|
On August 09 2012 09:46 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:42 SugoZerg wrote: They should try to reduce the area of scans, maybe terran will make some raven for detection. With one scan, you can get ride of 2screens of creep tumors, it's too effective and there's no use for a raven at all... Even in TvP or TvT, terran rely on scans not on raven when it comes to detection. Nerf tumors, Nerf scan and buff ravens so it will become usefull. You're aware that scans are not only needed for detection, but also for vision so that Terran armies don't get instantly surrounded and caught unsieged by 6,11 movespeed Zerglings?
And for desperation scouting...
|
On August 09 2012 09:38 larse wrote: OK. Most people that advocate a drastic buff to raven's seeker missile forget the point that seeker missile is a very very different spell from other AOE damage spells.
The fundamental difference is that seeker missile is an instant damage while the other two main AOE damage spells--fungal growth and storm--do their damage over 4 seconds. Because they are doing damage over 4 seconds, their "DPS" is much much lower than instant damage spell such as seeker missile and EMP. For example, fungal growth's damage is 30 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 7.5 for each unit. Storm's damage is 80 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 20 for each unit. But because seeker missile does an instant 100 damage, its DPS is 100 for the central units, 75 for more closed units, and 50 for less closed units. So its DPS is much much higher than storm and fungal. This is why when Blizzard designs it, there are so many requirements for this spell--research, 125 energy cost, and a very slow projectile.
If the seeker missile's energy cost is reduce to 100, or its research is removed, it will be very very OP.
The reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be focused on the costs of getting seeker missile, but not some direct buffs. Therefore, some reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be:
1. Raven energy research cost reduced to 100/100, down from 150/150. Research time reduced to 80, down from 110. (Infestor's energy research time is 80) 2. Durable Materials reserach removed. The duration of Auto-Turrets and Point Defense Drones is now 240 seconds (up from 180 seconds), and the duration of the Seeker Missile is now 20 Seconds (up from 15 seconds). So you think that having a reasonably stronger DPS accounts for:
1) HSM having shorter range than Fungal/EMP/Storm 2) HSM being easier to dodge than Fungal/EMP/Storm 3) HSM requiring research 4) HSM requiring 125 energy 5) HSM being attached to a unit that costs much more than the units which cast Storm/EMP/Fungal
Seems a bit much to sacrifice for a stronger AoE, don't you think? 1 decent advantage and then 5+ horrible disadvantages to compensate?
|
On August 09 2012 09:03 Liquid`Jinro wrote: This is a really nice and measured patch I think, I'm impressed. I would consider having creep recede faster instead of spread slower, but I'm sure they considered both options.
I like this a lot eitherway.
Yea, for the longest time i thought the same for soo long. I hope they looked at both and picked the better of the two.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On August 09 2012 09:49 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:38 larse wrote: OK. Most people that advocate a drastic buff to raven's seeker missile forget the point that seeker missile is a very very different spell from other AOE damage spells.
The fundamental difference is that seeker missile is an instant damage while the other two main AOE damage spells--fungal growth and storm--do their damage over 4 seconds. Because they are doing damage over 4 seconds, their "DPS" is much much lower than instant damage spell such as seeker missile and EMP. For example, fungal growth's damage is 30 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 7.5 for each unit. Storm's damage is 80 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 20 for each unit. But because seeker missile does an instant 100 damage, its DPS is 100 for the central units, 75 for more closed units, and 50 for less closed units. So its DPS is much much higher than storm and fungal. This is why when Blizzard designs it, there are so many requirements for this spell--research, 125 energy cost, and a very slow projectile.
If the seeker missile's energy cost is reduce to 100, or its research is removed, it will be very very OP.
The reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be focused on the costs of getting seeker missile, but not some direct buffs. Therefore, some reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be:
1. Raven energy research cost reduced to 100/100, down from 150/150. Research time reduced to 80, down from 110. (Infestor's energy research time is 80) 2. Durable Materials reserach removed. The duration of Auto-Turrets and Point Defense Drones is now 240 seconds (up from 180 seconds), and the duration of the Seeker Missile is now 20 Seconds (up from 15 seconds). So you think that having a reasonably stronger DPS accounts for: 1) HSM having shorter range than Fungal/EMP/Storm 2) HSM being easier to dodge than Fungal/EMP/Storm 3) HSM requiring research 4) HSM requiring 125 energy 5) HSM being attached to a unit that costs much more than the units which cast Storm/EMP/Fungal Seems a bit much to sacrifice for a stronger AoE, don't you think? 1 decent advantage and then 5+ horrible disadvantages to compensate?
Storm needs research as well. The unit costs more because it does more than cast spells (it also is mobile detection)
As for easier to dodge and shorter range THAT is what is making it weaker. The energy and research are a result of early timings with rushing to HSM I am sure.
|
United Kingdom31935 Posts
Hmm tried it and like the new raven speed they always felt so slow and fragile. Looking forward to perhaps see more ravens in TvX
|
I don't think the movement buff will quite produce the effect Blizzard is looking for. I'm going to put my pixels on them increasing the casting distance of HSM before the Raven truly becomes a standard unit.
Oh and it's like the first time Terran isn't getting a nerf. A cause for celebration!
|
|
THANK THE LORD PLEASE PLEASE LET THIS GO THROUGH
|
On August 09 2012 09:52 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:49 Shiori wrote:On August 09 2012 09:38 larse wrote: OK. Most people that advocate a drastic buff to raven's seeker missile forget the point that seeker missile is a very very different spell from other AOE damage spells.
The fundamental difference is that seeker missile is an instant damage while the other two main AOE damage spells--fungal growth and storm--do their damage over 4 seconds. Because they are doing damage over 4 seconds, their "DPS" is much much lower than instant damage spell such as seeker missile and EMP. For example, fungal growth's damage is 30 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 7.5 for each unit. Storm's damage is 80 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 20 for each unit. But because seeker missile does an instant 100 damage, its DPS is 100 for the central units, 75 for more closed units, and 50 for less closed units. So its DPS is much much higher than storm and fungal. This is why when Blizzard designs it, there are so many requirements for this spell--research, 125 energy cost, and a very slow projectile.
If the seeker missile's energy cost is reduce to 100, or its research is removed, it will be very very OP.
The reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be focused on the costs of getting seeker missile, but not some direct buffs. Therefore, some reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be:
1. Raven energy research cost reduced to 100/100, down from 150/150. Research time reduced to 80, down from 110. (Infestor's energy research time is 80) 2. Durable Materials reserach removed. The duration of Auto-Turrets and Point Defense Drones is now 240 seconds (up from 180 seconds), and the duration of the Seeker Missile is now 20 Seconds (up from 15 seconds). So you think that having a reasonably stronger DPS accounts for: 1) HSM having shorter range than Fungal/EMP/Storm 2) HSM being easier to dodge than Fungal/EMP/Storm 3) HSM requiring research 4) HSM requiring 125 energy 5) HSM being attached to a unit that costs much more than the units which cast Storm/EMP/Fungal Seems a bit much to sacrifice for a stronger AoE, don't you think? 1 decent advantage and then 5+ horrible disadvantages to compensate? Storm needs research as well. The unit costs more because it does more than cast spells (it also is mobile detection) As for easier to dodge and shorter range THAT is what is making it weaker. The energy and research are a result of early timings with rushing to HSM I am sure. I don't disagree, but what I'm saying is that the Raven has horrible disadvantages compared to HTs/Ghosts/Infestors, even if you factor in its detection. Just as a tech choice it's significantly more prohibitive given the cost of a tech labbed Starport (both in the sense that this cuts into Medivac/Viking production and in the sense that Starports cost more than Barracks/Gateway). Everything about the Raven, aside from flying (not really relevant) detection (again, not actually that important by the time it comes out) and the strength of HSM's damage is weaker than the more standard casters. I don't think all these disadvantages are warranted by HSM being a strong spell when it hits. It's slapped with so many disadvantages already that I don't see why a unit which costs so much shouldn't be allowed to regularly do huge amounts of damage.
|
Yeah HSM should be messed around with. I would love to see it changed.
|
On August 09 2012 09:56 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:52 ZeromuS wrote:On August 09 2012 09:49 Shiori wrote:On August 09 2012 09:38 larse wrote: OK. Most people that advocate a drastic buff to raven's seeker missile forget the point that seeker missile is a very very different spell from other AOE damage spells.
