PDA

View Full Version : Warhound Model Poll



DemolitionSquid
11-06-2011, 01:47 PM
Just wanted to see more accurately how the community feels about the Warhound model. Some people seem to like it as the gritty scrap-heap walker it is now, basically Thor Jr. Others have suggested Terran has too many bipedal units and the Warhound would be better with another model - perhaps the Diamondback from the Campaign. I think I sit firmly in the Diamondback supporters corner.

handclaw
11-06-2011, 03:47 PM
Although the pool says "Do you like the Warhound unit model?", all I can vote for if I like it as a mech or if I want a non-mech unit.... I think it lacks the "It should be a different kind of mech" option : p

I am bit torn... My biggest problem with the model is, that it is a humanoid looking (2 legs, 2 arms) mech. Now, with the thor, the viking, the battle hellion AND the warhound, it becomes cheap and non interesting.

In my oppinion, they should AT LEAST make it a mech without arms... Almost going into the Goliath direction, I guess.

But otherwise, yeah, a non-bipedal model would be nice. But not the Diamondback. : P

DemolitionSquid
11-06-2011, 04:01 PM
Exo-suit: 1-1 Body movement ex. Marine
Mech: bipedal with cockpit ex. Goliath
Walker: 3 or more legs ex. Immortal
Tank: anything else ex. Diamondback (hovercraft)

Your choices for non-Mech are more legs, treads, or anti-gravity/hovercraft.

Visions of Khas
11-06-2011, 05:05 PM
Bring back the Goliath, redesign it slightly and call it the Skullder.

But yes, I hate the current Warhound.

Twilice
11-06-2011, 05:10 PM
What if, they did a bad model choice on purpose so that when they make a new model official everyone will be very exited about that model x)

ManjiSanji
11-06-2011, 07:56 PM
I'm fine with a walker unit, though Terran probably do have too many.

I even am mostly ok with the cobbled-together look of it; it reminds me of Mechwarrior.

That said, I think they could streamline it a bit. I wish, if anything, it looked more like the Madcat from Mechwarrior; something that actually emphasizes its anti-air role.

Gradius
11-06-2011, 09:16 PM
I wish, if anything, it looked more like the Madcat from Mechwarrior; something that actually emphasizes its anti-air role.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IvZF8h0dtVg/TQj4KgFsGlI/AAAAAAAAAnw/FWoaM17tF2A/s1600/madcat_03.jpg

The goliath? lol

ManjiSanji
11-06-2011, 09:46 PM
Meh?

If they're going to basically make the same thing, might as well make it visually appealing.
There's only so many walkers whose purpose is to take out air units and still be able to attack ground units...

Personally, I have a thing for the large, back/shoulder mounted missile pods, but maybe that's just me.

**Note: to Handclaw's post, he mentions a 2-legged mech without arms. I would find this interesting. I definitely see Demo's support of the Diamond back, but i think my main issue is that it doesn't, "look," Terran.
This could be my personal tastes, but to me, Terran weapons are machine guns and missiles (with the exception of the Battlecruiser, but I think they did a great job in SC2 with it, from a visual standpoint). I understand the Diamondback actually uses railguns, but it has the image and animation of a beam weapon.

From a visual design standpoint, I don't find the Diamondback to be very dramatic.

I suppose what I'm saying is I always liked the premise of a unit that launches a barrage of missiles (I liked the idea of the Valkyrie, but the performance left me disappointed), and throwing that into both anti-air and ground attacks seems appealing to me.

That said, maybe if the Diamondback had both the railgun, say for ground, anti-mech attacks, and missiles, for anti-air...that might be pretty awesome.

Visions of Khas
11-06-2011, 11:09 PM
Gatling gun, flamethrower... say, does the Warhound look like a really bad ripoff of a Warhammer 40K Dreadnought to anyone else??

http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/a/ad/Warhound_HotS_Art3.jpg

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/055/a/a/Warhammer_40000_Dreadnaught_by_garr0t.jpg

JackhammerIV
11-06-2011, 11:38 PM
The warhound model just looks...stupid. Blizzard seems obsessed putting shields on everything. Marine, battle hellion and now the warhound. For marines and battle hellions you could argue the shields are to help defend against zealots and zerglings. For the warhound....the shield...is to....stop air units from kamikaze-ing into it.

The model definitely needs changing.

