Hi guys, with the recent announcement of another "raven buff" that does nothing for TvZ lategame (again), I feel it is necessary to put this analysis out here in public where it will be read by everyone and hopefully will help push blizzard in the correct direction in balancing the raven.
I'm doing this in good conscience because i do not want to see SC2 die to obvious balance issues that are being left unaddressed by the developers for months at a time, and I want to directly provide direct feedback and a solution to blizzard that will be read openly by the community. I have posted similar things like this on the private pro forums to no avail. Maybe this will help open eyes up to a good solution as well as to the core problem with the raven.
The truth is I do not think certain people at blizzard understand what the problem is with TvZ lategame and why there has been a problem for a long time, despite the balance issues being much more pronounced in recent months.
The reason I say this is because their most recent announcement concerning the raven is a change that does not address the design issue that makes the "raven bad."
This article will be specifically to discuss the glaring lategame balance issue in TvZ right now, how the raven can quite easily fix this, and a solid balance change that goes along with why the raven is currently not working in the role it should be.
First off, I want to go through misconceptions and address arguments that I see here in the forums that are either misinformed and that you will see crop up in other places such as reddit.
Misconceptions about the raven Misconception: "Players/Progamers are not building or using ravens"
This is the first misconception to address. The truth is players and progamers have been using and testing and playing around with ravens for almost the entire past year.
A lot of progamers have simply given up on attempting to use the raven because of a vast amount of situations where the raven is made into dead supply either from ground transitions from Zerg or from not enough time to gain seeker/PDD energy.
They have been tested, and tested. Ravens are "bad" as you've heard many progamers and myself say. Which leads me to the next misconception...
Misconception: "Ravens are bad." Ravens are not bad. In fact, when you do have 5+ ravens with the energy for seeker missiles they can be OK.
You'll notice the raven's design in lategame TvZ is similar to the mothership vortex where it is your go-to option and almost the only direct counter option to masses of broodlords and corruptors. The problem with both of these? The time factor, luck factor, and the factor that it depends purely on your opponent "messing up."
You will see players and other spectators say "ravens are bad" but what they mean is that the design of ravens are bad. That the unit is not able to pay itself off like other units can. Keep this in mind when you hear us say the "raven is bad." We're really just shorthand condensing all of our play experience that tells us the raven doesn't work with the statement "ravens are bad."
Ravens are the answer for lategame TvZ, and so much that I have previously mentioned in this thread is currently not being put into application by the design team with the direction of their changes to the raven.
Misconception: "Get 1-2 ravens, learn to use them!" This is one that pops up occasionally where someone mentions getting a raven to clear creep or for detection TvP. Players and progamers have already tried these things. It doesn't work because it's completely reliant on keeping alive a single unit.
When the opponent has a lot of ways to easily snipe a raven, something like getting 1 raven for detection is not ever worth it. The best way I can describe it is to liken it to depending on the mothership in lategame PvZ as the answer. You're relying on 1 unit that can be sniped, and if it's sniped, you're dead or in trouble.
With the above out of the way...
The fundamental design/balance TvZ issue for blizzard to address The main underlying issue with the raven in lategame TvZ is that right now the raven is not a reliable unit. It is not a reactionary unit that you can make on the spot to be useful to counter your opponent's tech switches to broodlord/corruptor. It takes way too long to accumulate the necessary energy for a PDD or seeker missile to be useful when it is produced.
A lot of the raven issues has to do with reaction and the time it takes to react to Zerg tech. Ravens have to be prepared minutes in advance to get the seeker missiles. Zerg can pop 10-12 of either broodlord/corruptor or ultra/infestor at a moment's notice.
What needs to be addressed is this reaction time. The raven needs to be buffed in a meaningful way that bridges the gap to where you will be able to have more leeway to react to these massive ground to air and air to ground tech switches from Zerg.
