| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:12 Myrkskog wrote: I always thought it was impossible for an opinion to be objectively wrong, but there you go. I like their look too. They are better looking than Goliath and fit more the Terran we know in the Lore right after WoL with a recup part look. The shield is a bit weird but it's okay | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
Poll: How do you like current model of Warhnoud? I don't like it, it deserves better model. (1412) I like it, Star Wars ftw.. (164) I don't care, hopefully it's useful. (141) 1717 total votes Your vote: How do you like current model of Warhnoud? (Vote): I like it, Star Wars ftw.. | ||
|
kaokentake
383 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:22 DemigodcelpH wrote: It's actually not that amazingly good like people make it out to be. Even mass roaches beat them. Actually I tested it out and 200food armies with warhounds in them SLAUGHTER any composition you can provide simply because marauders are too strong on the ground. The only thing that reasonably works well against warhounds is mass broodlords for the fact that warhounds cant shoot up AND broodlords swarm with infinite spawns of free broodlings. But remove broodlords and warhounds are again OP toss has no broodlords. They have air units but what makes the broodlords strong is that they swarm with tons of free created units, not just the fact that they fly. warhounds, food-for-food, will ABSOLUTELY SLAUGHTER AND DECIMATE -- ANY -- ground unit. Thats just not fair. for each ground unit, there needs to be a unit in the opposing race that, food-for-food, counters it given a equal food fight between 10-25 food for example, 3 collossi (18food) die to 9 marauders (18food) 3 collossi (18food) die if they try to engage 6 sieged tanks (18food) 18 marines (18food) die to 3collossi (18food) even if you spread the marines 20 marines (20food) beats 5immortals (20food) 6 immortals (24food) beats 8 sieged tanks (24food) there NEEDS to be a ground unit in each race that FOOD FOR FOOD beats the warhound warhound food-for-food will beat ANY zerg ground unit, even ultralisks, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 warhound food-for-food will beat ANY protoss ground unit, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 you cannot find A SINGLE GROUND UNIT in ANY RACE that in even food amounts kills EVERY OTHER GROUND UNIT of another race. except, until the warhound was released. Its incredibly overpowered, each race needs at least 1 ground unit that can beat the warhound food for food | ||
|
dgwow
Canada1024 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:30 kaokentake wrote: Actually I tested it out and 200food armies with warhounds in them SLAUGHTER any composition you can provide simply because marauders are too strong on the ground. The only thing that reasonably works well against warhounds is mass broodlords for the fact that warhounds cant shoot up AND broodlords swarm with infinite spawns of free broodlings. But remove broodlords and warhounds are again OP toss has no broodlords. They have air units but what makes the broodlords strong is that they swarm with tons of free created units, not just the fact that they fly. warhounds, food-for-food, will ABSOLUTELY SLAUGHTER AND DECIMATE -- ANY -- ground unit. Thats just not fair. for each ground unit, there needs to be a unit in the opposing race that, food-for-food, counters it given a equal food fight between 10-25 food for example, 3 collossi (18food) die to 9 marauders (18food) 3 collossi (18food) die if they try to engage 6 sieged tanks (18food) 18 marines (18food) die to 3collossi (18food) even if you spread the marines 20 marines (20food) beats 5immortals (20food) 6 immortals (24food) beats 8 sieged tanks (24food) there NEEDS to be a ground unit in each race that FOOD FOR FOOD beats the warhound warhound food-for-food will beat ANY zerg ground unit, even ultralisks, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 warhound food-for-food will beat ANY protoss ground unit, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 you cannot find A SINGLE GROUND UNIT in ANY RACE that in even food amounts kills EVERY OTHER GROUND UNIT of another race. except, until the warhound was released. Its incredibly overpowered, each race needs at least 1 ground unit that can beat the warhound food for food Don't worry, it will obviously be nerfed in its current composition, but maybe not to become the unit everyone wants it to be. | ||
|
Zaurus
Singapore676 Posts
| ||
|
FortMonty