Alar
11-06-2011, 11:48 PM
Give me something with HOVER JETS! Come on, Blizz!

drakolobo
11-07-2011, 12:01 AM
Gatling gun, flamethrower... say, does the Warhound look like a really bad ripoff of a Warhammer 40K Dreadnought to anyone else??

http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/a/ad/Warhound_HotS_Art3.jpg

http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/055/a/a/Warhammer_40000_Dreadnaught_by_garr0t.jpg

I think they just wanted to answer a question. because they never gave a military application to big SCV
http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/f/fe/SCV_SC2_Art1.jpg

Alex06
11-07-2011, 12:48 AM
Give me something with HOVER JETS! Come on, Blizz!
Agreed.

DemoSquid summarizes my view on the subject perfectly. I'm totally with him on this.

Also, this needs to appear on Blizzard's official SC2 forums, methinks.

Hamshank
11-07-2011, 01:10 AM
don't forget this is anti-mech,

which has better readability: Diamondback versus Stalker.
Warhound versus Stalker

obviously the latter

although the shield is retarded

Alex06
11-07-2011, 01:13 AM
don't forget this is anti-mech,

which has better readability: Diamondback versus Stalker.
Warhound versus Stalker

obviously the latter

although the shield is retarded
Why should something that is anti-mech look like a mech? That's TERRIBLE readability. Plus, the rule of rock-paper-scissor is that everything has to counter something and be countered by something. How stupid is it if scissor beats scissor? An anti-mech unit should not be a mech. The opposite (like we have now, with the Warhound) is just incredibly stupid.

An anti-ground bomber craft shouldn't look like a squad of infantry because that's what it counters...That's retarded.

JackhammerIV
11-07-2011, 01:52 AM
Well don't Anti-tank Vehicles kinda look like tanks but with different weapons....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

That kind of truth makes an anti-mech unit that looks like a mech believable.

But seriously if it's walking then might as well make it jump to avoid tank fire. And if it has a shield...might as well make it a huge shield so it's believable as something to defend it. Then might as well give it a huge ass gun and a sword as backup. Then it'll look like those crazy futuristic Japanese anime robots that in the stories demolished tanks. It'd even fit in with Transformers which Blizzard seems to love.





This section is pretty much b****ing on the warhound as a unit overall. Completely offtopic so i'll hide it.:p Blizzard could somehow make it a viable replacement for the thor by adjusting the stats but overall for me the possible supply cost and factory build time seem to make warhound worse than the thor:
And in terms of being anti-mech or anti-mutalisk....I don't see how the warhound is an improvement over the thor. Might be better to just adjust the thor model to make it smaller overall so it has better pathfinding. Then maybe consider adjusting the stats after getting a few months of data on how the smaller model is affecting matchups.

The thor has 60 ground attack with 7 range and 24 (+24 to light) anti-air with 10 range and 0.5 splash and it costs 6 supply taking up 60 seconds build time. The thor functioned by having a few of them mixed into the army to make it stronger. Help break siege lines and protect positions from mutas with marine support. The warhound seems to be pushing towards instead of having 1 thor do its job you now need 3+ warhounds to do it. Taking up more factory time that could be spent on siege tanks. So mutalisk harass and the terran responding with warhounds means a weaker ground army due to fewer tanks. Makes the mutalisk harass more worth it to force warhounds.

And i question Blizzard's need to try and fix the problems of thor pathfinding when they don't even question the HT's lack of movement speed compared to the other spellcasters. They accepted that warp prism micro carrying HTs is a viable way to deal with it. Why not accept that Thors need medivac micro instead of basically replacing it with an inferior unit.

Hamshank
11-07-2011, 02:19 AM
Alex, a stalker looks very similar to a diamondback. A Warhound doesn't

phazonjunkie
11-07-2011, 08:17 AM
As I mentioned in another thread I like the concept: a goliath that can doesn't suck against ground targets, but the model has to go. It looks not only unappealing (not necessarily a bad thing) but unintimidating, uninspired, and just plain silly.

I personally would've preferred something along these lines:

http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/i/2010/348/b/1/mbt_firewalker_by_karanak-d33fhzb.jpg

Something that not only looks cool but also looks at least remotely feasible/practical

flabortast
11-07-2011, 11:03 AM
Maybe more military version of this:

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g285/kits_0093/1293643098415.jpg

http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g285/kits_0093/1293643141261.jpg

sandwich_bird
11-07-2011, 11:11 AM
I want it as a gritty bipedal mech but the current version is just fugly.

