EPTOr maybe in the midgame you throw down 2 star to supplement your bio and start rallying pairs of ravens that will have seekers by the time they get across the map
Analysis of the raven for blizzard - Page 3
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
kaboombaby
United States90 Posts
Or maybe in the midgame you throw down 2 star to supplement your bio and start rallying pairs of ravens that will have seekers by the time they get across the map | ||
|
LastDance
New Zealand510 Posts
He's not using this thread to balance terran, but to analyse the raven | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 22 2012 02:59 LastDance wrote: People posting here are so negative. I think he's addressed many reasons why the raven is not used. He's not using this thread to balance terran, but to analyse the raven Agreed, but Blizzard said they did not want to go nuts with the raven or change it to much, so they did a minor change that does not directly alter the unit. Blizzard also asked for tests, replays and experiences on the test map, rather than first impressions. If this post started with, “Well I played 30 games against zerg and here is what I think with a .zip file full of replays”, we might be responding differently. | ||
|
LOLingBuddha
Netherlands697 Posts
"Hi guys, with the recent announcement of another "raven buff" that does nothing for TvZ lategame (again)" it's so loaded with discontempt that I have a hard time believing anything after that first sentence is going to be objective in any way. its definitely not a sentence that will pull me into reading that big wall of text. | ||
|
kaboombaby
United States90 Posts
On November 22 2012 03:04 Plansix wrote: Blizzard said they did not want to go nuts with the raven or change it to much, so they did a minor change that does not directly alter the unit. Blizzard's strategy seems to be to buff the unit without buffing the unit. Dustin Browder in the recent BWC interviews seems pretty convinced the raven is fine, that terrans just aren't using it enough to see. So we get a "testing the waters" map with an effectively marginal change to the raven so he can collect more data on TvZ games with ravens on small maps. | ||
|
alpha01
4 Posts
User was banned for this post. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
| ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
On November 22 2012 02:34 SamsLiST wrote: an ancient greek wouldn't even have to think for 10 seconds to realise change in general is an illusion. I guess that wasn't worth testing as well.not sure if srs it takes like 10 seconds of thinking to realize the raven change does not do shit in lategame TvZ -there is absolutely no point in "testing" this, especially not for a progamer. if you need even more reasoning then provided here I am not sure if its not you that should step away from this discussion tbh Or closer to home, i believe nal_ra was a quite creative protoss player, very experienced and good. Would you ask him if experimenting with dt's and corsairs was worth it? Still, it was bisu who revolutionized protoss play, not nal_ra. My point is not that avilo is wrong. my point is the following: the set of current stats is like a frame around possible gameplay. The frame has changed location (balance change). Do we know how much? Well, to say that without testing we need some assumptions, for example as others said, that the raven will be used the same up to the late game point. I'm not really convinced of that. The fallacy of 'there is no point in testing' is not that you're wrong. The fallacy is you cannot know if you're wrong or not, because the frame i mentioned has moved and you try to reason from your own reference frame. | ||
|
Severus_
759 Posts
No upgrade for seeker. They will be badass you can go hellion,banshee vs toss and get raven viking to deny obs etc and you gonna have this extra tool - the seeker missle to defend vs everything or maybe go and harass with the raven like Sea is doing. You can use it TvZ also to deny creep etc and you can blow up his banes or infestors or other units. It helps alot alteast my playstyle cuz i like to play mech turtle and harass. Sometimes i lose TvZ because my ravens with seekers are late and he has BL's. You can do nice tricks with the seeker like use it on your own unit and kamikadze it into the enemy. Raven has alot of potential but costs tons of gas I think blizzard is doing the right thing to adjust that gas factor. If they make it more speedy like it can run with your army unstimed it will be a nice combat unit. | ||
|
BlazeFury01
United States1460 Posts
| ||
|
Mackus
England1681 Posts
The change will develop new strategies, mainly unorthodox but fun to watch - Remember FnaticAlive's Raven/Marine rush in the GSL? Raven's were popular with Hellion/Banshee builds at the start of the meta game transition to clean the creep but other than that they served no other purpose but not anymore | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4839 Posts
