StarCraft® II

Warhound = Fail goliath.

Posts: 44
Is it just me, or is blizzard trying really hard to replace the Goliath with a crummy wannabe version of itself.

The Goliath was a great unit, not bad against ground, great against air, fairly cheap, with decent mobility, and a good unit model.

This Warhound unit seems to be trying to imitate the exact roll of the Goliath, slapping a new name and an ugly mask on it, and calling it an improvement.

Thoughts?

Reply Quote
Posts: 805
I don't like the Warhound. Plenty of people will disagree with me by saying it's ground attack SUCKS against anything except mech units. This means it's only use against the Zerg is splash damage against air units, which is only one, the Mutalisk.

This is a little off subject, but I also don't like the new Thor. One limit units just need to be removed. I'm sick of the idea of them and also the idea of throwing the one limit unit to others races. What, will the Zerg get the one limit unit in LotV?
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,738
Beta hasn't started yet.
Reply Quote
Posts: 805
11/07/2011 04:56 PMPosted by Iliac
Beta hasn't started yet.


So just because someone makes a smartass comment "Beta hasn't started" we should just shut up and not say our own opinions? God forbid someone actually says something about an idea before it hits beta.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
I disagree. The Warhound is clearly intended to be a cheaper and less cumbersome replacement for the Thor, as it retains its strong anti-mech weaponry and AOE anti-air battery.

The Goliath however was an anti-air unit with a rather dismal ground attack.

Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 5:09 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 388
Then change the Goliath slightly and for the lore say that the Dominion upgraded its ground cannon to something more powerful against the new Protoss units. It's not a hard thing to do, and it would make more logical sense.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
Except the Warhound is better armored, visually more intimidating and twice as resilient as Goliath. How could they explain these drastic improvements from a lore standpoint?

Oh, I know: they could say it's a different unit!
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 5:18 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 805
11/07/2011 05:05 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
I disagree. The Warhound is clearly intended to be a cheaper and less cumbersome replacement for the Thor, as it retains its strong anti-mech weaponry and AOE anti-air battery.


The Thor could be used effectively against zerg ground units whereas the Warhound's ground attack is going to be dismal against them. It's air attack sounds like it's going to be identical to the Thor. I did play a map (HoTS Custom) where Warhounds could be used. It may not be 100% accurate, but the Warhound got it's butt handed to it, even by the protoss. Maybe boosting the Thor speed a little bit would be a nice buff? I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here.

11/07/2011 05:08 PMPosted by jaymz
Then change the Goliath slightly and for the lore say that the Dominion upgraded its ground cannon to something more powerful against the new Protoss units. It's not a hard thing to do, and it would make more logical sense.


It's a cool reason to fight protoss, but considering the story they would be more scared of the Zerg.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
11/07/2011 05:18 PMPosted by Dreadnaught
The Thor could be used effectively against zerg ground units whereas the Warhound's ground attack is going to be dismal against them. It's air attack sounds like it's going to be identical to the Thor. I did play a map (HoTS Custom) where Warhounds could be used. It may not be 100% accurate, but the Warhound got it's butt handed to it, even by the protoss. Maybe boosting the Thor speed a little bit would be a nice buff? I don't know. I'm just thinking out loud here.


Since the Warhound is basically a considerably more affordable Thor, it makes sense to have it specialized against vehicles so it doesn't overlap with a hard-hitting unit such as the Marauder.

I bet it's the same reason why Blizzard chose to make the Goliath's autocannon suck so much; so they wouldn't surpass the Marine's rifle.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 5:31 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 805
11/07/2011 05:20 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
The Thor's ground attack did bonus damage against ARMORED targets.


Actually, it doesn't. It's a flat 30x2 damage against any ground target.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
Oops, my mistake.

Still, making the Warhound particularly good against a specific type of ground units is a good way to differentiate it from the Goliath, which was at best a mediocre anti-infantry support vehicle.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 5:34 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 805
11/07/2011 05:24 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
Oops, my mistake.