Why should this be a concern for all of us in the community that eagerly are awaiting for blizzard to balance lategame issues in PvZ and TvZ? It's a concern because the most recent design decision announced from blizzard has nothing to do with the design problem:
"Raven Seeker Missile no longer requires an upgrade."
This is a problem. This change shows a lack of understanding from the design team of the design issue that the raven is plagued with.
The above change does not address the design issue of making the raven a more reliable unit, it does not address the issue of how long it takes for the raven to accumulate energy, and it is a change that has zeroimpact on lategame, which is where the balance/design problem lies.
The raven change above only reduces a one time 150/150 investment cost in seeker missile research, and the change will only have a major impact in TvT where 1/1/1 is a very common build, as well as getting a raven early in the game is common.
I've seen posters and others making the misinformed analysis "oh so seeker missile builds faster now," or "we get ravens faster, we get seeker faster," etc. It is not true. Everything in the game in how the raven operates remains exactly the same as before. Unit interactions operate exactly the same as before. You do not have to have played this change to understand this. How to buff the raven in a way that makes it more accessible, allows itself to be more reliable by paying itself off more often, and in a way that guarantees to not send the unit to the opposite end of the balance spectrum where it is too powerful:
Avilo's change: Corvid reactor now increases raven starting energy to 100.
This is the solution and design/balance change I have come up with from a while ago that I believe should be implemented and tested by blizzard.
There can be arguments made that fungal is too strong vs ravens because it holds them in place, or that the seeker range is too short and it's a suicide unit, etc.
My change addresses the core balance and design issue of the raven I have described above which is the amount of reaction time and time needed to make the unit useful and pay itself off.
What does the above change do? Puts a limiting factor on when the raven becomes powerful Blizzard's worry is that if they make too much of a change the raven becomes too powerful. My change's limiting factor is the corvid reactor research. This is an upgrade you really only research in lategame in response to the brood/infestor/corruptor army of your opponent.
Only 1 seeker missile at raven max energy Another limiting factor of my change, you will still only have 1 seeker missile available with a 200 energy raven to keep it balanced as it currently is.
My change also does not fundamentally change any of the abilities of the unit, or associated resource costs in terms of minerals, vespene gas, or supply.
The amount of time necessary to wait for a seeker is reduced from 50 to 25. This has to do with dealing with tech switches and making the raven more reliable. Now when you build a raven, the wait time for a seeker missile is cut by 50%. This is huge.
The raven is immediately useful now - PDD/x2 autoturrets Once again, the core issue with the raven is the wait time and being able to make the raven pay itself off, as well as being able to react to Zerg tech switches.
With a PDD immediately available upon producing a raven, suddenly there is more leeway when your opponent just built 15 corruptors at once. You can now build those ravens in lategame and you do not die from not having spells. PDD is not changed, nor are costs, it's just the time factor at play here again. The raven suddenly becomes immediately useful.
The other thing at play here is now you will have x2 auto turrets available. Once again, this does not change any variable numbers with auto turrets or associated resource costs, it just makes them more accessible.
Having just read those explanations, keep in mind again - the limiting factor is corvid reactor research. This limits the PDD upon production and x2 auto turret upon production to a lategame utility that gives more reaction time to Terrans when they are preparing for broodlord/corruptor.
edit: How the change affects the other match-ups TvT: No change, lategame ravens still as good as they are. Corvid reactor once again is the limiting factor. TvP: No change in WOL, ravens do not have to be useful in this match-up. HOTS: PDD provides a counter to tempest that is more accessible (a lot of people don't even realize PDD can block tempest shots and is one of the only counters).
That is about it. I understand that blizzard wants to take "baby steps" because they are afraid they will overpower the raven or overpower Protoss answers to infestors.
The problem is when that baby steps shows it is not addressing the fundamental design flaw of the unit (like the most recent proposed raven buff shows). So I hope this thread/analysis and proposed change would be the next logical progression from blizzard in "fixing" the raven.
