|
On October 17 2013 14:47 padfoota wrote:
Bunch of you guys completely forgot Bomber's usage of ravens when it first got patched.
The fact that you people still assume korean pros dont try different strategies is rather condescending imo.
Thats how I felt that statement comes off.... a lot of top korean pros try new strategies all the time to generalize they all copy each other is very condescending when the reality is that MOST foreigners just copy Top Korean Pro players blindly seeing them as the bible for basic play and only seeing a strat viable when a Top Korean player does it LOL
|
Why aren't Ravens used?
1. Because after you shoot off your PDD, it gets feedbacked by HTs or the mutas fly somewhere else.
2. When you shoot your Seeker Missile, they move that one unit away (or more likely, try to and take non-substantial splash damage because one seeker missile doesn't really do that much)
3. Auto turrets are terrible.
Why would any Terran build a flimsy unit that rarely ever has a useful effect. After you cast your mana-crippling spell it's a flying paperweight.
None of it's abilities are even worth the APM to move around my add-ons.
|
Science vessel much? Much much?.....
|
On October 17 2013 23:48 Durp wrote:
Why aren't Ravens used?
1. Because after you shoot off your PDD, it gets feedbacked by HTs or the mutas fly somewhere else.
2. When you shoot your Seeker Missile, they move that one unit away (or more likely, try to and take non-substantial splash damage because one seeker missile doesn't really do that much)
3. Auto turrets are terrible.
Why would any Terran build a flimsy unit that rarely ever has a useful effect. After you cast your mana-crippling spell it's a flying paperweight.
None of it's abilities are even worth the APM to move around my add-ons.
With point two I would more say the issue is if you really go heavy on ravens and cost a whole bunch of seekers, they simply move their entire army back, no micro required. And risk two is fast targets can also dive into your army, with the seekers following them and killing your own army.
Their damage isn't bad, as long as it is used on targets which are vulnerable to AOE damage. For example against stacked voids, or just in general a clumped ground army.
At the same time I remember a game vs a toss. I had won it, and one of the last things he had were 6 tempests, I had raven squad near there (and main army bit further), and half for fun I used all their energy on a load of seekers. Enemy gg'd immediatly, but waited to see what would happen. He was kinda surprised when not a single tempest died.
|
On October 18 2013 01:12 Sissors wrote:Show nested quote +On October 17 2013 23:48 Durp wrote:
Why aren't Ravens used?
1. Because after you shoot off your PDD, it gets feedbacked by HTs or the mutas fly somewhere else.
2. When you shoot your Seeker Missile, they move that one unit away (or more likely, try to and take non-substantial splash damage because one seeker missile doesn't really do that much)
3. Auto turrets are terrible.
Why would any Terran build a flimsy unit that rarely ever has a useful effect. After you cast your mana-crippling spell it's a flying paperweight.
None of it's abilities are even worth the APM to move around my add-ons. With point two I would more say the issue is if you really go heavy on ravens and cost a whole bunch of seekers, they simply move their entire army back, no micro required. And risk two is fast targets can also dive into your army, with the seekers following them and killing your own army. Their damage isn't bad, as long as it is used on targets which are vulnerable to AOE damage. For example against stacked voids, or just in general a clumped ground army. At the same time I remember a game vs a toss. I had won it, and one of the last things he had were 6 tempests, I had raven squad near there (and main army bit further), and half for fun I used all their energy on a load of seekers. Enemy gg'd immediately, but waited to see what would happen. He was kinda surprised when not a single tempest died.
You can't really dive someone with a sm tagged unless its something that moves really quickly, in which case it's a bit of a waste to be sm'ing it in the first place(marine, stalker, ling, hellion etc.)
SM are good against anything stacked, but only flying units and workers can really do that and stacked !=clumped. You have too much time to react to the sm for it to really punish someone for clumping, at least to the extent banelings and fungal do to bio.
|
seeker missile and yamato cannon are also the only spells which deal direct and full damage. Storm is a dot - can deal anywhere from 0 - 80 damage, depending on how slow you are. Fungal isnt so much a DPS spell, its more useful for the lockdown.
Seeker missile will ALWAYS deal all the damage, or No damage - making it hard to balance. if you dont give players that chance to evade its strongly OP, if they can evade fairly easily it goes to useless once players know how.
my fix would be to launch hunter seekers faster, yet they deal reduced damage if they further they are away from the raven, down to 0 if they get too far away.
|
United Kingdom12027 Posts
On October 16 2013 08:55 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 16 2013 07:13 Doc Brawler wrote:
PDD might protect mines from getting one shotted from a muta-overseer cloud... Muta cloud will simply find another target to engage. It's good if you're pushing the Zerg into their base and they're forced to engage in PDD range. Overseer speedbuff has made mutas very mobile while being safe in TvZ. Before, they risked getting sniped by widowmines. /edit Ravens are good on ladder where most players don't expect it. Good luck using it in a match against pro Koreans.
