StarCraft® II

Changes to the warhound to allow mech play

Posts: 384
I had this idea after reading "Discouraging to play Mech in hots" and I had to write it asap. I just think adding the warhound back with the changes I propose would make things more interesting (for Terran AND his opponent).

The warhound would be a multi-purpose weaponry unit with a low amount of hit points, very akin to the tank, but with anti-air capabilities and a twist to it's weaponry. There would be 3 weapons total.

Gatling-kind of weapon for range 0-5 to give at least a small help against things getting close, not ideal range. I see it stealing the viking Gatling (not in term of damage and attack speed, just the type of weapon). I think the landed viking could use a buff to differentiate his weapon from the "new and improved" warhound. The change could be piercing bullets, all units in a line of 3 behind the unit hit by the viking would also take full damage (this really isn't much at all... they would be better support against small massed units, at least that's the point, maybe not what it needs, but still of some use). Maybe also decrease time for it to get back to safety (flight mode), this could be an upgrade. I would definitely like to make armies composed of more vikings. I can also see banshee getting a buff because besides for having a small window of time where they are effective at killing scvs or surprising an opponent with low anti air firepower, they aren't that good in actual battle, which ISN'T fun. Units should be fun to use and not too focused on one thing... I've always wished for HighTemplar/Infestor/Raven to have their own attacks and decrease impact of landing spells. Back to point now.

Mortar-kind of weapon for range ~7-11 (pulling those numbers out of my !@# here) that would target the FARTHEST units. It would deal a small AoE attack with medium attack power and be the ideal range for this unit. The point to making it attack farthest units is to : attack units fleeing from your army while being able to move your own toward his, by reaching the farthest units damage is spread from the rest of the army, weakening but not killing the opponent's army (in theory, if you mass too much your army gets weak in close range firepower and the opponent will just charge you); reach for swarm hosts instead of their locusts, implying they burrowed close enough, just get vision of them with a raven or something.

Missile kind of weapon with a minimum range, leaving it vulnerable to any close air thing but capable of being fired simultaneously with a ground weapon. Thor is a good anti air unit, but now it needs 4 seconds to switch modes. The missile would hit a single target, contrary to the attack of the thor. TANGENT: I think limiting amount of target hit by a single anti-air thor shot to 5-6 would be balanced... the poor clumped mutas suffered enough and speed doesn't fix the fact that you got in the range of many thors by mistake, although it's welcomed for the increased harass power (there again making the unit more engaged into a single role, which I'm not sure I like).

I think you can see this unit has potential, hopefully without being OP. And would be fun to use. Effectiveness in bio would be hopefully be decreased by the combination of cost and fragility factors (I consider tanks and hellions (not hellbats) quite fragile). Their most effective place would be near tanks, where units do not want to go, while being able to force confrontation from a distance, giving Terran it's own way to force engages, akin to the zerg's swarm hosts and protoss's tempests. Giving them this possibility is only fair. And the composition would only force you to use units that can deal with tanks head on. For example ultralisks, once getting past the mortars, which should MAYBE be a projectile, would suffer nearly no damage from the Gatlings, and we all know they rock tanks once they can get close enough. Warhounds would then either slowly back away, having legs instead of wheels (stupid engineers!), leaving you to kill tanks and getting hit by a few salvos of mortar again, or take hits and let the tanks either shoot their destructive siege-mode attack or unsiege and flee to the base.
They could also be used in conjunction with thors, thors giving the warhounds vision and protection. Giving the Terran player a powerful army, but slow/ly moving/built and costly in both money and supplies. You would also need to fear surprise bu.. s.. I mean being attacked by behind....

Their weakness would be being mixed in bio because they'd be easily taken out by a ling/baneling, chargelot heavy protoss army or enemy tanks or even stimmed bio out of mortar range (inside the "blind spot").

INTERESTING RIGHT? Well I know some answers will disappoint me, this can't be helped, I already can see the QQ of having a unit with 3 weapons. I will further explain my point of view if clarification is needed/made no sense in what I wrote.
Reply Quote
Posts: 50
You just described the goliath if I am correct... Yes bring back the goliath in HoTs
Reply Quote
Posts: 384
Warhound was a lot like the goliath minus the anti air to begin with. The weapons could be different but have the same role.