No, this is not a large buff to building many Ravens as a response to the opponent's current unit composition (although it is a small one -- 150/150 matters). But I don't think it's reasonable to expect one. In Broodwar TvP, the Science Vessel takes a long time to build and charge for EMP, and the Arbiter takes even longer to build and charge for Stasis. (Carriers, likewise, take a crazy-long time to prepare.) All saw regular competitive play; you found an effective window to prepare the unit so it would be ready when you needed it. | ||
|
Rowrin
United States280 Posts
| ||
|
EggYsc2
620 Posts
woah like thats like saying your the Stephano of NA. The only thing on common between those 2 players is that they play the same race. Guess im Stephano of NA also. Blizzard has a good mentality to balancing SC2. Just wait, its not a simple fix ever in such a high variable game. high high high high volume of data must be accumulated before making changes If you think you thought of it just in the snap of a finger You are wrong. Why? Cause someone else has thought of this before and thus is the reason why its NOT in effect. points for trying minus points for trying and being avilo | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On November 22 2012 03:52 Rowrin wrote: While I agree on most points, I feel kinda obligated to defend the design team. In the Browder WCS liquid interview he mentions that the design team is working on redesignimg the raven, the research requirement drop was just something they were throwing into the balance test map to see what happens. He said in the interview that he is certain it likely wont make a difference and that they would redesign it anyway. Yup-- was going to mention the same thing about the interview. I think this is more to see what effects it has so as to inform a redesign in HotS than to actually solve any problems. The immunity to fungal of psionic units is the intended fix, not seeker missile. | ||
|
iNsaNe-
Finland5201 Posts
On November 22 2012 04:01 EggYsc2 wrote: Blizzard has a good mentality to balancing SC2. Just wait, its not a simple fix ever in such a high variable game. high high high high volume of data must be accumulated before making changes If you think you thought of it just in the snap of a finger You are wrong. Why? Cause someone else has thought of this before and thus is the reason why its NOT in effect. points for trying minus points for trying and being avilo So you're basically hating on his persona? Regardless whether he's right on his post or not, he made a very rationalized and well-structured argument for it, it's a StarCraft 2-forum for god's sake, of course you got to be able discuss and share thoughts about these matters here. | ||
|
EggYsc2
620 Posts
On November 22 2012 05:26 iNsaNe- wrote: So you're basically hating on his persona? Regardless whether he's right on his post or not, he made a very rationalized and well-structured argument for it, it's a StarCraft 2-forum for god's sake, of course you got to be able discuss and share thoughts about these matters here. just because i have a degree in economics doesnt mean I can sit down with a bunch of CEO's of a company and tell them what to do. I have no reputations(avilo has negative rep with the community) I have no experience Kind of applies to this situation | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On November 22 2012 00:55 Bodzilla wrote: i remember writing a guide for a strategy that involved 4-6 queen opener, to spread creep like a madman, double upgrades and ling infestor into HIVE in early 2011. It's now standard play, across all of their matchups. and i was GOLD when i wrote it. i did it by sitting around thinking about the game and trying to work out strategy's to overcome my shortfalls as a player. I didn't sit around whinging about how hard it is, without looking for a solution with the tools i had. I can guarantee that 99.9% of all the people sitting here complaining, have other aspects of their play they could improve first which would get them more wins and advance further up the ladder. The state we've got to with the game, balance is only a problem for the pro's. If theres ANYBODY at all that you should even consider listening to when it comes to balance it's QXC. Queen range buff by +2 recently. Depending on what match up you're talking about, going 4-6 queens would not be viable without the huge range increase. Also you said early 2011, how early? Infestors were only recently buffed March 2011. Infestor Fungal Growth Stun duration decreased from 8 to 4 seconds. Damage increased by +30% vs. armored units. (Take note, Fungal did damage over a period of 8 seconds, now it did it over 4 seconds, meaning its total damage remained the same but its DPS doubled. It meant the difference between Medivacs easily healing over fungal vs not, see the topics that came out when the patch came out.) Before the huge fungal growth buff, Infestors weren't that good against Terran. The fungal was mainly just for the root instead of damage (because the damage came so slow, the medivacs can outheal it easily). Plus, 4 seconds is still enough for zerglings, banelings, etc to get to the marines. (So the 4 second duration decrease isn't much of a nerf, at least not in TvZ.) Not only that, Terrans were nerfed a ton (1.3.0 was the same patch that nerfed Bunker time, Stim time, 1.4 nerfed