The fundamental difference is that seeker missile is an instant damage while the other two main AOE damage spells--fungal growth and storm--do their damage over 4 seconds. Because they are doing damage over 4 seconds, their "DPS" is much much lower than instant damage spell such as seeker missile and EMP. For example, fungal growth's damage is 30 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 7.5 for each unit. Storm's damage is 80 for 4 seconds, so its DPS is 20 for each unit. But because seeker missile does an instant 100 damage, its DPS is 100 for the central units, 75 for more closed units, and 50 for less closed units. So its DPS is much much higher than storm and fungal. This is why when Blizzard designs it, there are so many requirements for this spell--research, 125 energy cost, and a very slow projectile.
If the seeker missile's energy cost is reduce to 100, or its research is removed, it will be very very OP.
The reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be focused on the costs of getting seeker missile, but not some direct buffs. Therefore, some reasonable buffs for seeker missile should be:
1. Raven energy research cost reduced to 100/100, down from 150/150. Research time reduced to 80, down from 110. (Infestor's energy research time is 80) 2. Durable Materials reserach removed. The duration of Auto-Turrets and Point Defense Drones is now 240 seconds (up from 180 seconds), and the duration of the Seeker Missile is now 20 Seconds (up from 15 seconds). So you think that having a reasonably stronger DPS accounts for: 1) HSM having shorter range than Fungal/EMP/Storm 2) HSM being easier to dodge than Fungal/EMP/Storm 3) HSM requiring research 4) HSM requiring 125 energy 5) HSM being attached to a unit that costs much more than the units which cast Storm/EMP/Fungal Seems a bit much to sacrifice for a stronger AoE, don't you think? 1 decent advantage and then 5+ horrible disadvantages to compensate? Storm needs research as well. The unit costs more because it does more than cast spells (it also is mobile detection) As for easier to dodge and shorter range THAT is what is making it weaker. The energy and research are a result of early timings with rushing to HSM I am sure. I don't disagree, but what I'm saying is that the Raven has horrible disadvantages compared to HTs/Ghosts/Infestors, even if you factor in its detection. Just as a tech choice it's significantly more prohibitive given the cost of a tech labbed Starport (both in the sense that this cuts into Medivac/Viking production and in the sense that Starports cost more than Barracks/Gateway). Everything about the Raven, aside from flying (not really relevant) detection (again, not actually that important by the time it comes out) and the strength of HSM's damage is weaker than the more standard casters. I don't think all these disadvantages are warranted by HSM being a strong spell when it hits. It's slapped with so many disadvantages already that I don't see why a unit which costs so much shouldn't be allowed to regularly do huge amounts of damage.
This is somewhat the design philosophy of Blizzard. Battlecruiser, costly and hard to get to, does not do huge amounts of damage. Carrier, costly and hard to get to, does not do huge amounts of damage. Thor, costly and hard to get to, does not do huge amounts of damage. Mothership, costly and hard to get to, does not do huge amounts of damage.
The only exceptions are Broodlord and Ultra, costly and hard to get to, DOES huge amounts of damage. LOL
|
On August 09 2012 09:42 SugoZerg wrote: They should try to reduce the area of scans, maybe terran will make some raven for detection. With one scan, you can get ride of 2screens of creep tumors, it's too effective and there's no use for a raven at all... Even in TvP or TvT, terran rely on scans not on raven when it comes to detection. Nerf tumors, Nerf scan and buff ravens so it will become usefull. Nope. Terran mobile detection isn't comparable to that of Zerg and Protoss. Ravens lack the speed of overseers and aren't permacloaked like observers, and they're much more expensive than both. Like the science vessel, the role they play is a high tech spellcasting support unit that happens to detect rather than a dedicated detection unit like the aforementioned Z/P units. Scanning is Terran's primary means of detection and scouting just like it was in BW.
