|
1.) Well i am not really saying that forcefields would work in sc2 later in the game too well.
I just don't believe in this: "it reduces micro from the opponent => it's bad" tbh.
As i said, this is really only a problem when the protoss can just spam them, no matter how bad your forcefields are, you will get value out of it.
On the other hand there were situations where the protoss had a very limited amount of ff availabe, he casted them perfectly (no overlap, no spam) and these situations are exciting imo. I can appreciate it.
1) Well i don't agree with that, the one is a very active process, the other not so much.
2) Sure, but you can argue that this SHOULD be that way. If there is no risk/reward, well there is no point in adding this gameplay action. (i completely agree though that it is frustrating, especially when the enemy can just spam it IMO)
3) I think this is more of a map problem cause toss absolutely needs ff, i agree, but that's not really a problem with the spell itself so much, it's rather the current implementation
4) Again, if you can make these just by spaming 10 forcefields, it's boring and i agree with you. If you have to hit them nearly perfectly (almost no overlap, etc) i think it would be no big deal.
5) Again the implemenation, i agree with that obviously.
I know that you don't agree with my second point in my initial post, but i really think this spamable (be it through cd OR the low mechanical requirement of casting itself => it's worth to build a lot of casters), is hurting sc2 more than it is helping it.
|
On April 20 2015 01:02 The_Red_Viper wrote:
1.) Well i am not really saying that forcefields would work in sc2 later in the game too well.
I just don't believe in this: "it reduces micro from the opponent => it's bad" tbh.
As i said, this is really only a problem when the protoss can just spam them, no matter how bad your forcefields are, you will get value out of it.
On the other hand there were situations where the protoss had a very limited amount of ff availabe, he casted them perfectly (no overlap, no spam) and these situations are exciting imo. I can appreciate it.
1) Well i don't agree with that, the one is a very active process, the other not so much.
2) Sure, but you can argue that this SHOULD be that way. If there is no risk/reward, well there is no point in adding this gameplay action. (i completely agree though that it is frustrating, especially when the enemy can just spam it IMO)
3) I think this is more of a map problem cause toss absolutely needs ff, i agree, but that's not really a problem with the spell itself so much, it's rather the current implementation
4) Again, if you can make these just by spaming 10 forcefields, it's boring and i agree with you. If you have to hit them nearly perfectly (almost no overlap, etc) i think it would be no big deal.
5) Again the implemenation, i agree with that obviously.
I know that you don't agree with my second point in my initial post, but i really think this spamable (be it through cd OR the low mechanical requirement of casting itself => it's worth to build a lot of casters), is hurting sc2 more than it is helping it.
We are getting pretty deep into philosophical territory if you want to reason your second point with me, which is why I skipped it. The easier to reason part of it is this view of mine:
I don't agree with your second point because for any game the handling of a vanilia mechanic itself should be as easy as possible. The hard part should be the correct application of it and the combination with other mechanics.
|
Well i think non smartcast is pretty close to that philosophy too tbh.
You choose the unit(s) you wanna control and do so (press the button -> activate the spell)
It's not really different (mechanically) than selecting all your marines and stimming them.
You select all => every single one will stim
You select all high templer => every single one will storm
It's coherent, it makes sense.
You obviously will say that there is no situation ever where storming with all of them at the exact same position will be the intent of the player. Sure, but why did you select all of them in the first place?
In the end i simply don't see that selecting specific units is a bad thing in a rts game, it only makes sense tbh (and it allows stronger spells without the fear of it being too strong when the player decides to spam it through massing the spellcaster)
Sometimes you just have to look at it at a case to case perspective, even if it would violate (kinda) your initial POV
|
On April 20 2015 02:14 The_Red_Viper wrote:
Well i think non smartcast is pretty close to that philosophy too tbh.
You choose the unit(s) you wanna control and do so (press the button -> activate the spell)
It's not really different (mechanically) than selecting all your marines and stimming them.
You select all => every single one will stim
You select all high templer => every single one will storm
It's coherent, it makes sense.
