? Maybe we could send out a cry to Blizzard. We hated the tempest and oracle and almost had them removed, but they've turned out to be protoss's saving grace...maybe we should take a second look at the warhound.


Sidenote about me:
+ Show Spoiler +
I'm a masters level protoss player that's been following the beta fairly closely both on streams and through the forums, written various articles, etc. I've had somewhat flip-floppy opinions on HotS, but overall I have mostly supported 1) better space control and 2) positional balance over unit balance. While I was originally a hater of the warhound, I found it necessary to write this up and ask the community what they think.

Articles:
Positional Balance
Skill
Individual Freedom
Tanks, Widow Mines, And Space Control



_
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
porygon361
Profile Joined August 2012
81 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 00:50:40
January 05 2013 00:48 GMT
#2
I agree that something like the Warhound should be put back for Terran. They do need another earlygame unit option. It should come out at armory tech so that it won't come out too early, and a range nerf is in order.

Edit: Haywire missiles should also be scrapped in place of another ability.
"Sometimes life is like this dark tunnel. You can't always see the light at the end of the tunnel. But if you just keep moving, you will come to a better place."
Hider
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Denmark9376 Posts
January 05 2013 00:50 GMT
#3
no we didn't make a mistake - move on.
porygon361
Profile Joined August 2012
81 Posts
January 05 2013 00:55 GMT
#4
Lets make this thread more interesting instead of instantly putting it down. What changes/redesigns do you guys think will be great for the Warhound?
"Sometimes life is like this dark tunnel. You can't always see the light at the end of the tunnel. But if you just keep moving, you will come to a better place."
IamTheArchitect
Profile Joined June 2011
United States46 Posts
January 05 2013 00:56 GMT
#5
Yes I think the removal of the Warhound was a mistake, an overreaction by the community. Perhaps there were design flaws, but I have a question. Why was the warhound changed from its original design position in the first place? Originally it was to be the new mech anti-air unit, a mobile threat.


Can someone remind me why did blizzard go away from this? I feel like a lot of mech's problems stem from the unreliability of anti-air, which currently comes from only two sources, the slow and expensive thor, and the recently nerfed widow mine, which only works if they happen to fly over it. Why should the warhound not be a unit which is quick and strong against air, while being a fairly weak ground fighter?
Concordantly while your first question may seem the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also that most irrelevant.
TheDraken
Profile Joined July 2011
United States640 Posts
January 05 2013 00:56 GMT
#6
nope. it was an excellent decision to remove the warhound. just need to balance the numbers on protoss.
fast food. y u no make me fast? <( ಠ益ಠ <)
algorithm0r
Profile Joined May 2010
Canada486 Posts
January 05 2013 01:03 GMT
#7
I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5217 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 01:16:40
January 05 2013 01:06 GMT
#8
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. While your Haywire Missile idea is interesting, I can't see how it would be balanced, especially vs Siege Tanks in TvT. Warhounds would become walking Siege Tanks. You might argue then the Missiles could be made weaker, but if they get too weak, then the unit doesn't work. Too strong, then they are walking Siege Tanks.

Why not just let Tanks do their job and have other Factory Units just support Tanks?

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 variation, which is bad.

I'd rather see the Warhound return and replace the Hellbat, by doing big damage to Light Units and also move Javelin Missiles from the Thor to the Warhound for anti-air versus light units, while leaving the big anti-air cannons on the Thor.

That would really help Terran Mech I think.
archonOOid
Profile Blog Joined March 2011
1983 Posts
January 05 2013 01:07 GMT
#9
There is a gap in the mech arsenal against protoss but if it is the warhound i'm not so sure. It's an alternative but i think that there could be other more exciting new units that could help about terran mech.
I'm Quotable (IQ)
MateShade
Profile Joined July 2011
Australia736 Posts
January 05 2013 01:10 GMT
#10
Just bring back the goliath in one form or another it fills this role just fine without being too all round and having more emphasis on AA. Thor needs to go, warhound should not come back with same design (antiground/antimech)
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
January 05 2013 01:13 GMT
#11
On January 05 2013 10:06 BronzeKnee wrote:
Show nested quote +
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).


StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 01:18:58
January 05 2013 01:16 GMT
#12
On January 05 2013 09:48 porygon361 wrote:
I agree that something like the Warhound should be put back for Terran. They do need another earlygame unit option. It should come out at armory tech so that it won't come out too early, and a range nerf is in order.

