Who here thinks DiamondBacks and Vulture models >>>>> Hellion?

lol at people trying to retcon out buggies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArcherofAiur

lol at people trying to retcon out buggies.

---

For once, Archer, I agree with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nicol Bolas

Whether you think they are mistakes or not, they are there. They exist, and they are part of the StarCraft heritage.

---

it was 10 years ago. it was badaass and cool back then but NOT NOW. they now look mediocre compared to sc2, im not talking about the quality of the cinematic but rather the overall look of the terran in sc1 to sc2.

everything in terran needs to improve in sc2, to look and overall feel better and impressive. the buggy hellion is not.

k but that train on the 2nd pic is totaly sexy. I say we replace the hellion with the train :D

But honestly the hellion is almost ok. The only thing I truly hate about it is his flamethrower. I'd prefer a rail gun even if it would look weird for the bullets to go through units.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sandwich_bird

k but that train on the 2nd pic is totaly sexy. I say we replace the hellion with the train :D

But honestly the hellion is almost ok. The only thing I truly hate about it is his flamethrower. I'd prefer a rail gun even if it would look weird for the bullets to go through units.

---

Rail guns are suppose to go through units.

They have extremely high muzzle velocity.

Um, the Hellion isn't suppose to be a tank; it's a light fast attack vehicle, for scouting and taking out infantry, so making it look all beefy would ascetically and logically go against that choice. That it somehow looks "brittle" would actually fit its role, though I don't see where people are getting that impression.

And too "low tech"? LOL, silly kids think everything futuristic has to have flashy lights and whiz-bang gadgets or it is teh suxs. BTW, Wheels > anti-gravity or legs. They are far easier to make than either system. They are far simpler in function than either as well, meaning less chance of breaking down. The Diamondback loses power to its anti-grav unit, it falls and becomes immobile; the Hellion at least can still be pushed/pulled back to base for repairs. A Goliath loses a leg, it falls over and becomes less than useless; a wheel can be more easily replaced in the field, and even if it can't be repaired it can still continue to function otherwise. If only the rest of the Terran's arsenal had such practicality in mind when it was being built.

And ROFL at people trying to argue against the original cinematics. They happened, get over it. Arguing that a weird Protoss ship appearing in the Intro (and it wasn't a Mothership, you can check, the two look nothing alike) somehow negates the fact that we actually see Terrans use wheeled vehicles multiple times, or that they somehow don't fit despite that fact, could only make sense in a fanboy's mind.

Quote:

---

Um, the Hellion isn't suppose to be a tank; it's a light fast attack vehicle, for scouting and taking out infantry, so making it look all beefy would ascetically and logically go against that choice. That it somehow looks "brittle" would actually fit its role, though I don't see where people are getting that impression.

---

People have no problem with the functionality of the unit, it's the way it looks, which by the way, is a piece of shit. If they made it look more like the Diamondback, fast but still strong I'm pretty positive many people would already be fine with it. Hell wheels aren't even the problem here it's just the overall unit design.

Quote:

---

And too "low tech"? LOL, silly kids think everything futuristic has to have flashy lights and whiz-bang gadgets or it is teh suxs. BTW, Wheels > anti-gravity or legs.

---

Again the main topic here is the art, no one is complaining about how realistic or not the unit is. It's ugly. Also, why would you even want to lug the unit back to base for repairs? The SC universe is at a much grander scale than real life. Losing a Hellion isn't the equivalent of losing a tank in real life.

Also, if the future was as realistic as you wished it to be depicted, then Starcraft would be a very boring universe,

Quote:

---

They are far easier to make than either system. They are far simpler in function than either as well, meaning less chance of breaking down.

---

With the mass production of vultures, I highly doubt making limited hover craft technology is at all hard for the Terrans, they've managed to friggen do it for their battlecruisers. Also, wheels will never be as fast as hover crafts, there has to be compromise. Third, flamethrowers are psychological weapons, I don't know why the Terrans would have a fast moving vehicle with flamethrowers instead of a rail gun or something better. A flamethrower should be on the tank supporting infantry, not on a weak ass buggy going around places. How the hell are you even supposed to aim the flamethrower going at what, 200 km/h?

Quote:

---

The Diamondback loses power to its anti-grav unit, it falls and becomes immobile; the Hellion at least can still be pushed/pulled back to base for repairs.