You obviously will say that there is no situation ever where storming with all of them at the exact same position will be the intent of the player. Sure, but why did you select all of them in the first place?
In the end i simply don't see that selecting specific units is a bad thing in a rts game, it only makes sense tbh (and it allows stronger spells without the fear of it being too strong when the player decides to spam it through massing the spellcaster)
Sometimes you just have to look at it at a case to case perspective, even if it would violate (kinda) your initial POV
Well, this leads up to the second part why I'm against treating spellcasters differently. There is no initial difference between a spell, an attack, a move command or any other command you give the unit. A marine commanded to attack is an as specialized action as a marauder sent to attack as a high templar sent to storm.
Each of those commands should be implemented so its usage is as easy as possible. Smartcasting is plainly more fitting to casting storms than not having it.
A unit having its own idle-attack behavior is simply more fitting than an idle-noresponse behavior. An attack move command is simply more fitting than the unit actually just going to the clicked place and shooting the ground. A harvest resource command is simply more enjoyable if you don't have to send the unit to harvest, send it back and repeat.
A spell is also just a command given to a unit to fullfill a certain of its capabilities. Some of them are different in the way that they use additional local resources - energy, charges - besides the more frequent local resources like cooldown times, but others like the corrosive bile are just alternate attacks that haven't been automated properly. And that doesn't even mean that they haven't been automated properly for intenteded reasons, it could very well be that the game developers haven't found a good way to do so.
You see, I'm not treating spellcasters any differently than other units. There is no magical rule that tells me how a spellcaster is a different category of unit and a spell a different category of ability. Even in broodwar, spellcasters could be core army units and their spells core forms of attacking the opponent (e.g. the Science Vessel, high templar). But of course, moreso in SC2 with its smartcasts and different designs (sentry, infestor, high templar). Therefore I don't see the point in stupifying the attack of the high templar, when we don't do it with the zealot.
So I'd strongly aruge the other way around: make it so that the high templar becomes as similar to a mover-shooter as possible and try to remove its feedback and storm buttons if some better form of control is available.
This is one of the things that I believe blizzard has gotten absolutely right with the cyclone. The lock-on should be on autocast. The only reason not to have it on autocast - given its inexistent costs and low cooldown - is if your opponent tries to abuse it, which is countermicro and should be rewarded. But given a random combat scenario in which you don't targetfire, there is little reason not to just lock onto whatever gets into your range.
This is of course a player perspective, which I think is the most important perspective when designing a game.
|
finally Z has a hatchtech unit that comes early and can harrass wall offs (in wol and hots Z just couldnt harrass T or P AT ALL without completely going all in). they need to let it be hatchtech without any techbuilding just morphed from roaches so Z can finally attack without going all in early game.
as far as their stats go i agree they might be too strong but thats what a beta is for. i guess making them faster and letting corrossive bile hit faster while nerfing their autoattack hard would be a nice fix. i dont like completely removing the autoattack since that would be too much of a hit or miss unit but nerfing it a lot would be good.
|
What if corrosive bile didn't do any damage to ground units and merely destroyed forcefields unless the Ravager was burrowed?
I know that's seems to overlap with the lurker on a superficial level, but their attacks deal completely different types of splash, and have to be dealt with in differing ways. You could give them a really slow burrow time to balance it, as well as making them visible, yet still cloaked, while burrowed. That way you don't just have a bunch of souped-up HydraRoaches running around, popping off siege tank blasts, unless they are chasing air units or leveling a bunch of forcefields. It would even make a fair bit of sense, since an artillery unit usually wants to brace itself for the kickback before firing a hefty shot. And with the volcano look of the unit, it would even make sense for the glowing tip to be visible while burrowed.
|
It should be noted that the ravager could be considered a negative thing. It means you can fit less units and therefore less dps in the same area/concave. I think the unit is perfect for zerg for the same reason a lot of other people are feeling the same. It allows early agression and makes the sentry less of a safe unit. The sentry is not useless, but it is a lot less massable as it is less reliable.