Ps. Avilo I'm a fan but I disagree on Ravens. You speak of Korean Terrans just copying builds but at the same time, top foreign Terrans are not utilizing ravens either.
because all of them just copy what the koreans are doing haha.
|
The raven has a lot of utillity, the problem is that the points in the game where it would be most useful, its not really available. Id love a raven to clear creep, or to find hard to spot observers. As a drop escort you could also use its spells in support, the TL requirement is just too much. And if they insist on tl then reduce build time so the starport isnt tied up as long.
|
I would really like to know why they changed the missile mechanic. I remember being dumbfounded, yet virtually nobody else seemed to care. It adds more depth to the ability while making it a LOT more dangerous, and it doesn't look stupid, either.
David stated that they wanted to increase the range of Hunter-Seeker Missiles, but couldn't they have simply changed a single number in the editor from 6 to 9?
What's even more bizzare, was that Hunter-Seeker Missiles used to be Range 9 in the WoL beta (patch 11).
|
A longer range on it would be amazing esp in tvp as there would be less risk of feedback. from my experience, the hardest part of using ravens in tvp is making sure they dont get feedbacked all the time. I like hsm with the splash dmg as it allows players who play mech to deal with mass void rays quite easily when supported with a couple of thors and we already have yamato for high single target damage. Also it works very well against the naturally clumped deathball style protoss like to use.
|
I'd like to echo the idea that some people have already brought up, that the Seeker Missile is much too all or nothing in terms of damage. Terran has no real AoE damage spell, which makes life hard against swarms of zerg ground units and flocks of mutas (AoE 'damage' against P comes from EMP which doesn't translate to Z), which is why a mine nerf seems so terrible to Ts.
Perhaps the problem is that they are designing SMs with the old "Hunter-Seeker" name in mind. Instead of it being just a 'unit targeted' spell, what if there were a second option to make it a 'fly to targeted location' spell. Reduced/no charge up time, no single target damage and better AoE damage (for both).
This way there is more versatility and options, multiple targeted SMs for the situations we've seen them used in so far, and the second option to control space, force/deny engagements or do some guaranteed damage.
A longer cast range and faster raven would make SMs, and therefore, the Raven a more attractive choice.
|
On October 18 2013 23:23 TMStarcraft wrote:
I'd like to echo the idea that some people have already brought up, that the Seeker Missile is much too all or nothing in terms of damage. Terran has no real AoE damage spell, which makes life hard against swarms of zerg ground units and flocks of mutas (AoE 'damage' against P comes from EMP which doesn't translate to Z), which is why a mine nerf seems so terrible to Ts.
Perhaps the problem is that they are designing SMs with the old "Hunter-Seeker" name in mind. Instead of it being just a 'unit targeted' spell, what if there were a second option to make it a 'fly to targeted location' spell. Reduced/no charge up time, no single target damage and better AoE damage (for both).
This way there is more versatility and options, multiple targeted SMs for the situations we've seen them used in so far, and the second option to control space, force/deny engagements or do some guaranteed damage.
A longer cast range and faster raven would make SMs, and therefore, the Raven a more attractive choice.
Terrans don't have a shortage of AoE. Tanks, thors, mines, hellions ghosts(vs shields) and the seeker missile.
|
i think they're worth it just for pdd... seeker missile is an added bonus, if the opportunity presents itself.
ultralisks? use buildings.
|
On October 19 2013 01:38 MstrJinbo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 18 2013 23:23 TMStarcraft wrote:
I'd like to echo the idea that some people have already brought up, that the Seeker Missile is much too all or nothing in terms of damage. Terran has no real AoE damage spell, which makes life hard against swarms of zerg ground units and flocks of mutas (AoE 'damage' against P comes from EMP which doesn't translate to Z), which is why a mine nerf seems so terrible to Ts.
Perhaps the problem is that they are designing SMs with the old "Hunter-Seeker" name in mind. Instead of it being just a 'unit targeted' spell, what if there were a second option to make it a 'fly to targeted location' spell. Reduced/no charge up time, no single target damage and better AoE damage (for both).
This way there is more versatility and options, multiple targeted SMs for the situations we've seen them used in so far, and the second option to control space, force/deny engagements or do some guaranteed damage.
A longer cast range and faster raven would make SMs, and therefore, the Raven a more attractive choice. Terrans don't have a shortage of AoE. Tanks, thors, mines, hellions ghosts(vs shields) and the seeker missile.