|
HSM only works on slow units or bad players , rather get ravens for autoturrets now that they can outrun corruptors creep nerf is great news
|
Yay, a raven buff. Good news for random players. Terrans needed help.
|
Canada13379 Posts
On August 09 2012 10:01 forsooth wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 09:42 SugoZerg wrote: They should try to reduce the area of scans, maybe terran will make some raven for detection. With one scan, you can get ride of 2screens of creep tumors, it's too effective and there's no use for a raven at all... Even in TvP or TvT, terran rely on scans not on raven when it comes to detection. Nerf tumors, Nerf scan and buff ravens so it will become usefull. Nope. Terran mobile detection isn't comparable to that of Zerg and Protoss. Ravens lack the speed of overseers and aren't permacloaked like observers, and they're much more expensive than both. Like the science vessel, the role they play is a high tech spellcasting support unit that happens to detect rather than a dedicated detection unit like the aforementioned Z/P units. Scanning is Terran's primary means of detection and scouting just like it was in BW.
Agreed, however having it helps against creep, having it helps against a lot of stuff.
Honestly, its energy isn't used on a lot so 125 isn't horrible. Its speed and acceleration might be enough to help it out in terms of maneuverability and micro. With less creep spread in the early mid game you might be able to do more as well.
I think we should give it a chance. It isn't perfect, its not the silver bullet but between These changes and hopefully more ghost usage we can see some improvements.
|
Not a fan of the creep vision being decreased by 2 since it will affect every matchup for zerg. Like the raven changes though.
|
On August 09 2012 08:56 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 07:52 bellsNkeys wrote:On August 09 2012 06:21 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 06:18 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 06:12 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 06:08 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 06:03 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 05:58 ragz_gt wrote:On August 09 2012 05:52 Whitewing wrote:On August 09 2012 05:48 ragz_gt wrote: [quote]
The problem is that infestor is good against everything, and ghost is good against infestor. You can make 20 ghost to counter Zerg infestors, but what happens after infestors die? Terran can handle BL/Ultra army easily when there is no infestors, but that's also without Ghost totally kills the composition/DPS. Rest of zerg army sucks ass once the infestors are good, the infestors are literally the lynch-pin of the entire army. Take them out of the equation and everything starts falling apart. Ghosts also don't kill the composition/dps as badly as you think. Sure they aren't as high damage dealers, but they don't need to be, and you have more army supply anyway due to the mules. Plus, ghosts can still snipe, even though it does 20 less damage than it used to, after you take out the infestors, so it's not like they're completely worthless or anything after the infestors are dead. They still do 10/20(light) a pop + upgrades. You keep saying the infestor is good against everything, that's completely irrelevant, because your ghosts are stopping them entirely. It just doesn't matter what they are good against, because they're dead/useless with good ghost usage. Take ghosts and infestors completely out of the equation (assume they trade, not fair because ghosts still help after the infestors are gone but just imagine it): terran army vs. zerg army with no infestors. Terran army will win almost every time no problem. +3 Ghost DSP is 1/3 (2/3 against light) of +3 marine on a per supply bases, it's beyond bad. Terran army win will almost time against Zerg with no infestors, yes, but when you swap out 20 marine for 10 ghost (that's without considering resource/build cost), it's not on the same page. *rolls eyes* Are you seriously arguing that trading 20 marines for 10 ghosts to take out all of your opponents infestors is a bad deal for you, especially since, if you don't take out those infestors, they'll just kill your 20 marines easily anyway. No, I'm saying: Against a infestorless (especially roach based) army, ghost is pretty useless. Zerg can tech switch alot faster than Terran can. If Terran makes too many ghost compare to infestor, Zerg can just max out on roach and GG. Zerg don't have a problem of "making too many infestor", so they can arbitrary shift the infestor/ghost balance. This is compounded because Zerg can make 20 infestors at once, Terran can't make 20 ghost at once. It's like Colosus / Viking balance, except if P have 10 Robo bay built already. Okay, you try a max roach army against a marine/marauder/medivac/tank composition with 