DeltaCadimus
11-07-2011, 12:07 PM
Here's my opinion, not only on the Warhound, but on all these new units Blizzard shown us:

Zerg - Good and more than welcomed.

Protoss - Only one was bad.

Terran - Purely retarded.



ZERG:

Fact: Zerg had far too little options to depend on, either having to mass up the Roach/Hydra/Infestor combo, Corruptor/Brood Lord combo or 3/3 Ultras, but even then they got easily lopped off by Terran infantry and Siege Tanks, overbalanced in favor of the WoL campaign. Albeit, indeed, many wished the Lurker was back and the Swarm Host is merely a grounded Brood Lord, I felt it was welcomed in favor of ground forces, since I'm not so good with air Zerg.

For the Viper, I don't miss the Overseer. I really don't. I just made it because of the damn DT strikes upon my mineral lines. Plus, being a flying Defiler (With a Dark Swarm/Disruption Web of sorts) who can pull massive Colossi with it's tentacle/tongue and pass on detection to the most unsuspecting of units, I welcome it too. Zerg needed something more than Fungal Growth to gain an edge over T and P.


PROTOSS:

I felt the removal of the Carrier in favor of the Tempest was stupid. Plainly said. The Carrier, IMO, was the most balanced game-wise. People who simply complain 'It's too expensive!' or 'Needed to start with already 8 interceptors.' doesn't use it, never seen it, never learned to shift-click it, or is maliciously determined to unbalance gameplay. That's because the massed Carriers needed patience and secret expos for it to work, and even then it could be dealt with AA balls (Marine/Stalker/Hydra/Corruptor/Battlecruiser/Other Carriers). Upgrades for Carriers were the best, improving far considerably over the Mothership.

According to the "jeniouses" at Blizzard, however, they must've felt it was unbalanced or that one more AA solution didn't agree lore-wise with the lousy Phoenixes, which COULD be removed without a problem. A hulking ship which barely fits in a Stargate, whose attack is only effective against light air units and doesn't stand a chance, even less than Void Ray massing? They want us to bet on THAT?

Despite that, I've got nothing to complain on Replicant and Oracle, I feel they're also welcomed against the famed early T and Z pushes against early P. The resource denial gimmick, coupled with my Assimilator rush, can annoy one's economy greatly. My only grudge with Protoss changes is the Carrier. Mothership was only useful for vortexing anyone stupid and cloaking so nevermind it's removal.


TERRAN:

Someone had taken far too much Vicodin (Sorry, House.), laxative or any other medication for the imbecile changes done to Terran. I don't know if it's gonna OP or UP Terran, because it simply makes no sense!

Yes, I'm talking to you, Battle Hellion! Hellion drops became famed and feared already, as well as Hellion runs to thin Zerg herds. Now, what I once thought a prank by some YouTube user when they posted the Hellion transformer picture, fitting the pre-Blizzcon silhouette, turned to be an awful reality. I mean, a more durable Hellion? Sounds to me they really want Terran to be harassing dicks, more than they already are with easily-mass infantry, Siege tank/Air combos, nukes, Banshees and even more in a long list of versatile bullshitting.

Next, the Shredder. Terran already have OPd defense with Bunkers, Siege Tanks and Sensor Towers and all that without needing one more defensive unit. One that you only need to wait your opponent to make the stupid act of walking right into the Shredder field for it to shut down. Someone ate goat shit (Thanks, Tyrion.). Fact. At least the last thing it needed to make my day was it needing detection to deal with, like the Swarm Host...

Finally, the star of the thread, the Warhound and it's painful SCV/Dreadnought ripoff. Removing the Thor sounded more like casual cry-babying because they couldn't handle the Thor pressure in their low-league games.

Yup, "Boo-hoo-hoo, Thor is too OPd, yadda yadda, ditto ditto..."

OPd in what sense, I ask those imbeciles? AA? Thor ALREADY had AoE AA, and Z who used Mutalisks versus Thors can state that. It's special was useless against Ultras who could still charge. And it's ground cannons dealt decent damage. Their size made them hard to maneuver in tighter bases. I sincerely couldn't see what the hell happened Blizzard decided 'Oh, no, let's make the Thor a mothership to fit in our Warhound and not throw away the design.'... IMO? They should have done it.