hellions, barracks, etc). They did receive a major buff in Seeker Hunter and Battlecruiser speed but that's mostly it. Edit - Anyway, the point is that your suggesting players work out the meta but your example is countered by the fact that going 4-6 queens, infestors, etc were done specifically due to patches (buff to fungal, buff to queen range, etc). As for avilo (or anyone) making suggestions? Now like Artosis, you don't have to be a pro (specifically a pro) or a top end player. As long as you have a good understanding of the game and watch a lot of pro games, you can definitely suggest things. And when said suggestions are reasonable (with points that are backed up), then it can be valid. Finally, even pro players aren't exactly the best balancers. A lot of them are bias and some do not know the game as well. Actually one more finally - Again, you have to look at the change and suggestions first. Avilo's suggestion is fairly minor buff to Raven (not that big of a deal). Terran is still restricted to Tech Lab + Starport for Raven production (so this only really makes a huge deal in ultra end game situations where Terran has their army comp already and is on two-three starports with tech labs). Anyway about the topic - I agree with the change. It's not that huge and it could use a try. Also you should edit it to say +50 energy (from +25 energy) instead of 100. At first I thought you meant give Ravens +100 energy with upgrade (which is 4x the amount) but you meant increase starting energy to 100 (from 50), which is just +25 more from the old upgrade (which is just +25). Anytime avilo makes a topic, seems like so many people hate on him for no reason even though the last dozen topics I've seen him made were reasonable IMO. On November 22 2012 03:13 LOLingBuddha wrote: meh, how do you expect people to read past your first sentence and take anything you say seriously? "Hi guys, with the recent announcement of another "raven buff" that does nothing for TvZ lategame (again)" it's so loaded with discontempt that I have a hard time believing anything after that first sentence is going to be objective in any way. its definitely not a sentence that will pull me into reading that big wall of text. Someone admitting to randomly attacking avilo without even reading his suggestion? You should read what he suggests (it's hardly a wall of text, it's presented neatly and you could at least skip to where he suggests his idea). Granting +50 energy instead of +25 energy to the energy upgrade is hardly a huge changer for Ravens. It only really applies to late game situations (which like I said earlier, only happens really late when Ravens would be more balanced). If a Terran has only 1-2 ravens, they probably aren't going to get the energy upgrade (especially for an early game all ins or something, that's better money spent on an extra marauder or 3 marines). In fact, I think the Raven Seeker Missile upgrade being removed (and enabled by default) is more of a change (early game). As for late game, currently TvZ, terrans have a problem with Zerg. Now, I admit I forgot to point out that the nerf to Infestor (fungal change) is definitely something that should be considered though. But if it doesn't change much, this change is reasonable and not too huge IMO. Honestly I don't know what with the bad rep with avilo these days. I remember a SotG where everyone attacked avilo (even though he was being reasonable) (also, it's not just me, that was one of the few SotG with a huge number of dislikes too). Edit 2 - Food for thought. Avilo making a post (which is well organized and presented) is better than the massive QQ / theory craft / random talk by people in this thread. Plus, there's a designated balance discussion thread too. So it's not like balance talk is off limits on TL, and it's not like balance talk even by random people can't be food for thought for everyone (whether pros, Blizzard, etc). Blizzard isn't going to make a change based off of on person suggesting an idea, they'll probably get feedback from others too. Ideas can be presented by anyone and IMO, Avilo's suggestion/idea is a reasonable one. | ||
|
Bodzilla
Australia472 Posts
On November 22 2012 01:46 LgNKami wrote: lol you must not know avilo. all he does is ladder bro. he's like the Kas of NA. i know who he is. i also know he isn't a top competitive player at the professional level and yet constantly makes threads about redesigning the game, and complaining about the state of balance. Until your rubbing shoulders with the giants and you have nothing left that you can improve because your macro, micro and game sense is perfect.... then and only then should you be talking about redesigning the game. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
On November 22 2012 00:59 Bodzilla wrote: Point defense drone is pretty good vs stalkers.... I can't possibly think of a situation outside of an all-in or extremely complicated timing attack that you would want to sacrifice the money, time, apm and supply into a raven for PDD. Spend it on 2 medivacs, spend it on more attacking unit like 6 marines or 3 marauders or an extra upgrade or ANYTHING besides a raven and you'll come out x10 better. | ||
| ||