Plus goliath had 2 main attacks, "this" warhound has one. The anti air is there only to support and the gatling just for emergency self defense, the unit is NOT supposed to go close anything. The goliath could, and it was not weak (edit: as in non resistant to damage) for it's cost, as "this" warhound would. L2R well tried 0/10 etc
Edited by Sei on 1/28/2013 10:04 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,059
Mech is boring. I'm glad blizzard is embracing Bio with mech support for HOTS, since the bio playstyle is more fun, but is frustrating when AOE comes out in significant amounts.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
01/29/2013 06:54 AMPosted by BrockLanders
Mech is boring. I'm glad blizzard is embracing Bio with mech support for HOTS, since the bio playstyle is more fun, but is frustrating when AOE comes out in significant amounts.

Depends on the person. I find Bio to be very boring......as in I have no interest in using bio whatsoever.

Different people prefer different tactics, and those who played Terran in Brood War often prefer mech-style play.
Reply Quote
Posts: 16
Why not just give terran the broodwar Goliath....?
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
01/29/2013 10:58 AMPosted by SHaKuR
Why not just give terran the broodwar Goliath....?


1. It is considered redundant with the Viking. All viable Terran tech paths require Starport support for something anyway. The tech-tree mix is not a big deal in this case because it is possible to afford 2 tech paths (just not 3).

2. The Viking is technically supposed to be an enhanced Goliath design.

3. Because Blizzard does not want the Factory to be self-sufficient.

If:
-Siege Tanks had the Arclite-style damage and splash
-The Brood War Goliath was available from the Factory--exact stat transition, 100/50/2 with 125 health, 1 armor, 12 damage on a 1.245 second timer, 2x 5 (+5 vs armored) anti-air missiles on 6 (+3) range and a 1.245 second timer.
-Hellbats were added.
-Widow Mines were added.
-The Thor was removed (irrelevant).

Then:
-The Factory would be self-sufficient in most cases.
-The only unit outside of Factory tech you would really need are Ghosts to counter Immortals.
Edited by TerranicII on 1/29/2013 11:08 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 4,508
01/29/2013 10:58 AMPosted by SHaKuR
Why not just give terran the broodwar Goliath....?


I mean they already copy/pasted the Firebat and Spider mine anyway, so why the hell not.
Reply Quote
Posts: 384
We are not talking about goliaths here. My unit design is entirely different and you would know if you read it carefully. Stop changing the subject and make a useful criticism. I feel like I'm just being trolled for having a new idea.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
01/31/2013 02:13 AMPosted by Sei
We are not talking about goliaths here. My unit design is entirely different and you would know if you read it carefully. Stop changing the subject and make a useful criticism. I feel like I'm just being trolled for having a new idea.


I read it.
-The long-range aoe makes this a little redundant with the Siege Tank. I can't imagine this unit being "good" without replacing the Siege Tank or another unit.
-The gatling gun is fine, but the Viking does not need your suggested change.
-The long-range, minimum-range single-target missiles seem interesting, but note that this and the Gatling Gun make it similar to the Goliath (which is fine, but won't go through because Blizzard wants mech to at least require the Starport).
-You shouldn't have brought up the Thor, even on a tangent. The Thor's aoe is just horrible design, but no it is not overpowered. The radius is only 0.5, so opponents have to stack up a lot be affected by it, and the Thor's anti-air dps is horrible for a 6-supply unit.
Yes your idea is interesting; however, just because an idea is "interesting" does not mean that it is good. This unit of yours tries to do many things, and ultimately serves no unique place outside of anti-air......Where it is basically trying to replace the Goliath/Viking. If your unit does fix a problem, it is only because a previous unit was too weak--which is exactly the problem with the Warhound in the first place.
Edited by TerranicII on 1/31/2013 11:09 AM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 920
Mech needs a caster with a redesign lockdown spell . This is so Toss dont get all comfortable as soon as immortals are made.
Edited by Who on 1/31/2013 12:39 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
01/31/2013 12:38 PMPosted by Who
Mech needs a caster with a redesign lockdown spell . This is so Toss dont get all comfortable as soon as immortals are made.