Seemed to me Casuals are over-valued in Blizzard these days, a bunch of them acting like children when they don't like to know why they lost, beating their feet and holding their breath 'till they turn purple. Very cute, they're getting the sympathy of similar people out there, but here's the news, dear casuals:

THIS IS NOT REAL LIFE!!!

Alex06
11-07-2011, 02:56 PM
Alex, a stalker looks very similar to a diamondback. A Warhound doesn't
My friend, I find you are gravely mistaken. A Stalker does not look similar to a Diamondback.

DemolitionSquid
11-07-2011, 03:06 PM
http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/9/9f/Stalker_SC2_render2.jpg

http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/7/75/Diamondback_SC2_Rend1.jpg

TWINS, BASIL! TWINS!
http://tenletter.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/mikemyersgoldmember_promostill.jpg

Interesting notes on the Diamondback:
Campaign cost is 150/150
Its attack is 20(+20 vs armored)
It is fast and can attack while moving

I say, we build on this.

Cobra
Factory Hovertank
HP: 150
Armor: 1
Minerals: 150
Gas: 100
Supply: 3
Build Time: 40
Speed: 2.95
Mechanical - Armored
Ability: Fire while moving

Attack: Rail Guns
Damage: [4 (+4 vs Armored)] x 2
AoE Radius: 0.75
Range: 6
Cooldown: 2
Upgrade/level: +2(+2)


Shrink the Diamondback a bit. I think these stats should be a rather accurate interpretation of the current Warhound's power.

Hamshank
11-07-2011, 04:40 PM
All terran units = retarded, perhaps with exception to the shredder, only because it is cute ;D

RamiZ
11-07-2011, 04:56 PM
No matter how much I hate it, to me Shredder is pretty cool unit. I like they way it functions and the way it looks. Of course, I still think it really was an overkill to give that unit to the Terran. The thing I hate about it is that it will end up as imbalanced fuck as half of Terran units are for their cost.

Warhound, said it multiple times, hate the look, it looks like the Terran mech about 500 years before that time. But I support that they have made faster, weaker and cheaper Thor.

Battle Hellion, also like the look of it, really hate what that unit can do for only 100 minerals.

DemolitionSquid
11-07-2011, 05:36 PM
I loath the Shredder. There's so much Blizzard could do to upgrade the Bunker and Planetary Fortress and Missile Turrets. Instead they add another unit. Ugh.

Alex06
11-07-2011, 05:37 PM
No matter how much I hate it, to me Shredder is pretty cool unit. I like they way it functions and the way it looks. Of course, I still think it really was an overkill to give that unit to the Terran. The thing I hate about it is that it will end up as imbalanced fuck as half of Terran units are for their cost.
The Shredder is essentially a mobile AoE spider mine that doesn't die when it attacks.

JackhammerIV
11-07-2011, 05:48 PM
Completely off-topic....
@DeltaCadmius
You realise in arguing for carriers you said it needs patience and secret expos.......both true and both suggesting getting up to a good number of carriers is difficult. The build time on the carrier is insanely long and with the good AA from basically all races besides Protoss minerals disappear quickly replacing interceptors.

One problem you fail to address is "carrier micro". The interceptors don't stay out as much as people would like (i.e. interceptors return inside the carrier faster than they did in BW when the carriers move around). HuK randomly does carrier builds while streaming ladder. Overall looks so fragile. Relying on a small army and lots of cannons to survive until a good number of carriers comes out. And if a big enough attack comes then the few carriers out have to fight and pretty much die. And it's much harder to hide expos at that level of play. It ends up being a long game with Protoss seemingly about to die at any moment.

The main complaints about the carrier are "carrier micro", unending cost of interceptor production (carriers with interceptors sitting under marines deplete minerals quickly), long build time.

DemolitionSquid
11-07-2011, 07:45 PM
The Carrier has been a horrible unit and blight on the Protoss for 12 years. Removing it is the best decision Blizzard could have made. It was never used because it had no use, and useless units do not belong in the game.

Jconant
11-07-2011, 08:43 PM
Its not that the carrier was useless, it was very hard to get them out and they didnt stand very well against any unit that can target air. Colossus was better at killing stuff than the carrier and shared the same vunerability.

DemolitionSquid
11-07-2011, 08:56 PM
Its not that the carrier was useless, it was very hard to get them out and they didnt stand very well against any unit that can target air. Colossus was better at killing stuff than the carrier and shared the same vunerability.

use·less
   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.
2.
without useful qualities; of no practical good: a useless person; a useless gadget.

useless (ˈjuːslɪs) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]
—adj
1. having no practical use or advantage
2. informal ineffectual, weak, or stupid: he's useless at history

I stand by my statement.

