|
If you include your twitter with your replies, we can use it in shoutouts! |
On November 19 2015 11:11 Existor wrote:
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.
Umm It's called 'Corrosive Bile' and its an orange acid....
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I like it, I feel like it is good that Zerg FINALLY gets a non- A-move unit in the Ravager, it adds more micro and the battle becomes more interesting and unforgiving for both sides due to adding cyclones, Disruptors and Ravagers cuz one mis micro can KILL YOU
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
in ZvP yeah.
Not sure in other matchups though
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
This question is weird, cuz Terrans and Zergs can't use Forcefields.....
against toss, if you are already able to hit the buildings i feel like the forcefields are not really a problem for you anymore.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
maybe Lair? But I don't know, it feels like the ravager can come without warning and that is kind of not true given how strong they are that people will use them. It's just that people might not prepare them at one point in the game and that might lead to the Ravagers being 'OP' in battle, it really isn't though
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
No I think it fulfills just the amount of right roles.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
maybe change the cost to 175/50 just so it is more balanced out.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Well..... Logically..... NO!!!!
Big roaches, not armored? lol, interesting.
it gives too many resistances to the unit, most second-third stage units should be either light or armored (archons are countered by EMP and roaches)
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
I think it's fast, make it 12 seconds perhaps
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
Both, they have roles for both roles
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Well, after Diamond it is kinda better since players can micro better to dodge, so yeah.
Still maybe tone it down a bit, maybe by 5 damage?
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Back to armored, tone down Bile damage by maybe 5?, change the price and increase the morph time slightly. And give some form of warning like a really fast upgrade or maybe require the essence of two roaches to morph.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
The design is good, the unit looks nice and unique.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
All I can talk about it ZvP, it's either (too) good at allins, against airunits as well.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
It's good against both, however noone using FF anymore, corrosive bile has a bit too big damage, which makes this unit almost impossible to handle as Protoss if a 2 base Zerg allin occurs.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
Ravager should require Lair.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Yes, corrosive bile should not do damage to buildings.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
It should cost a little bit more gas in my opinion, should be around 100/125
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Disagree, should be armored, so marauders, immortals, stalkers could deal with them easier.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
Its perfect.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
Its both support and siege unit.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Yes, should reduce it by around 25 % I think.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
would nerf corrosive bile or would change it to a Lair Unit, because it's incredibly hard to deal with in the early game.
|
I think Corrosive Bile doing damage to buildings REALLY fucks over Terran because they can't even wall. You just need a 2-3 Ravagers to kill a supply depot and let all the lings in.
But eliminating their damage to buildings completely I don't think is the right answer because I like to see it used against Protoss players that are overly reliant on Pylon Overcharge.
Maybe a reasonable thing to do would be to require a Roach Warren morph? That way like every other morphing unit Zerg has you'd be able to scout for Ravagers.
|
I feel like this should have been done during the Beta, but anyway...
1- How do you feel about the Ravager design in general? I think it is an interesting design, but totally unnecessary. Zerg already has a squisher, longer range Roach with better DPS, the Hydralisk. The Kog Maw shot from LoL being brought over does add some cool micro opportunities, but I think it is too strong versus static defenses and breaking forcefields doesn't solve the problem of forcefields.
2- Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? It is very good in PvZ, I can say that from experience. It has an interest dynamic with the Liberator in TvZ (which it could also have with the Siege Tank). I can't say for ZvZ since I don't watch much of it. I'd imagine it would be good, but Mutas would counter them pretty hard.
3- Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Corrosive Bile is much better versus structures and static defense. Against units and forcefields it is also useful, but I like to use force fields to bait shots so they aren't hitting my Colossus. Unlike Roaches, Ravagers aren't as tanky so it is more difficult for them to rush in to kill a Colossus.
4- Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I think they are fine, maybe they should require a Lair depending on their strength.
5- Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
I think the range of Corrosive Bile is too long and that makes them too multi-faceted, I'll discuss that more in last question.
6- Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
It is fine if you nerf their range and make them armored.
7- Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
I disagree.
8- The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
That is fine.
9- Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
The Ravager should not be a Siege unit, Siege units are bad for Zerg given their dynamics.
10- Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
I don't think so if their range is reduced.
11- If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
First, I'd make them armored so Stalkers, Marauders, Siege Tanks and Immortals are better against them. Second, I'd reduce the range of Corrosive Bile to 6 or 7. I'd replace their upgrade. Third, I'd make them somewhat cheaper.