Lockdown is overkill. Hard-cc abilities are never a good thing. For reference, look at how Blinding Cloud affects mech in TvZ.

Mech just needs a lower critical mass for tanks in TvP (about 10 more damage to central armored target) so that it can more easily afford the Ghosts to EMP the Immortals.
After that, mech players just need to get used to using Ghosts and mech should be solid in HotS.
Edited by TerranicII on 1/31/2013 3:50 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 384
I read it.
-The long-range aoe makes this a little redundant with the Siege Tank. I can't imagine this unit being "good" without replacing the Siege Tank or another unit.
answer: Soft aoe, small. If it was a missile it could miss but then again it could hit more units because it wouldn't aim at the center of it. But I'm not sure it works like that.
-The gatling gun is fine, but the Viking does not need your suggested change.
answer: Grounded viking is not viable at the moment and is only used to support an army already winning because the air is gone or for mineral lines, and is weak to massed-small units like marine/zergling/zealot, which all clump.
-The long-range, minimum-range single-target missiles seem interesting, but note that this and the Gatling Gun make it similar to the Goliath (which is fine, but won't go through because Blizzard wants mech to at least require the Starport).
answer: I just think the unit needs a little anti air support to be viable. Else you gotta add marines to your mech composition, which are not mechs. The purpose of this unit is to make a "factory units army".
-You shouldn't have brought up the Thor, even on a tangent. The Thor's aoe is just horrible design, but no it is not overpowered. The radius is only 0.5, so opponents have to stack up a lot be affected by it, and the Thor's anti-air dps is horrible for a 6-supply unit.
answer: Not horrible when it hits 10 units, you could say the mechanic is flawed.
Yes your idea is interesting; however, just because an idea is "interesting" does not mean that it is good. This unit of yours tries to do many things, and ultimately serves no unique place outside of anti-air......
answer: Wrong, anti air support, meaning low damage or attack speed or whatever is best, you will need a few thors to do the real anti air or vikings.
-Where it is basically trying to replace the Goliath/Viking.
answer: I think it's unique and doesn't "replace" anything, it's all about the mortar thingy, which would allow entirely new plays, the rest is support to cover for the unit huge weaknesses a bit (being hit, because easily destroyed, and cost. only making this one unit would be very bad too) and allow to do some damage before you lose your whole army. That way you could be a bit less in trouble and make the opponent delay the push on your base long enough for you to rebuild some units. (Implying the fight wasn't too uneven, in which case you generally don't lose the game straight away, usually)
-If your unit does fix a problem, it is only because a previous unit was too weak--which is exactly the problem with the Warhound in the first place.
answer: Warhound was too weak? I never tried it but I think people complained it was OP, and before we knew it it was removed.
Edited by Sei on 2/5/2013 4:33 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
Learn to parse quotes.
I read it.
-The long-range aoe makes this a little redundant with the Siege Tank. I can't imagine this unit being "good" without replacing the Siege Tank or another unit.

answer: Soft aoe, small. If it was a missile it could miss but then again it could hit more units because it wouldn't aim at the center of it. But I'm not sure it works like that.

Still redundant either way. This is not a good design practice.
-The gatling gun is fine, but the Viking does not need your suggested change.

answer: Grounded viking is not viable at the moment and is only used to support an army already winning because the air is gone or for mineral lines, and is weak to massed-small units like marine/zergling/zealot, which all clump.

Goliaths were not any better in ground combat. Just like the Goliath, the Viking's primary role is anti-air, the ground mode is only used to support ground troops when there are no air units.
Both units are only built for their anti-air capacity. In every case where Goliaths/Vikings are/were good in ground combat, another unit would do the same job better. This has never been a problem because there are other units dedicated to ground combat.

-The long-range, minimum-range single-target missiles seem interesting, but note that this and the Gatling Gun make it similar to the Goliath (which is fine, but won't go through because Blizzard wants mech to at least require the Starport).

answer: I just think the unit needs a little anti air support to be viable. Else you gotta add marines to your mech composition, which are not mechs. The purpose of this unit is to make a "factory units army".