I hope this thread helps people to understand more the core issue with ravens, and shows the best solution to make it stronger in lategame while not tipping the scale anywhere else. Notice not once in this thread have i mentioned nerfing infestors or other units (although I do believe the infestor is too strong).
I feel regardless of infestor strength, that if Terran is actually given a tool to fight brood/corruptor/infestor lategame that is more reliable then it may help the situation more than nerfing every unit into smithereens like there has been a history of with SC2 nerfs.
I'll just leave it here at the end again: Avilo's change: Corvid reactor now increases raven starting energy to 100.
p.s. I know this thread has been obviously about Terran VS Zerg. I plan to write one regarding PvZ as well, as I think there is a potential solution/help to protoss if psionic storm dealt more damage to massive units (aka broodlords).
Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback and buffing them a lot to tvz .... dont think thats helping . you need to search changes that dont affect other matchups . so ye your " Corvid reactor " is an ideea that any1 can came with but it has bad part aswel ... please think more then a few minutes before making such a huge post with saying : give ravens 100 starting energy and kill its use in tvp while buffing it for tvz.
And just for the record, i was a zerg player for 18 months, yet i was beginning to think they where getting too strong, so i switched to random (pre-queen buff) and then to terran to try and figure things out.
Been a terran ever since, grinding out games to dive deeper into the strategy's yet undiscovered.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
Yeh I agree people did that back in beta as well when tanks did 60 damage to everything and reapers were awesome. Yeh that's the solutoin to everything.
On November 22 2012 00:41 xsnac wrote: ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback
You don't make Ravens without intending to accumulate energy, so if Ravens with energy are a liability in TvP why would you even make them at all? Also how many TvP games involve researching Covid Reactor in the first place?
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.
On November 22 2012 00:41 xsnac wrote: ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback and buffing them a lot to tvz .... dont think thats helping . you need to search changes that dont affect other matchups . so ye your " Corvid reactor " is an ideea that any1 can came with but it has bad part aswel ... please think more then a few minutes before making such a huge post with saying : give ravens 100 starting energy and kill its use in tvp while buffing it for tvz.
Ravens have a use in TvP??? doesnt feedback just leave ravens with low hp and no energy? doesnt it just take up supply then since it takes so long time to regenerate the energy?
On November 22 2012 00:41 xsnac wrote: ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback and buffing them a lot to tvz .... dont think thats helping . you need to search changes that dont affect other matchups . so ye your " Corvid reactor " is an ideea that any1 can came with but it has bad part aswel ... please think more then a few minutes before making such a huge post with saying : give ravens 100 starting energy and kill its use in tvp while buffing it for tvz.
Ravens have a use in TvP??? doesnt feedback just leave ravens with low hp and no energy? doesnt it just take up supply then since it takes so long time to regenerate the energy?
Point defense drone is pretty good vs stalkers....
again, go back and look at broodwar in the beginning. how bad was the pvz winrate for how long before bisu came onto the field? In the development of the meta game a couple months is meaningless (and no its not going to drive away everyone to LoL or dota) and people need to realize that new innovation is required
Why don't you wait for pros to actually test these balance tests they've put forth first?
I personally think the raven without having to upg the spell is incredibly strong. It's like a templar spawning without having to research storm. There is literally no basis for saying the proposed changes are worse than yours as of yet.
Wait for people who know how to play TvZ to test it out, and then if it is proven the patch has not changed anything they can move onto the next patch.
I disagree with you avilo, because you're looking at this the wrong way.
Lategame isn't just about comparing Race A's ability to make this and Race B's ability to make that. It is, to an extent, but it's a very narrow way of looking at it and it's one you seem to favour a lot. I read one poster in the main thread complaining that the usefulness of this upgrade diminishes over the amount of ravens you have to make and because of this it was a bad change and I groaned because he is silly.
Lategame is about all the steps leading up to it. And this change is encouraging the Terran to have 1+ ravens with a lot of energy lategame because you were making them midgame and you found the unit to be useful and flexible enough because it has another function. I've not played on this new map, I haven't convinced any good zerg mates to try it (I imagine they are all busy trying to pretend an infestor nerf doesn't exist), so I'm not sure if this is the case, but I'm interested to see if there's a way to really use it.
