|
If you include your twitter with your replies, we can use it in shoutouts! |
Legacy of the Week: Ravager
November 19th, 2015 01:36 GMT
The RavagerWelcome back to legacy of the week! After a small break for Blizzcon we’re back, and this week features the ravager. Similar to the baneling, the ravager is morphed from a pre-existing unit, namely the roach. This gives Zerg players a wider variety of units to use in the early game, and already we’ve seen some interesting strategies revolving ravagers surface. As always, the basic stats of the ravager: - Costs 100/100
- 28 second build time (19 from roach, 9 from morph)
- 3 supply cost
- 120 HP
- Ground damage: 16
- 3.85 speed (5 on creep)
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability. Its size also drastically increases, rendering splash damage much less effective against it. The only tech requirement to make them is a roach warren, and with a morph time of 9 seconds this makes a ravager rush a viable strategy. - How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
- Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
- Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
- Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
- Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
- Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
- Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
- The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
- Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
- Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
- If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Leave your twitter handle in your response, and we’ll be tweeting out some answers on @TeamLiquidNet!
|
I like the ravager as a concept, and zerg have needed a way to deal with force feilds after the infestor fix, but right now it comes out a bit too early and maybe a bit to cheaply. I'd rather see pros playing with and against it on better maps before it gets nerfed, but it appears to do too much too well.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I think, adding fire stuff to race that mostly uses spines, acid and claws wasn't good idea. In my opinion, unit should have something acid or purple themed stuff.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
In ZvZ only versus lurkers and to deny already hard scouting. ZvZ may become even more chaotic with less possibilities to scout.
In ZvP imo not everyone have realized how they're good vs force fields. I saw some streams where ravagers were not used against force fields.
In ZvT maybe only vs mech. Against bio they're kinda useless, except maybe as additional dps behind roaches.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Good vs both. I think Ravager is too binary (and maybe too strong) vs Force Fields. First of all, Force Field costs mana, while corrosive bile costs nothing. In my opinion, Force Fields should become coldown-based ability (with no energy cost) or Corrosive Bile should cost some energy (and buffed to compensate).
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I think, it is too early. In my opinion, Roach Warren needs to be morphed into new building called Ravager Warren. But that won't happen since Blizzard is lazy to draw new building model.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
I think ravager is fine (except it shoots fire instead of acid or something purple, but thats other thread). They are great utility unit if used properly. Zergs lacked of utility in their arsenal. Overseer contaminate is useless, and utility monster Viper comes too late.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
I think, ravagers should be less massable, but not too expensive. Maybe buff their cost a bit, but not too much. From 25-75 to 75-75 maybe, don't overnerf them. Try to start with small changes.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
No reason at all. They should be armored. I don't understand (even as zerg player) why they are unarmored.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
I think it is okay. That short morph time adds that "adaptation / reactionary" element to zerg race.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
More like supportive siege unit. In my opinion, ravagers should be similar to Sentries but in terms of small zoning utility and some damage (instead of path blocking force fields and defending guardian shield)
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
I think it is okay.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Change the fire rain animation to something less annoying. Make it acid weapon, something green. Also add Ravager building for them so enemies can prepare.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
i think it looks like a terrible zit being popped and it's pretty gross
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I think it's a good design for the game where both the player and the enemy has some amount of agency in how effective Ravager's are overall. You clearly see where the bile is going to land, and it forces the enemy player to react to it even though they have plenty of time to do so. Ravagers also fills in a race specific weakness in that it's the only Zerg unit that is more advantageous in fighting in chokepoints than it is the open. They're really fun to use as well, I think many Zerg players love using the unit just purely on it's design.
Aesthetically it looks pretty stupid and unreasonably large.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Some more than others.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
The hilarious thing about Ravagers is that it would probably still be pretty insane against Toss even if Bile didn't kill forcefields. I'd say the later.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Not at all but maybe it's just me because I love versatile units.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Not entirely sure how I feel about it.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
Siege. Ravagers allows the Zerg to be able to do damage without fully committing to it. You can do things like do structural damage, bile the enemy for a bit of poke and force the enemy player's attention to his army (which is really big) all from a generous distance.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Not necessarily. The Bile in it of itself takes a while to drop and there's a visual indicator that's easy to see as well. I feel the damage is appropriate given a Liberators can start sieging away at a base and has enough time to react by unsieging and flying away before even getting hit by a bile. Same with a warp prism.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
The four questions here are asking things related to it's balance and honestly there's just no way I can say yes to one question and no to the other without thinking it's overly nerfing it or buffing a unit that I already think is a little over the line. Right now I think Ravagers are slightly stronger than they should be but I don't see the lack of tech requirement being the issue here given how Terrans are able to deal with ravagers pretty well even though Zerg has access to them early and they're not really that important in ZvZ. I do think ZvP is an issue for Toss but while Ravagers is a suspect, it goes beyond the unit and has more to do with Toss being unable to punish Zerg as easily as Zerg is able to punish Toss from getting their third.
