That means it can kill groups of unupgraded drones, probes, marines, lings and much more in just one shot. Also if you have more then one colossus you can pretty much kill most of the meele units before they even reach the colossi, not to mention that most of the time you will have some kinds of meatshields such as zealots in from of the colossi. thus a fully upgraded colossus (range, armor, attack) with proper support will really be a beast on the battlefield.
Here is a comparison between the Colossus and the Reaver (note that is just my personal analysis, feel free to point out anything I forgot ).
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 attack 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.
Attack power: Reaver wins over Colossus
The reaver wins because as we know it has a ridiculous 100 normal attack per scarab shot compared to the Colossus' 45 per laser sweep, thus the reaver got the slight edge over the colossus. Although an upgraded reaver will deal the even more ridiculous 125 attack per scarab shot so the reaver definitely wins.
Attack Range: Draw between the Reaver and the Colossus
A reaver (range 8) outranged an unupgraded colossus(range 6) by 2. However a range upgraded colossus (range 9) outranged a reaver (range 8) by 1.
Durability: Colossus wins over the Reaver
The reaver is always the target of your opponent due to its high price, slow speed, and argurably low hitpoints. While the colossus is much more durable with its cliff climbing ability, medium speed, inherited 1 armor, and high hitpoints (150 shields and 200 hitpoints). In the original Starcraft reavers are often used with Shuttles to increase its speed and I believe that a Colossus/Warp Prism combo will be as scary as hell. Check out the Sonkie vs Yellow video were Yellow uses the Colossus as a reaver(the Colossus still have 18 attack at that time).(thanks to Mr.E by pointing this out)
This is the match that Yellow uses the colossus/warp prism like a reaver/shuttle (add &fmt=18 at the end of the url for HQ)
Looks like the Colossus had the slight edge over the Reaver imo due to its cliff climbing abilities, attack power, and durability. Maybe there will be Colossus/Phoenix strat similar to the Reaver/Sair combo in BW. We can only be sure when the beta comes out
Poll: Vote: Which one do you prefer, Reaver or Colossus? (Vote): Reaver (Vote): Colossus
its not just the reaver its the reaver + shuttle that makes the robotic slug such a fun unit, it's no contest the reaver will always be more awesome than the colossus no matter what:-D
In the first battle report the second the colossus was in range of the marauders they were vaporized after only getting off 1 or 2 shots. I didn't see it being any more durable than a reaver in SC1 if you assume that marauder dmg is similar to that of SC1 dragoon damage.
Seeing the reaver removed and replaced with a skilless unit is disappointing. One gripe most people have with toss is that they are 1a2a3a-easy, but units like HT, arbiter, and of course reavers change that. The colossus looks like a brainless A-move unit that can escape easily by going up and down cliffs and replaces one of the more technical units.
Despite being a terribly design choice (imo), i think it will be very powerful in the right hands.
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
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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.
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).
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.
When I played in Paris the Colossus took about 3x the zealot build time to make. I know reavers take a while but colossus is longer. Unless that changes I'm always going to prefer the 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.
THE VIDEO IS A GREAT EXAMPLE! You missed the point... it was the "reevahreevahreevahreevahreevahreevahreevah" that the commentator yelled at during the end that the poster was trying to point out. We won't have that type of voice with collosus.. it'll be like "collosus collosus"... which eh sucks compared to the great "reevahreevahreevah"... damn i can't even say it 3 times as fast as the commentator did.
I actually like the collosus and its design (despite everyone saying its from War of the Worlds), except the beam that it fires. The beam doesn't bring that same suspense or terror the blue scrab had. If the phase prism had speed upgrade I think that would make the collosus a better unit as in the video, I thought it moved pretty slow.
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.
THE VIDEO IS A GREAT EXAMPLE! You missed the point... it was the "reevahreevahreevahreevahreevahreevahreevah" that the commentator yelled at during the end that the poster was trying to point out. We won't have that type of voice with collosus.. it'll be like "collosus collosus"... which eh sucks compared to the great "reevahreevahreevah"... damn i can't even say it 3 times as fast as the commentator did.