And I know you haven't come to a reasonable conclusion about adding a raven or more early/mid game TvZ because the map has been out for literally one day and if you have already discarded this then yours is a very narrow mind.
Also curious what happens when you give Korean terrans, particularly MVP, access to this sort of thing.
I'm ALSO interested to see if chucking in a seeker missile makes 1/1/1 style play abhorrently strong vs Protoss.
I'm ALSO interested about chucking the occasional seeker in TvT to see what might happen.
Look just because you had a really abusive TvZ before and people figuired you out and now you cant win as much doesnt mean you can write a 3 page essay and complain about it.
On November 22 2012 01:29 Yorbon wrote: While i do not really agree that the current buff doesn't make any difference, i think this proposed change isn't a bad one.
Nah, it's just rectifying a situation that shouldn't have existed in the first place, which is good. Completely illogical for ravens to have this much upgrades.
On November 22 2012 01:29 Yorbon wrote: While i do not really agree that the current buff doesn't make any difference, i think this proposed change isn't a bad one.
I'll side with this one, I think that it may offer some more utility earlier in the game for Terran. I don't think it is a complete change, and energy regen rates could be tinkered with to a very limited extent. All in all I am anxious to play on the test map.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
Glad someone said it. I am so tired of these design threads previewing how the game could be made better for lower level players. When the test map came out yesterday, there is a 35 page thread about the changes will affect the match ups. Less than 10 of the posts contain first hand information or a replay(no replays posted to date) from said test map.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
lol you must not know avilo. all he does is ladder bro. he's like the Kas of NA.
On November 22 2012 01:25 EggYsc2 wrote: Look just because you had a really abusive TvZ before and people figuired you out and now you cant win as much doesnt mean you can write a 3 page essay and complain about it.
On November 22 2012 00:30 avilo wrote: p.s. I know this thread has been obviously about Terran VS Zerg. I plan to write one regarding PvZ as well, as I think there is a potential solution/help to protoss if psionic storm dealt more damage to massive units (aka broodlords).
On a side note to this, I've been considering the same idea for quite a while now. But not just for PvZ.
You might want to take into account that if storm does bonus damage to massive units then it'll do bonus damage to Thors. In which case you could potentially afford to remove energy from it and suddenly give a considerable boost to Terran mech power vs Protoss (to eliminate the instant damage of feedback); possibly making it more viable without being overpowered.
Who is this avilo guy who keeps thinking he's a video game designer? I mean, who do you think you are? All you seem to do is whine and whine and bitch about how this game is terrible. Breaking news: micromanagement requires skill.
Can you imagine what would happen if every TL member made a thread about their personal proposed changes? You gotta stop crying and start practicing man.
The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
On November 22 2012 01:16 iaguz wrote: Lategame is about all the steps leading up to it. And this change is encouraging the Terran to have 1+ ravens with a lot of energy lategame because you were making them midgame and you found the unit to be useful and flexible enough because it has another function.
What? Ravens still cost 200 gas, who could afford to build them by midgame? Don't you have Tanks, Thors or Medivacs to build at this time? Whether you play mech or Marines/Tanks you have 0 gas to spare to start building a Raven fleet during mid-game.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
lol you must not know avilo. all he does is ladder bro. he's like the Kas of NA.
Except awful.
I think if anyone is to present a consice case for Ravens, look towards someone that's actually, idk, good at the game? Let's hear what a qxc has to say, or someone of the like. Avilo needs to stop thinking that 1. anyone cares about his paltry understanding of this game and where he thinks it should go, and 2. that he's a fucking game designer that has the keys to all imbalance doors. Learn a new style instead of trying to ride the gravy-train of an abusive, greedy type of play.
