• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EST 03:30
CET 09:30
KST 17:30
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
TL.net Map Contest #21: Winners11Intel X Team Liquid Seoul event: Showmatches and Meet the Pros10[ASL20] Finals Preview: Arrival13TL.net Map Contest #21: Voting12[ASL20] Ro4 Preview: Descent11
Community News
Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada1SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA5StarCraft, SC2, HotS, WC3, Returning to Blizzcon!45$5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship7[BSL21] RO32 Group Stage4
StarCraft 2
General
Christmas Outfit Collection 2025 – Celebrate the S SC: Evo Complete - Ranked Ladder OPEN ALPHA Weekly Cups (Nov 3-9): Clem Conquers in Canada Mech is the composition that needs teleportation t Craziest Micro Moments Of All Time?
Tourneys
Constellation Cup - Main Event - Stellar Fest Tenacious Turtle Tussle Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament $5,000+ WardiTV 2025 Championship Merivale 8 Open - LAN - Stellar Fest
Strategy
Custom Maps
Map Editor closed ?
External Content
Mutation # 499 Chilling Adaptation Mutation # 498 Wheel of Misfortune|Cradle of Death Mutation # 497 Battle Haredened Mutation # 496 Endless Infection
Brood War
General
FlaSh on: Biggest Problem With SnOw's Playstyle BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL20] Ask the mapmakers — Drop your questions Where's CardinalAllin/Jukado the mapmaker?
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [ASL20] Grand Finals [BSL21] RO32 Group A - Saturday 21:00 CET [BSL21] RO32 Group B - Sunday 21:00 CET
Strategy
Current Meta PvZ map balance How to stay on top of macro? Soma's 9 hatch build from ASL Game 2
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Should offensive tower rushing be viable in RTS games? Path of Exile Dawn of War IV
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Deck construction bug Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread SPIRED by.ASL Mafia {211640}
Community
General
Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Canadian Politics Mega-thread The Games Industry And ATVI
Fan Clubs
White-Ra Fan Club The herO Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[Manga] One Piece Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! Korean Music Discussion Series you have seen recently...
Sports
2024 - 2026 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion MLB/Baseball 2023 TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
SC2 Client Relocalization [Change SC2 Language] Linksys AE2500 USB WIFI keeps disconnecting Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Dyadica Gospel – a Pulp No…
Hildegard
Coffee x Performance in Espo…
TrAiDoS
Saturation point
Uldridge
DnB/metal remix FFO Mick Go…
ImbaTosS
Reality "theory" prov…
perfectspheres
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 1874 users