Which goes against Blizzard's intentions in Starcraft II. You can make a factory-based core, but hard anti-air should Starport support. A "little" anti-air already comes from Widow Mines and Thors, redundant as the Thor may otherwise be.
-You shouldn't have brought up the Thor, even on a tangent. The Thor's aoe is just horrible design, but no it is not overpowered. The radius is only 0.5, so opponents have to stack up a lot be affected by it, and the Thor's anti-air dps is horrible for a 6-supply unit.

answer: Not horrible when it hits 10 units, you could say the mechanic is flawed.

It is a horrible design choice. The "strength" doesn't matter, the purpose itself is a bad thing.
It is just a horrible practice to design a unit's anti-air entirely around killing mass Mutalisks, and aoe anti-air is a horrible idea because of the stacking.

The Thor's aoe is not mechanically flawed because it does exactly what it was designed to do (kill massed Mutalisks). The problem is that the Thor should never have been designed to kill massed Mutalisks with splash damage.
Yes your idea is interesting; however, just because an idea is "interesting" does not mean that it is good. This unit of yours tries to do many things, and ultimately serves no unique place outside of anti-air......

answer: Wrong, anti air support, meaning low damage or attack speed or whatever is best, you will need a few thors to do the real anti air or vikings.

So the anti-air will be bad too? Then this unit serves no purpose of its own whatsoever. One should never suggest a unit that does not fill a necessary role that is not already filled by another unit.
-Where it is basically trying to replace the Goliath/Viking.

answer: I think it's unique and doesn't "replace" anything, it's all about the mortar thingy, which would allow entirely new plays, the rest is support to cover for the unit huge weaknesses a bit (being hit, because easily destroyed, and cost. only making this one unit would be very bad too) and allow to do some damage before you lose your whole army. That way you could be a bit less in trouble and make the opponent delay the push on your base long enough for you to rebuild some units. (Implying the fight wasn't too uneven, in which case you generally don't lose the game straight away, usually)

No this does not allow "new plays". It is a gimmicky unit that will only ever see use if it outperforms another unit at a needed role. You have suggested a load of !@#$.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
-If your unit does fix a problem, it is only because a previous unit was too weak--which is exactly the problem with the Warhound in the first place.

answer: Warhound was too weak? I never tried it but I think people complained it was OP, and before we knew it it was removed.

You completely misread that. The Warhound wasn't weak, the Warhound did not fill a single role that another mech unit didn't already fill.
The Warhound share the same roles as Siege Tanks, Thors, and it technically overlapped with Hellions/Hellbats as well. As such, the Warhound would only see use if it was stronger than one of those units at that unit's role.
The Warhound had no place in mech. Mech was already "complete". The Warhound was only added as a patch where other mech units were underpowered. This is a horrible design practice, and the Warhound was scrapped because of this overlap.

When two redundant units exist for the same exact purpose on the same exact production line with the same exact upgrades, then only the stronger of the two units will ever see use, and training the "lesser" unit is always a bad choice. As such it is horrible design practice to introduce two units on the same production line with the same upgrades for the same exact role.
The Warhound was removed because it was exactly that: A bad design. There is no place for a Warhound in multiplayer, so there should never be another Warhound.
If there is a problem with the current mech arsenal, then it is because a current mech unit is simply too weak, too strong, or needs a few small adjustments. You should never suggest a new crappy unit to fix a problem that could easily be fixed by adjusting a unit that already exists now.
Edited by TerranicII on 2/6/2013 2:24 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 7,899
01/28/2013 08:16 AMPosted by Sei
I just think adding the warhound back


Stopped reading here. Warhound is gone, it's staying gone.
Reply Quote
Posts: 1,316
How to fix the Warhound, By Templarfreak.

First, we take it's damage and reduce it to 14 from 20 !@#$ing three.
Next, we need to take it's movement speed of THE SPEED OF LIGHT (2.86) to about the speed of sound (2.7.)
After that, we need to reduce it's range from 7 to 6, but that 7 range is actually very important to the Warhound. So now we make an upgrade at the Tech Lab that increases it's range by 1.
Finally, it soaks up too much damage. So we need to reduce it's health from 220 to 175.
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
How to fix the Warhound, By Templarfreak.