I'll go back to write more about Ravagers and my thoughts on them as I ladder climb.
|
What? Ravager is unarmored? This means that marauders don't counter them, and are in fact countered by ravagers. When did this happen?
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
Seems like something that could help Zerg create solid timing attacks and break strong turtle strats
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Yes well maybe not so much ZvZ but Strong place in ZvP/T
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
[u][b]Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
It is probably to early, Making it an upgrade even 30 seconds would probably help lessen the power of the Ravager early All-ins
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Yes
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
The Cost is fine
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
No shit just look at them, they are like 5 roaches on top of each other. should be Armored
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
I Feel the timing for is fine it's just the early accessibility I have a problem with.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
It is a support unit that has the ability to siege in great numbers but they are effective as both
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Honestly I don't feel it's that high and it's easy to dodge with your units, It's damage vs Buildings seems good too.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Make it an Upgrade even 50/50 for 25 or 30 seconds to delay so that the Ravager all-in isn't so damn annoying. I would also make it armored. Maybe the unit size a little smaller they are pretty fucking big.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I like the unit. I think that it makes it harder to push straight into a Zerg's face.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Yes
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Structures and units. The damage is actually insane.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I think its actually really unfair how many Ravagers a Zerg player can produce in a short amount of time. It's not uncommon for a Zerg player to make "safety roaches" against a Terran player who opens hellions. It's very difficult to determine whether the Zerg player is using roaches defensively or preparing to do an allin that can only be held with a large number of units, and it doesn't seem like a very big commitment to have the option of randomly all-inning within a matter of seconds. Simcity/bunkers do very little to aid in defense of ravagers. It also adds a lot of frustrating risk to liberator openers because they also become useless when ravagers are on the field in the early game.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Nah. It's good for zerg to have a unit that is actually versatile for once.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
I'm not sure about the cost. What bothers me more is the speed that they can be acquired. Cost might help to limit how many can be afforded early on though so it could be ok to nerf the cost.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
Its way too fast.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
I see it a seige unit, but also as a core army unit.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Maybe.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
It needs to take longer for zerg to be able to spam these things.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I like the design a lot, though it is possible to imagine alternatives for a zerg ground unit at tier 1 or tier 2. I think it has a great function in forcing micro in all matchups mostly due to Corrosive Bile, but it is also unique in that it is unarmored. It helps solving previous issues with denying overlords, playing against forcefields and now also siege range against long-distance targets.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
I think the Ravager definitely serves a purpose in all matchups, it is frequently being seen in both early- and lategame situations. It is powerful in all-ins and timings and offers great support versus air units such as liberators. The splash damage of Corrosive Bile helps versus clumped air units and the low cooldown allows you to force units to back off, plus it is flexible with high mobility and fast attack animation.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Initially it was to be believed, I believe, that Corrosive Bile mainly served as a "counterplay" to forcefields, meaning it should not eliminate the usage of forcefields, but allow zerg to play against them. Currently I think they are very strong versus forcefields, but I think the splash damage of Corrosive Bile actually makes Ravagers even stronger versus units and structures despite being very strong versus forcefields as well. It is rare, if not non-existing, that we see mass sentries with forcefields being played nowadays.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I believe there is great reason to say that the tech requirement of the Ravager is too cheap. The Roach Warren has a 150 mineral cost and a very early access, allowing Ravagers whom in many situtations even has more DPS than siege tanks, to enter the field very early. I think the timing/allin aspect of Ravager is overrepresented and should be toned down.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
I do think the Ravager is one of the units with most roles, but I actually approve of this to a large extend. This is because it is a unit you probably do not want to amass as it is, despite being unarmored, relatively weak and has no straight up single-target DPS per cost. It is very expensive, and therefore functions best in allins or as a part of a compositions.