United States63 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:21 DemigodcelpH wrote: Your reason is fundamentally flawed. Mech shouldn't be able to be as mobile and aggressive (overall) as bio is. That's not why it's not bio. If bio and mech have the same capabilities then diversity and game depth is taken away. Mech is not bio in gundams. This is what Blizzard doesn't understand, and what the old BW dev team did. Actually it's not, the fact is people have placed labels and standards on specific strategies and simply assume that mech must be slow (despite the fact that they totally ignore that Helions are the fastest terran unit, A.K.A, a mech unit is the fastest terran unit). Mech doesn't have to be as fast or aggressive as bio, I still think Bio has more mobility than the Warhound presents, granted the Warhound is a bit quick, but there are a lot of things that make the warhound as strong as it is. What I'm saying is mech should be able to choose between a quicker more mobile force that doesn't necessarily have the mobility or harass potential of bio but has a bit more standing power than bio but just under the standing power of pure passive territoric mech. I'd like to see a new dynamic to mech play that doesn't involve, slow, turtlish, deathballish, trench warfare. Also, people need to stop talking about what BW did right and what Blizzard is doing Wrong, it's the Beta, we've seen what BroodWar has to offer and it was great, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought back and that doesn't mean we need to stay strung to the same basic mechanics for the sake of tradition. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10290 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:30 kaokentake wrote: Actually I tested it out and 200food armies with warhounds in them SLAUGHTER any composition you can provide simply because marauders are too strong on the ground. The only thing that reasonably works well against warhounds is mass broodlords for the fact that warhounds cant shoot up AND broodlords swarm with infinite spawns of free broodlings. But remove broodlords and warhounds are again OP toss has no broodlords. They have air units but what makes the broodlords strong is that they swarm with tons of free created units, not just the fact that they fly. warhounds, food-for-food, will ABSOLUTELY SLAUGHTER AND DECIMATE -- ANY -- ground unit. Thats just not fair. for each ground unit, there needs to be a unit in the opposing race that, food-for-food, counters it given a equal food fight between 10-25 food for example, 3 collossi (18food) die to 9 marauders (18food) 3 collossi (18food) die if they try to engage 6 sieged tanks (18food) 18 marines (18food) die to 3collossi (18food) even if you spread the marines 20 marines (20food) beats 5immortals (20food) 6 immortals (24food) beats 8 sieged tanks (24food) there NEEDS to be a ground unit in each race that FOOD FOR FOOD beats the warhound warhound food-for-food will beat ANY zerg ground unit, even ultralisks, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 warhound food-for-food will beat ANY protoss ground unit, assuming its a even-food battle with food numbers between 10-25 you cannot find A SINGLE GROUND UNIT in ANY RACE that in even food amounts kills EVERY OTHER GROUND UNIT of another race. except, until the warhound was released. Its incredibly overpowered, each race needs at least 1 ground unit that can beat the warhound food for food Why does it have to be a ground unit? And why are you comparing it with single unit compositions? | ||
|
KawaiiRice
United States2914 Posts
 | ||
|
yeastiality
Canada374 Posts
On September 07 2012 09:07 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Why does it have to be a ground unit? And why are you comparing it with single unit compositions? because all the general purpose air units (mutalisks, voidrays) are terrible? because people will mass it since it's not feasible to overmake air units and attack them, when the meching player can produce a pile of thors? | ||
|
kaokentake
383 Posts
On September 07 2012 09:07 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: Why does it have to be a ground unit? And why are you comparing it with single unit compositions? armies in this game are mostly ground based save for mass infestor/broodlord. but in the midgame normally its ground balance between ground units is A MUST in this game every ground unit from each race, has its counter unit on the ground in another race. no ground unit in ANY RACE will food-for-food beat every other ground unit in another race. Thats simply overpowered. There must be a unit in each race that can beat pure warhounds by itself, in equal food amounts, for warhounds to be balanced. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10290 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:47 FortMonty wrote: Actually it's not, the fact is people have placed labels and standards on specific strategies and simply assume that mech must be slow (despite the fact that they totally ignore that Helions are the fastest terran unit, A.K.A, a mech unit is the fastest terran unit). Mech doesn't have to be as fast or aggressive as bio, I still think Bio has more mobility than the Warhound presents, granted the Warhound is a bit quick, but there are a lot of things that make the warhound as strong as it is. What I'm saying is mech should be able to choose between a quicker more mobile force that doesn't necessarily have the mobility or harass potential of bio but has a bit more standing power than bio but just under the standing power of pure passive territoric mech. I'd like to see a new dynamic to mech play that doesn't involve, slow, turtlish, deathballish, trench warfare. Also, people need to stop talking about what BW did right and what Blizzard is doing Wrong, it's the Beta, we've seen what BroodWar has to offer and it was great, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought back and that doesn't mean we need to stay strung to the same basic mechanics for the sake of tradition. High agree! If you look at interviews and battel report and such, it is CLEAR that they are trying to give each style/unit-composition (mainly bio/mech in Terran) different styles! Look at bio. There are 2 main styles; aggressive, and defensive. There are much more specific style beyond that, but these are the MAIN kinds. Aggressive has to pressure and harass, while defensive just turtles and possibly pushes out. Now look at bio... YOU CAN ALREADY DO THIS. MMM = more aggressive variant. MMM + Tank = more defensive variant. Why cannot mech be like this too? Mech already has thor/banshee/hellion, yes, which is more mobile than tank heavy mech compositions, it can be pretty aggressive, but it doesn't work so well later in the game without ghosts for HTs or for high immortal counts. Why not add the warhound? It will make such a mech composition more mobile, while also making your army more flexible (and thus alleviates the concept of hard-counters in SC2 which MANY people have complained about) and thus makes mech more viable. It is NOT as mobile as bio! It is still a different style. You are not dropping all over the place, you are not splitting your marines all over. It is a different style. Does it share similarities? Sure. But what about bio in WoL? Does anyone complain that Marine/Tank was so popular and is still popular in TvZ even though it looks so much like mech due to the positioning/pushing nature thanks to the tanks and sometimes thors? Is marine tank mech? No, it is bio. Most of the supply /upgrades/tech is still bio. So why not have more kinds of mech? What's the problem? Now the stats of a warhound in relation to tanks are a different story; these can always be adjusted. However, warhounds will also help those who want to play the more traditional tank-heavy styles of mech. But if you want to play a more mobile style, with tanks supporting instead of being the core of the army, now you can do that too. Why not have more options? | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
On September 07 2012 09:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: High agree! If you look at interviews and battel report and such, it is CLEAR that they are trying to give each style/unit-composition (mainly bio/mech in Terran) different styles! Look at bio. There are 2 main styles; aggressive, and defensive. There are much more specific style beyond that, but these are the MAIN kinds. Aggressive has to pressure and harass, while defensive just turtles and possibly pushes out. Now look at bio... YOU CAN ALREADY DO THIS. MMM = more aggressive variant. MMM + Tank = more defensive variant. Why cannot mech be like this too? Mech already has thor/banshee/hellion, yes, which is more mobile than tank heavy mech compositions, it can be pretty aggressive, but it doesn't work so well later in the game without ghosts for HTs or for high immortal counts. Why not add the warhound? It will make such a mech composition more mobile, while also making your army more flexible (and thus alleviates the concept of hard-counters in SC2 which MANY people have complained about) and thus makes mech more viable. It is NOT as mobile as bio! It is still a different style. You are not dropping all over the place, you are not splitting your marines all over. It is a different style. Does it share similarities? Sure. But what about bio in WoL? Does anyone complain that Marine/Tank was so popular and is still popular in TvZ even though it looks so much like mech due to the positioning/pushing nature thanks to the tanks and sometimes thors? Is marine tank mech? No, it is bio. Most of the supply /upgrades/tech is still bio. So why not have more kinds of mech? What's the problem? Now the stats of a warhound in relation to tanks are a different story; these can always be adjusted. However, warhounds will also help those who want to play the more traditional tank-heavy styles of mech. But if you want to play a more mobile style, with tanks supporting instead of being the core of the army, now you can do that too. Why not have more options? Reason being, that the warhound is a god marauder, and the hellion is a firebat, the strategy then becomes almost identical to bio, without the anti air. It is also FASTER than non-stimmed bio if you transform hellions. The warhound should fill an AA role such as the goliath, and then the thor should be given stronger anti ground attacks. This way, a strong force of mechawarriors FEELS different than bio, because it is slower. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10290 Posts