I'm sorry, but that's stupid. First of all, would it even be "Colossus" in the Korean version? Second, are you positive they couldn't say it like that? And even if that was the main issue they could just change the name, right?
They should change the graphics to how they used to be. I like the shiny reaver more then the blurry colossus.
Although it is yet to be seen, I have a feeling that a colossus can be out micro'd and killed by a single marine in the same way that a lurker could in SC1. Its attack animation looks slow enough to continually step forward and back avoiding hits while attacking.
guys lets just wait till beta then unleash our opinions, it looks like it could be an exciting unit. Theorycrafting is isn't too accurate, we don't know what other glitches or bugs like dud scarab can come from this, don't be so quick deny changes.
On April 18 2009 05:49 Vasoline73 wrote: I just feel like one requires more micro and skill and the other is "A move, right click back to cliff, A move"
I'm sure we'll see some cool things with this unit, but not like the reaver. That's just my feeling
This way of thinking reaver requires attack target, back to shuttle, out of shuttle, attack target, so it's kinda bad feeling IMO.
IIRC lorewise reavers were mining robots remade to be war machines and protoss were never greedy race so they couldn't have so much mining robots to keep using them in war till SC2
But when the SC2 comes out we'll have real opportunity to see its usefulness ingame cause from what i remember we get to see reavers in campaign, right? Too bad Protoss campaign is gonna be last "part" of SC2 :/ But probably reavers will be available in map editor since Wings of Liberty
I heard that in very early builds of Starcraft 2, specifically before Blizzcon 2007, Blizzard had implemented reavers into the game. Just because I salivate at the thought of seeing a 3D version of the reaver, does anyone know where to find a video of such an early version of the game?
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.
There's a way to get rid of all the randomness while retaining the excitement factor!
Why not make the scarabs work like Hunter Seeker missile? They would be able to travel an equivalent of 1.5 of Reaver's range and then blow up without dealing any damage if they don't reach their target.
That way micro matters on both sides, there's no luck involved and the excitement is still there: will he react and escape in time? will he scatter his units properly?
On April 18 2009 17:21 latent wrote: I heard that in very early builds of Starcraft 2, specifically before Blizzcon 2007, Blizzard had implemented reavers into the game. Just because I salivate at the thought of seeing a 3D version of the reaver, does anyone know where to find a video of such an early version of the game?
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.
There's a way to get rid of all the randomness while retaining the excitement factor!
Why not make the scarabs work like Hunter Seeker missile? They would be able to travel an equivalent of 1.5 of Reaver's range and then blow up without dealing any damage if they don't reach their target.
That way micro matters on both sides, there's no luck involved and the excitement is still there: will he react and escape in time? will he scatter his units properly?
The actual idea behind the HS Missile ISN´T to dodge it for 15 seconds - you are supposed to guide it into the enemy ranks. In BR2 at about 16 Minutes in we see a Nighthawk destroy itself by dropping a HS right under itself - there was no Air Targeting Zerg unit at the time.
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.
There's a way to get rid of all the randomness while retaining the excitement factor!
Why not make the scarabs work like Hunter Seeker missile? They would be able to travel an equivalent of 1.5 of Reaver's range and then blow up without dealing any damage if they don't reach their target.
That way micro matters on both sides, there's no luck involved and the excitement is still there: will he react and escape in time? will he scatter his units properly?
The actual idea behind the HS Missile ISN´T to dodge it for 15 seconds - you are supposed to guide it into the enemy ranks. In BR2 at about 16 Minutes in we see a Nighthawk destroy itself by dropping a HS right under itself - there was no Air Targeting Zerg unit at the time.
Yeah, what's your point?
I'm talking about the fact that they can make scarabs work even with good pathing, not about the implications (since scarabs don't deal damage to friendly units, unless I'm mistaken).
Reaver was interesting because it was unique and required finese. It needed to be supported by a shuttle or it had no mobility, it had a very long reload time and cost money to fire meaning you had to select targets. And its high burst damage output meant it allowed for some really tense situations.