Long range Siege units are terrible for a swarm race. We already went through that with Broods in WOL and Swarm Hosts in HOTS. To fight the (potentially) swarming Zerg, Terran and Protoss have to pick their ground carefully and abuse chokes and positioning (and force fields). At the same time, Zerg wants to bait them into a fight on favorable ground where they can get a good surrounded or wait for them to over-extend (and Zerg spreads creep to increasingly make the map favorable if Terran or Protoss turtle too hard). Siege units make that far too easy for Zerg. In response, for balance purposes, you have to reduce the swarm power of the Zerg, so the race loses it uniqueness and identity.
We can understand that swarm design philosophy with how Zerg was originally conceived and it is why so many of their units are melee. It works better when that design philosophy is followed, and Siege units threaten that.
Giving Zerg a long range unit that can chip away at the other races forces the the other races to charge into the swarming race. It is just bad design. Lurkers are an exception because they have to burrow and stay burrowed to attack (and unlike Swarm Hosts don't burrow half way across the map for only a second or two to attack). Therefore you can play a positional game with them. If Ravagers had to burrow and stay burrowed until their shot landed, that could work.
Anyway, reducing their range to 6 means that Zerg has to make a commitment to using them, and opens them up to counter fire from Siege Tanks, Photon Cannons, ect... an interest dynamic might develop against Protoss where a bunch of Ravagers run into to launch their shots and then retreat, only to be forcefielded in, with no shots left to break out!
EDIT: Actually, given time to think about, reducing the range of Corrosive Bile might be enough alone, they might be ok not being armored. However, as Dinomight mentioned in another thread, if someone builds tons of Roaches and you build Immortals to counter, then you can get screwed if they make them into Ravager since they aren't armored. That is a bad mechanic.
|
I haven't played enough LotV to answer all the questions properly, however I would have three points which are relatively shallow but still important.
1) Like rest of the Zerg units it should be spine or acid-based. I know that Zerg is fire-friendly from Char but to a lot of people who play multiplayer and haven't played the campaign (like me until recently) it doesn't fit, with perception of Zerg being either slimy (Hydralisk) or dry (being easily bunt by Firebats/Helions) and rather afraid of fire. Among all other Zerg units the fire-based Ravager just stands out weirdly.
2) It simply looks silly, like a strange fat walking pot of gold. It it not as scary, quick alien-like unit as others. The way it walks on the thin legs supporting the fat body look like a caricature. I would be very happy if Blizzard offered new models, at least to choose from. Below are few examples of how Zerg units should look like I stumbled upon recently:
http://phill-art.deviantart.com/art/Zerg-Bane-Creeper-264239998
http://phill-art.deviantart.com/art/Zerg-Encroacher-331872662
http://phill-art.deviantart.com/art/Zerg-Blightling-339577279
3) The ability seems not to be thought through very deeply -- it really feels as if the process behind creating it was i) Zerg has problems with Force Fields, ii)Let's create ability ad hoc to counter them iii)Corrosive bile.
|
11. Swarm Host seems good for a siege unit of the swarm at a high tier, so why not take away Ravager's default attack (and it's world model's tail...) while making the corrosive bile deal slightly more damege against biological?
Just sayin
|
Are we witnessing the Warhound issue all over again, only with zerg this time.. Tier one no tech or upgrade time. If chosen you can pretty much have 4-5 besieging a protoss wall before warp tech is out. Which if they were armored stalkers could be ok for dealing with them. However they aren't, also used to break thru FF or walls to enter base you can find yourself against a swarm of speedlings. This unit creates too much potential for all in type strategies and should at least be held back to lair tech.
Side note I like something mentioned before about a CD on ability while forcefields cost mana. Protoss always pay cost vs other races free units * cough cough why am I still paying for interceptors.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
Feels odd to have a point-and-click high damage siege unit in the Zerg arsenal.
Zerg has always been about swarming the enemy and engaging in favorable positions.
Giving Zerg a mobile Siege Tank counters that design heavily.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Destroying Force Fields obviously gives it a place in PvZ. Sentry/Immortal is likely gone, especially since Ravagers are not counted as Armored. In TvZ I'm curious as to why Zerg needed yet another Siege Tank counter.
We already have Zergs spreading creep far better, regenerating Mutalisks (making it easier to pick off Tanks and regen any Marine fire) and ofcourse the Viper. No clue about ZvZ. I'm guessing it could work against Roach/Hydra by targetting the Hydralisks?
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Corrosive Bile is good vs. everything. 60 damage at 9 range (13 range with Liar upgrade) every 7 seconds, per Ravager.
That it can take out Force Fields would have been an interesting use if the damage and cooldown weren't so strong.