Edit: Haywire missiles should also be scrapped in place of another ability.


On January 05 2013 09:55 porygon361 wrote:
Lets make this thread more interesting instead of instantly putting it down. What changes/redesigns do you guys think will be great for the Warhound?


Thank you. And yes, you're totally right, Haywire Missiles should probably just be scrapped in favor of something a little more interesting. I just assumed that some kind of soft counter to immortals would be fairly good, and Haywire Missiles was all I had to go on.

On January 05 2013 10:03 algorithm0r wrote:
I agree that Terran may need another "new" unit in HotS but I don't really think it is in the mech line. Your counter arguments are strong but shouldn't we find something that Terran needs more?


Like what? The bio tech path is pretty clearly laid out. The air tech for terran is already pretty strong (although there are some serious transitioning problems (and the raven shhhhh!)). The only thing really lacking for terran is solid factory play, in my opinion.
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
BronzeKnee
Profile Joined March 2011
United States5217 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 01:30:34
January 05 2013 01:28 GMT
#13
On January 05 2013 10:13 SC2John wrote:
Show nested quote +
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).




Immortals in PvZ are totally different than Immortals in PvT. When you play vs Mech you want to get your Immortals in range as quickly as possible to do damage, and you want them unencumbered by lots of Gateway units or Forcefields. Against Zerg it is the opposite. You want to keep Roaches away, and you use Gateway units and Forcefields to achieve this. You can also micro with the Warp Prism. Damage is dealt far slower in general in PvZ than PvT, allowing for more micro opportunities. With EMP and Marines, the opportunities in PvT are very limited because units die so quickly on both sides.

The whole idea behind positional play is not that need to play perfect to make it work, but that positional units are far stronger when positioned than normal units. Thus the interesting dynamic occurs where both sides are playing totally different playstyles. One with slow moving powerful units, and one with less powerful by fast moving units. The problem with positional play in SC2 is that the positional units are hard countered by non-positional units (Immortals countering Siege Tanks for instance). That makes no sense at all.
ledarsi
Profile Joined September 2010
United States475 Posts
January 05 2013 01:33 GMT
#14
It seems to me that on the one hand, Terran needs something. You can't launch an expansion and only give terran half a unit. However the Warhound was an outrageously bad unit, pretty much on the level with the Marauder in terms of 1A stupidity. Not to mention that even a cursory balance test would show mass Warhound crushes literally any Protoss composition, making them grossly overpowered.

Blizzard does not get it, and I am running out of hope that they ever will. It could be that Blizzard qua Blizzard simply does not care, since their real cash cow is World of Warcraft, and Starcraft is just the B-list and gets little resources or attention, and they are doing their best with what they have.

The design team seems to relish boring units. The Marauder, the Roach, the Colossus... practically every addition is a subtraction from the game's depth by flattening player choice. The Warhound was the same, and it needed a wholesale rework. Removing it was a good solution- although a complete redesign would have had the same effect, but also given Terran players a new toy. A 2 supply anti-air walker is all we Terran players really want.....
"First decide who you would be, then do what you must do."
Hider
Profile Blog Joined May 2010
Denmark9376 Posts
January 05 2013 01:35 GMT
#15
On January 05 2013 10:33 ledarsi wrote:
It seems to me that on the one hand, Terran needs something. You can't launch an expansion and only give terran half a unit. However the Warhound was an outrageously bad unit, pretty much on the level with the Marauder in terms of 1A stupidity. Not to mention that even a cursory balance test would show mass Warhound crushes literally any Protoss composition, making them grossly overpowered.

Blizzard does not get it, and I am running out of hope that they ever will. It could be that Blizzard qua Blizzard simply does not care, since their real cash cow is World of Warcraft, and Starcraft is just the B-list and gets little resources or attention, and they are doing their best with what they have.

The design team seems to relish boring units. The Marauder, the Roach, the Colossus... practically every addition is a subtraction from the game's depth by flattening player choice. The Warhound was the same, and it needed a wholesale rework. Removing it was a good solution- although a complete redesign would have had the same effect, but also given Terran players a new toy. A 2 supply anti-air walker is all we Terran players really want.....