---

In the future in these universes it's generally ideal to accept that the reliability of such technology is very high to have it mass produced for use. It's like the difference between the Tau and the Imperial Guard in Warhammer, the reliability of plasma based weaponry for the Tau is very high, while for the Guard there's practically a high chance it'll blow up and kill you. Why would the IG use it? Who knows, they're idiots. Why would the Tau use it? Because they've made it reliable. Similar to what we can expect from the Terrans.

Quote:

---

A Goliath loses a leg, it falls over and becomes less than useless; a wheel can be more easily replaced in the field, and even if it can't be repaired it can still continue to function otherwise

---

In a war with hundreds to thousands of troops going head on against each other, I doubt it'll be a pressing matter to try to save one goliath when there are dozens of others on the field.

Honestly if they would just take the Diamond-back model and apply the aspects and properties of the Hellion to it I would be happy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

People have no problem with the functionality of the unit, it's the way it looks, which by the way, is a piece of shit. If they made it look more like the Diamondback, fast but still strong I'm pretty positive many people would already be fine with it. Hell wheels aren't even the problem here it's just the overall unit design.

---

Except people have been complaining about the fact that it uses wheels. As for the design, it works. The only real difference between this and this is that the latter is enclosed, its front wheels are slightly forward and it has a flamethrower up top.

Quote:

---

Again the main topic here is the art, no one is complaining about how realistic or not the unit is. It's ugly. Also, why would you even want to lug the unit back to base for repairs? The SC universe is at a much grander scale than real life. Losing a Hellion isn't the equivalent of losing a tank in real life.

---

Um, losing a vehicle is bad in general, whether you have ten or ten thousand. Taking a damaged vehicle back to base for repairs is infinitely better than leaving it on the battlefield and building a brand new one. The latter is just a waste of time and resources.

Quote:

---

Also, if the future was as realistic as you wished it to be depicted, then Starcraft would be a very boring universe,

---

On the contrary, realism can be very exciting.

Quote:

---

With the mass production of vultures, I highly doubt making limited hover craft technology is at all hard for the Terrans, they've managed to friggen do it for their battlecruisers. Also, wheels will never be as fast as hover crafts, there has to be compromise. Third, flamethrowers are psychological weapons, I don't know why the Terrans would have a fast moving vehicle with flamethrowers instead of a rail gun or something better. A flamethrower should be on the tank supporting infantry, not on a weak ass buggy going around places. How the hell are you even supposed to aim the flamethrower going at what, 200 km/h?

---

Wheels are still easier to make than anti-grav, whether or not the latter can be mass produced. If such a speed advantage exists for the anti-grav vehicle, it trades that for being more complicated and require more energy than the simpler drive system. As for the flamethrower, it is questionable, but presumably it can be swapped out for other weapons. As well, a flamethrower doesn't really require the same amount of precision to aim as other weapons, since it can cover a wider area than a MG. Aiming it at 200km/h is less of an issue than trying to do the same with a machine gun.

Quote:

---

In the future in these universes it's generally ideal to accept that the reliability of such technology is very high to have it mass produced for use. It's like the difference between the Tau and the Imperial Guard in Warhammer, the reliability of plasma based weaponry for the Tau is very high, while for the Guard there's practically a high chance it'll blow up and kill you. Why would the IG use it? Who knows, they're idiots. Why would the Tau use it? Because they've made it reliable. Similar to what we can expect from the Terrans.

---

An unfounded assumption. There's a very basic principle, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. The more complex a system, the more moving parts it has, the greater the chance that it will break down. We had a discussion about this back at Blizzforums, I can go grab it again if you've forgotten.

As for 40k, the IG trades reliability for sheer power for their plasma weapons, not to mention the fact that it is something of a lost tech, and what is known is jealously guarded by the AdMech.

Quote:

---

In a war with hundreds to thousands of troops going head on against each other, I doubt it'll be a pressing matter to try to save one goliath when there are dozens of others on the field.

---

When attrition whittles your forces down to tens of thousands of troops, you'll be wishing you had that Goliath instead of leaving it out to rot on the battlefield. Though if I needed a light armored unit I'd go for a tankette instead, but that's besides the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by n00bonicPlague

Honestly if they would just take the Diamond-back model and apply the aspects and properties of the Hellion to it I would be happy.

---

It looks almost like the original Cobra. If I recall correctly, a lot of people hated that model. When the Cobra was replaced with the Jackal, I don't recall that many people wanting the Jackal to be turned back into the Cobra. Though there were still a lot of opposition to the Jackal, which was a trike, and turned in to a four wheeler (Hellion).