Bunkers and Sieged Tanks can't dodge the bile and at 60 damage each (per Ravager) I'd say the bile is currently strongest versus slow/immobile units.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
It can arrive at a time before decent counters come out and currently there isn't much you can scout for to try and identify it. The Roach Warren should have a morph, unlocked by getting a Lair.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Corrosive Bile in itself vs Air would be alright early game to aid Zerg's relatively weak early game AA.
Adding the ability to destroy Force Fields is still fine as well, but add to all that the raw damage, range and short cooldown and there are no downsides to getting a Ravager. If Terran gets Siege Tanks you have to babysit them. They have to anchor themselves to the ground to work. This counters their long range and splash damage. Ravagers have no such downsides.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
The cost is fine, if anything a decent gas intensive ground unit (that isn't an Infestor) for Zerg is a good thing.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Makes no sense when the unit can stay at range. It works for the Baneling morph because it is a low health melee unit.
The Ravager is neither and without the ability to tackle them quickly Zerg can just mass them and you won't kill them in time. That they have 25 less health doesn't matter when the lack of an Armored tag effectively 1.5/doubles their health against the regular Roach counters of Marauders and Stalkers. With their range and a wall of Roaches, just rushing up to them is very difficult, and if you do get close, they don't take any bonus damage.
Give it the armored tag back. The only other units that don't have Light or Armored tags are Archons and Ghosts, neither of them are as massable as early as Ravagers are.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
It's fine, the morph time itself isn't the issue, rather how early they can morph is.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
It's both. Corrosive Bile forces the opponent to be very careful and outright denies certain units such as Tanks and Liberators. This greatly supports the Zerg defensively. Offensively it can target defenses and pick off key units like any Siege unit.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
With the current cooldown of only 7 seconds, range 9 (13 with upgrade) and 60 damage? Yes.
Again, Ravagers are quite massable for a Zerg. It's not like Terran can rush out as many Tanks and have the same mobile strength. Any one reduction of range, damage or cooldown would be acceptable. I would prefer a cooldown increase so that the opponent can try and counter in the timing window after the first wave of Corrosive Biles have been used.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Add a morph for the Roach Warren, unlocked by getting a Lair.
This puts the Ravager on a higher tier tech so more acceptable counters can be ready by the time it emerges and it provides the opponent something to scout for.
Add an Armored tag for the Ravager
Currently trying to mass anti-Armored units hoping to stave off the Roach/Ravager army falls short because the Ravagers don't take any bonus damage. They can throw out their biles, take a few shots and walk right back in.
Siege units need to be vulnerable and fragile. Colossi are easily swarmed and can be hit by air, Tanks are immobile and deal friendly fire damage. Ravagers need a weakness.
Increase cooldown for Corrosive Bile
As mentioned above, this provides a timing window where the opponent can try and counter the situation whilst Corrosive Bile is on cooldown.
|
On November 20 2015 07:45 BronzeKnee wrote:
if someone builds tons of Roaches and you build Immortals to counter, then you can get screwed if they make them into Ravager since they aren't armored. That is a bad mechanic.
That's a general issue with morphs though, since not only are you getting a new unit, you're also losing an old unit. It's replacement rather than addition and it nullifies some attempts at counter play like you said. However, I don't know if it has to be problematic since morphing ravagers requires gas and army commitment and therefore can't easily be done en masse and there will typically be roaches left for your immortals to kill.
|
On November 19 2015 23:43 scViS wrote:
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
viable
I think hard-counters are terrible game design, I hope as a whole the game stays further and further away from them.
They eliminate the need for micro because the units are so good you don't have to do anything more than make them against a certain other unit.
Soft-counters are much better design, find some way to make certain units better against them, but not hard-counter them.
Maybe its still to early to say, but I think ravagers could be fine against toss without being able to destroy ff's. I thought the point of CB was to shoot over the force fields, not destroy them 0_0
Ps. if you make them armored and 10 more hp than a roach, you will just make the game that much more of a landslide if they don't get scouted or you couldn't make the hard-counter in time. Basically they hard counter everything else that much more, which makes for terrible games.
