|
On April 19 2015 06:57 TheDwf wrote:Yeah, clearly. While the concept of turning the Roach into something else is good as far as I'm concerned, huge issues with the Roach-Hydralisk-Ravager triangle are bound to arise if Blizzard keeps building on top of the existing flawed fundations. Some of the issues are: (1) Roaches should cost 1 supply *. (2) Roaches should not have Protoss stats. (3) Hydralisks should cost 1 supply *. (4) Then, as you say, the Ravager should sacrifice something in order to fulfill a clear role (increasing the supply-efficiency of a Roach-based army seems like the natural role, but how to do that remains to be defined). A unit should not be in the game for the sole purpose of countering a spell.*Edit for clarity. Read: should be remade as a 1 supply variant of the unit, not halve the current supply value with stats unchanged. And all of this is linked to the critical Zerg problematic of mass larvae, which prevents the race from applying early game pressure efficiently because of hyper-development. + Show Spoiler +On April 19 2015 06:37 hvylobster wrote:
As well, Ravagers are not light units, meaning they do not take increased damage from Phoenix groups lifting, Colossi's Laser Beams. Small mistake here: Colossi don't deal extra damage to Light units.
Do we think enough of Blizzard atm to consider those changes realistic at the moment? I think they're willing to make at most one or two moderate design change in lotv, from what we've seen. Not an overhaul like many of us would like.
The ravager does seem like an odd unit, however it is a neat one. Not great, just neat.
|
Haha the qq is real. I completly disagree with the first 2 pages of this thread. Have you ever seen a ravager ball yet? People will make roach and ravager like they make ling and baneling. The ravager is 3 supply, and cost an extra 75 gas, they dont have burrow movement and the regeneration, they are slower.
People are complaining because it is strong right now, Its the best designed unit in LOTV in my opinion, just wait for blizzard to balance things up.
|
I share your concerns ; that the Ravager is a more evolved version of the roach makes people think that the Roach itself isn't the most evolved Zerg creature, and as a Roach believer I take great offense for that.
|
The difference between ravager and roach is pretty clear especially in zvz.
They cannot tank lings at all.
|
i like ravagers,its fun to watch.i don't really think it needs nerfing or redesign.it's pretty balanced in ZvT & made ZvZ interesting.even in ZvP,the only thing that made it strong are because of the timing are too quick & the imba eco.i mean zerg can snowball really quickly even with a minor harass with lings,no need for ravagers.maybe map is a factor too im not sure.this is just what i see from watching stream
|
On April 19 2015 14:11 BillGates wrote:
Ravager is a noob type unit, making Zerg more A-click race and ruining skill ceiling for the game. The unit has no place in SC and should be absolutely removed from the game!
Completely 100% disagree.
|
I like the ravager. It has a skillful mechanic to it. It's sort of like Kog'Maw from LoL. It took actual skill to be good with Kog's ultimate. While I think the unit is currently a bit too strong, I think the basic design of it is pretty solid.
|
On April 19 2015 14:11 BillGates wrote:
Ravager is a noob type unit, making Zerg more A-click race and ruining skill ceiling for the game. The unit has no place in SC and should be absolutely removed from the game!
No, you literally cannot be more clueless than this...
At first I didn't like Ravagers that much when I took a look at their stats, having less HP than a Roach felt strange to me for a unit that is so much bigger and slower. Also they feel like HydraRoaches and you don't want to build much Hydras if your enemy doesn't have air units so I wanted for them to change the design. However, the more I was looking at these games the more I liked Ravagers, people stopped massing them and are using them with Lings/Banelings/Roaches just to zone out enemy or force them to split more. They are also better than any other Zerg unit in the early game for busting the walls.
I don't know, I kind of like them right now but I would still change them a little bit to make them more different from Roaches and Hydras.
|
Imo Ravagers are a good unit, finally the zerg has the option to apply pressure in the early game, the mortar type ability is also very useful allowing zergs to do something against the unbreakable forcefields/wall combo.
|
On April 19 2015 06:56 Kranyum wrote:
I disagree.
Ravagers are perfect units for the Zerg.
For the past 5 years Zerg had absolutely no way of pressuring the enemy in the first minutes of the game without all-in-ing (and usually a very weak all in for that matter)
This made P and T be greedy and influenced the entire flow of the game. Now the possiblity oif a Ravager push keeps the other races honest in what they can or cannot do.
This is not only a balance issue (as the game can be balanced without such a unit) but also a design issue.
As a Zerg player, I have quit Sc2 in 2010 because of the sheer frustration of having to handle any of the 1 million all-ins and cheezes without any chance of doing the same. It sucked the fun out of the game for me. I have not played since.
In return though no one was able to pressure the Zerg after that bad Queen buff, because they have map control from the get go and almost free defenders advantage. So the other races had to go for a do or die as well or go into a macro game against a race that can produce way more workers, which makes harassment rather inefficient if you lose the units.