Quirel
11-07-2011, 09:32 PM
What if, they did a bad model choice on purpose so that when they make a new model official everyone will be very exited about that model x)
Like the Siege Tank, Infestor, and Soul Reaper?


Well don't Anti-tank Vehicles kinda look like tanks but with different weapons....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_destroyer

That kind of truth makes an anti-mech unit that looks like a mech believable.

If we accept the premise that an anti-mech unit is any unit that would do well against a mech, then an anti-mech unit would be just about anything on the battlefield.

Unfortunately, I believe the anti-mech property of the Warhound refers to "Anti-mechanical".

Hamshank
11-07-2011, 09:43 PM
what did the original infestor look like :O

Quirel
11-07-2011, 09:49 PM
what did the original infestor look like :O


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_FzmdS_3U5FU/SrL9LPv3H8I/AAAAAAAAAew/E-5Qe8RmJ0g/s400/Infestor_SC2_DevRend1.jpg
"Infested Ultralisk Turds! The very mention of these terrifying beasts once struck fear into all who heard it!"
.

Hamshank
11-07-2011, 10:40 PM
OH thanks! I remember those!!!!! somehow i was not perturbed by that abomination back in the day, now it is much more clear

Sheliek
11-08-2011, 01:42 AM
On the topic of the old infestor, I wouldn't mind seeing it appear in campaign in some form. It looks zergy enough.

phazonjunkie
11-08-2011, 03:07 AM
On the topic of the old infestor, I wouldn't mind seeing it appear in campaign in some form. It looks zergy enough.

No it doesn't. It looks like a really bad Diablo concept pureed in a blender, overcooked, consumed and shat out by a mangy pit bull with rabies. Hideous and repulsive to be sure, but in all the wrong ways.

Eligor
11-08-2011, 08:09 PM
No it doesn't. It looks like a really bad Diablo concept pureed in a blender, overcooked, consumed and shat out by a mangy pit bull with rabies. Hideous and repulsive to be sure, but in all the wrong ways.

Actually, I've just realized that it looks precisely like something from The Oatmeal's (http://www.theoatmeal.com) cartoons, down to the goggly eyes (your way of describing it helped seal the connection too). I haven't yet seen a Diablo concept that wasn't genuinely creepy in some way, which is not something I can say about the old Infestor concept.

DemolitionSquid
11-08-2011, 10:37 PM
I like how D3 Diablo has the Infestor's "shoulder mouths" now :D

http://diablo3champion.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Diablo-3-Cinematic-Trailer-HD.jpg

ManjiSanji
11-08-2011, 11:20 PM
To be fair, that's because Diablo is now an amalgamation of Diablo, Mephisto and Baal.

Visions of Khas
11-08-2011, 11:23 PM
To be fair, that's because Diablo is now an amalgamation of Diablo, Mephisto and Baal.

Well, they look more like they could be from Asmodeus, if you've seen the new trailer. It's too early to speak about an amalgamation of the Prime Three, though that is a popular theory these days, and ties in nicely wit theories linked to the Black Soulstone.

DemolitionSquid
11-09-2011, 01:11 PM
Well, they look more like they could be from Asmodeus, if you've seen the new trailer. It's too early to speak about an amalgamation of the Prime Three, though that is a popular theory these days, and ties in nicely wit theories linked to the Black Soulstone.

Diablo spawns from Leah this time, also. You can tell cause birthing hips.

http://diablo3champion.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Is-Diablo-a-Woman-Also-HunterSC-Covering-Blizzcon.jpg

Twilice
11-09-2011, 01:48 PM
http://eu.media.blizzard.com/blizzcon/media/wallpapers//blizzcon-2011/blizzcon-2011-1920x1200.jpg
You can't let this beauty be low res!

DemolitionSquid
11-09-2011, 03:10 PM
I chose my pic cause it cropped out Thrall and Kerrigan who were unneeded for my post.

Visions of Khas
11-10-2011, 02:06 PM
A video made by Blizzard sometime last year or the year before revealed D's new look. It was an inside look at the cinematic and art departments, and a wip of Diablo was leaked.