Maybe people finally have a lapse of judgment, but I don't think turning the Hellion back to the Cobra/Diamondback is going to be that much more appreciated.

The Civilian version of the Hellion does look low-tech, but not the Terran military version.
Oh, and I like all 3 models. I just don't find it the Vulture to be a professional military unit...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kacaier

It looks almost like the original Cobra. If I recall correctly, a lot of people hated that model. When the Cobra was replaced with the Jackal, I don't recall that many people wanting the Jackal to be turned back into the Cobra. Though there were still a lot of opposition to the Jackal, which was a trike, and turned in to a four wheeler (Hellion).

Maybe people finally have a lapse of judgment, but I don't think turning the Hellion back to the Cobra/Diamondback is going to be that much more appreciated.

---

The original Cobra model was made a long time ago, and they have greatly improved it since imho. Plus, given a single gun, the turret would be smaller and less cumbersome-looking than the double gun version; thus, the unit would look sleeker overall.

Also, you reminded me that I like the name Jackal much much better than Hellion. The former gives that quick-scavengers-traveling-in-packs feel that the unit plays by, whereas the latter is just for a generic troublemaker. The name Jackal has more character to it.

Cobra
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Cobra

Diamondback
http://www.sc2armory.com/files/screenshots/240.jpg

The only changes between the two is the textures and the barrel of the gun. Otherwise, the model is near identical. If people really do like the 'new' Diamondback, then there was nothing wrong with the Cobra except that it shared the same glossy feel of the original Terrans before the darkening. Technically, they should have just changed the weapons of the Cobra and let it slide over during the new texture transition.

But in all honesty, besides an aesthetic dislike for the Hellion which gives the 'Cobra' a better light, it doesn't mean the Diamondback model is inherently an excellent model as people make it out to me. Due to old complaints, the unit will still have a large dislike by the former 'Cobra'-haters. That solves nothing. :p

Sometimes all it takes is a simple texture or lighting change to put a unit in a whole new... "light."

It's like the difference between a girl who has doesn't have makeup on and the next day does. Nothing's changed about her, she just touched up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

Sometimes all it takes is a simple texture or lighting change to put a unit in a whole new... "light."

It's like the difference between a girl who has doesn't have makeup on and the next day does. Nothing's changed about her, she just touched up.

---

good analogy

+rep

The Vulture looks amazing, a : * ( at it not being in multiplayer.

"Whadda you want?"

years of 2500..stupid buggy still in the sc universe.. still in the game..vulture so much better, so much more SC universe.

The least they can do is change its name back to Jackal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kacaier

Cobra
http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Cobra

Diamondback
http://www.sc2armory.com/files/screenshots/240.jpg

The only changes between the two is the textures and the barrel of the gun. Otherwise, the model is near identical. If people really do like the 'new' Diamondback, then there was nothing wrong with the Cobra except that it shared the same glossy feel of the original Terrans before the darkening. Technically, they should have just changed the weapons of the Cobra and let it slide over during the new texture transition.

But in all honesty, besides an aesthetic dislike for the Hellion which gives the 'Cobra' a better light, it doesn't mean the Diamondback model is inherently an excellent model as people make it out to me. Due to old complaints, the unit will still have a large dislike by the former 'Cobra'-haters. That solves nothing. :p

---

I don't like the diamondback, it reminds me too much of the tier 1 vehicle on Total Annihiliation (I liked that game, but that unit was seriously made of papiermache :P).

Vulture model is so gorgeous :[

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid

The least they can do is change its name back to Jackal.

---

Yeah, that name was so much better.

Meh. I think the Hellion just needs some more stuff on it's surface area, to make it look a bit more dynamic and a bit less bland.

Quote:

---

Except people have been complaining about the fact that it uses wheels. As for the design, it works. The only real difference between this and this is that the latter is enclosed, its front wheels are slightly forward and it has a flamethrower up top.

---

Not me, I couldn't care less if it used wheels, my problem is with the unit's main body.

Quote:

---

Um, losing a vehicle is bad in general, whether you have ten or ten thousand. Taking a damaged vehicle back to base for repairs is infinitely better than leaving it on the battlefield and building a brand new one. The latter is just a waste of time and resources.

---

That's assuming that repairing the vehicle would be faster and cheaper than just all together assembly line manufacturing a new one.

Depending on the damage you'd have to take it apart and see what's broken or dented, make specific changes or scrap certain parts to be replaced by custom parts.

Quote:

---

On the contrary, realism can be very exciting.