I want to see Ravens more as much as everyone else, and I do think Blizzard is going in the right direction (although fixing something that should've been there in the first place). Anything to promote actual diverse play from Terrans (don't cite nuke play, that wasn't innovating, it was a cheeky waste of time) is a good thing in my book.
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
Thank you. Despite how Avilo IS an avid QQer about the other two races, you gotta realize that this suggestion does nothing but make sense. If you don't attack his points and attack him, you're just as much of an empty-talker as you accuse him to be.
To zergs saying you "figured' ZvT out, give me a fucking break. Broodlord-infestor was discovered, an EVEN MORE abusive strategy. In fact, by far the most abusive crap I have ever seen since broodwar. The other races deserve every tool they can get to fight zerg late game.
While I agree that the Raven change is not really the correct course for buffing that unit, I don't think that TvZ is as much of a problem of terran being bad as it is infestor being too good.. While the late game of zerg tech switches is pretty ridiculous, I really just think that its more of a problem that the infestor is so freaking good and they come out so early. You can have a pretty big advantage as terran in the mid game/ early end game, but you cannot press that advantage or attack confidently with a timing if you are not MKP top 5 micro world, or you opponent doesnt make serious positional/micro mistakes. Defending purely with a support/spellcaster unit is just not good design. Terran has tools for defeating every unit in the game, but certain units are too good at just turtling/defending to the point you can not press a significant advantage like other races can do. This is somewhat of a problem in TvP as well (2 or 3 base protoss turtling till they have coll/storm then expand), but not as much of an extent as zerg sitting there with some spines queens and infestor ling.
Should raven get a small buff? sure it should bc its barely usable. Should strike cannons get some change? sure it should its not usable. However they are not the answer to the glaring issues terran faces against the other 2 races...
Destruction wrote a vell thought out post. All I've read in this thread so far are ad hominem attack. Present arguments why Avilo's idea is bad but do not go after him. Unfortunately I think Blizzard will not do anything to the raven on WOL on purpose. They have an expansion to sell in around 3 months now and will implement changes to raven only there.
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
You must have missed the point I made then. No pro is testing the current changes made to the raven - or at least not yet to an extent to come to any conclusion. Once a pro player decides if they're acceptable changes or not then we can (possibly..) move onto avilo's changes and see if they're viable or not. Theory crafting only gets you so far. You have to actually test the patches as they come and provide REASONED explanations with EVIDENCE as to why you think they're either good or bad. Simply saying, "I think this is bad because I think it's bad" does not actually provide OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why the changes are bad.
What I'm saying is, regardless of how Avilo's changes would affect the game he should actually test this shit before making a post this large with no basis for his reasoning. The chain of logic he provides is not sound and should not be taken without argument. Test it and then we'll move on.
If the above is too hard to understand I suggest you step away from balance discussion altogether and let others handle it.
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
People are tired of the "This is way to fix WoL and let me explain why" threads. People would rather players just dive in their, post some replays and give their thoughts after the game is over. Test the changes, rather than write a essay about how their change is better than Blizzard's.
I just don't get it. Why don't they decrease the energy cost of the seeker missile and also lower the damage? Add a cool down so multiple seeker missiles can't be launched and increase the speed of the raven so it's no longer a snail
I don't always agree with Avilo. But so many people are acting like whining cry babies as soon as he posts something. He made a really good (not perfect) analysis and people just disregard it? He is right, the Blizz change only affects kind of early game where terran are (at least as much as I know) good. His change will have great effects in late game.
People are so ignorat just because they don't like Avilo.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
lol you must not know avilo. all he does is ladder bro. he's like the Kas of NA.
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
You must have missed the point I made then. No pro is testing the current changes made to the raven - or at least not yet to an extent to come to any conclusion. Once a pro player decides if they're acceptable changes or not then we can (possibly..) move onto avilo's changes and see if they're viable or not. Theory crafting only gets you so far. You have to actually test the patches as they come and provide REASONED explanations with EVIDENCE as to why you think they're either good or bad. Simply saying, "I think this is bad because I think it's bad" does not actually provide OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why the changes are bad.