First, we take it's damage and reduce it to 14 from 20 !@#$ing three.
Next, we need to take it's movement speed of THE SPEED OF LIGHT (2.86) to about the speed of sound (2.7.)
After that, we need to reduce it's range from 7 to 6, but that 7 range is actually very important to the Warhound. So now we make an upgrade at the Tech Lab that increases it's range by 1.
Finally, it soaks up too much damage. So we need to reduce it's health from 220 to 175.


Many players were confused on the day that the Warhound was removed because there was also a nerf to increase the Warhounds supply cost from 2 to 3.

The Warhound was not removed because it was "overpowered". The Warhound itself was very basic, and would have been very easy to balance. The Warhound was removed because it was redundant with virtually all factory units.

I already explained:

02/06/2013 02:23 PMPosted by TerranicII

answer: Warhound was too weak? I never tried it but I think people complained it was OP, and before we knew it it was removed.

You completely misread that. The Warhound wasn't weak, the Warhound did not fill a single role that another mech unit didn't already fill.
The Warhound share the same roles as Siege Tanks, Thors, and it technically overlapped with Hellions/Hellbats as well. As such, the Warhound would only see use if it was stronger than one of those units at that unit's role.
The Warhound had no place in mech. Mech was already "complete". The Warhound was only added as a patch where other mech units were underpowered. This is a horrible design practice, and the Warhound was scrapped because of this overlap.

When two redundant units exist for the same exact purpose on the same exact production line with the same exact upgrades, then only the stronger of the two units will ever see use, and training the "lesser" unit is always a bad choice. As such it is horrible design practice to introduce two units on the same production line with the same upgrades for the same exact role.
The Warhound was removed because it was exactly that: A bad design. There is no place for a Warhound in multiplayer, so there should never be another Warhound.
If there is a problem with the current mech arsenal, then it is because a current mech unit is simply too weak, too strong, or needs a few small adjustments. You should never suggest a new crappy unit to fix a problem that could easily be fixed by adjusting a unit that already exists now.


So shut up, and stop suggesting stats or fixes for it. If you want to "fix mech", suggest changes to existing units that allow them to perform better at their roles.
Reply Quote
Posts: 384
TerranicII stop being so aggressive while spitting your "facts". My unit doesn't overlap with anything. You still didn't acknowledge it's main weapon, after every attempt I made to bring it to the main plan. It it strong at long range, deals well with clumps, no type of unit can shoot it back in the range where it's effective, that and there will be other units to tank in front of it. By the time you would even get near them your army will have suffered damages. There is a unit that can kind of do that, the tank, it would do it better even. But you would still want to get my unit because it would provide not only additional long range dps but still be a bit useful at close range and do damage to air, what the tank CANNOT do. Having that kind of unit WOULD allow new types of play.

Add: And I do not care about name or appearance. I just thought it'd be more simple to use what was already made and change it. A walking mech is very terran like in my opinion.
Edited by Sei on 2/10/2013 12:33 PM PST
Reply Quote
Posts: 9,750
02/10/2013 12:28 PMPosted by Sei
TerranicII stop being so aggressive while spitting your "facts". My unit doesn't overlap with anything. You still didn't acknowledge it's main weapon, after every attempt I made to bring it to the main plan. It it strong at long range, deals well with clumps, no type of unit can shoot it back in the range where it's effective, that and there will be other units to tank in front of it. By the time you would even get near them your army will have suffered damages. There is a unit that can kind of do that, the tank, it would do it better even. But you would still want to get my unit because it would provide not only additional long range dps but still be a bit useful at close range and do damage to air, what the tank CANNOT do. Having that kind of unit WOULD allow new types of play.

Not it would not. All you are doing is taking a mix of thing that other units already do, and mixing them together.
Either this unit will replace another unit because it does the same job better, or it will never see use because a combination of other units is better.
There is no other gap for a unit to fill; therefore, another unit should not be added.
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]