Also the important part is that in an engagement, bio is faster and more mobile -- cus they stim. That heavily shapes the strategy. They can run away usually without too many losses, but with a slower force, it will be harder to retreat (in this case, warhounds or basically mech that isn't tank heavy) Also again, balance wise the warhound can be changed. But design wise, it is pretty interesting. Again, the strategy is not identical. The speed is different. You don't have medivacs that heal your units and also allow you to drop all over the place. You also don't have good anti-air (especially compared to stim marines). Tempests are probably more effective against warhounds than bio because of medivac's fast healing, and even if you bring SCVs with your mech army, it still probably won't alleviate that. Well, hellions are already faster than non-stimmed bio. Why complain now instead of earlier? Again, why can't there be mech units faster than non-stimmed bio? Again, it already is slower. You also don't need to micro (stutter-step kind at least) as much, which makes the style quite different (instead of relying so much on stutter stepping, you have more APM to spend on other things like making sure your positioning/engages/defense is good). Also, I quite myself from earlier: On September 06 2012 11:04 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: would overlap with thor's role, and if you want mech to not have to get any vikings (if you want warhounds to do well against units like voids/carriers) then you could go pure mech (except maybe some ghosts), and blizz doesn't seem to want you to be able to go pure anymore (which is not a bad thing, since unit compositions are more diversified now and so terran can transition from 1 tech tree to another more easily -- example, look at bio in TvZ, you get tanks and usually vehicle attack, then when you max 3/3 on bio and you have 3/0 tanks you can start adding more and more mech as you get the defense upgrades too) It would be against SC2's design to have pure bio or pure mech. It would basically give even more incentive to play mech, since you can't go pure bio without increasing difficulty later in the game (and counting medivacs as bio is already generous -- imagine bio without medivacs in the late game) | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
Warhound and Tempest comments noted. -Dustin Browder O_O | ||
|
FortMonty
United States63 Posts
On September 07 2012 09:59 Thaniri wrote: + Show Spoiler + On September 07 2012 09:16 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: High agree! If you look at interviews and battel report and such, it is CLEAR that they are trying to give each style/unit-composition (mainly bio/mech in Terran) different styles! Look at bio. There are 2 main styles; aggressive, and defensive. There are much more specific style beyond that, but these are the MAIN kinds. Aggressive has to pressure and harass, while defensive just turtles and possibly pushes out. Now look at bio... YOU CAN ALREADY DO THIS. MMM = more aggressive variant. MMM + Tank = more defensive variant. Why cannot mech be like this too? Mech already has thor/banshee/hellion, yes, which is more mobile than tank heavy mech compositions, it can be pretty aggressive, but it doesn't work so well later in the game without ghosts for HTs or for high immortal counts. Why not add the warhound? It will make such a mech composition more mobile, while also making your army more flexible (and thus alleviates the concept of hard-counters in SC2 which MANY people have complained about) and thus makes mech more viable. It is NOT as mobile as bio! It is still a different style. You are not dropping all over the place, you are not splitting your marines all over. It is a different style. Does it share similarities? Sure. But what about bio in WoL? Does anyone complain that Marine/Tank was so popular and is still popular in TvZ even though it looks so much like mech due to the positioning/pushing nature thanks to the tanks and sometimes thors? Is marine tank mech? No, it is bio. Most of the supply /upgrades/tech is still bio. So why not have more kinds of mech? What's the problem? Now the stats of a warhound in relation to tanks are a different story; these can always be adjusted. However, warhounds will also help those who want to play the more traditional tank-heavy