I'm not being an !@#. Sorry to sound that way, friend. =/
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
I beg your pardon?
Reply Quote
Posts: 388
Except the Warhound is better armored, visually more intimidating and twice as resilient as Goliath. How could they explain these drastic improvements from a lore standpoint?

Oh, I know: they could say it's a different unit!


There are plenty of ways they could explain it that wouldn't involve introducing a new unit. Also, I suggest you play one of the better HOTS custom games and try the Warhound with it's current Blizzard stats. It's really not a good unit and it doesn't fix Terran Mech's immobility. The Goliath would.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
11/07/2011 06:01 PMPosted by jaymz
There are plenty of ways they could explain it that wouldn't involve introducing a new unit.


So you want Blizzard to be cheap about it and reintroduce a previously cut unit (i.e. the Goliath) as a brand new unit, like they did in Brood War with the Valkyrie (aka the Gunship) and the Dragonhawk Rider (aka the Wind Serpent) in The Frozen Throne.

Seriously, I think we should be grateful that they are trying to come up with original content instead of just shamelessly remaking BW.

Also, I suggest you play one of the better HOTS custom games and try the Warhound with it's current Blizzard stats. It's really not a good unit and it doesn't fix Terran Mech's immobility. The Goliath would.


You criticize a WIP unit basing yourself solely on a hastily thrown together fan recreation of a WIP build.

Nice.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 6:33 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 388
What's wrong with reintroducing a unit that works? The unit is going to end up being essentially the Goliath once it's all said and done anyways - a mobile mech unit with a great anti-air attack and decent ground attack.

Personally, I'd rather Blizzard's design staff not try to be creative and cute. They did that by turning the already solid Goliath into two new units for SC2 - the Thor and Viking. The Warhound isn't an attempt at being creative - it's an attempt to reintroduce the same thing in a new package. Unfortunately, people like you buy it instead of call them out on it.
Reply Quote
Posts: 8,926
11/07/2011 06:39 PMPosted by jaymz
What's wrong with reintroducing a unit that works? The unit is going to end up being essentially the Goliath once it's all said and done anyways - a mobile mech unit with a great anti-air attack and decent ground attack.


Because the Warhound is designed to be the opposite: a tough mobile mech unit with a great anti-vehicle attack and an AOE anti-air attack.

Personally, I'd rather Blizzard's design staff not try to be creative and cute. They did that by turning the already solid Goliath into two new units for SC2 - the Thor and Viking.


The Thor sure needed some work - hence the Warhound - but the Viking is amazing.
Edited by JohnnyZeWolf on 11/7/2011 6:56 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 805
11/07/2011 06:49 PMPosted by JohnnyZeWolf
but the Viking is amazing.


Against air targets.
Edited by Dreadnaught on 11/7/2011 7:47 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,914
Is it just me, or is blizzard trying really hard to replace the Goliath with a crummy wannabe version of itself.

The Goliath was a great unit, not bad against ground, great against air, fairly cheap, with decent mobility, and a good unit model.

This Warhound unit seems to be trying to imitate the exact roll of the Goliath, slapping a new name and an ugly mask on it, and calling it an improvement.

Thoughts?


Tall standing mechanized vehicles was never a good idea to begin with. For starters standing upright means a higher attack profile both to other ground and to air units. That's why newer tanks were made to be as low as possible without infringing on their capabilities.

Second is moving parts and more components. A walking machine is a $#!+load more complex and sophisticated than wheeled or even tracked vehicles, ergo are more subject to breakdown. Trying to create a wide variety of combat roles also has its downside. Look at the Expeditionary Fight Vehicle. Currently it can't operate for even four hours without major overhaul, and that's while being unable to go ship-to-short and still be mine resistant. The do-it-all vehicle isn't likely to occur.
Reply Quote

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)
Submit Cancel

Reported!

[Close]