|
If you include your twitter with your replies, we can use it in shoutouts! |
Legacy of the Week: Ravager
November 19th, 2015 01:36 GMT
The RavagerWelcome back to legacy of the week! After a small break for Blizzcon we’re back, and this week features the ravager. Similar to the baneling, the ravager is morphed from a pre-existing unit, namely the roach. This gives Zerg players a wider variety of units to use in the early game, and already we’ve seen some interesting strategies revolving ravagers surface. As always, the basic stats of the ravager: - Costs 100/100
- 28 second build time (19 from roach, 9 from morph)
- 3 supply cost
- 120 HP
- Ground damage: 16
- 3.85 speed (5 on creep)
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability. Its size also drastically increases, rendering splash damage much less effective against it. The only tech requirement to make them is a roach warren, and with a morph time of 9 seconds this makes a ravager rush a viable strategy. - How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
- Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
- Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
- Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
- Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
- Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
- Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
- The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
- Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
- Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
- If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
Leave your twitter handle in your response, and we’ll be tweeting out some answers on @TeamLiquidNet!
|
I like the ravager as a concept, and zerg have needed a way to deal with force feilds after the infestor fix, but right now it comes out a bit too early and maybe a bit to cheaply. I'd rather see pros playing with and against it on better maps before it gets nerfed, but it appears to do too much too well.
|
Russian Federation4295 Posts
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.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? In ZvZ only versus lurkers and to deny already hard scouting. ZvZ may become even more chaotic with less possibilities to scout. In ZvP imo not everyone have realized how they're good vs force fields. I saw some streams where ravagers were not used against force fields. In ZvT maybe only vs mech. Against bio they're kinda useless, except maybe as additional dps behind roaches.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Good vs both. I think Ravager is too binary (and maybe too strong) vs Force Fields. First of all, Force Field costs mana, while corrosive bile costs nothing. In my opinion, Force Fields should become coldown-based ability (with no energy cost) or Corrosive Bile should cost some energy (and buffed to compensate).
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? I think, it is too early. In my opinion, Roach Warren needs to be morphed into new building called Ravager Warren. But that won't happen since Blizzard is lazy to draw new building model.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? I think ravager is fine (except it shoots fire instead of acid or something purple, but thats other thread). They are great utility unit if used properly. Zergs lacked of utility in their arsenal. Overseer contaminate is useless, and utility monster Viper comes too late.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? I think, ravagers should be less massable, but not too expensive. Maybe buff their cost a bit, but not too much. From 25-75 to 75-75 maybe, don't overnerf them. Try to start with small changes.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? No reason at all. They should be armored. I don't understand (even as zerg player) why they are unarmored.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? I think it is okay. That short morph time adds that "adaptation / reactionary" element to zerg race.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? More like supportive siege unit. In my opinion, ravagers should be similar to Sentries but in terms of small zoning utility and some damage (instead of path blocking force fields and defending guardian shield)
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? I think it is okay.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? Change the fire rain animation to something less annoying. Make it acid weapon, something green. Also add Ravager building for them so enemies can prepare.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
i think it looks like a terrible zit being popped and it's pretty gross
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general? I think it's a good design for the game where both the player and the enemy has some amount of agency in how effective Ravager's are overall. You clearly see where the bile is going to land, and it forces the enemy player to react to it even though they have plenty of time to do so. Ravagers also fills in a race specific weakness in that it's the only Zerg unit that is more advantageous in fighting in chokepoints than it is the open. They're really fun to use as well, I think many Zerg players love using the unit just purely on it's design.
Aesthetically it looks pretty stupid and unreasonably large. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Some more than others.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? The hilarious thing about Ravagers is that it would probably still be pretty insane against Toss even if Bile didn't kill forcefields. I'd say the later.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? Not at all but maybe it's just me because I love versatile units.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? Not entirely sure how I feel about it.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? Siege. Ravagers allows the Zerg to be able to do damage without fully committing to it. You can do things like do structural damage, bile the enemy for a bit of poke and force the enemy player's attention to his army (which is really big) all from a generous distance.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? Not necessarily. The Bile in it of itself takes a while to drop and there's a visual indicator that's easy to see as well. I feel the damage is appropriate given a Liberators can start sieging away at a base and has enough time to react by unsieging and flying away before even getting hit by a bile. Same with a warp prism.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? The four questions here are asking things related to it's balance and honestly there's just no way I can say yes to one question and no to the other without thinking it's overly nerfing it or buffing a unit that I already think is a little over the line. Right now I think Ravagers are slightly stronger than they should be but I don't see the lack of tech requirement being the issue here given how Terrans are able to deal with ravagers pretty well even though Zerg has access to them early and they're not really that important in ZvZ. I do think ZvP is an issue for Toss but while Ravagers is a suspect, it goes beyond the unit and has more to do with Toss being unable to punish Zerg as easily as Zerg is able to punish Toss from getting their third.
I'll go back to write more about Ravagers and my thoughts on them as I ladder climb.
|
What? Ravager is unarmored? This means that marauders don't counter them, and are in fact countered by ravagers. When did this happen?