|
Ravager is duuuuuummb. Just give the ability to break forcefields to the lurker.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
Just make Ravagers not able to attack, so they will be like Zerg equivalent of Sentries.
|
I'd rather have them remove the roach, put hydras at hatch tech, and then allow hydras to morph into either lurkers or ravagers at lair tech (and then make ravager have tankier stats similar to roaches, but preserving hydra dps). It would give Zerg what they most want (anti air at hatch tech) while making the hydra relevant as a unit again, preserving the identity of one of my favorite units from bw (which has been destroyed in sc2)., and then allowing the ravager to be a stronger unit that can fill a specific role (tankier anti-ground with a unique ability) instead of making us ask the question "roach, ravager, or hydra?".
For the sake of this theory crafting, make hydras have armor so hellions don't melt them in the early game (which is probably one reason blizz decided to put in a new armored unit at hatch tech). Thanks for nothing, hellions.
I've never understood the reason to put hydras at lair tech and include roaches as a new, hydra-that-is-armored-and-can't-attack-air unit, but maybe that's just me.
|
On April 20 2015 04:51 Existor wrote:
Just make Ravagers not able to attack, so they will be like Zerg equivalent of Sentries.
This really does seem like the best trade-off to make with it.
Keeps it from encroaching too heavily on the function of the roach and hydra, while complimenting both with it's own unique zoning abilities while destroying forcefields.
Think it would also help in reducing their rushing potency.
|
Arguing that ravagers don't fit Zerg design because they're morphed makes zero sense; the concept that morphed units are very different from the units they morph from isn't some core part of Zerg design, it's a coincidence that morphed units have in common. Nothing is made terribly inconsistent in the nature of playing Zerg if the ravager doesn't fit that pattern.
Let's put it a different way. If the Ravager was a unit that you made from larva (not from morphing a roach), with a cost of 100/100 and a supply of 3 and a build time of t(roach build) + t(ravager morph), would you still be complaining that the ravager needs changes?
If yes, then invoking "but but it's morphed from roaches, it has to be different!" is besides the point here, because your problem is with the unit, not that it morphs from a roach.
And as mentioned before, the increase in supply cost is a huge tradeoff.
|
I think that Ravagers weren't in a bad direction at their Blizzcon iteration, where they had 180HP, far less DPS.
However, in their actual version, Ravagers make little sense to me. At their cost, and considering their stats, they overlap with Hydralisks as DPS ground units.
Ravagers: 120HP with 20DPS, 100/100/3 (40HP/supply, 33/33 cost per supply, 6.66 DPS per supply).
6 range, 2.75 speed (HotS value refernce, no timescale conversion). No need to upgrade.
Skillshot with 8-9 range that deals heavy damage against immobile units.
Hatch Tech.
Hydralisk: 80 HP, 16 DPS, 100/50/2 (40HP/supply, 50/25 supply, 8 DPS per supply).
5 range (6 with upgrade), 2.25 speed (2.81 with upgrade). Need to upgrade. (150/150 upgrade)
Lair Tech. (150/100)
Blizzcon Ravager was quite different. 180 HP, 12 DPS, 100/100/3. (60HP/supply, 4DPS/supply). Stats-wise, the role of Ravagers was far more similar to a Roach, while actual Ravagers are stat-wise far more similar to Hydralisks on combat.
Funny to say that maths don't lie much, if you go and test same supply of Hydras(upgraded) vs Ravagers on the unit tester, they trade very similar in very close fights. Obviously, Ravager size plays against the positioning in fights.
Even if numbers aren't all, they are suspiciously close. The gas difference per supply is also quite interesting to consider, specially if we think at the time Ravagers hit the field. considering 30 supply Ravagers and Hydras (10 Ravagers, 15 hydras) have a difference of gas cost of 280, which is more or less the estructural cost of getting access to upgraded hydralisks (250), (considering moving to Lair anyways in both cases, even if Ravagers don't need it). That means that, in the early game, you can go up to a pressure-supply of Ravagers at the same cost it would cost you to get to the same supply of Hydras, without having to wait the total combined build time of Hydra Den + upgrade (around 2:30 mins).