A race shouldn't be the best at defending and attacking in one stage of the game tbh. That removes alot of interaction. I love ZvX as there are is some back and forth because there are a couple of role switches on the Zerg side depending on the game phase.
|
On April 19 2015 09:45 Fuchsteufelswild wrote:
Nonsense. 2.5× the attack rate, but for the supply, that's only 1.667× the damage output for supply.
Suppose we consider gas to be twice as valuable as minerals (generally it's considered it's worth more. 2× is just my choice).
Roach: (75 + (25 × 2)) ÷ (16 × 2) = 15.625 cost per point of damage per game second.
Ravager: (100 + (100 × 2)) ÷ (16 ÷ 0.8) = 15 cost per point of damage per game second.
∴ When treating gas as twice as valuable, Roaches actually deal greater damage per second per point of "a resource".
Not really that relevant in this case, but this is why you use units in your calculations, and look at them for interpretation. If the unit of your result is cost/dps, and the roach number is higher, this means that it costs more to do the same amount of DPS with roaches, or formulated differently, you do less dps for the same amount of ressources. In this case the difference is neglectible, but still. Please check what the results of your calculations actually mean before using them in an argument.
|
On April 19 2015 20:35 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 06:56 Kranyum wrote:
I disagree.
Ravagers are perfect units for the Zerg.
For the past 5 years Zerg had absolutely no way of pressuring the enemy in the first minutes of the game without all-in-ing (and usually a very weak all in for that matter)
This made P and T be greedy and influenced the entire flow of the game. Now the possiblity oif a Ravager push keeps the other races honest in what they can or cannot do.
This is not only a balance issue (as the game can be balanced without such a unit) but also a design issue.
As a Zerg player, I have quit Sc2 in 2010 because of the sheer frustration of having to handle any of the 1 million all-ins and cheezes without any chance of doing the same. It sucked the fun out of the game for me. I have not played since.
In return though no one was able to pressure the Zerg after that bad Queen buff, because they have map control from the get go and almost free defenders advantage. So the other races had to go for a do or die as well or go into a macro game against a race that can produce way more workers, which makes harassment rather inefficient if you lose the units. A race shouldn't be the best at defending and attacking in one stage of the game tbh. That removes alot of interaction. I love ZvX as there are is some back and forth because there are a couple of role switches on the Zerg side depending on the game phase.
That happened when exactly, in WoL? HotS changed that a lot, just with introduction of Hellbats/Widow Mines/Mothership Core/Faster Reapers/Speed Medivacs etc.
Not only that you can apply pressure to the Zerg right now, but you also see top Zergs dying to those "pressure" builds from both races a billion of times.
Zerg is using larvae for units and worker production, if they need to produce a lot of workers they can't produce units at the same time and just because of that fact harassment is rather efficient if you aren't trading horribly. Yes, if you lose 2 Banshees and 6 Hellions for 10 Drones, it is inefficient...
|
On April 19 2015 21:23 Ramiz1989 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 20:35 FeyFey wrote:On April 19 2015 06:56 Kranyum wrote:
I disagree.
Ravagers are perfect units for the Zerg.
For the past 5 years Zerg had absolutely no way of pressuring the enemy in the first minutes of the game without all-in-ing (and usually a very weak all in for that matter)
This made P and T be greedy and influenced the entire flow of the game. Now the possiblity oif a Ravager push keeps the other races honest in what they can or cannot do.
This is not only a balance issue (as the game can be balanced without such a unit) but also a design issue.
As a Zerg player, I have quit Sc2 in 2010 because of the sheer frustration of having to handle any of the 1 million all-ins and cheezes without any chance of doing the same. It sucked the fun out of the game for me. I have not played since.
In return though no one was able to pressure the Zerg after that bad Queen buff, because they have map control from the get go and almost free defenders advantage. So the other races had to go for a do or die as well or go into a macro game against a race that can produce way more workers, which makes harassment rather inefficient if you lose the units. A race shouldn't be the best at defending and attacking in one stage of the game tbh. That removes alot of interaction. I love ZvX as there are is some back and forth because there are a couple of role switches on the Zerg side depending on the game phase. That happened when exactly, in WoL? HotS changed that a lot, just with introduction of Hellbats/Widow Mines/Mothership Core/Faster Reapers/Speed Medivacs etc.
Yes. Faster Reapers. Speed Medivacs. Faster, mobile Tank shots. Faster, stronger timings. This is always the same problem. As long as the primitive violence of hyper-development will not be dealt with, the following chain of events will keep happening:
Naturally, violence calls for violence.
Mr. Viewer does not see that his short-term demands may spectacularly backfire in the future (see part I), fueling an “always more” drug-like logic, piling up artificial entertainment upon forced excitement in a rabid succession of blurry, shiny images. What will Mr. Viewer then do, once he's tired of the spectacle? He will say, “This game is shit” and sail away.