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general? Seems like something that could help Zerg create solid timing attacks and break strong turtle strats
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes well maybe not so much ZvZ but Strong place in ZvP/T
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? [u][b]Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? It is probably to early, Making it an upgrade even 30 seconds would probably help lessen the power of the Ravager early All-ins Do you think the ravager has too many roles? Yes
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? The Cost is fine
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? No shit just look at them, they are like 5 roaches on top of each other. should be Armored
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? I Feel the timing for is fine it's just the early accessibility I have a problem with.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? It is a support unit that has the ability to siege in great numbers but they are effective as both
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? Honestly I don't feel it's that high and it's easy to dodge with your units, It's damage vs Buildings seems good too.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? Make it an Upgrade even 50/50 for 25 or 30 seconds to delay so that the Ravager all-in isn't so damn annoying. I would also make it armored. Maybe the unit size a little smaller they are pretty fucking big.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I like the unit. I think that it makes it harder to push straight into a Zerg's face.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Structures and units. The damage is actually insane.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? I think its actually really unfair how many Ravagers a Zerg player can produce in a short amount of time. It's not uncommon for a Zerg player to make "safety roaches" against a Terran player who opens hellions. It's very difficult to determine whether the Zerg player is using roaches defensively or preparing to do an allin that can only be held with a large number of units, and it doesn't seem like a very big commitment to have the option of randomly all-inning within a matter of seconds. Simcity/bunkers do very little to aid in defense of ravagers. It also adds a lot of frustrating risk to liberator openers because they also become useless when ravagers are on the field in the early game.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? Nah. It's good for zerg to have a unit that is actually versatile for once.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? I'm not sure about the cost. What bothers me more is the speed that they can be acquired. Cost might help to limit how many can be afforded early on though so it could be ok to nerf the cost.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? Its way too fast.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? I see it a seige unit, but also as a core army unit.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? Maybe.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? It needs to take longer for zerg to be able to spam these things.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
I like the design a lot, though it is possible to imagine alternatives for a zerg ground unit at tier 1 or tier 2. I think it has a great function in forcing micro in all matchups mostly due to Corrosive Bile, but it is also unique in that it is unarmored. It helps solving previous issues with denying overlords, playing against forcefields and now also siege range against long-distance targets.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
I think the Ravager definitely serves a purpose in all matchups, it is frequently being seen in both early- and lategame situations. It is powerful in all-ins and timings and offers great support versus air units such as liberators. The splash damage of Corrosive Bile helps versus clumped air units and the low cooldown allows you to force units to back off, plus it is flexible with high mobility and fast attack animation.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
Initially it was to be believed, I believe, that Corrosive Bile mainly served as a "counterplay" to forcefields, meaning it should not eliminate the usage of forcefields, but allow zerg to play against them. Currently I think they are very strong versus forcefields, but I think the splash damage of Corrosive Bile actually makes Ravagers even stronger versus units and structures despite being very strong versus forcefields as well. It is rare, if not non-existing, that we see mass sentries with forcefields being played nowadays.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I believe there is great reason to say that the tech requirement of the Ravager is too cheap. The Roach Warren has a 150 mineral cost and a very early access, allowing Ravagers whom in many situtations even has more DPS than siege tanks, to enter the field very early. I think the timing/allin aspect of Ravager is overrepresented and should be toned down.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
I do think the Ravager is one of the units with most roles, but I actually approve of this to a large extend. This is because it is a unit you probably do not want to amass as it is, despite being unarmored, relatively weak and has no straight up single-target DPS per cost. It is very expensive, and therefore functions best in allins or as a part of a compositions.
Where I am concerned, however, is that there are situations (mostly in timings) where the Ravager is capable of doing too much damage and being too hard to damage as a defender. This is mostly present in PvZ, as Photon Overcharge is the main DPS of Protoss in the earlygame but is a static defence that does not outrange Corrosive Bile.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
I believe the cost with the current stats of the Ravager is quite reasonable, yet this exact cost makes them synergize quite well in allin/lowbase situations as you only need to invest the gas into the unit, and not into a tech requirement like say a Lair.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
It would have been possible to make an HP amount on the Ravager to argue for keeping it as the Armored tag, yet now I think it could be dangerous to return it to the armored state as units like Voidrays, Immortals and perhaps Siegetank/Marauder will inflict heavy damage to it. I think it is reasonable to see the unit being unarmored despite the intuition that it should, but it is possible to see the Armored tag return, just not without compensating.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
As mentioned before, I believe there is a strong reason to argue that Ravagers are too strong in offensive allin/timing situations. An approach to try and test/fix this issue would be to move the tech requirement to Lair, which would not hurt Ravagers much more than the timing side. It is, however, also possible to tinker with the morph time from Roach to Ravager. This will however have a greater impact as that will affect all future Ravager morphs, and perhaps make reactionary Roach-to-Ravager morphs difficult.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
I see the unit as both, if not everything. But if I had to choose, I definitely believe it is a Siege unit more than anything, a "mobile siege-tank", if you will.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
Ravagers are crucial in certain Zerg strategies especially versus Protoss but also versus Liberators as the Corrosive Bile damage to ground and air units is key. Yet I still think there is a visible problem with offensive Ravager strategies, and the Corrosive Bile damage in this case could be too much. If you do not decide to change the morph time or change the tech requirement, I would definitely reduce the damage Corrosive Bile does to structures in order to allow the defending players to buy more time to counter it, especially in PvZ.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
I would reduce the damage to structures from 60 to 20 on Corrosive Bile. The Splash Damage already allows it to do more damage than 20, and I think the Ravager already has a lot of roles and utilities besides being able to siege buildings. The unit will still be able to do 60 damage with the spell as it pleases.
If this is not an option, I would move the tech requirement to Lair.
If this neither is an option, I would nerf the morph time from Roach to Ravager.
|
Overall I honestly think we still haven't actually seen enough of it to say one way or another. Maybe it should be at lair tech, but I haven't seen enough yet to say it's officially too strong at hatchery tech, it does add a lot to the game tho I gotta say that.
Oh! On that note, I've started to get four ravager every ZvZ, it's fun to run around sniping those first few overlords and seizing early map control with them.
Also I have a request for a unit that nobody has talked about for months. Sometime soon could we discuss the battlecruiser please? Does it still have a place in starcraft? Is there a matchup where building it is advantageous? Has anyone even used the warp drive? Right now it is used seldom if ever, is that due to being prohibitively expensive, too high tech, or simply not good enough due to units such as the Viking and liberator?