So it's not like they have really achieved a very substantial difference with Roach/Ravager stats over Roach/Hydralisk compo considering effiency per supply and costs. Ravaeger compos are theoretically slightly ahead, specially with the extra DPS that some good biles can provide.
And in the early game their strength, specially provided by the time saving.
Hydralisks are in most cases less useful as plainly fighting units now, with their pressence only reinforced by their Lurker mutation.
However I think that Ravagers have shown a good option for early game pressure, but the same effect could be achieved by moving Hydralisks to hatch tech with their AA functionality delayed, and with small tweaks. Range upgrade at Lair would allow them to attack air instead of 6 range. 6 range from the start would allow hydras to keep better with bio, and trade quite decently with Hellions because of the range advantage. That would create new gameflow interactions, with Hydralisks being vulnerable to air openings, but allowing them to counter air by almost the same time they can do now. For example, imagine ZvP against Oracle/Phoenix openings. The time cost to get air counter to air is Lair+Den (80+45s). It could be the same cost (45+80s upgrade,) without really forcing the player to go Lair. However that requirement could be set again if Hydra pressence becomes too common or too early, depending on how viable it gets and the new build orders that could be created around this. Gas costs are also a natural balancer.
However, that would mean that Roaches or Hydralisks might need to be slighlty rebalanced, specially with the new econ.
Anyways, Roach/Ravager adjustements are going to become a need in short future, as their strength is quite noticeable, specially in ZvP. And even more if we introduce a new econ model that benefits expansion like Double Harvest/ BW economy. I've always thought that the 120HP makes far more sense for Roaches if they had more speed and maybe better HP regen, something that makes quite sense as they are "assault" units (their ingame-definition).
Maybe we need to definitely move Ravagers to Lair tech as Lurkers are, and give them some more utility.
The good conceptual introduction with the Ravager is the skillshot, something quite interesting to play against Mech (sieged tanks), Forcefileds, and static defense, forcing engagements and punishing turtles. The Ravager doesn't need to be the early/midgame glass cannon of Zerg. I think that a more "artillery" approach would be nice, by having 7/8 range by default and being less damage-efficient, but maybe more tanky, like mini-siege tanks with no splash, allowing the Zerg army to have better ranged units while other cheap ones (zerglings, roaches) engage and tank damage. Most ranged units move around 6 range, so it makes some sense. Also more HP would make sense on a ravager since they are also "concieved" to act as a counter to units like Siege tanks that are immobile and have strong firepower.
Damage and CD can be readjusted to balance Corrosive bile.
My thoughts.
|
On April 20 2015 05:40 goofyballer wrote:
Arguing that ravagers don't fit Zerg design because they're morphed makes zero sense; the concept that morphed units are very different from the units they morph from isn't some core part of Zerg design, it's a coincidence that morphed units have in common. Nothing is made terribly inconsistent in the nature of playing Zerg if the ravager doesn't fit that pattern.
Let's put it a different way. If the Ravager was a unit that you made from larva (not from morphing a roach), with a cost of 100/100 and a supply of 3 and a build time of t(roach build) + t(ravager morph), would you still be complaining that the ravager needs changes?
If yes, then invoking "but but it's morphed from roaches, it has to be different!" is besides the point here, because your problem is with the unit, not that it morphs from a roach.
And as mentioned before, the increase in supply cost is a huge tradeoff.
The reason morphed units tend to have substantial trade-offs is that morph allows one to recycle a unit already on the field anywhere they want on the map. Thus eliminating any travel distance from production facilities to the desired location of said unit. The trade-off is to keep things balanced and present an interesting choice for the Zerg in giving up the unit for an entirely different function. This also gives it another distinguishing feature from warp-ins.
As for whether I'd complain about the ravager if it wasn't a morph. Well, let's see..