Where I am concerned, however, is that there are situations (mostly in timings) where the Ravager is capable of doing too much damage and being too hard to damage as a defender. This is mostly present in PvZ, as Photon Overcharge is the main DPS of Protoss in the earlygame but is a static defence that does not outrange Corrosive Bile.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
I believe the cost with the current stats of the Ravager is quite reasonable, yet this exact cost makes them synergize quite well in allin/lowbase situations as you only need to invest the gas into the unit, and not into a tech requirement like say a Lair.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
It would have been possible to make an HP amount on the Ravager to argue for keeping it as the Armored tag, yet now I think it could be dangerous to return it to the armored state as units like Voidrays, Immortals and perhaps Siegetank/Marauder will inflict heavy damage to it. I think it is reasonable to see the unit being unarmored despite the intuition that it should, but it is possible to see the Armored tag return, just not without compensating.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
As mentioned before, I believe there is a strong reason to argue that Ravagers are too strong in offensive allin/timing situations. An approach to try and test/fix this issue would be to move the tech requirement to Lair, which would not hurt Ravagers much more than the timing side. It is, however, also possible to tinker with the morph time from Roach to Ravager. This will however have a greater impact as that will affect all future Ravager morphs, and perhaps make reactionary Roach-to-Ravager morphs difficult.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
I see the unit as both, if not everything. But if I had to choose, I definitely believe it is a Siege unit more than anything, a "mobile siege-tank", if you will.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Ravagers are crucial in certain Zerg strategies especially versus Protoss but also versus Liberators as the Corrosive Bile damage to ground and air units is key. Yet I still think there is a visible problem with offensive Ravager strategies, and the Corrosive Bile damage in this case could be too much. If you do not decide to change the morph time or change the tech requirement, I would definitely reduce the damage Corrosive Bile does to structures in order to allow the defending players to buy more time to counter it, especially in PvZ.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
I would reduce the damage to structures from 60 to 20 on Corrosive Bile. The Splash Damage already allows it to do more damage than 20, and I think the Ravager already has a lot of roles and utilities besides being able to siege buildings. The unit will still be able to do 60 damage with the spell as it pleases.
If this is not an option, I would move the tech requirement to Lair.
If this neither is an option, I would nerf the morph time from Roach to Ravager.
|
Overall I honestly think we still haven't actually seen enough of it to say one way or another. Maybe it should be at lair tech, but I haven't seen enough yet to say it's officially too strong at hatchery tech, it does add a lot to the game tho I gotta say that.
Oh! On that note, I've started to get four ravager every ZvZ, it's fun to run around sniping those first few overlords and seizing early map control with them.
Also I have a request for a unit that nobody has talked about for months. Sometime soon could we discuss the battlecruiser please? Does it still have a place in starcraft? Is there a matchup where building it is advantageous? Has anyone even used the warp drive? Right now it is used seldom if ever, is that due to being prohibitively expensive, too high tech, or simply not good enough due to units such as the Viking and liberator?
I'm extremely curious to see what people think of thats. (Next week or whenever. This week is ravages  )
|
Without wanting to go into too much detail, I would agree that the tech requirement for such a versatile and good unit is too low. It comes out extremely fast and has great offensive and defensive potential from the get-go, no upgrades required (unlike other tier 1 units).
And honestly I don't think moving it up the tech tree slightly (e.g. adding a morph to the roach warren before you can make ravagers would still be pre lair if it would be too late to have it on lair tech in some instances) would make the unit unviable or never used because it would still be very good.
|
|
|
Canada8157 Posts
On November 19 2015 21:08 SnovskiSC2 wrote:
ITS op........
You know, there's 11 questions in the OP that you could answer to give us a more detailed reasoning as to why
|
It's a shame mass sentry playstyles aren't viable anymore, blink sentry vs roach hydra was one of the best unit interactions in the game. Corrosive bile should not be able to destroy forcefields
|
I feel like the new maps cater to everything that's BS right now. They fact that one of the 4 player maps, Still being about to be cheesed and breached, with all the walls you want.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
Visually I really don't like it, to be honest. It's unaesthetic, the fire theme doesn't fit zerg or the unit itself considering that it's acid based. It's an eyesore. On the gameplay front I'm more acceptive towards it, I think the skillshot mechanic is very interesting, and will see a lot of creative use (such as firing a few biles to bait your opponent to micro into another few).