The collossus is just a generic unit that does good damage with the ability to scale cliffs. Maybe a change in how it attacks would be better to make it more unique.
the thing is, the point of starcraft 2 will be high ground/low ground battles. half the units are designed like that, the other half also has an option to do that with the helf of some other units etc etc. reaver is shuttle dependant to do the high/low ground switch, colossus isnt. i can see people having loads of fun with it
On April 18 2009 18:16 scwizard wrote: lol I can't believe I didn't know the phase canon could move until I saw that video.
They removed this ability Tempest's were pretty cool I wouldn't have minded losing the carrier for that...
Yeah, and I don't get why it's still called a phase canon since it can no longer phase in/out. Unless it's back to photon canon, they're just changing the name for the sake of novelty. Though, of course that's a very minor detail.
Despite the new colossus buff, and my numerous heart breaking sessions with reavers (both as terran and protoss), I still prefer reavers. The reaver was easily my favorite unit of SC, and the reason I played protoss for a while.
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
Watch that without sound and you have how exciting the reaver would seem in sc2 if it was a new unit.
New colossus damage looks awesome and just what they need!
I can really imagine them being the new reaver/lurker, in terms of the fact that they deal heavy aoe damage and force the opponent to micro against them. And how will the tech timing compare for colossus vs. marine combat shields?
I believe that the marines can get their combat shields before the colossus. It depends on the build order and we can't be sure till the beta came out.
Reavers (implicitly shuttle+reaver) were the single most exciting unit sc had, period. They were also one of the most original if not the most original units sc had. Zerglings have been done 100 times (any space shooter), lurkers, templar are kind of like wizards, etc. Archons are pretty unique, but kind of like supernatural beings. But a big mechanical slug that manufactures its own bombs? Never been done before.
The worst part is that the reaver could have been extended nicely into SC2 pretty easily. Just expand upon the concept. Why not have it manufacture little spy probes or defense turrets? Once you have a mobile factory you can do a lot of things. How about a mobile shield battery? that would have been cool. Or a mobile nexus/mineral collector? Maybe damaged units could be loaded inside of the reaver for a type of extremely expensive repair function (contrasting with the cheap repair of the terrans).
Instead we have a big walker that has an IK system. So a two fold disappointment is that we lost an original and exciting unit with a lot of potential for a somewhat uninspired unit.
The main thing I don't like about this reaver/collosus war is that the reaver was really a micro intensive unit, where I see the collosus as pretty much being an attack-move into the fight with no more microing than any other unit really.
On April 19 2009 17:10 fight_or_flight wrote: Reavers (implicitly shuttle+reaver) were the single most exciting unit sc had, period. They were also one of the most original if not the most original units sc had. Zerglings have been done 100 times (any space shooter), lurkers, templar are kind of like wizards, etc. Archons are pretty unique, but kind of like supernatural beings. But a big mechanical slug that manufactures its own bombs? Never been done before.
The worst part is that the reaver could have been extended nicely into SC2 pretty easily. Just expand upon the concept. Why not have it manufacture little spy probes or defense turrets? Once you have a mobile factory you can do a lot of things. How about a mobile shield battery? that would have been cool. Or a mobile nexus/mineral collector? Maybe damaged units could be loaded inside of the reaver for a type of extremely expensive repair function (contrasting with the cheap repair of the terrans).
Instead we have a big walker that has an IK system. So a two fold disappointment is that we lost an original and exciting unit with a lot of potential for a somewhat uninspired unit.
Or what about a reaver that could fly? Kinda like that goliath/wraith thing the terrens have. The new reaver cant attack in the air but it now has built in mobility.
On April 20 2009 16:04 InToTheWannaB wrote: Or what about a reaver that could fly? Kinda like that goliath/wraith thing the terrens have. The new reaver cant attack in the air but it now has built in mobility.
On April 20 2009 16:45 Klockan3 wrote: Guys, don't you see, they removed the reaver because its awesomeness would either have to be nerfed or it would outshine all the new stuff in sc2!
I don't mind taking out some units/adding new ones.. I don't exactly want BW with upgraded graphics. I think they've done an excellent job making it original and making it feel like a sequel.