I'm extremely curious to see what people think of thats. (Next week or whenever. This week is ravages )
|
Without wanting to go into too much detail, I would agree that the tech requirement for such a versatile and good unit is too low. It comes out extremely fast and has great offensive and defensive potential from the get-go, no upgrades required (unlike other tier 1 units).
And honestly I don't think moving it up the tech tree slightly (e.g. adding a morph to the roach warren before you can make ravagers would still be pre lair if it would be too late to have it on lair tech in some instances) would make the unit unviable or never used because it would still be very good.
|
|
Canada8157 Posts
On November 19 2015 21:08 SnovskiSC2 wrote: ITS op........
You know, there's 11 questions in the OP that you could answer to give us a more detailed reasoning as to why
|
It's a shame mass sentry playstyles aren't viable anymore, blink sentry vs roach hydra was one of the best unit interactions in the game. Corrosive bile should not be able to destroy forcefields
|
I feel like the new maps cater to everything that's BS right now. They fact that one of the 4 player maps, Still being about to be cheesed and breached, with all the walls you want.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general? Visually I really don't like it, to be honest. It's unaesthetic, the fire theme doesn't fit zerg or the unit itself considering that it's acid based. It's an eyesore. On the gameplay front I'm more acceptive towards it, I think the skillshot mechanic is very interesting, and will see a lot of creative use (such as firing a few biles to bait your opponent to micro into another few).
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? It's not very useful in ZvZ due to the speed of that matchup; units simply move way too fast for bile to be effective enough to spend gas on, and the current meta is more ling/bling/muta focused than roach wars. However, it's invaluable in ZvT due to how strong it is against stationary targets such as Liberators or Siege Tanks; even if it ends up doing no damage, it forced the terran to unsiege and move, it's a win/win. Against Protoss the Roach is already very strong, and since toss likes to ball up, an AoE skillshot is naturally powerful. Also situationally useful against forcefields.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Structures and units by far. The forcefield function is cool and interesting, but the projectile is simply too slow to really be a good counter. By the time it hits, most of the damage is already done.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? I'm very split on this, because on one hand it definitely feels too powerful right now, but on the other hand, if the requirement is changed to require, say, lair, zerg will have serious trouble defending against things such as Liberators early on. Maybe make it a tech upgrade from the roach warren or something, I really don't know. It's such a powerful and versitile unit but at the same time such an important unit for surviving the earlygame.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? No, it has a lot of roles, but since it's such a fragile unit, you don't really want to mass it too hard. In a lot of ways it feels like a caster.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? It's slightly on the cheap side, increasing the gas cost could migitate how easy it is to reach an allin-level amount early. I think the lack of a tech requirement is more of a problem, though.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? Disagree, being armored means they have hardcounters that can be obtained as early as they can.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? It feels too fast in the earlygame, but about right in the lategame. I think the solution is either upping the cost or making it require tech, not changing the morph time.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? A support, it fulfills both roles, though.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? Overall, no, but I feel it's too strong against buildings. The damage against units is justified as it can be completely negated by utilizing proper micro. Good players will very rarely lose a critical amount of stuff to bile, the true power of the ability lies in forcing your opponent to stop attacking for a while or to move his sieged units. However, you can't move a building, and so the damage feels way too high.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? The visual design. Make it fit the theme of zerg and the roach, it looks like it's from a completely different faction right now. I'd also either increase the unit cost or make it require some form of tech, probably a roach warren upgrade, but that would require testing. Finally, I'd reduce its damage against buildings.
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general? the design is ok, but a few things need changing that are addressed in the followup questions
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? not every middle/high tier unit should have a place in every matchup, the fact that the ravager does makes me think its just too versatile at the moment
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? the fact the bile takes a delay to kill forcefields means they are still viable in the matchup, the fact they kill buildings so well means walling up becomes pretty difficult without fighting in front since photon overcharge has less range than the bile, since early on that wall for protoss (and terran) is our main survival method i dont think it should be alllowed to hit buildings that arent flying
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? as with the lurker the roach warren itself should probably have to morph (or a new structure entirely). if you look at all the zerg units that require morphing that were in hots: baneling - baneling nest has to be built, broodlord - greater spire, overseer - lair, there is the ability for players to scout and see what tech route is being chosen. currently they can make roaches and just morph, and while we know they are coming anyways it would be nice to see the zerg have to choose that route and have it scoutable.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? yes. for a midgame unit it shouldnt be viable in nearly any situation or matchup
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? its appropriate, it gives zerg something to sink gas into late game when it seems like their only options are vipers (which have become much more awesome) and infestors
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
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? it seems ok when compared to broodlords and banelings when comparing to the cost to morph, maybe even reduce it a little
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? currently its a support unit, a siege unit and a frontline unit. as siege unit it needs to not be, zerg already have broodlords and swamhosts which both require different counters, another long range siege unit capable of breaking a wall available early in the game is not what we need
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? the bile against armies is a skillshot, and as such should reward the player for making a hit. damage seems ok, realistically speaking you can move out of the way from the shot so thats ok. it shouldnt be able to kill buildings tho
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? well as touched on by someone above, its wrong that the ability is on cooldown and available always, when its primary purpose is to break down forcefields which require energy. most units which have spells that can change the game (of which the bile is one) cost energy and have to be handled with care. the ability should be turned into an energy-based one. Upon morphing make the ravager have 50 energy and require 75 energy to use bile with no cooldown between using the shots (assuming they have more than 150). you may think 75 energy to kill a 50 energy forcefield is unfair, but consider this unit has much more usability than the sentry in other situations. it moves quicker, has higher hp and higher dps so in straight up fights its much more useful. its also a choice players can make and any amount can be morphed from roaches that are already on the field, whereas when making sentries other units arent being made as a result. also the forcefield has a natural lifetime anyways and are integral part of taking on a much larger supply zerg army. the ability to kill them means engagements can be back in your favour with the right useage of skill. i would also tweak their movement speed so they move a little slower than the roach (afterall they are bigger), and provide an upgrade in the ravager den structure to increase their speed (like the baneling) slightly reduce the morph-in-time so in summary: require a ravager den to morph so players can see what tech route the zerg are choosing give the ravager a slower speed, but add a speed upgrade in the ravager den make them armoured again, give them more hp than the roach make bile require 75 energy to use but remove the cooldown period before casting, start them with 50 energy like all units make the bile either much worse or unable to damage structures so that actually having a wall to defend against zerg is viable
|
@electronicmo on twitter if you're still doing that
1. How do you feel about the ravager design in general? I think it's an interesting unit that adds depth to the Zerg race, but I think as it is the unit is a bit too strong and versatile.
2. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes. Vs Zerg its ability is good against groups of clumped Roaches during the Roach wars (and it conveniently builds from Roaches). Vs Terran it can be used to break walls from a distance, to bust down bunkers and all the workers repairing it, and to hit flying units like Medivacs (harder) and Liberators (easy). Vs. Protoss I think simply massing the unit is effective.
3. Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? People have really stopped using forcefields because Pylon Overcharge has reduced our need to wall and because the Ravager can break them. So I'd have to say it's better against structures and units. A group of Ravagers each with 60 burst damage can kill Pylons/Depots/Tanks/Liberators/etc. very quickly. It's a really good ability.
4. Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? I think Corrosive Bile hits the field way too early given what the other races' options to counter it are. It can break a Terran's wall and let in a huge number of lings/Roaches. It can kill Liberators and Tanks. The only real defensive options are Tankivacs and Banshees which require a Starport. Compare that to Corrosive Bile which is hatchery tech. Same thing for Protoss. The only answers to mass Ravagers seem to be straight air or Disruptors (which take some time to accumulate). Immortals don't even counter them because they're not "Armored."
5. Do you think the ravager has too many roles? I think the unit is way too versatile for a 100/100 unit at Hatch tech that can be spammed. There's no real downside to just mass producing them. Their ability scales very very well because like Disruptors when you have a high number of Ravagers you can always have the ability available to hit an area. They're really good at breaking defensive positions but also really good at defending against attacks. Their ability is just a bit too strong I think.
6. Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? I think the unit is too spammable. I think 100/100 for ONE ravager is fine, but as you start adding more and more they scale really well. I think the supply should be raised so that Zerg players can make fewer of them that early in the game.
7. Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? No. Given how early these things hit the battlefield they need some sort of weakness. We need to be able to fight them with something that we already have, rather than needing to tech to Tankivacs or Void Rays. Making them Armored would improve the efficiency of Marauders, Immortals, and Stalkers against them.
8. The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? It's fine.
9. Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? I envisioned a few of them helping out to break forcefields and perhaps force a Terran to unsiege from a position. But I didn't think that Zerg players would just be massing them. Right now the Ravager is an everything
10. Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? The ability is just too good right now. 60 SPLASH damage is a bit too much, honestly.
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? I think the Ravager shouldn't be as spammable in its current form. I'd increase the cost a little or maybe the supply to 4. If we want to keep spammable Ravagers, then the ability needs a serious nerf or a delay in when it hits the battlefield. I'd say move Corrosive bile to an upgrade or unlock it at Lair tech. Finally, I'd suggest changing its type to Armored.
The biggest issue is that Ravagers morph FROM Roaches, which are armored. So if they're going Roaches you need to prepare with units that are good vs. Armored. But if they suddenly morph all their Roaches into Ravagers, you're screwed. It only makes sense that Ravagers should be armored. I think that one needs to change ASAP.
Another possible change is change Corrosive Bile not to hit structures. That way they can't bust down both the wall AND the units behind it from 9 range... at Hatch tech.
TLDR; Corrosive bile hits the field too early given the counters available to it and how strong it is. Also, Ravagers need to be Armored because they morph from Roaches (which are Armored and require +damage to armor counters from T and P).
|
How do you feel about the ravager design in general?
The ravager is a good one. Zerg desperately needed a way to break forcefields pre-lair tech. Far too many games have been decided due to a forcefield on the ramp and zerg basically forced to either sacrifice a base or even lose the game outright if the main was assaulted.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup?
TvZ absolutely, ZvZ less so, ZvP the unit can be a crucial one to ensure survival against forcefields.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units?
When a few corrosive biles are enough to severely weaken a bunker and even take out multiple SCV's repairing it, it is very strong. A few corrosive biles being able to take out liberators is incredibly strong as well.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager?
I don't necessary have an issue with where the tech is positioned. I do like Zerg having the versatility they need as an early tech. I will add though that things have changed in LoTV where everyone is now on much closer footing in terms of tech at any given point in the game, where zerg could be 1 tech level behind due to needing to expand 1 base above the opponent.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles?
Yes it has too many roles. If it is meant to be a siege unit/siegebreaker type, then yet having a decent regular attack is too much. It is too forgiving that a Zerg player can mass roaches, convert a slew of them all into ravagers and be OK. There is no real downside with the conversion, if anything it's an upside in too many respects.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive?
Cost is not the issue, 100/100 is fair.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree?
Completely disagree. Unarmored means it's like an archon, but with no weaknesses to EMP. We basically have a unit which takes no extra damage against any source. That just isn't right. This is the reason why Ravagers are tough enough to tank some siege tank fire and yet let loose their corrosive bile attack to take out the tanks, but yet incur little to no losses. That does not seem right. They should have a weakness to something, either amor should be light(so if hellions close distance, that spells deep trouble) or back to armored.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow?