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
It's not very useful in ZvZ due to the speed of that matchup; units simply move way too fast for bile to be effective enough to spend gas on, and the current meta is more ling/bling/muta focused than roach wars. However, it's invaluable in ZvT due to how strong it is against stationary targets such as Liberators or Siege Tanks; even if it ends up doing no damage, it forced the terran to unsiege and move, it's a win/win. Against Protoss the Roach is already very strong, and since toss likes to ball up, an AoE skillshot is naturally powerful. Also situationally useful against forcefields.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Structures and units by far. The forcefield function is cool and interesting, but the projectile is simply too slow to really be a good counter. By the time it hits, most of the damage is already done.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I'm very split on this, because on one hand it definitely feels too powerful right now, but on the other hand, if the requirement is changed to require, say, lair, zerg will have serious trouble defending against things such as Liberators early on. Maybe make it a tech upgrade from the roach warren or something, I really don't know. It's such a powerful and versitile unit but at the same time such an important unit for surviving the earlygame.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
No, it has a lot of roles, but since it's such a fragile unit, you don't really want to mass it too hard. In a lot of ways it feels like a caster.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
It's slightly on the cheap side, increasing the gas cost could migitate how easy it is to reach an allin-level amount early. I think the lack of a tech requirement is more of a problem, though.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Disagree, being armored means they have hardcounters that can be obtained as early as they can.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
It feels too fast in the earlygame, but about right in the lategame. I think the solution is either upping the cost or making it require tech, not changing the morph time.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
A support, it fulfills both roles, though.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Overall, no, but I feel it's too strong against buildings. The damage against units is justified as it can be completely negated by utilizing proper micro. Good players will very rarely lose a critical amount of stuff to bile, the true power of the ability lies in forcing your opponent to stop attacking for a while or to move his sieged units. However, you can't move a building, and so the damage feels way too high.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
The visual design. Make it fit the theme of zerg and the roach, it looks like it's from a completely different faction right now. I'd also either increase the unit cost or make it require some form of tech, probably a roach warren upgrade, but that would require testing. Finally, I'd reduce its damage against buildings.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
the design is ok, but a few things need changing that are addressed in the followup questions
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
not every middle/high tier unit should have a place in every matchup, the fact that the ravager does makes me think its just too versatile at the moment
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
the fact the bile takes a delay to kill forcefields means they are still viable in the matchup, the fact they kill buildings so well means walling up becomes pretty difficult without fighting in front since photon overcharge has less range than the bile, since early on that wall for protoss (and terran) is our main survival method i dont think it should be alllowed to hit buildings that arent flying
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
as with the lurker the roach warren itself should probably have to morph (or a new structure entirely). if you look at all the zerg units that require morphing that were in hots: baneling - baneling nest has to be built, broodlord - greater spire, overseer - lair, there is the ability for players to scout and see what tech route is being chosen. currently they can make roaches and just morph, and while we know they are coming anyways it would be nice to see the zerg have to choose that route and have it scoutable.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
yes. for a midgame unit it shouldnt be viable in nearly any situation or matchup
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
its appropriate, it gives zerg something to sink gas into late game when it seems like their only options are vipers (which have become much more awesome) and infestors
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
i hugely disagree. sc2 is a game of rock paper scissors basically. if we see mass roaches, we have to counter with units that beat them, and they are ones that have bonus vs armoured. we arent going to make hellions or adepts vs roach, we are going to make marauder tanks and immortals. so it seems very wrong that when we scout an army of armoured foes and react accordingly, that they can be morphed into light units and our army cannot, rendering our army useless and on the face of it seems to hand them a free win. keep them armoured, give them +10hp more than the roach. with the morph they gain increased attack speed, size (to reduce splash) and corrosilve bile
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
it seems ok when compared to broodlords and banelings when comparing to the cost to morph, maybe even reduce it a little
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
currently its a support unit, a siege unit and a frontline unit. as siege unit it needs to not be, zerg already have broodlords and swamhosts which both require different counters, another long range siege unit capable of breaking a wall available early in the game is not what we need
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
the bile against armies is a skillshot, and as such should reward the player for making a hit. damage seems ok, realistically speaking you can move out of the way from the shot so thats ok. it shouldnt be able to kill buildings tho
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
well as touched on by someone above, its wrong that the ability is on cooldown and available always, when its primary purpose is to break down forcefields which require energy. most units which have spells that can change the game (of which the bile is one) cost energy and have to be handled with care.