I don't understand why they didn't put ravers and dragoons in They're Protoss trademark and probably the coolest units in all SC next to a siege tank, ghost, zergling and hydralisk.
I agree with everyone that has pointed out that the reaver was a very original and entertaining unit, while the colossus is a blatant copy of other units from shitty RTS games (C&C tripod anyone?). Tripod vs Caterpillar, Laser vs Scarabs, really I cant understand why interesting concepts had to go for boring shit that has been done a million times...
Yeah I agree. The Colossus is such a recognized figure throughout the modern science fiction universe. It's such an old concept. The reaver was... while not necessarily "new", far more original in its implementation. God I'm going to miss it. I think in 5 years I'll still boot up old SC occasionally just to experience the joy of dropping 2 reavers on an opponent's mineral line.
I love that they're replacing the reaver simply due to how random it is. One scarab in a mineral line that either duds or explodes can decide a match... that's just not right in a competitive game to me.
Boxer quit playing Protoss when they made the reaver "dumb." Even as a Terran player myself, I wish it was more balanced without needing to be so chancy. Because let's be honest, if scarabs were intelligent and hit for full damage every shot, Reaver+Shuttle would absolutely force turret metagaming like a 3-hatch muta does for TvZ.
As for the Collossus, it definitely looks micro intensive. With the way the shots sweep, you want to maximize attack and set up the best angles for damage. The line-splash damage is reminiscent of lurkers, but from a perpendicular angle. I'm excited to see what can be done with it. If the damage is of type normal, one sweep of a mineral line executed correctly could mean two dozen worker kills.
On April 25 2009 17:49 Manit0u wrote: I don't understand why they didn't put ravers and dragoons in They're Protoss trademark and probably the coolest units in all SC next to a siege tank, ghost, zergling and hydralisk.
Also:
Bigbadaboom > omglazergunpewpewpew
The Stalker is a dragoon with blink anyway, so that one doesn't matter.
On May 04 2009 08:27 Suc wrote: Well in the StarFeeder Q&A it says that the Colossus attack is 23 damage, I don't know when Blizzard said that it was 45.
Recently on the Korean battle.net forum Blizzard said it was 45 damage. That was about a month ago.
Then more recently Karune said it was cut to 40, only days before the Q&A said it does 23 (x2) damage. Given the timings of the Q&A, it might have older information than Karuen's recent post.
On April 19 2009 13:23 Insane Lane wrote: New colossus damage looks awesome and just what they need!
I can really imagine them being the new reaver/lurker, in terms of the fact that they deal heavy aoe damage and force the opponent to micro against them. And how will the tech timing compare for colossus vs. marine combat shields?
I doubt Terran bio will be viable vs Protoss, even in SC2.
First of all you have storm which owns small units. Also the colossus will probably slaughter marines, whether they are shielded or not.
To me it looks like their trying to avoid allowing one lone unit to be so devastating in sc2. The reaver, arbiter (through recall), queen (instant kill high tier units with broodling) etc. Even their 'hero' units (mothership, queen) are defensive in nature to stop them from being so deadly.
I don't think the colossus should be compared to the reaver, because its not similar enough. It's not a replacement. It's a different unit filling a different role, and the reaver happened to be removed.
dude reaver/shuttle was so cool. thats only thing i liked about protoss.. if you elimate that the game is stupid.. ahh well i trust blizzard judgement.
IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
On May 04 2009 08:27 Suc wrote: Well in the StarFeeder Q&A it says that the Colossus attack is 23 damage, I don't know when Blizzard said that it was 45.
2x23=46.
I would guess that they changed the animation so it scissors the targets, it would make it look a lot better.
On May 12 2009 03:53 R3condite wrote: IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
IT doesn't choose what direction to shoot. You do, by choosing what unit to attack.. So it might be the fact that we've only seen videos from mediocre players that we see it get crappy shots all the time.
It seems hard for the collosus to step up to the role of harras/firesupport units. The reaver is almost symbiotic with the shuttle wich is more flexible then cliffwalk. The reaver can be knocked out or crippled by losing its transport besides being destroyed itself or both. I don't think scarabs are luckbased. It is sad you need airunits to fight something on a cliff in SC2. The 30 % misschance wasn't a real problem. If there are spotters the advantage is nullified. There is a trend to simplify everything. What is the collosus supposed to be. Shields upgrade ->tanking. Range upgrade->support/harass? Can you pop it in and out of a phaseprism, lol.