This is incredibly fast due to the sheer versatility of the unit, but morph time is not the true issue with the unit.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit?
It is both. I daresay it is 3 roles - support, siege, and damage.
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much?
60 corrosive bile damage is really strong. This is the reason why you don't need very many ravagers to answer the situation. In fact the more the merrier.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why?
There needs to be some form of downside to morphing to the ravager, aside from the cost(cost is fine). A unit which has a competent regular attack as well as the corrosive bile(plus a range upgrade to 13!) is too much. I would like to see the regular attack removed outright, or lowered down to 6 damage. This makes the ravager morph far more of a strategic decision.
|
if ive missed the tech talk im sorry but these questions are quite moot considering WHY they were designed. Without them the liberator, and disruptor would just be impossible to tackle with the standard tech speed of zerg. Eg, liberators are way too fast to be in ur base doing their thing, their counter hydras/queens (given positioning options) and mutas arent really out fast enough and would cut so much more into the eco if you rushed them out . . .so the ravager is a NEEDED tool to keep this stuff back, but even then given a position theyll die anyway. The disruptor, although a late game unit really cannot be targetted realistically in a death ball, they hang around the back waiting, you cant get at them and with good protosses building enough to kind of cycle the attck . . .god its hard, the ravager again is needed to take advanage of that caught or stuck disruptor.
answering the questions briefly from my end though would be: How do you feel about the ravager design in general? its a good uniot which gives options early game, keeping things fresh and a threat for everyone
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Very much so YES.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? forcefields yes, structures . .well dont get ganked if you waste it
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? roach warren is fine given the lib speed, gas is pretty hard very early game and any ravager rush is categorically all in
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? too many???? its only role imo is that its a offensive push unit. toss cant shield, terran cant rely on bunkers to mow down an attack considering both of them races can exploit early drop harass, zergs need to get in their base as well . .ravager!
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? its expensive no doubt, that much gas that early on delays a of of tech if you hold the key down. Ive straight up lost games making too many ravagers, their health is an issue and are torn apart by marines and stalkers
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? yes, not only doe it make their faster shots and bile a useful utility to be managed, its good you cant just use them as tanks, personally they could go even weaker health wise still and with its design, morphing into a non armored from an armored makes sense, kind of like a chrysalis
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? its a quick morph, i do agree but ive had 16 of them mowed down with stimmed marines before they hatched and could do anything useful.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? support, it cant really be siege the projectiles take too long and can be avoided and if you fire them all ur as good as dead, especially in zvz
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? its strong no doubt but past dia everyone seems to avoid it pretty easily anyway
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? so far the unit is quite needed given the pushes that the PT are doing, but for me an improvement could come in the form of an upgrade to make the bile hit faster. i mean it can be pretty expensive but when im in opps base with ravagers and the shots go down they move out of the way pretty easy if they arent a moving. A faster deploy may get the other races to spend a little bit more apm splitting and positioning without a moving in, seeing the bile marker and moving back for a sec, there needs to be a real threat that the zewrg may have this upgrade
|
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.
|
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
|
This is a lower league Terran player's opinion, so take everything with a sack of salt.
How do you feel about the ravager design in general? Ravagers were obviously made as a go-to solution to many different problems zerg faced in the early to mid game. Protoss disables much of your army with force fields? Ravager! Terran walls off and puts mines, tanks and now liberators in front of your or their base? Ravager! Protoss uses pylon overcharge? Ravager! Terran counters your roaches with Marauders? Ravager! The unit does solve these problems. The thing is that it not only solves problems, it creates new ones. Time will tell whether they are larger than the ones it solved (in the game overall), but right now, it seems to throw ZvT and ZvP off balance. Also, it is one embodiment of the design philosophy behind LotV: Putting more micro into the game and make macro less important. I strongly disagree with that philosophy, but the Ravager fits in well with that.
Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Definitely. It is a great midgame mass unit in all three matchups, and enables early pushes into fortified positions of all three races.
Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Since force fields are not used much any more, it seems to be used mostly against slow or stationary units or low-hitpoint buildings. Of course, it still does its job against force fields.
Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? Since roaches are generally a good defensive unit to begin with, delaying ravagers to lair or at least to a ravager warren building upgrade similar to the lurker den would not make the zerg much more vulnerable, and take some pressure off their opponents.
Do you think the ravager has too many roles? Yes. It is a siege unit, a siege breaker, a support unit, a building- and large unit sniper, and works surprisingly well tanking damage and fighting in front lines. Also, it lends itself very well as a core for two-base all-ins.
Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? For a single ravager, the cost appears fine. The problem is rather the scaling and cost-effectiveness of larger numbers of the unit at the time it is available in the game.
Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? I very much disagree. Both protoss and terran do not have a satisfying answer to Roach/Ravager balls, especially as early as they come into the game.
The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? The morph time is not the problem, so it can stay where it is. Pushing the morph time to 20 seconds and over would be far too punishing for the zerg player.
Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? It is both, but it excels as a siege- and defense breaker. Defensive play is directly countered by this unit, and is so very early in the game. This plays into the design philosophy behind LotV, of course - I understand that. But more or less completely invalidating a playstyle that has been used by a good chunk of the player base since 2001 seems unnecessarily drastic. Zerg already have extremely good counters to turtle play. Those usually were only available by the 15 minute mark, but then will hit hard. Why did they need another one that hits at 3 minutes?
Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? 60 damage to everything is too much, especially to per-se stationary units like tanks and buildings like most stationary defense, especially bunkers and pylons. In all honesty, I would change the 60 to everything to 20 (+40 to biological). This makes it a fun micro tool in ZvZ, and will still work well against terran bio and zealots.