I think it could still be Adria, but all signs point to Leah. Can't wait 'til he/she pops out a clutch of eggs. Baby terrors for everybody!

vicml21
01-03-2012, 02:31 PM
I dont mind bipedal, but I voted no, because I think the warhound as it stands is fairly ugly to me. Reminds me of an SCV on stilts almost, and im hoping they go over the design a bit more before release.

Caliban113
01-10-2012, 02:22 PM
I would go with a revamped version of Goliath or the original Diamondback - Have there been any updates on the units so far? - Anything cut yet?

Seems like the Marauder may not have a spot when all this is done, I think. (?)

RamiZ
01-10-2012, 03:26 PM
Seems like the Marauder may not have a spot when all this is done, I think. (?)

Why not? Marauder is definitely great unit, I don't see why It shouldn't stay in the game. If you think that Marauder can be replaced by Warhound, well it has one of the most Important things that Warhound doesn't have, and that is mobility with stim.

Alar
01-15-2012, 05:12 PM
Why not? Marauder is definitely great unit, I don't see why It shouldn't stay in the game. If you think that Marauder can be replaced by Warhound, well it has one of the most Important things that Warhound doesn't have, and that is mobility with stim.
Don't forget early game availability. If you take Marauders away, Terran players will get screwed early on against Protoss. Marauders are their bread and butter against such heavily armed units. :\

Twilice
01-16-2012, 04:05 PM
Blink stalkers could probably eat marines without marauders (or medivac).

solidsamurai
04-09-2012, 05:22 PM
the battle hellionIsn't the battle hellion a thing on two wheels, like from that anime 'ride back'?

http://ironhammers.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/BattleHellion.jpg

Oh fuck, yeah okay, that looks ridiculous. There's no reason the hellion should grow like... four sizes when it transforms (or the cockpit should shrink, crushing the driver, and the wheels should inflate like cartoons). Jeeze louise, wtf is that thing, it's horrendous! It's horrible. Oh god. It's like the giant floating, blow-up monkey things that are hung up at used car sale depots.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uhAVIQRB_8Y/SecBIjJnafI/AAAAAAAAGJs/Fj-QvbHldzQ/s400/Rideback_1.jpg

The above anime-mech (#101230128381290) is trimmer, but c'mon. the hellion needs wheels on its bottom. It just makes more sense. Maybe it sprouts extra wheels, and becomes top heavy (using the wheels as a balancer; reduces speed, gives it less hp, but it makes it an AoE beast against units that don't equip flame retardent). Maybe it's original form has different wheels that go away.

Sheliek
04-10-2012, 04:44 PM
... There's no reason the hellion should grow like... four sizes when it transforms (or the cockpit should shrink, crushing the driver, and the wheels should inflate like cartoons)...

Ummm, it doesn't?

solidsamurai
04-11-2012, 07:01 PM
Ummm, it doesn't?You can tell it does though.

http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/e/e2/Hellion_SC2_DevRend1.jpg

Which one looks bigger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcUqvaBNpEg

The above makes no sense. Where did the arms come from?

Sheliek
04-12-2012, 02:24 PM
You can tell it does though.

http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/e/e2/Hellion_SC2_DevRend1.jpg

Which one looks bigger?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vcUqvaBNpEg

The above makes no sense. Where did the arms come from?

You are aware the regular hellion has a new model now, right?

solidsamurai
04-12-2012, 02:28 PM
No.

Is it bigger, for no reason?

Sheliek
04-12-2012, 02:29 PM
No.

Is it bigger, for no reason?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SjL5nf5JkE

solidsamurai
04-12-2012, 02:31 PM
I just gave that link. If you weren't dyslexic, you would've noticed that I just gave that....

Okay, I give up.

Sheliek
04-12-2012, 02:39 PM
I just gave that link. If you weren't dyslexic, you would've noticed that I just gave that....

Okay, I give up.

Clearly, you are too moronic to even know what dyslexic means.

Don't worry, it's not your fault you were born retarded. It's your parents for mixing their genes.

Twilice
04-12-2012, 06:21 PM
It wasn't the same LINK <.<

GnaReffotsirk
08-24-2012, 06:40 AM
Why is blizzard obsessed about Terran having transformers and bipedal machines? And shields?

Why?

Turalyon
08-24-2012, 11:22 PM
Why is blizzard obsessed about Terran having transformers and bipedal machines? And shields?

Why?

Why, indeed. There is only one reason: rule of cool. Plus, it's in keeping with the current brighter and cartoonier take on SC in general.