10-20 ghosts mixed in and see how that goes for you, especially since you have no roach attack upgrades. Hell, even give the terran supply tied up in some vikings, you'll get rolled hilariously easily. You're just making things up at this point, have you ever actually seen a high level zerg player switch to mass roach in the late game? Not pure roach, just the infestor supply worth of roach (or ultra, BL, or anything not infestor). Have you tried to engage a maxed out zerg army without infestor when you have a dozen ghost? It's literally like 1/3 of your supply just disappeared before engaging. Roaches aren't even a consideration, they're just BAD. And you're just making shit up at this point, I'm not discussing this with you anymore. Until you can figure out that 12 ghosts (24 supply) is not 1/3 of your army supply (if your army is a whopping 72 supply total, you've got other problems besides composition), trying to discuss anything with you is a waste of time. It kind of annoys me that ever since Zerg players found out the infestor was an amazing unit, all of a sudden everything else is bad. And when Terran found out that mass ghost late game TvZ was good it gets nerfed to hell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I checked Zerg players have won numerous tournaments and GSLs with muta/ling/bling in ZvT and there have been no significant Terran buff nor Zerg nerfs that affect the muta/ling/bling composition. My main issue with ghosts is that they're more situational whereas Z and P can blindly make infestors and sentries/HTs and it will always help them. The good thing is that Blizzard at least tried to give the Raven that role as well, but failed pretty hard at it. Terran players have gotten much better at defeating and defending muta/ling/bling play, and again, that's not an end-game composition, it's a mid-game strategy. If you're stuck in ling/bling/muta while terran is on a late game economy/tech level with good upgrades, you just lose. Infestors are straight up superior against terran in the mid-game for the most part, and are essential late game, because without them in your composition, you just straight up lose to terran end-game. Ghosts are designed to fit into the race. They are a purely support unit designed to negate essential units from other races so that the rest of the superior terran force can crush an enemy missing a required unit. The units fill different roles: Infestors are a lockdown/damage dealing/harass unit, high templar are a damage dealing/ weak caster negator, and ghosts are an excellent caster negater/harass unit.
I agree that Terran players have adapted against muta/ling/bling play, but same argument applies that pure marine-tank is a mid-game composition as well. I'd have to disagree that HTs are weak caster negators. Feedback is very powerful but toss would obviously rather use storms. Doesn't make them necessarily weak against casters.
And I don't buy that ghosts are just for support and were created purposely to negate other spellcasters. There was nobody saying that until the snipe nerf was applied. It was more of an excuse to make the nerf acceptable, but imo is pure bullshit.
|
Only part they always have to be weary of is the raven's potential as a harassment unit, it's the only caster that doesn't need drops to operate so they have to keep an eye on it's speed and range to make sure it's not just going to be nuking mineral lines from orbit.
Decent changes, I wish the synergy between the creep tumor sight range and it's creep spread range was a little stronger though.
|
|
On August 09 2012 10:05 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2012 10:01 forsooth wrote:On August 09 2012 09:42 SugoZerg wrote: They should try to reduce the area of scans, maybe terran will make some raven for detection. With one scan, you can get ride of 2screens of creep tumors, it's too effective and there's no use for a raven at all... Even in TvP or TvT, terran rely on scans not on raven when it comes to detection. Nerf tumors, Nerf scan and buff ravens so it will become usefull. Nope. Terran mobile detection isn't comparable to that of Zerg and Protoss. Ravens lack the speed of overseers and aren't permacloaked like observers, and they're much more expensive than both. Like the science vessel, the role they play is a high tech spellcasting support unit that happens to detect rather than a dedicated detection unit like the aforementioned Z/P units. Scanning is Terran's primary means of detection and scouting just like it was in BW. Agreed, however having it helps against creep, having it helps against a lot of stuff. Honestly, its energy isn't used on a lot so 125 isn't horrible. Having to wait 90 seconds (after energy upgrade, otherwise it's 135 seconds) to use the mediocre damage spell you want is horrible.
Edit for clarity—90 seconds after the Raven is complete.
|
|
|
|