Ps. Ps. "rock, paper, scissors" was a terrible game 0_0
I would like to see them leave the game alone for some time, it's too early to say about these things. I don't see protoss doing that poorly.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
Horrible unit and there are little to no disadvantages to the unit.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
Current design is already way too alround, so it has be altered if it wont be used in certain matches.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
it's good vs everything due the damage it does.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
Zerg can get them a bit too fast.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
yes, too versatile, long range, short range, everything does an incredible amount of damage.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
100/125 would be a better cost.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
I agree, otherwise it would be even harder to kill them.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
Its too fast, 14/15 seconds is.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
Its both atm, thats the problem.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Its way too much in current form.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
More expensive, make it move slower. Insert a bigger delay for a siege shot.
|
Let's just say that I've watched quite a few tournaments by now and think that Ravagers are in a good place
Perhaps they come out a bit too early in the game, but nothing about the unit itself indicating that is wrong with IMO
About the "switch to light" sounds OK, but also sounds "weird solution" if anything - sounds like a sort of "compensation" so ZvZ would be little bit more than RR plays (by maybe introducing something like Baneling flanks against them) but thing about that is - makes other matchups more weird and/or less-effective
I mean fact is that Zerg seems to have unleashed it's full fury (and glory :D), but there is A LOT of tech that other races haven't even tried yet, thinking about Cyclone/Hellion/Hellbat plays from Terran and Oracle mines openers from Protoss as well
And if anything - seems that Disruptors should have a 0.25 sec. delay between able to control and detonation so not all disruptor shots can be perfect as already are, but guess that's a story for another day
In other words - don't think it's "purely" ravager's fault that there are lots of them made nearly every game 
|
Maybe it should be tweaked a little bit but it's a good unit that finally gives zerg the ability to attack other races.
|
Brazil255 Posts
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I think it is amazing. It feels very zergy to just spit your bowels into everything and dissolve it
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
It is vital against protoss, good vs bio due to the splash
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Due to the splash damage, it is better versus units. Its ability to destroy a forcefield feels too much like trying to kill a fly with a howitzer, but it works.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I think a short lair-tech upgrade should be required
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Yes! It is an offensive unit, a tactical unit and a zoning unit. I think it should be just support, like a sentry
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
It is good, maybe raise it to 125/100
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Absolutely. now they are not as much spammable as before
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
IMO it is too fast, maybe raise it to 11
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
I see it as a space control support unit that induces the opposition to attack from different angles
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
No, it gives versatility to the bile shot
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Would move it to lair tech and increase the morph time, since it is very powerful early on
|
On November 22 2015 01:27 PinoKotsBeer wrote:
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
I agree, otherwise it would be even harder to kill them.
On November 23 2015 19:30 halomonian wrote:
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Absolutely. now they are not as much spammable as before
You guys do realize that it still has the same amount of armor as the roach it came from, right? It only loses its "Armored" unit quality, which actually makes it harder to kill, not easier.
|
On November 23 2015 08:50 Nerchio wrote:
Maybe it should be tweaked a little bit but it's a good unit that finally gives zerg the ability to attack other races.
I feel the same. Reducing structure damage on corrosive bile to 30 or 20 would be most likely be enough.
|
I like the unit. My only fear is the synergy between fungal growth and corrosive bile.
|
Lol thanks for the shout out on Twitter TL.
Maybe it should be tweaked a little bit but it's a good unit that finally gives zerg the ability to attack other races.
I think you mean *cheese* other races. Zerg has always been able to attack, just not up ramps/into walls (which is typically why you see them attacking the 3rd as soon as the opponent tries to take it).
Ravagers give Zerg a way to be aggressive against players who are walling, but walling is also the only way to defend against the early game Swarming that Zerg is capable of (by not needing any infrastructure) before the other races can amass units. So it's a bit problematic....
They're like Swarm Hosts that arrive at Hatch tech. Zerg siege units just can't arrive that quickly.
On November 23 2015 23:31 royalroadweed wrote:
I like the unit. My only fear is the synergy between fungal growth and corrosive bile.
You should be more afraid of the synergy between corrosive bile and corrosive bile 
Seriously, the more you have of them the better their ability scales. On certain maps you can trap the other races in their main an contain them to 2 bases forever. With enough corrosive bile they just can't charge down a ramp without massive losses.
Did this on Dusk Towers yesterday vs a Toss. Sat outside their main ramp with Ravagers then double expanded and went Muta.
|
I've been doing ravager / ling timings against Terran. Works against 3CC / hellion/ air very well, like instant win. 3CC bio bunkers stop it. Tank stops it. Early game I don't think it's a problem, just gota play less greedy if you scout gas... get a tank or go bio.
PvZ photon overcharge stops it. Vs. Nexus 1st haven't experimented much with ravager, havent seen many forge expands but thats not a big problem, gateway nexus works if you get MC out the pylon is very strong, a few pylons should hold. Midgame maybe some ling bane ravager play is possible, still alot of room to experiment there.
Haven't found them very useful in the midgame or lategame except in ZvZ, where they can be especially strong in roach vs. roach especially combined with infestor.
Useful if you get cannon rushed in some situations.
Probably will prove to be useful with fungal, still alot of room to experiment there.
That's about all I know
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