Yes but tanks are terrible, thors are easily magic boxed, hellions are great, so are mines (possibly nerfed soon), ghosts are P only, and the seeker missile is not effective enough to warrant building the raven. A cast-able AoE damage spell usable across all match ups would possibly make it a more viable choice.
So Ts have only two real viable AoE units atm, which is why we see them all the time. I do like thors thrown in with bio mid-late TvZ though, they seem more effective.
|
On October 19 2013 07:41 TMStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2013 01:38 MstrJinbo wrote:On October 18 2013 23:23 TMStarcraft wrote:
I'd like to echo the idea that some people have already brought up, that the Seeker Missile is much too all or nothing in terms of damage. Terran has no real AoE damage spell, which makes life hard against swarms of zerg ground units and flocks of mutas (AoE 'damage' against P comes from EMP which doesn't translate to Z), which is why a mine nerf seems so terrible to Ts.
Perhaps the problem is that they are designing SMs with the old "Hunter-Seeker" name in mind. Instead of it being just a 'unit targeted' spell, what if there were a second option to make it a 'fly to targeted location' spell. Reduced/no charge up time, no single target damage and better AoE damage (for both).
This way there is more versatility and options, multiple targeted SMs for the situations we've seen them used in so far, and the second option to control space, force/deny engagements or do some guaranteed damage.
A longer cast range and faster raven would make SMs, and therefore, the Raven a more attractive choice. Terrans don't have a shortage of AoE. Tanks, thors, mines, hellions ghosts(vs shields) and the seeker missile. Yes but tanks are terrible, thors are easily magic boxed, hellions are great, so are mines (possibly nerfed soon), ghosts are P only, and the seeker missile is not effective enough to warrant building the raven. A cast-able AoE damage spell usable across all match ups would possibly make it a more viable choice. So Ts have only two real viable AoE units atm, which is why we see them all the time. I do like thors thrown in with bio mid-late TvZ though, they seem more effective.
I do incorporate thors in my 4M. Keeping the techlab on my factory after getting drilling claw upgrades and making thors out of them. I use a medivac to boost them around and it's hilariously fun when I catch enemy mutas off guard. My goal is to boost around enough thors to 1 shot a clump of mutas lol.
|
Buffing ravens seem very dangerous I think, they can very easily become the new WoL infestor. Mass ravens (+mech/bio/air) is already extremely powerful, but of course it is an extremely hard transition to make.
|
On October 20 2013 00:49 Slydie wrote:
Buffing ravens seem very dangerous I think, they can very easily become the new WoL infestor. Mass ravens (+mech/bio/air) is already extremely powerful, but of course it is an extremely hard transition to make.
Mech + bio + air is imaginary. Just basic reality - upgrades 3 ways will take extremely long, unless playing super duper greedy and ignoring army size in favour of tech and econ; which is suicide at the top level.
'Extremely hard' must be euphemism for impossible - as it is in some cultures. Not advocating for raven buff by the way. I think Widow Mines are plenty AoE damage at the moment in TvZ, emp in TvP, seige tanks in TvT.
|
On October 20 2013 00:49 Slydie wrote:
Buffing ravens seem very dangerous I think, they can very easily become the new WoL infestor. Mass ravens (+mech/bio/air) is already extremely powerful, but of course it is an extremely hard transition to make.
would be nice if terran had more options of splash .. like in tvz they can choose between bio-mine/bio-tank/bio-raven would be awesome .. but thats just my thoughts ..
|
I can never seem to make Ravens work vs an equally toss or zerg. Either they move away from the seeker or just split and let it hit the isolated unit. Some opponents will even pick up the targeted unit and drop it somewhere else in order to make the missile hit empty space.
PDD is only useful vs stalkers or vikings, i find. So they might have a place in mech tvp, but then again, HTs are so good vs ravens and can snipe the PDD too.
Auto turrets are only good for harass...
In TvT though, HSM is great because tanks are a guaranteed target, and PDD is critical in viking fights.
|
On October 20 2013 18:17 Zahir wrote:
I can never seem to make Ravens work vs an equally toss or zerg. Either they move away from the seeker or just split and let it hit the isolated unit. Some opponents will even pick up the targeted unit and drop it somewhere else in order to make the missile hit empty space.
PDD is only useful vs stalkers or vikings, i find. So they might have a place in mech tvp, but then again, HTs are so good vs ravens and can snipe the PDD too.
Auto turrets are only good for harass...
In TvT though, HSM is great because tanks are a guaranteed target, and PDD is critical in viking fights.
how about HSM is tvp ? does it work
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