Also I like units that deal a lot of damage compared to their own Hitpoints. If that ratio is the same for different units prioritising targets becomes meh. Bang for your buck. There enough Jack of all trade units as it is.
If the damage is 2x23 and workers have the same hitpoints it wil be a good harasser indeed. It is a lot tougher then a shuttle. So how do you stop this thing besides don't let the toss get a strong econ or keeping a shitton of units on guardduty. But this is where the new anti-armour weapons might come in handy. Or it could become an annoying boring cookiecutter strategy to suicide these things into workerlines.
But I am glad blizz is working to put new stuff in. And the reaver will be in the editor or maybe even produceble in multiplayer in part 2 or 3 of the trilogy.
You know... just a thought, but I kinda like the idea of the sweeping beam NOT hitting every unit in the line at once. It'll bring back some of the micro that will be sorely missed by the opposing side. In SC1, you had a chance of getting lucky or saving a few drones by microing your workers away from the scarab. In SC2, since the colossus is more or less the reaver replacement, I figure give it an ever so slight attack buff, like mabey 5 or 10, and adjust the speed of the sweeping beam for balance issues, to make it a more micro-intensive unit... unstead of just walking up and down... then firing... then down... then up... zzzzzzzz... wha? oh yeah i was in the middle of a post... anyway, it'll make it a lot funner to watch in the very least.
even still... i miss the reaver... and it can never be replaced.
On May 11 2009 18:28 DeCoup wrote: To me it looks like their trying to avoid allowing one lone unit to be so devastating in sc2. The reaver, arbiter (through recall), queen (instant kill high tier units with broodling) etc. Even their 'hero' units (mothership, queen) are defensive in nature to stop them from being so deadly.
I don't think the colossus should be compared to the reaver, because its not similar enough. It's not a replacement. It's a different unit filling a different role, and the reaver happened to be removed.
On May 12 2009 03:53 R3condite wrote: IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
The damage is instant, so he can't miss, but it had 16 damage per hit in that video.
On May 12 2009 03:53 R3condite wrote: IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
Thats the point, this brings up alot of potential micro and is further increased by the very few terrain restrictions that the colossus has.
On May 12 2009 03:53 R3condite wrote: IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
The damage is instant, so he can't miss, but it had 16 damage per hit in that video.
On May 12 2009 03:53 R3condite wrote: IMHO the colossus seemed to miss... ALOT when attacking.. wat's the point of having spread dmg if it always chooses the worst direction to shoot it in?
Thats the point, this brings up alot of potential micro and is further increased by the very few terrain restrictions that the colossus has.
On May 11 2009 18:28 DeCoup wrote: To me it looks like their trying to avoid allowing one lone unit to be so devastating in sc2. The reaver, arbiter (through recall), queen (instant kill high tier units with broodling) etc. Even their 'hero' units (mothership, queen) are defensive in nature to stop them from being so deadly.
I don't think the colossus should be compared to the reaver, because its not similar enough. It's not a replacement. It's a different unit filling a different role, and the reaver happened to be removed.
On May 11 2009 18:28 DeCoup wrote: To me it looks like their trying to avoid allowing one lone unit to be so devastating in sc2. The reaver, arbiter (through recall), queen (instant kill high tier units with broodling) etc. Even their 'hero' units (mothership, queen) are defensive in nature to stop them from being so deadly.
I don't think the colossus should be compared to the reaver, because its not similar enough. It's not a replacement. It's a different unit filling a different role, and the reaver happened to be removed.
Honestly what I am going to miss the most is the HUGE amount of blood coming from dead dragoons, instead of the stalkers.. Little bit off topic, but they did mention Dragoon/Stalker earlier.
EPT![[image loading]](http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/6/62/Colossus_SC2_Rend1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/starcraft/images/2/22/Reaver_SC2_DevRend1.png)
....it hurts