Proof? Just above:
On April 19 2015 20:03 polpot wrote:
Imo Ravagers are a good unit, finally the zerg has the option to apply pressure in the early game, the mortar type ability is also very useful allowing zergs to do something against the unbreakable forcefields/wall combo.
(1) Because of hyper-development, if they want to attack in the early game, Zergs tend to launch violent proxy attacks to bust walls (hence ZvT bane busts 2010-2015+).
(2) But Protoss has Forcefield to block Baneling busts + Warpgate as an auto-punishment mechanic (fail your all-in = die to X gate pressure a few minutes later).
(3) So we need a new tool to deal with Forcefield. And thus we introduce a counter to Forcefield: enter Corrosive Bile.
The result of the intrusive creationist approach is a game of cubes. You insert cubes of different shapes into other cubes of different shapes according to the will of the designer.
And then we have a problem, because Protoss just die to Ravager pushes. Timings have the strength of an all-in without being all-in. So we get stronger defensive measures (historically: removal of Siege Mode, Mines, Queen patch, MSC, etc.). And the game becomes “stale”. So we introduce new Blue Flame Hellions: Hellbat drops, Medivac boost, muta regen, Oracles, Disruptors, invincible Ravager Warpgate, etc. Result:
SC2 games, because of hyper-development, tend to degenerate towards (1) all-ins; (2) passive macro; (3) worker bowling.
And the razzia never ends, until no one is left to play the game of cubes.
|
On April 19 2015 06:57 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +Now the lingering question for us to hash out: What should be removed from the Ravager in order to rectify its current severe design overlap with Roaches? I think it should be the tier 1 Zerg spell caster, the Ghost/Sentry of Zerg. It should have no attack, or a very crappy one and should have cost for it's spell. There should be more spells added to it aswell. I think it's already stupid that Viper has 4 spells, out of nowhere, where any other caster has 3.
Yay, more units like sentries and ghosts ^__^
|
Ravagers are good, and that's bad.
They are never bad, and that's not good.
There is no race I'd rather nerf, than Zerg.
|
On April 19 2015 06:57 TheDwf wrote:
A unit should not be in the game for the sole purpose of countering a spell.
This sums up how awful forcefield design is.
|
On April 19 2015 23:35 Umpteen wrote:
Ravagers are good, and that's bad.
They are never bad, and that's not good.
I, on the contrary, think it would be bad if they weren't good. Why would you introduce bad units?
|
On April 19 2015 23:40 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 23:35 Umpteen wrote:
Ravagers are good, and that's bad.
They are never bad, and that's not good.
I, on the contrary, think it would be bad if they weren't good. Why would you introduce bad units?
Why would you introduce units when there are bad units in the game?
|
On April 19 2015 23:39 royalroadweed wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 06:57 TheDwf wrote:
A unit should not be in the game for the sole purpose of countering a spell.
This sums up how awful forcefield design is.
I still think focefields aren't really the problem.
The problem is:
1. They are usable early on, thus you can fairly easily produce a lot of them (and gain a lot of energy by building them early) -> forcefields are spamable
2. The general mechanical barrier for casting a spell is too low in sc2. Smartcast DESTROYS what you actually can do with spell design
|
On April 20 2015 00:05 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 23:39 royalroadweed wrote:On April 19 2015 06:57 TheDwf wrote:
A unit should not be in the game for the sole purpose of countering a spell.
This sums up how awful forcefield design is. I still think focefields aren't really the problem. The problem is: 1. They are usable early on, thus you can fairly easily produce a lot of them (and gain a lot of energy by building them early) -> forcefields are spamable 2. The general mechanical barrier for casting a spell is too low in sc2. Smartcast DESTROYS what you actually can do with spell design
@1) The thing is, forcefields aren't that useful later on once the range of units picks up and all sorts of countermechanics like medivacs, burrow movement, air units (mutalisks sniping the sentries), massive>forcefield start kicking in.
On top of that there is a gas tension between sentries and other units, in particular the other two gateway units: HTs/Archons to begin with.
And that is still just the strategical point of view. The gamemechanics view is rather simple for me:
1) creating a longlasting, invulnerable barrier is hardly more entertaining than having free units prevent moveouts
2) once my army is split by forcefields, there is little I can do to safe them. Unless I have certain gimmicks of course.
3) forcefield is a formation killer and unit mover on a large scale. My opponent gets to move my armies around, which is a complete loss of control for the player.
4) at the very least, units should block forcefields from being produced instead of being pushed around by them. A particular stupid case are forcefield donuts that can compress armies in smaller spaces than they should take. That's just a case of bug abuse that hasn't been fixed, I guess because blizzard has no clue how to stop the bug from occuring with the pathing engine they use.
5) the spell artificially messes up the pathing AI. Units that try to retreat through forcefields instead of going long ways around them or finding the holes in them is just bad pathing that no other walling mechanic or map feature produces. Either the units are always dumb, or they are always clever. Messing up the AI is just a terrible extra gimmick on the forcefield.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