What I'm saying is, regardless of how Avilo's changes would affect the game he should actually test this shit before making a post this large with no basis for his reasoning. The chain of logic he provides is not sound and should not be taken without argument. Test it and then we'll move on.
If the above is too hard to understand I suggest you step away from balance discussion altogether and let others handle it.
I can only imagine what Nony thinks when reading threads like this; or anyone else with a similar major. I know I have to restrain myself @_@;;
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
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
You must have missed the point I made then. No pro is testing the current changes made to the raven - or at least not yet to an extent to come to any conclusion. Once a pro player decides if they're acceptable changes or not then we can (possibly..) move onto avilo's changes and see if they're viable or not. Theory crafting only gets you so far. You have to actually test the patches as they come and provide REASONED explanations with EVIDENCE as to why you think they're either good or bad. Simply saying, "I think this is bad because I think it's bad" does not actually provide OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why the changes are bad.
What I'm saying is, regardless of how Avilo's changes would affect the game he should actually test this shit before making a post this large with no basis for his reasoning. The chain of logic he provides is not sound and should not be taken without argument. Test it and then we'll move on.
If the above is too hard to understand I suggest you step away from balance discussion altogether and let others handle it.
I can only imagine what Nony thinks when reading threads like this; or anyone else with a similar major. I know I have to restrain myself @_@;;
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
First off, are you qualified to make that statement? I'd venture a guess at saying no. Second off, you are thinking about this linearly. You are assuming Ravens are going to be used in the same fashion with this patch as prior to this patch without any new implications the patch can make for the unit. That is to say, the game leading up to late game is absolutely unchanged with this patch and thus late game is the same. I think an argument could be made here, but as I'm not qualified to talk on TvZ I can't say. Lastly, if you really think there is no point in putting ANY testing into this patch then we might as well not test anything because it does not match the predetermined role we have assigned to said unit. Some will agree with us, and therefore, we will fight for the unit to be made this way. Otherwise, it's broken, or just isn't good enough with those proposed changes. That is not a good approach to a problem, I'm sorry. :/
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
I agree here. I am not a fan of Avilo at all. But he stated a legitimate problem, gave a reasonable suggestion as to how to fix it. He didn't tell us THIS IS WHAT YOU ALL HAVE TO DO IM RIGHT MWAHAHA. He just said that this is a change that could work, and that we should give it some thought.
It's truly a shame that a bunch of random nobodies feel the need to bash on someone for bringing up a really valid point. Avilo has a strong point. He also probably has the most experience with terran air units. He is pretty well educated on this. Either increase raven starting energy with the corvid reactor upgrade like he suggests, or decreased the amount of energy required to use hsm/pdd. Both would achieve the same effect while the later would allow an extra hsm(which would probably make the raven strong but still not nearly as strong as the infestor)
Oh good, an avilo thread. Come on dude. Let the changes percolate a bit. Who knows what random influences this can have. And besides Blizz has said they want to make further challenges. Chillax a bit
I was having this thought earlier today but in conjunction with the proposed change (free seekers). With these two changes terrans can start hitting single raven timings in the midgame which would be super interesting. A raven started (timed to finish with corvid) and rallied across Daybreak regens about 20-25 energy before it gets to the other side. With 100 energy and seeker requiring no research the terrans can maybe start hitting some really tight mass marine seeker pushes where the raven finishes and has enough for one seeker as you roll up to the zergs base.
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
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.
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.
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.
Sorry but blizzard themself said that they didnt expect much to change with this new raven change didnt they? Which is exactly why they did this change because they didnt want to change the game too drastically without skewering the game if i remember correctly
On November 22 2012 02:05 Destructicon wrote: The amount of ignorance and hate in this thread is is so palpable that it hurts.