If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? Make it come later. Or make it hit less hard against defensive strategies. Or make it be countered by at least one go-to strategy from each race. Or a combination of any of the above.
|
|
On November 23 2015 23:26 TheoMikkelsen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
That's the point.
Since forever Protoss players (and Terran players) counted on cleverly placed cannons, structures and forcefields to counter Zerg aggression.
Right now the Ravager throws everything we know about how to defend against Zerg out of the window. That's not bad per se (its actually good for the game), but the consequences are brutal and far-reaching.
And the numbers are showing. Right now Zerg has 44.65% master league (NA server) representation against 19.71% from Protoss and 28% from Terran.
"There are more Zerg players", one could argue. Yes, but not by much: Zerg total population is 31.68% and Protoss is 28.63% (again, NA server).
|
On November 24 2015 01:37 Tiaraju9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2015 23:26 TheoMikkelsen wrote: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. That's the point. Since forever Protoss players (and Terran players) counted on cleverly placed cannons, structures and forcefields to counter Zerg aggression. Right now the Ravager throws everything we know about how to defend against Zerg out of the window. That's not bad per se (its actually good for the game), but the consequences are brutal and far-reaching. And the numbers are showing. Right now Zerg has 44.65% master league (NA server) representation against 19.71% from Protoss and 28% from Terran. "There are more Zerg players", one could argue. Yes, but not by much: Zerg total population is 31.68% and Protoss is 28.63% (again, NA server).
Infrastructure requirements from Terran and Protoss mean that they will spend a lot more in the early game on buildings than Zerg and therefore have far less units.
So they need to play defensively with walls in the super early game as to not get swarmed by lings/roaches in the open.
Ravagers are inherently broken because they give Zerg siege weaponry at a time when the other races HAVE to turtle.
|
On November 24 2015 02:00 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2015 01:37 Tiaraju9 wrote:On November 23 2015 23:26 TheoMikkelsen wrote: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. That's the point. Since forever Protoss players (and Terran players) counted on cleverly placed cannons, structures and forcefields to counter Zerg aggression. Right now the Ravager throws everything we know about how to defend against Zerg out of the window. That's not bad per se (its actually good for the game), but the consequences are brutal and far-reaching. And the numbers are showing. Right now Zerg has 44.65% master league (NA server) representation against 19.71% from Protoss and 28% from Terran. "There are more Zerg players", one could argue. Yes, but not by much: Zerg total population is 31.68% and Protoss is 28.63% (again, NA server). Infrastructure requirements from Terran and Protoss mean that they will spend a lot more in the early game on buildings than Zerg and therefore have far less units. So they need to play defensively with walls in the super early game as to not get swarmed by lings/roaches in the open. Ravagers are inherently broken because they give Zerg siege weaponry at a time when the other races HAVE to turtle.
There are a few things I think need to be looked at with the Ravager, and some of these are give and take. I think the best possible solution is to move the Ravager to the lair. I don't like morphing the Roach Warren into a Ravager den. I feel like that might be too big of a nerf. It's a good unit, but--and I've said this before--an anti-ground / anti-air AOE spell that also damages structures and burrowed units on hatch-tech just breaks the game and doesn't make any sense from a Zerg design perspective. It especially breaks TvZ.
Tweaks to discuss if we're not going to move it to Lair:
- Remove the ability of corrosive bile to hit burrowed units. As it happens, the Ravager either directly, or indirectly counters: the Factory, Marauders, and the Liberator. Early roaches essentially counter Reapers and Marines.
- Double the cooldown on corrosive bile. The ability to zone units, and protect the Ravager from early-game units with Roaches, means you're dodging or taking siege damage from a constant stream of AOE death raining from above.
- Or, instead of a big cooldown, change corrosive bile to an energy-based ability. It's just too good to be a skill shot on cooldown, really, with how early it can come out. 3-6 Ravagers doing 60 damage each, every 7 seconds, plus a regular attack with 6 range?
- Tweak the fall time. Right now, there isn't enough time to move a sieged tank or a Liberator in Defender Mode. You will be hit and you just traded supply, money, and necessary DPS for a 7 second cooldown ... in other words: for free. Maybe just tweak it very slightly so a human-level reaction time could save a tank or a Liberator.
Brainstorming. Right now it feels like Terran is forced into rushing to banshees, and even then, it takes forever to kill the Ravagers, and takes 100 focus on micro to not die, which means in a 1v1 your macro falls apart. Perhaps leaving the Armor tag would allow Terran to open with Marauders or Tanks.
|
On November 25 2015 04:29 TimeSpiral wrote: - Remove the ability of corrosive bile to hit burrowed units. As it happens, the Ravager either directly, or indirectly counters: the Factory, Marauders, and the Liberator. Early roaches essentially counter Reapers and Marines. I thought that was funny before, that Blizzard would finally add the lurker to the game and also include an anti-lurker unit for zerg. I guess it showed they were hedging their bets, since there seems no real counter to ravagers for a lurker player, but technically it's part of ZvZ (idk how zvz works in practice though).
|
The cooldown is waaaay too short.
IMO increasing it to like 15 seconds or more should fix the unit.
You can't be using Corrosive bile to siege the other races that early at 60 damage AOE a hit... it's just not fair.
|
On November 25 2015 05:46 DinoMight wrote: The cooldown is waaaay too short.
IMO increasing it to like 15 seconds or more should fix the unit.
You can't be using Corrosive bile to siege the other races that early at 60 damage AOE a hit... it's just not fair. The cooldown and damage for corrosive bile predictably relate to its siege utility, because of the constant damage to stationary targets aspect, but their influence on combat seems more difficult to model. What about giving buildings some measure of immunity to create more freedom for balancing the ravager in other areas?
|
On November 25 2015 06:02 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2015 05:46 DinoMight wrote: The cooldown is waaaay too short.