THe best thing that could happen for the esport of starcraft was if blizzard changed the business model of starcraft and found a way to monetize esports more efficiently. This would motivate them to hire better employees. The current one's are way too incompetent.
rysecake
Profile Joined October 2010
United States2632 Posts
January 05 2013 01:39 GMT
#16
no it wasn't a mistake.

the core of terran mech must be centered around the siege tank. not a marauder in a gundam suit.
The Notorious Winkles
Virid
Profile Joined November 2010
United States130 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 01:41:57
January 05 2013 01:40 GMT
#17
Again and again, I'm seeing evidence that Blizzard had really good design goals going into alpha, but then back tracked on nearly all of them by beta. I'm not sure why they doubted themselves so intensely, but their doubt cost us the initial design of every new unit but the Viper, but just barely the Viper at that.

The Carrier is stepping on the Tempest's toes, the Widow Mine is a balance nightmare, the Swarm Host is dead. It goes on and on. I don't know what the Hell happened, but all the problems in the beta can be attributed to Blizzard redefining the roles of all their new units.

When it comes to the Warhound, I'm not sure what Blizzard is going to do to make Mech a viable option against Protoss and Zerg, but the Warhound does seem awfully convenient for that aim.
EsportsJohn
Profile Blog Joined June 2012
United States4883 Posts
January 05 2013 01:41 GMT
#18
On January 05 2013 10:28 BronzeKnee 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).




Immortals in PvZ are totally different than Immortals in PvT. When you play vs Mech you want to get your Immortals in range as quickly as possible to do damage, and you want them unencumbered by lots of Gateway units or Forcefields. Against Zerg it is the opposite. You want to keep Roaches away, and you use Gateway units and Forcefields to achieve this. You can also micro with the Warp Prism. Damage is dealt far slower in general in PvZ than PvT, allowing for more micro opportunities. With EMP and Marines, the opportunities in PvT are very limited because units die so quickly on both sides.

The whole idea behind positional play is not that need to play perfect to make it work, but that positional units are far stronger when positioned than normal units. Thus the interesting dynamic occurs where both sides are playing totally different playstyles. One with slow moving powerful units, and one with less powerful by fast moving units. The problem with positional play in SC2 is that the positional units are hard countered by non-positional units (Immortals countering Siege Tanks for instance). That makes no sense at all.


Okay, I totally agree with that sentiment. I'm honestly totally fine with a tank buff, but I revived the idea of the warhound to say that perhaps we don't need to mess with tanks, maybe we can just fill in the holes with another unit. I honestly think terran has air under control between turrets, mines, thors, and vikings...I just think the biggest issue is big blink stalker early-game armies, immortal/zealot midgame armies, and big chargelot/archon balls: the ground armies that trade evenly with mech, which, as you say, is ridiculous.
StrategyAllyssa Grey <3<3
ledarsi
Profile Joined September 2010
United States475 Posts
January 05 2013 01:41 GMT
#19
What they announced at Blizzcon looked really good- I agree Virid. And then.... something happened.
"First decide who you would be, then do what you must do."
MasterCynical
Profile Joined September 2012
505 Posts
Last Edited: 2013-01-05 01:52:50
January 05 2013 01:47 GMT
#20
No. Not only did it overlap with the marauder and marine, it was also making the thor partially redundant. The playstyle it encouraged was turning mech into a more deathbally version of bio. The whole design of the Warhound was not mech like, it was bio like. It didn't add to positional play at all.

Part of their original design was to completely counter siege tanks, just as the same with the immortal. This would ruin TvT pretty much.

You could call for a complete redesign in role, but what role can it possibly fill in mech? Putting number tweaking and balance aside, we now have the meatshield/fodder unit (hellbat), the seige and dps unit(tank), the anti air (new thor), harassment and quick burst damage(hellion and widow mine). What else is there?



1 2 3 4 5 17 18 19 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 54m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Reynor 421
StarCraft: Brood War
Larva 724
actioN 60
sorry 30
GoRush 28
yabsab 13
Stork 12
ivOry 4
Dota 2
XaKoH 531
XcaliburYe499
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1407
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor190
Other Games
Happy407
SortOf1
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo2688
• Stunt542
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
54m
RSL Revival
54m
ByuN vs Cham
herO vs Reynor
WardiTV European League
2h 54m
FEL
6h 54m
RSL Revival
1d
Clem vs Classic
SHIN vs Cure
FEL
1d 2h
WardiTV European League
1d 2h
BSL: ProLeague
1d 8h
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
2 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
[ Show More ]
WardiTV European League
3 days
The PondCast
4 days
Replay Cast
4 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
RSL Revival
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

BSL 2v2 Season 3
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.