the ability should be turned into an energy-based one. Upon morphing make the ravager have 50 energy and require 75 energy to use bile with no cooldown between using the shots (assuming they have more than 150). you may think 75 energy to kill a 50 energy forcefield is unfair, but consider this unit has much more usability than the sentry in other situations. it moves quicker, has higher hp and higher dps so in straight up fights its much more useful. its also a choice players can make and any amount can be morphed from roaches that are already on the field, whereas when making sentries other units arent being made as a result. also the forcefield has a natural lifetime anyways and are integral part of taking on a much larger supply zerg army. the ability to kill them means engagements can be back in your favour with the right useage of skill.
i would also tweak their movement speed so they move a little slower than the roach (afterall they are bigger), and provide an upgrade in the ravager den structure to increase their speed (like the baneling)
slightly reduce the morph-in-time
so in summary:
require a ravager den to morph so players can see what tech route the zerg are choosing
give the ravager a slower speed, but add a speed upgrade in the ravager den
make them armoured again, give them more hp than the roach
make bile require 75 energy to use but remove the cooldown period before casting, start them with 50 energy like all units
make the bile either much worse or unable to damage structures so that actually having a wall to defend against zerg is viable
|
@electronicmo on twitter if you're still doing that
1. How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I think it's an interesting unit that adds depth to the Zerg race, but I think as it is the unit is a bit too strong and versatile.
2. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Yes. Vs Zerg its ability is good against groups of clumped Roaches during the Roach wars (and it conveniently builds from Roaches). Vs Terran it can be used to break walls from a distance, to bust down bunkers and all the workers repairing it, and to hit flying units like Medivacs (harder) and Liberators (easy). Vs. Protoss I think simply massing the unit is effective.
3. Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
People have really stopped using forcefields because Pylon Overcharge has reduced our need to wall and because the Ravager can break them. So I'd have to say it's better against structures and units. A group of Ravagers each with 60 burst damage can kill Pylons/Depots/Tanks/Liberators/etc. very quickly. It's a really good ability.
4. Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I think Corrosive Bile hits the field way too early given what the other races' options to counter it are. It can break a Terran's wall and let in a huge number of lings/Roaches. It can kill Liberators and Tanks. The only real defensive options are Tankivacs and Banshees which require a Starport. Compare that to Corrosive Bile which is hatchery tech. Same thing for Protoss. The only answers to mass Ravagers seem to be straight air or Disruptors (which take some time to accumulate). Immortals don't even counter them because they're not "Armored."
5. Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
I think the unit is way too versatile for a 100/100 unit at Hatch tech that can be spammed. There's no real downside to just mass producing them. Their ability scales very very well because like Disruptors when you have a high number of Ravagers you can always have the ability available to hit an area. They're really good at breaking defensive positions but also really good at defending against attacks. Their ability is just a bit too strong I think.
6. Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
I think the unit is too spammable. I think 100/100 for ONE ravager is fine, but as you start adding more and more they scale really well. I think the supply should be raised so that Zerg players can make fewer of them that early in the game.
7. Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
No. Given how early these things hit the battlefield they need some sort of weakness. We need to be able to fight them with something that we already have, rather than needing to tech to Tankivacs or Void Rays. Making them Armored would improve the efficiency of Marauders, Immortals, and Stalkers against them.
8. The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
It's fine.
9. Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
I envisioned a few of them helping out to break forcefields and perhaps force a Terran to unsiege from a position. But I didn't think that Zerg players would just be massing them. Right now the Ravager is an everything
10. Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
The ability is just too good right now. 60 SPLASH damage is a bit too much, honestly.
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
I think the Ravager shouldn't be as spammable in its current form. I'd increase the cost a little or maybe the supply to 4. If we want to keep spammable Ravagers, then the ability needs a serious nerf or a delay in when it hits the battlefield. I'd say move Corrosive bile to an upgrade or unlock it at Lair tech. Finally, I'd suggest changing its type to Armored.
The biggest issue is that Ravagers morph FROM Roaches, which are armored. So if they're going Roaches you need to prepare with units that are good vs. Armored. But if they suddenly morph all their Roaches into Ravagers, you're screwed. It only makes sense that Ravagers should be armored. I think that one needs to change ASAP.
Another possible change is change Corrosive Bile not to hit structures. That way they can't bust down both the wall AND the units behind it from 9 range... at Hatch tech.
TLDR; Corrosive bile hits the field too early given the counters available to it and how strong it is. Also, Ravagers need to be Armored because they morph from Roaches (which are Armored and require +damage to armor counters from T and P).