Avilo brought up a 100% valid argument, the current change tested on the balance map does absolutely nothing, it does not address the core issue with the Raven, the accessibility and immediate usefulness. To give you an actually idea how how slow a caster regenerates energy, it takes 50 seconds for one to accumulate 25 energy, that is 0.5 energy per second. Without the energy upgrade it literally takes 150 in game seconds for the Raven to have enough energy for HSM, and even with the upgrade it needs 100 seconds, that's as long as it takes for a single fucking spire to morph, that's 10 seconds longer then it takes to build 1 fucking BC.
I literally don't see anyone attacking Avilo's points directly, I see people just attack Avilo due to ignorance, and their own stupidity and bias, while still ignoring his well thought out and well reasoned arguments.
This is why we actually need people to theorycraft on balance changes, because Blizzard has shown its willingness to listen, but they keep going about changing the wrong things, the things that either don't make any sense or don't have any impact at all.
You guys say Avilo's idea is bad? Well say WHY its bad. Point out, how is it going to break the MU? What theoretical timing do you think you could hit with this new change? Is there no way to stop said timing?
From what I see his change doesn't affect any MU apart from TvZ, Raven isn't made in TvP apart from certain variations of the 1/1/1, and that build isn't nearly as useful now a days. TvT, hardly affected, you only get them as part of your late game.
You must have missed the point I made then. No pro is testing the current changes made to the raven - or at least not yet to an extent to come to any conclusion. Once a pro player decides if they're acceptable changes or not then we can (possibly..) move onto avilo's changes and see if they're viable or not. Theory crafting only gets you so far. You have to actually test the patches as they come and provide REASONED explanations with EVIDENCE as to why you think they're either good or bad. Simply saying, "I think this is bad because I think it's bad" does not actually provide OBJECTIVE reasoning as to why the changes are bad.
What I'm saying is, regardless of how Avilo's changes would affect the game he should actually test this shit before making a post this large with no basis for his reasoning. The chain of logic he provides is not sound and should not be taken without argument. Test it and then we'll move on.
If the above is too hard to understand I suggest you step away from balance discussion altogether and let others handle it.
I can only imagine what Nony thinks when reading threads like this; or anyone else with a similar major. I know I have to restrain myself @_@;;
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
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. 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.
Actually i think with the change : 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.
Just remove the Raven and bring back the Science Vessel. Give the science vessel a range in which it can cast irradiate outside of the infestors or Templars range. Since Ghost already has EMP then give the science Vessel PDD, Irradiate, And Auto Turret. The Science Vessel also didn't have to turn around every time you moved it which allowed for an easier retreat and allowed access to more mobility. Blizzard should make a test map with this unit and have the pros use it.
No point in theorycrafting until it's actually been tested
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
The current buff is slanted toward earlier Raven play. Earlier Raven play would in turn make it easier to have Ravens with mana available for later encounters. (Getting sniped is a flimsy excuse. Ravens fly and have a defensive spell; they're not easy to snipe unless they're in front of your army, which they should only be when it's safe to do so or they're delivering a missile.) 1-2 seeker missiles, or even the threat of it, is a big deal against clumped air...
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.
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.
I love how Kane described him as the Kas of NA. 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
On November 22 2012 00:39 Bodzilla wrote: Not to rain on your Parade Avilo, but i seriously wish people would get off soap box's about game design. I'd be much happier if people just sat down and did what they could to grind out games and figure shit out.
Everyone that does it ignores the fact that the game is constantly evolving, and after 2 years we are no where near finished developing the meta-game.
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.
On November 22 2012 00:41 xsnac wrote: ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback and buffing them a lot to tvz .... dont think thats helping . you need to search changes that dont affect other matchups . so ye your " Corvid reactor " is an ideea that any1 can came with but it has bad part aswel ... please think more then a few minutes before making such a huge post with saying : give ravens 100 starting energy and kill its use in tvp while buffing it for tvz.
Ravens have a use in TvP??? doesnt feedback just leave ravens with low hp and no energy? doesnt it just take up supply then since it takes so long time to regenerate the energy?