Call To Action: Balance Testing TvZ. - Page 21

Forum Index > SC2 General
1619 CommentsPost a Reply
Prev 1 19 20 21 22 23 81 Next
Neurosis
Profile Joined October 2010
United States893 Posts
August 09 2012 00:49 GMT
#401
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...
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
August 09 2012 00:49 GMT
#402
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?
Smoodish
Profile Joined April 2011
United States95 Posts
August 09 2012 00:52 GMT
#403
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.
ZeromuS
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada13389 Posts
August 09 2012 00:52 GMT
#404
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.
StrategyRTS forever | @ZeromuS_plays | www.twitch.tv/Zeromus_
GumBa
Profile Blog Joined July 2012
United Kingdom31935 Posts
August 09 2012 00:52 GMT
#405
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
To all the haters: you deserve to witness many, many more Serral victories, worthy of the godlike player he is.
iTzSnypah
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States1738 Posts
August 09 2012 00:54 GMT
#406
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!
Team Liquid needs more Terrans.
xTrim
Profile Joined April 2011
472 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 00:55:23
August 09 2012 00:55 GMT
#407
Than yoU!!!
the_business_og
Profile Joined April 2012
United States167 Posts
August 09 2012 00:55 GMT
#408
THANK THE LORD PLEASE PLEASE LET THIS GO THROUGH
shanti
Shiori
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
3815 Posts
August 09 2012 00:56 GMT
#409
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.
SolarJto
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States260 Posts
August 09 2012 00:56 GMT
#410
Yeah HSM should be messed around with. I would love to see it changed.
-University of New Mexico CSL Coordinator-
larse
Profile Blog Joined March 2012
1611 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 01:00:27
August 09 2012 00:59 GMT
#411
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
forsooth
Profile Joined February 2011
United States3648 Posts
August 09 2012 01:01 GMT
#412
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.
BlindKill
Profile Blog Joined July 2011
Australia1508 Posts
August 09 2012 01:02 GMT
#413
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
“Life is a grindstone, and whether it grinds a man down or polishes him up depends on the stuff he's made of.”
Trozz
Profile Blog Joined November 2008
Canada3455 Posts
August 09 2012 01:02 GMT
#414
Yay, a raven buff.
Good news for random players.
Terrans needed help.
A build is not a guess, an estimation or a hunch, a feeling, or a foolish intuition. A build is a dependable, unwavering, unarguably accurate, portrayer of your ambition.
ZeromuS
Profile Blog Joined October 2010
Canada13389 Posts
August 09 2012 01:05 GMT
#415
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.
StrategyRTS forever | @ZeromuS_plays | www.twitch.tv/Zeromus_
chuiboy
Profile Joined October 2011
55 Posts
August 09 2012 01:07 GMT
#416
Not a fan of the creep vision being decreased by 2 since it will affect every matchup for zerg. Like the raven changes though.
bellsNkeys
Profile Joined November 2011
United States52 Posts
August 09 2012 01:08 GMT
#417
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.
Dingobloo
Profile Blog Joined September 2010
Australia1903 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 01:12:48
August 09 2012 01:09 GMT
#418
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.
Scrubwave
Profile Joined July 2010
Poland1786 Posts
August 09 2012 01:10 GMT
#419
--- Nuked ---
TheDwf
Profile Joined November 2011
France19747 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-08-09 01:14:07
August 09 2012 01:12 GMT
#420
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.
Prev 1 19 20 21 22 23 81 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 30m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft: Brood War
Tasteless 332
Zeus 327
Free 90
ToSsGirL 41
Sharp 24
Stork 7
Dota 2
XaKoH 359
League of Legends
JimRising 522
Counter-Strike
shoxiejesuss369
allub238
Other Games
summit1g16263
ceh9366
Happy80
NeuroSwarm42
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick617
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 15 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH263
• LUISG 9
• Light_VIP 2
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Stunt803
Other Games
• Scarra1430
Upcoming Events
WardiTV Korean Royale
3h 30m
OSC
8h 30m
Replay Cast
14h 30m
Replay Cast
1d
Kung Fu Cup
1d 3h
Classic vs Solar
herO vs Cure
Reynor vs GuMiho
ByuN vs ShoWTimE
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
1d 14h
The PondCast
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
Solar vs Zoun
MaxPax vs Bunny
Kung Fu Cup
2 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
2 days
[ Show More ]
PiGosaur Monday
2 days
RSL Revival
3 days
Classic vs Creator
Cure vs TriGGeR
Kung Fu Cup
3 days
CranKy Ducklings
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
herO vs Gerald
ByuN vs SHIN
Kung Fu Cup
4 days
BSL 21
4 days
Tarson vs Julia
Doodle vs OldBoy
eOnzErG vs WolFix
StRyKeR vs Aeternum
Sparkling Tuna Cup
5 days
RSL Revival
5 days
Reynor vs sOs
Maru vs Ryung
Kung Fu Cup
5 days
WardiTV Korean Royale
5 days
BSL 21
5 days
JDConan vs Semih
Dragon vs Dienmax
Tech vs NewOcean
TerrOr vs Artosis
Wardi Open
6 days
Monday Night Weeklies
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-11-07
Stellar Fest: Constellation Cup
Eternal Conflict S1

Ongoing

C-Race Season 1
IPSL Winter 2025-26
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 4
SOOP Univ League 2025
YSL S2
BSL Season 21
IEM Chengdu 2025
PGL Masters Bucharest 2025
Thunderpick World Champ.
CS Asia Championships 2025
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual

Upcoming

SLON Tour Season 2
BSL 21 Non-Korean Championship
Acropolis #4
IPSL Spring 2026
HSC XXVIII
RSL Offline Finals
WardiTV 2025
RSL Revival: Season 3
META Madness #9
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026
BLAST Bounty Winter 2026: Closed Qualifier
eXTREMESLAND 2025
ESL Impact League Season 8
SL Budapest Major 2025
BLAST Rivals Fall 2025
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.