---

I didn't see anything exciting there. Just a helicopter shooting some missles and some jets dropping some flares. And I was talking more along the lines of gameplay and lore. Gameplay wise, using jets and whatever have already been done, there's nothing new and exciting about them. Lore wise if everything used treads and wheels it would be boring to imagine.

Quote:

---

Wheels are still easier to make than anti-grav, whether or not the latter can be mass produced. If such a speed advantage exists for the anti-grav vehicle, it trades that for being more complicated and require more energy than the simpler drive system.

---

Technically shouldn't hover crafts have the ability to go over water as well? Also, the AK47 trades power for accuracy, so there's always going to be a tradeoff. If SC has engines capable of keeping battlecruisers up in the sky in atmospheres, then I'm pretty damn sure you can expect near 100% reliability from something of a much simpler design than a battlecruiser's technology.

Quote:

---

As for the flamethrower, it is questionable, but presumably it can be swapped out for other weapons. As well, a flamethrower doesn't really require the same amount of precision to aim as other weapons, since it can cover a wider area than a MG. Aiming it at 200km/h is less of an issue than trying to do the same with a machine gun.

---

I'm going to assume that with hovercraft technology, traversing terrain will be smooth without all the bumps of rocks and uneven ground. Aiming a machine gun in that case would be much more easy than if you were on a jeep. Also, if weapons COULD be swapped, a flamethrower would be vastly inferior to a machine gun anyway, which has a longer range. Why bring such a weak vehicle into close range with a flamethrower?

Quote:

---

An unfounded assumption. There's a very basic principle, KISS, Keep It Simple Stupid. The more complex a system, the more moving parts it has, the greater the chance that it will break down. We had a discussion about this back at Blizzforums, I can go grab it again if you've forgotten.

---

And clearly it's the future, I'm pretty sure they've reduced the chances of such parts breaking down to molecular chances. Also, for a vehicles like the vulture which is cheap, mass produced and has a simple role, scouting, I don't possibly see how wheels could do a better job.

Quote:

---

As for 40k, the IG trades reliability for sheer power for their plasma weapons,

---

So, the Terrans trade whatever reliability wheels give them for speed. I doubt hover tech is any less reliable in their day and age.

Quote:

---

When attrition whittles your forces down to tens of thousands of troops, you'll be wishing you had that Goliath instead of leaving it out to rot on the battlefield. Though if I needed a light armored unit I'd go for a tankette instead, but that's besides the point.

---

Maybe, but one goliath or two, or a tank or whatever in SC is not going to save you.

I always hated the cobras look. The concept is awesome though, a fast moving vehicle with a turret that fires independently. Diamondback is a better name, but I think the look could be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

I'm going to assume that with hovercraft technology, traversing terrain will be smooth without all the bumps of rocks and uneven ground. Aiming a machine gun in that case would be much more easy than if you were on a jeep. Also, if weapons COULD be swapped, a flamethrower would be vastly inferior to a machine gun anyway, which has a longer range. Why bring such a weak vehicle into close range with a flamethrower?

---

Because fire spreads, fire fire intimidates and most importantly, Zerg are edible. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

And clearly it's the future, I'm pretty sure they've reduced the chances of such parts breaking down to molecular chances. Also, for a vehicles like the vulture which is cheap, mass produced and has a simple role, scouting, I don't possibly see how wheels could do a better job.

---

Strictly speaking, within lore, the ability to cheaply mass produce Vultures may have been (temporarily) lost at the end of Brood War along with most of the Terrans' major industrial sites.

Quote:

---

Because fire spreads, fire fire intimidates and most importantly, Zerg are edible.

---

Actually I got sidetracked a little bit from some long posts. I have no problem with the fire, I have no problems with wheels OR hover technology. However, the problem I have with the unit is the art of the main body, which just plain doesn't look much like a Terran vehicle to me. It might also be the name, I can imagine a ton of these guys roaming across the map as Jackals, but then the name Hellion I feel is distasteful.

Anyway, to me it doesn't look streamlined like the vulture, or rough/tough like the Tank or the Goliath. It's just odd looking. The turret also looks pretty gay.

Quote:

---

Strictly speaking, within lore, the ability to cheaply mass produce Vultures may have been (temporarily) lost at the end of Brood War along with most of the Terrans' major industrial sites.

---

They're making Diamondbacks now... which use the same technology, if not better.

yeh theres nothing about the buggy hellion that standout (visually it is not that fun to look at and it doesn't have an awesomeness feel factor) except for its gameplay value. Its just well damn plain looking (oh a common looking buggy). The scv/probe/drone looks more interesting than the buggy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pandonetho

They're making Diamondbacks now... which use the same technology, if not better.