IMO increasing it to like 15 seconds or more should fix the unit.
You can't be using Corrosive bile to siege the other races that early at 60 damage AOE a hit... it's just not fair. The cooldown and damage for corrosive bile predictably relate to its siege utility, because of the constant damage to stationary targets aspect, but their influence on combat seems more difficult to model. What about giving buildings some measure of immunity to create more freedom for balancing the ravager in other areas?
I think if it did less to buildings that be a start.
The problem is that it's not a "skill shot" when y can spam it against stationary targets.
|
I would like to see that the corrosive bile proyectile could be destroyed as it falls down.
This way maybe turrets could protect sige tanks but ofc the turret will obly kill the first corrosive bile shot the next ones will hit the tank unless you have more turrets or marines.
The proyectile shouldnt be first priority to kill.
I hope I made tyis clear
|
As far as battles, I've lost a few battles in ZvZ where I had roach hydra and they used bile to force me to move around alot. .. it significantly reduces the DPS of the hydras, they fire so quickly and they have to stop firing to avoid the bile.
|
Corrosive Bile should not hit burrowed units. Does anyone disagree with that? I just don't think the Ravager should counter every possible strategy Terran can employ in the first phase of the game.
|
On November 26 2015 00:08 TimeSpiral wrote: Corrosive Bile should not hit burrowed units. Does anyone disagree with that? I just don't think the Ravager should counter every possible strategy Terran can employ in the first phase of the game.
I actually don't mind that it hits burrowed or invisible units since that actually takes some semblance of skill.
I just think in general it comes too early, is too strong, and is too spammable. Fix one of these at least and we'll get somewhere...
Hitting an observer is quite hard actually.... with a single shot... but when you have 10 ravagers and the obs can only move so fast it's not that hard especially with the short cooldown.
When I play with Ravagers I basically never worry about using the ability because the cooldown is so short. It's not like Blink where I have to be REALLY careful not to Blink somewhere unsafe, otherwise I'm toast. Even retreating with Ravage you can cover your tracks the Bile.
|
"- Tweak the fall time. Right now, there isn't enough time to move a sieged tank or a Liberator in Defender Mode. You will be hit and you just traded supply, money, and necessary DPS for a 7 second cooldown ... in other words: for free. Maybe just tweak it very slightly so a human-level reaction time could save a tank or a Liberator. "
Yeah, so Zerg hasn't got ANYTHING for early Liberators and drop-tanks. Come on...
|
On November 26 2015 02:38 Legobiten wrote:
"- Tweak the fall time. Right now, there isn't enough time to move a sieged tank or a Liberator in Defender Mode. You will be hit and you just traded supply, money, and necessary DPS for a 7 second cooldown ... in other words: for free. Maybe just tweak it very slightly so a human-level reaction time could save a tank or a Liberator. "
Yeah, so Zerg hasn't got ANYTHING for early Liberators and drop-tanks. Come on...
Tankivacs can be defended with Zerlings and queens quite well.
Liberators are fucking stupid, those are really what you "need" ravagers for.
Reducing Corrosive Bile to like 7 range and reducing the size of the Liberation Zone would work.
|
On November 26 2015 00:11 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 00:08 TimeSpiral wrote: Corrosive Bile should not hit burrowed units. Does anyone disagree with that? I just don't think the Ravager should counter every possible strategy Terran can employ in the first phase of the game. I actually don't mind that it hits burrowed or invisible units since that actually takes some semblance of skill. I just think in general it comes too early, is too strong, and is too spammable. Fix one of these at least and we'll get somewhere... Hitting an observer is quite hard actually.... with a single shot... but when you have 10 ravagers and the obs can only move so fast it's not that hard especially with the short cooldown. When I play with Ravagers I basically never worry about using the ability because the cooldown is so short. It's not like Blink where I have to be REALLY careful not to Blink somewhere unsafe, otherwise I'm toast. Even retreating with Ravage you can cover your tracks the Bile.
Well yeah, from a Protoss perspective it's not an issue, because you don't have units that burrow. But as a Terran, the Widow Mine actually does decent damage to Ravagers. Unfortunately it's hard-countered by the Ravager because it has such a fucking obvious "tell" when its burrowed. There is no way to un-burrow and move. You just lose the WM, and it's a complete waste. Same thing with tanks. Or liberators. Or helions.
The Roach Ravager composition beats, or directly counters: - Reapers - Marines - Marauders - Helions - Widow Mines - Tanks - Liberators
There is no way to no if the Roach Warren is for an all-in, or if there is a big pack of drones behind it. And by the time you do know, there is not enough time--as Terran--to prepare. It's basically a build-order loss if you didn't open with a barracks all-in yourself. Crazy match-up right now.
|
On November 26 2015 03:25 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 00:11 DinoMight wrote:On November 26 2015 00:08 TimeSpiral wrote: Corrosive Bile should not hit burrowed units. Does anyone disagree with that? I just don't think the Ravager should counter every possible strategy Terran can employ in the first phase of the game. I actually don't mind that it hits burrowed or invisible units since that actually takes some semblance of skill. I just think in general it comes too early, is too strong, and is too spammable. Fix one of these at least and we'll get somewhere... Hitting an observer is quite hard actually.... with a single shot... but when you have 10 ravagers and the obs can only move so fast it's not that hard especially with the short cooldown. When I play with Ravagers I basically never worry about using the ability because the cooldown is so short. It's not like Blink where I have to be REALLY careful not to Blink somewhere unsafe, otherwise I'm toast. Even retreating with Ravage you can cover your tracks the Bile. Well yeah, from a Protoss perspective it's not an issue, because you don't have units that burrow. But as a Terran, the Widow Mine actually does decent damage to Ravagers. Unfortunately it's hard-countered by the Ravager because it has such a fucking obvious "tell" when its burrowed. There is no way to un-burrow and move. You just lose the WM, and it's a complete waste. Same thing with tanks. Or liberators. Or helions. The Roach Ravager composition beats, or directly counters: - Reapers - Marines - Marauders - Helions - Widow Mines - Tanks - Liberators There is no way to no if the Roach Warren is for an all-in, or if there is a big pack of drones behind it. And by the time you do know, there is not enough time--as Terran--to prepare. It's basically a build-order loss if you didn't open with a barracks all-in yourself. Crazy match-up right now.