styles of mech. But if you want to play a more mobile style, with tanks supporting instead of being the core of the army, now you can do that too. Why not have more options? Reason being, that the warhound is a god marauder, and the hellion is a firebat, the strategy then becomes almost identical to bio, without the anti air. It is also FASTER than non-stimmed bio if you transform hellions. The warhound should fill an AA role such as the goliath, and then the thor should be given stronger anti ground attacks. This way, a strong force of mechawarriors FEELS different than bio, because it is slower. Again, I think you're setting up a specific standard to Mech. Mech is only slow because the current units are very slow and the current optimal play style of mech is slow, it's not like there are rules set in place that make needs to be slow, and there's more to bio than just movement speed. I do agree that maybe the Warhound is a bit quick, but that's not the point, the point is if you play mech you have to buy an engagement ring for your position and you really don't have the option of moving too far from your base and you have to rely on Static defences to defend multiple bases, this is similar to others races, however, with Zerg you have extreme mobility for just about every unit, and for Toss you have warp ins, but Terran mech has no ability to defend multiple bases without either thinning out their army, which makes mech weaker, or investing large quantities into static defence. Overall this isn't an issue because mech tends to lead to large mineral bank, but the point is, giving mech mobility doesn't make it bio, bio is not pure movement speed and mech is not pure positioning. So ok, maybe the Warhound needs a nerf here or there, maybe slightly slower, cost more supply, and perhaps give it an AA attack instead of an attack that shreds mechanical units. Either way, it'd be a good addition to the game and would give Terran players more options in the TvP match up and even the TvT match up. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
Warhound isn't interesting at all design-wise. I challenge you to think of a more boring unit design. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On September 07 2012 10:14 Shikyo wrote: Well SC2 design being what it is I really don't think that going against SC2 design should be considered a negative. Warhound isn't interesting at all design-wise. I challenge you to think of a more boring unit design. Corruptors | ||
|
archon256
United States363 Posts
On September 07 2012 10:11 SarcasmMonster wrote: In regards to Falling's "In Defence of Mech" and this thread. O_O Cool, so that article has got recognition. Hopefully they do something about it. | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
| ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On September 07 2012 08:47 FortMonty wrote: Actually it's not, the fact is people have placed labels and standards on specific strategies and simply assume that mech must be slow (despite the fact that they totally ignore that Helions are the fastest terran unit, A.K.A, a mech unit is the fastest terran unit). Mech doesn't have to be as fast or aggressive as bio, I still think Bio has more mobility than the Warhound presents, granted the Warhound is a bit quick, but there are a lot of things that make the warhound as strong as it is. What I'm saying is mech should be able to choose between a quicker more mobile force that doesn't necessarily have the mobility or harass potential of bio but has a bit more standing power than bio but just under the standing power of pure passive territoric mech. I'd like to see a new dynamic to mech play that doesn't involve, slow, turtlish, deathballish, trench warfare. Also, people need to stop talking about what BW did right and what Blizzard is doing Wrong, it's the Beta, we've seen what BroodWar has to offer and it was great, but that doesn't mean it needs to be brought back and that doesn't mean we need to stay strung to the same basic mechanics for the sake of tradition. It sounds like you don't understand how the term "mech" is used. It doesn't simply mean factory units, it refers to a particuar style of play based around positional control. Talking about slow units in mech strategies isn't some arbitrary assumption, it's the core of what mech is. That's not to say that the whole composition should be immobile, there's a place for high-mobility harassment units such as hellions as well. But for something to be a true mech strategy, the main strength of the composition has to be positioning with powerful units. | ||
| ||
|
|
Replay Cast
Online Event
Replay Cast
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs Lancer
herO vs Lancer
GuMiho vs herO
Korean StarCraft League
Master's Coliseum
Maru vs GuMiho
Lancer vs GuMiho
herO vs Maru
CranKy Ducklings
Defiler Tour
CranKy Ducklings
|
|
|
EPT