---

There's no knowing how recently they regained the facilities to mass produce them. Moreover, just because they can now mass produce them, that doesn't mean you throw out your existing arsenal. In other words, there might be a large, standing army Hellions that had been prepared in the event of the (then thought) imminent Zerg onslaught following the end of Brood War.

i dont think it does have to do with lore. blizzard can come up anything lorewise.

its just that blizzard was satisfied with the buggy design and i don't know why.

Quote:

---

Terran Hellion – The unit itself hasn’t changed very much and the development team told us it was the first Terran unit in line for a visual makeover, but they’ve boosted its speed.

---

From Joneagle_X's review.

hoooray!

If they do something like the Nighthawk/Raven makeover, I'll be happy. Please throw in a name change!

The hellion simply needs to be redone. Flamethrower makes no military sense as it's a projectile that's easily affected by wind / not very accurate. A machine gun is good, but a grenade launcher is better. Modern vehicles all have automatic grenade launchers and the one in the Vulture simply made sense.

The marines had machine guns, the vulture had grenade launchers and the siege tank had a crazy cannon. Goliath had serious chain guns. These weapons all make sense from a miliatry point of view.

The new ones don't really make sense. The marine has the same machine gun. The marauder has this weird ass RPG arm. The hellion has a weird flame thrower. The siege tank has a weak cannon, and that's it. If you could the Viking which uses a weird mini gun... and then the thor that is way overpowered. It's not a linear scale.

The tech doesn't scale up linearly either, it's like Marine cool, stupid fat suite... not so cool, buggy... boring... cool ass looking tank... cool.. weird flying transformers.. okay... big ass robot...

They simply need to replace the hellion with the diamond back. It makes more sense, and the rail gun on the diamond back can simply do what the flame thrower does. Shoots in a line.

Er, Flamethrowers make perfect military sense, and were used a lot during World War 2.

That logic also makes no sense in the SC universe considering Firebats were used, and were extremely effective against zerg and protoss infantry alike. They wouldn't have fielded the firebat if fire wasn't an effective tool.

A flamethrower doesn't make any sense when everyone already has guns, but put an army up against a force that makes significant use of close-range/melee units and flamethrowers suddenly make more sense, though mounting them on flimsy buggies would remove some of the effectiveness.

Actually, it is worth mentioning that flame throwers, both infantry and vehicle-mounted had been used by American armed forces as recently as the Vietnam War. While part of the reason was questionable efficacy in certain battle conditions, humanitary, PR and concern over captured crew who were often subsequently treated more poorly were also cited as reasons.

Specifically for flame tanks, they were discontinued thanks to anti-tank infantry outranging them and were thus too vulnerable against enemy fire. As a buggy, Hellions would be less at risk due to its greater speed. Moreover, seeing as how a number of enemy troops have less range than the Hellion, this vulnerability is even less of an issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wankey

The hellion simply needs to be redone. Flamethrower makes no military sense as it's a projectile that's easily affected by wind / not very accurate.

---

Erm...flames are not affected by wind direction in sc2 lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Triceron

Er, Flamethrowers make perfect military sense, and were used a lot during World War 2.

That logic also makes no sense in the SC universe considering Firebats were used, and were extremely effective against zerg and protoss infantry alike. They wouldn't have fielded the firebat if fire wasn't an effective tool.

---

WW2... Firebats are infantry... it fit their infantry tech. These things are high tech vehicles... at least put something better on them. Explosive grenades are much more effective than flame throwers. Look at modern combat, it's all about automatic grenade launchers with hit rate of fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SoFool

Erm...flames are not affected by wind direction in sc2 lol

---

Did I say in Sc2???

Chill man...anyway if you're referring to real life situations then is my badd.

Anyway I just thought if the hellion can shoot such a long range of fire the weaponry tech must be pretty impressive to do that. But the model still needs to change rawr

I think you see flamethrowers too much as a flimsy flame normally depicted in low-tech games. :p These are the ones used in real life applications, and I assume the Terran future would have even more impressive flame delivering technologies:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...metank1968.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...in_Vietnam.jpg

I think the flamethrower is fine.. Even if they changed it back to the vulture, I think I'd vote they keep the flamethrower.

Does it make sense to have a flamethrower on a super high speed bike? Lol, no. Is it badass? Hell yes.