- Inherent range 6 (+1 more than the hydra before upgrade and +2 more than the roach)
- Zoning/forcefield-killing spell with range 9 that doesn't interrupt the attack animation
- greater dps and hp than the hydra
- only 25 less hp than the roach, but 40 more than the hydra
- hatch tech
Yeah, I think I'd still complain as there's still the overlap between the roach and hydra. It simply needs more to differentiate it. Yeah hydras hit air, roaches can burrow to regen health and both have speed upgrades, but that's pretty uninspiring in my book.
|
It's funny how people come to the same concerns - overlap with roach/hydra + corrosive bile being an antiforcefield sidekick ability - that I have voiced since they revealed the unit at blizzcon. Though I still think the unit looks at least more fun than most other units in the game and has great strategic potential to break walls in the early game.
Dear blizzard, please greatly tune down the autoattack for more focus on the corrosive bile or plainly make the corrosive bile the standard attack for the ravager (in some form). Possibly with an attack ground option.
|
The Ravager right now as a unit makes no sense. It is huge visually yet has only 125 hp. Its tech requirements are too low and its dps is ridiculously high, even higher than a hydras. The corrosive bile ability serves no purpose other than to waste the time of both players: it is easy to cast and easy to dodge. My suggest to change the ravager: Increase HP to 145 (same as roaches), make it lair tech, increase morph time to around 18 seconds, remove corrosive bile and replace its regular attack with a slow dodgeable projectile attack that lobs balls of green goo with 2 sec cooldown. The green goo does about 30 damage and detonates with a small aoe after 10 seconds or if an enemy unit touches it, kind of like the biogun from unreal tournament. Now the unit actually can serve a clear purpose, which is to deny territory for the enemy to manuver on.
|
I still hold the positoin that the Hydra and/or Roach needs to be changed to fit in the Ravager (so they don't overlap). Don't agree with making it more spellcaster focussed. I think its interesting as a "normal" unit with a skillshot, but its stats obviously needs to be refined somewhat.
|
On April 19 2015 07:46 hvylobster wrote:Show nested quote +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. + Show Spoiler +Mistake removed and replaced with more salient examples. I don't think every race needs an ATTACK button at every stage of the game; if I want to play scrappy games focused on early pressure, I'll play Protoss or Terran.
I respectfully disagree, I think all races should have viable attack and defense options at all points in the game (at least reasonable options for each).
Aggression has a tendency toward advantage in sc2. In other words, 1 zerg is attacking another zerg with ling bane. The attacking player has the advantage, in that he controls the pace of the attack and when he returns to droning. The attacker knows how much he will commit to an attack while the defender is left guessing. Therefore, if one player is always defending... typical for zerg... then imo he is put at a disadvantage (typically this is true, unless the defender of course guesses perfectly and then responds correctly).
Otherwise don't we just run into another current zerg issue... The early game is basically just expand, drone, defend? Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Let's not forget, fun is also a HUGE and LEGITIMATE component of the game... I stopped play sc2, because it just became an miserable experience and I felt mostly bitter after every game I played. Most of WOL and early HOTS didn't feel that way to me, typically I was excited to play and the game felt evolving to me.
Being a zerg player eventually I got so bored, I switched to terran simple to have millions of viable opening options! Learning and trying all the different ones was extremely fun! IMO every race will have sooo much more playability and fun if they can open in a multitude of ways.
(and I'm sorry... one base bane doesn't count, I mean non-allin openings. Even zerg two base attacks feel very allin-ish).
|
On April 19 2015 22:54 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2015 21:23 Ramiz1989 wrote: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: Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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: Show nested quote +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.
I think you have some real wisdom on the flaws of sc2. I agree with about 90% of what you're saying (assuming I'm actually correctly understanding that much of your article  ), you make REALLY good points about hard counters.
Fuck hard counters.
I really hope Blizzard goes all-in with changes. Little baby steps won't make sc2 a great game imo. The time is now.
|
I think Ravager is a very well designed unit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