GnaReffotsirk
08-26-2012, 12:09 AM
I have a feeling that "transformer" vehicles should at least have a reason to have those tech spent upon and designed with. Say, a car would transform to a spider like design to allow for traversing difficult terrain.

Bipedal seems inefficient and require a lot more systems than other designs.

And isn't being armored mechanical supposed to be the "shield" in that the vehicle itself is as a whole a "shield" in itself? It seems giving a robot another part to serve as shield is redundant and a waste. Or is it?

Quirel
08-26-2012, 01:29 AM
Why is blizzard obsessed about Terran having transformers and bipedal machines? And shields?

Why?
Because there's a generation that grew up when Transformers (dis)graced the television screen. Now that they're old enough to be Art Directors and Project Leads, we're going to see a lot more mechs and transformers crammed into our fiction before it gets better.

Turalyon
08-26-2012, 03:30 AM
I have a feeling that "transformer" vehicles should at least have a reason to have those tech spent upon and designed with.

I agree. The siege tank was a simple and very effective way of demonstrating a need for an alternative, transforming mode.


Say, a car would transform to a spider like design to allow for traversing difficult terrain.

Bipedal seems inefficient and require a lot more systems than other designs.

So it'd be okay if it had more legs? The Goliath works well on two legs. As you said though, "walking" as a mode of vehicular mobility is impractical (would be very easy to knock over given that stability, mobility and weight distribution is solely dependant on the legs making them very obvious weakpoints) and inefficient (would require more energy to move, create more wear and tear and the sophistication of its mechanics would make it a nightmare to repair). If the aim was to cross difficult/uneven terrain then the Terrans can use the anti-grav/hover tech they already possess in the Vulture and Diamondback.


And isn't being armored mechanical supposed to be the "shield" in that the vehicle itself is as a whole a "shield" in itself? It seems giving a robot another part to serve as shield is redundant and a waste. Or is it?

The shield is possibly part of the vehicular form's chassis. In order for it to transform into the walker mode, it probably has to detach part of itself to do so. Since it has nowhere else to put these parts of its chassis, they then become its "shields".

The thing I'm unsure of is whether this transformed form is supposed to have more health because that wouldn't make much sense given that both forms should theoretically have the same mass and armour no matter what configuration.

GnaReffotsirk
08-26-2012, 09:24 AM
Yes. Thus my point. Bipedal robots require more system faculties to maintain balance. Slight changes in it's weight distribution along a vertical plain will require subtle adjustments that can be ignored when using say a quadruped design.

Given of course that we must build a machine with limbs and cannot use anti-grav.

solidsamurai
08-27-2012, 03:41 AM
(would be very easy to knock over given that stability, mobility and weight distribution is solely dependant on the legs making them very obvious weakpoints)Well, actually the goliath's center of gravity appears to hover in between the 'hips'. And the legs are spread apart with a solid axel in between (nothing like a pelvic series of bones for humans). Goliaths basically move like chickens. If it gets knocked over, maybe one of the legs alone is strong enough to spread out, reverse bend at the 'knee', and lift it up.


If the aim was to cross difficult/uneven terrain then the Terrans can use the anti-grav/hover tech they already possess in the Vulture and Diamondback.I have the impression that terran tech doesn't travel across worlds. That's why different tech springs up in the same battle group. Basically, a technology is received and praised by one world, but another world is paying more money for a different tech - and so an entire different product is produced and incorporated into the new military from different worlds. This even affects the 'multinational' corporations.

The goliath was produced in Moria for urban fighting (or something), and then confederate investors got excited and bought into it. So any tech from some confederate worlds that could have provided the same function (maybe, I dunno, a hovering tank with long bolt missile turret attached to it and capable of transforming into a thinner and faster ATV thing for getting through the mean streets), was ignored, because the marines had made their budget decision. And then great war rolls around and factories everywhere are producing goliaths instead of long bolt missile tank thingies.


Given of course that we must build a machine with limbs and cannot use anti-grav.Engineers at World Y don't know understand the principles of anti-grav, simply because their course load didn't include it. While engineers on world X do, but simultaneously don't understand the potential of something else (ie. a way to incorporate reapers and other mercenaries into a commander's mining base without completely jipping). Technology comes together without any middle man - just 'will it make to/through the assembly line?'. Sort of fits the dystopic universe.

GnaReffotsirk
08-27-2012, 08:00 AM
I understand, but I don't think the Korpulu is as huge as the Galactic scope of Starwars for example. Or, is it?