|
On April 18 2009 05:46 Last Romantic wrote:
New colossus is actually pretty solid.
Lack of randomness factor + reebohreebohreeboh means the old unit is still preferred from a spectator point of view, though.
Most people around here say randomness is bad for competitive play and therefore for the game as a spectator sport, but then other say that random things (like the retarded scarab AI) are what makes the game great as a spectator sport.
So, which one is it?
|
god damn he says reaver fast
|
colossus isnt an "innovative" units in terms of sc2, doesnt feel as deadly as reaver, comical comparable to that shit from hl2 and war of the worlds.
|
Imo the reaver is better than collosus because it requires alot more micro (loading and unloading reaver from shuttle + aiming scarabs vs just a moving into a clump of units with limited targeting) and might be more fun to watch. I won't know for sure until the game comes out but it seems that the reaver is the better unit.
|
On April 18 2009 06:23 CrimsonLotus wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2009 05:46 Last Romantic wrote:
New colossus is actually pretty solid.
Lack of randomness factor + reebohreebohreeboh means the old unit is still preferred from a spectator point of view, though. Most people around here say randomness is bad for competitive play and therefore for the game as a spectator sport, but then other say that random things (like the retarded scarab AI) are what makes the game great as a spectator sport. So, which one is it?
It's both. The retarded AI of scarabs means that you can micro away from them. It's not entirely "retarded ai" it's a combination of where the protoss decides to drop his reavers and at what angle the fleeing drones move toward. The paths can be gotten used to by the protoss as a shot from a particular point will take the same path if neither the reaver nor the target move.
If every single scarab was guaranteed to land then reavers would be used in 100% of protoss games because their cost would be justified in 2-3 scarabs.
|
I actually really like the colossus. While I think it's sad to see the reaver go, the colossus isn't really a bad replacement - it has a similar role but isn't as random, and it looks good to boot. There are far worse new units in terms of concept.
|
thanks for the feedback guys
In battle report 1 the colossus still deals 16 or so damage and it still sucks ass hard, they just buffed the attack recently.
I love both the reaver and the colossus and the reaver micro in the video is insane. However if you switched the reaver with the colossus it will fire far more shots due to its range and it can climb up the cliff at the top right or the bottom left side on the screen to dodge incoming fire.
What if the colossus shoot scarabs and can still climb cliffs
|
On April 18 2009 06:21 Aphelion wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2009 05:18 MoNSteR_K4iSeR wrote:
Price: Colossus wins over Reaver
Colossus wins because althought it cost 100 minerals and gas more then the reaver, it doesn't need to recharge its attach with additional recources . The fact that you harvest gas more rapidly in Starcraft 2 also kind of nullify the 100 additional gas you pay for the colossus.
This is an extremely negligible factor. The Colossus is definitely much more expensive. You do need to account for the shuttle cost (and subsequently greater micro possibilities and mobility) the reaver requires though. Also Colossus doesn't have this :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msSvZPZXwJU
Honestly I think that video is a bad example of what you're trying to make a point of. You'd get the same kind of reaction if say a colossus or 2 walk over a cliff into someones base and get within a foot or 2 of firing range of the other person's mineral line and the other person manages to move his workers away without getting hit and keeps his workers a foot or 2 of out firing range long enough for reinforcements to get to the defense and take down the colossus(s).
While were at it if the reaver was back in its a guarantee that all scarabs would be hitting with the starcraft 2 engine. So this would mean they would have to either spend alot of time trying to break the engine or nerf the reaver.
|
reebohreebohreebohreebohreebohreebohreebohreebohreeboh
|
Netherlands19130 Posts
On April 18 2009 05:46 Last Romantic wrote:
New colossus is actually pretty solid.
Lack of randomness factor + reebohreebohreeboh means the old unit is still preferred from a spectator point of view, though.
Yup Col vs Rvr Shuttle is just a huge gap in entertainment factor.
|
I think you underestimate the reavers durability. A reaver with a speed shuttle is insanely mobile and very hard to take down. Although the colossus has more hp and shields (specially after it's shield upgrade), it moves much slower than a reaver with a shuttle + it can be attacked by both ground AND air.
|
Good point Ra.Xor.2. However you can use the Colossus with the Warp Prism as well and the colossus no longer have the shield upgrade.
|
can't we have both? I really dont think it would be a big deal. I think some users would prefer to use the reaver and some the collossi, and some both. I dont see the problem.
|
A reaver in a shuttle would be able to kill a Colossus 1v1. Remember, reavers launch banelings. The Colossus just has a laser.
But on a side note, the way the SC2 is heading, I think the Blizzard is heading towards a fighting-game type intensity. With all the new mobility, and easier building and unit select, you will be able to attack and counter-attack so much faster in SC2, making it more like a fighting game in that the attack/counter-attack sequence happens much more quickly. I think I like it.
|
On April 18 2009 07:40 A3iL3r0n wrote:
A reaver in a shuttle would be able to kill a Colossus 1v1. Remember, reavers launch banelings. The Colossus just has a laser.
But on a side note, the way the SC2 is heading, I think the Blizzard is heading towards a fighting-game type intensity. With all the new mobility, and easier building and unit select, you will be able to attack and counter-attack so much faster in SC2, making it more like a fighting game in that the attack/counter-attack sequence happens much more quickly. I think I like it.
You use the word "fighting-game" and I get what you mean but it seem to me that you're actually describing a "strategy game". Just that it would be slightly less based on mechanics and more on mind and strategy (from what I understand). I kind of agree, I think some activity will shift from mechanics into strategy, and some activity will also shift from macro to micro (not sure if I like the latter, but I doubt it will be too drastic anyways, macro will still be a huge part).
|
I'm salivating over that 9 range.
|
Reaver is cool, but I think it was too effective.
|
On April 18 2009 08:11 Bosu wrote:
Reaver is cool, but I think it was too effective.
Watch some games where Much goes reaver.
|
how useful is a reaver going to be without shuttles?
|
In yellow vs sonkie, yellow uses collosus' like reavers. I saw a shitload of potential in the second game of that series and in the first battlereport...
I want a good game, but I don't want it to be a Broodwar expansion pack. Lets just hope they handle it as well as the devs handled BW.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