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.
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.
That last sentence is BS. QXC can also improve his play. If we go by your logic that you can only complain when your game is perfect, then no one can complain (including Mvp, Bogus, Flash, Ryung, etc). And the zergs that lost to reapers weren't 'perfect' either.
Your 'innovative' strategy of 4-6 queen opener didn't work in early 2011 because hellions could just kite your queens forever. Your 'meta' game works now because of buff from Blizzard. Stop trying to make it like you worked out this 'solution' before everyone else.
the lower the signal-to-noise ratio of a thread the lower the probability of Blizzard picking up on the important pieces of information and putting them to use. The OP has a manner of creating threads that end up with a low signal-to-noise ratio.
Blizzard is probably going to ignore this because its too hard to dig through it to find anything really useful.
Here is an example of being critical of SC2 while maintaining a high signal-to-noise ratio.
Sea is getting a Raven against Genius in EGMCSL. Started with reactor Hellion harass, got a Raven, and now he's going Viking and Mech. Should be interesting.
Edit: Genius seems like he's going mass Stalker, which is going to get completely shut down by Tanks + PDD. Sea's Raven has two PDDs available. The Hellions are making this more like a TvZ than a TvP; Genius has done almost nothing to avoid harassment. Genius attacks into the tanks, and does really well, but Sea used both of his PDDs before Genius engaged. Genius was able to pull back, give up a cannon or two and a pylon at his fourth, and engage at a better time.
You guys are aware this isnt an actual attempt by blizzard to fix anything. They are putting this fancy new thing on the raven to get people to play with it and experiment, not to fix the issue.
Browder said in the TL interview he was pretty sure this wouldnt solve the raven problem. They are trying to make the raven a little more mainstream so they can get a better look at where it is now. If it does get "fixed" it wont be till HOTS.
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.
On November 22 2012 00:41 xsnac wrote: ur kiling their use in tvp cuz of feedback and buffing them a lot to tvz .... dont think thats helping . you need to search changes that dont affect other matchups . so ye your " Corvid reactor " is an ideea that any1 can came with but it has bad part aswel ... please think more then a few minutes before making such a huge post with saying : give ravens 100 starting energy and kill its use in tvp while buffing it for tvz.
Ravens have a use in TvP??? doesnt feedback just leave ravens with low hp and no energy? doesnt it just take up supply then since it takes so long time to regenerate the energy?
I have serious doubts, that seeker missle is the answer to TvZ. It works from time to time because of the same reason vortex works from time to time: Zerg completely failing in control. If you look how the splash damage is designed, it decreases immensly if enemy flyers are simply magic boxed. If Raves enter the metagame as standard option, it will not take long for Zerg to figure out, how to avoid their impact. They seem useful now, because most Zerg players have little to no experience how to deal with them. They need a complete rework of their abilities!
I agree with you. I think it's even more pronounced in PvZ where you're relying on one fragile unit (the mothership) to counter the entire broodlord/infestor/corruptor ball. I am loving the emergence of sky Protoss in late game but fungal growth is just too powerful against air. Well, against everything.
I think people are letting their hatred for Avilo get in the way of even reading the post.
I think Avilo's proposed change is really good actually, better than getting HSM for free for sure (which is also a lot better than nothing).
On November 22 2012 18:07 TeeTS wrote: I have serious doubts, that seeker missle is the answer to TvZ. It works from time to time because of the same reason vortex works from time to time: Zerg completely failing in control. If you look how the splash damage is designed, it decreases immensly if enemy flyers are simply magic boxed. If Raves enter the metagame as standard option, it will not take long for Zerg to figure out, how to avoid their impact. They seem useful now, because most Zerg players have little to no experience how to deal with them. They need a complete rework of their abilities!
I think you could be right (as well as below post saying movement denial is an issue), but I think if they want to be careful in what changse they make, Avilo's proposed one is the best first step imaginable.