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
The ravager is a good one. Zerg desperately needed a way to break forcefields pre-lair tech. Far too many games have been decided due to a forcefield on the ramp and zerg basically forced to either sacrifice a base or even lose the game outright if the main was assaulted.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
TvZ absolutely, ZvZ less so, ZvP the unit can be a crucial one to ensure survival against forcefields.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
When a few corrosive biles are enough to severely weaken a bunker and even take out multiple SCV's repairing it, it is very strong. A few corrosive biles being able to take out liberators is incredibly strong as well.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I don't necessary have an issue with where the tech is positioned. I do like Zerg having the versatility they need as an early tech. I will add though that things have changed in LoTV where everyone is now on much closer footing in terms of tech at any given point in the game, where zerg could be 1 tech level behind due to needing to expand 1 base above the opponent.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Yes it has too many roles. If it is meant to be a siege unit/siegebreaker type, then yet having a decent regular attack is too much. It is too forgiving that a Zerg player can mass roaches, convert a slew of them all into ravagers and be OK. There is no real downside with the conversion, if anything it's an upside in too many respects.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
Cost is not the issue, 100/100 is fair.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Completely disagree. Unarmored means it's like an archon, but with no weaknesses to EMP. We basically have a unit which takes no extra damage against any source. That just isn't right. This is the reason why Ravagers are tough enough to tank some siege tank fire and yet let loose their corrosive bile attack to take out the tanks, but yet incur little to no losses. That does not seem right. They should have a weakness to something, either amor should be light(so if hellions close distance, that spells deep trouble) or back to armored.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
This is incredibly fast due to the sheer versatility of the unit, but morph time is not the true issue with the unit.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
It is both. I daresay it is 3 roles - support, siege, and damage.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
60 corrosive bile damage is really strong. This is the reason why you don't need very many ravagers to answer the situation. In fact the more the merrier.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
There needs to be some form of downside to morphing to the ravager, aside from the cost(cost is fine). A unit which has a competent regular attack as well as the corrosive bile(plus a range upgrade to 13!) is too much. I would like to see the regular attack removed outright, or lowered down to 6 damage. This makes the ravager morph far more of a strategic decision.
|
if ive missed the tech talk im sorry but these questions are quite moot considering WHY they were designed. Without them the liberator, and disruptor would just be impossible to tackle with the standard tech speed of zerg. Eg, liberators are way too fast to be in ur base doing their thing, their counter hydras/queens (given positioning options) and mutas arent really out fast enough and would cut so much more into the eco if you rushed them out . . .so the ravager is a NEEDED tool to keep this stuff back, but even then given a position theyll die anyway. The disruptor, although a late game unit really cannot be targetted realistically in a death ball, they hang around the back waiting, you cant get at them and with good protosses building enough to kind of cycle the attck . . .god its hard, the ravager again is needed to take advanage of that caught or stuck disruptor.
answering the questions briefly from my end though would be:
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
its a good uniot which gives options early game, keeping things fresh and a threat for everyone
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Very much so YES.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
forcefields yes, structures . .well dont get ganked if you waste it
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
roach warren is fine given the lib speed, gas is pretty hard very early game and any ravager rush is categorically all in
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
too many???? its only role imo is that its a offensive push unit. toss cant shield, terran cant rely on bunkers to mow down an attack considering both of them races can exploit early drop harass, zergs need to get in their base as well . .ravager!
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
its expensive no doubt, that much gas that early on delays a of of tech if you hold the key down. Ive straight up lost games making too many ravagers, their health is an issue and are torn apart by marines and stalkers
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
yes, not only doe it make their faster shots and bile a useful utility to be managed, its good you cant just use them as tanks, personally they could go even weaker health wise still and with its design, morphing into a non armored from an armored makes sense, kind of like a chrysalis
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
its a quick morph, i do agree but ive had 16 of them mowed down with stimmed marines before they hatched and could do anything useful.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
support, it cant really be siege the projectiles take too long and can be avoided and if you fire them all ur as good as dead, especially in zvz
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
its strong no doubt but past dia everyone seems to avoid it pretty easily anyway
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
so far the unit is quite needed given the pushes that the PT are doing, but for me an improvement could come in the form of an upgrade to make the bile hit faster. i mean it can be pretty expensive but when im in opps base with ravagers and the shots go down they move out of the way pretty easy if they arent a moving. A faster deploy may get the other races to spend a little bit more apm splitting and positioning without a moving in, seeing the bile marker and moving back for a sec, there needs to be a real threat that the zewrg may have this upgrade
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