Banshee opener or bust versus Zerg every game. If it turns out they are going mutas, transition to liberators. All other opening builds are suicide against roach/ravager.
|
My opinion on the Ravager, I am a Diamond Zerg Player atm. 1. How do you feel about the ravager design in general? It is a great Unit, looks great and it is fun to play with. Even if you do not hit with the Bile, it feels great to fire it up 2. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes, you need it in TvZ to have something vs the Liberator. The Liberator hits at Minute 4-5. With that the Terran can deny a hole Base from mining Minerals. The Zerg needs 3-4 Ravager to kill the Liberator or to make him disengage. Maybe the Ravager hits a little bit to early in the game, I would prefer a Roachwarren-Upgrade, because Lairtech might be to late. In PvZ it is also a good unit, you can do something vs the PhotonSpamCharge. I don't know really, cause I am a Zerg but the Adept must be the counter to Ravager. Correct me if I am wrong. The Toss is a little too weak against Zerg atm, but I don't know if this problem can be solved with a Ravager-nerf or with a Protoss-Buff. In ZvZ the Ravager is a welcome Unit to make the HotS-Roach-Fights way more funny than before. Also you need it to do something vs Lurker. 3. Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? It is better vs units/structures, the Toss-Players do not build many Sentrys anymore. The Bile kills the Forcefield, but it takes a time to do that. I will first go for units or structures. Except it is the one FF on a ramp to the Mainbase that stops your units to go there. 4. Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? Maybe there have to be an Upgrade in the Roachwarren or sth like the Lurkerden but not on Lairtech. 5. Do you think the ravager has too many roles? No, it is needed to counter Liberator in the first place. Also it helps to make the game more exciting, because there are no defensive 2 Base Maxouts with no chance to engage. 6. Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? I think it is fine. 7. Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? I am not sure, maybe it needs more Counter-Units, but than Terran have Multiple hard-Counter to the Ravager, Toss will have one Hard and one Softcounter. Maybe make it a little smaller, so AOE will do damage to more Ravager. 8. The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? It is fine, maybe you can adjust this to do only a little nerf. 9. Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? It is both in my opinion It has 9 Range on the Bile-Shot, with no Upgrade atm to make it a 13 range. So the Ravager can engage Tanks but gets a hit or maybe two. Also Lurker and Exploding Suns can hit them when they try to fire the Shot. I think this causes an interesting playstyle with more action. 10. Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? I agree with some other posters, that the damage vs Structures is to high atm
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? First, one point i have not seen in this thread. The Corrosive Bile generates an attack-information to the enemy. That happens before the Bile makes damage at the unit or the structure. My simple question is: Why? That is the only "Spell-Cast" which does this. I would be happy if this will be patched out or patched in for other units like the Liberator. If a Liberator goes in siegemode, I only recognize after the first Dronekill or if i have seen it before on the map. If I target something with the Bile, everybody gets the chance to avoid damage. This will maybe not affect bronze - gold / Platin-league, but if a player is on top of his apm, he will easily dodge almost every bileshot on important units like the Warpprism or Liberator. I know this will be a slight buff, but then we have to balance it otherwise I think. This mechanic is not well implemented if you compare it to all other units. On the Nerf-side i would implement a upgrade for the Roachwarren like the Lurkerden on T1. So the enemy can see what the Zerg will build and can do his counterthings vs Ravager. Also i would Nerf the Bile a little, maybe damage-reduce or Cooldown-increase.
After all this, i want to apologize for the many many spelling-mistakes, this is not my main-language, but i tried my best.
|
On November 26 2015 03:54 MufffinMan wrote: After all this, i want to apologize for the many many spelling-mistakes, this is not my main-language, but i tried my best.
No worries, thanks for your input.
|
1. How do you feel about the ravager design in general? Best unit for SC2 since the introduction of the Viper. Possibly even better. 2. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes. I could see its usefulness fade against bio Terrans however, it's not that good against in big number fights. 3. Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Structures/units as the spell was obviously designed to. That it can kill forcefields has been the little sidekick that blizzard only mentioned somewhere in the revelation video, but people circlejerked it up as if the 60damage part had only been patched in yesterday. 4. Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? Not sure. In my opinion way too much stuff comes way too early in LotV, but it's not more out of proportion than e.g. the HotS-oracle or the LotV-liberator. 5. Do you think the ravager has too many roles? No, most of its roles become a bit mediocre. That's what makes units an option (think stalkers, mutas, marines, roaches), when they can do a ton of stuff without having to rely on 15support units or only coming into play because your opponent played "that one thing they are good against". 6. Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? The cost are fine. Production might be an issue. 7. Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? It makes sense that the ravager is not countered by the same units as the roach is. 8. The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? I think this should be nerfed. Morphing units barely (not) finishing for battle creates a lot of tension with zerg, ravagers don't have too much of that. 9. Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? It's a good unit, amongst other roles having the ability to siege. But I definitely don't see it as support unit at the moment, if anything as a complement. 10. Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? The damage vs pylons is 340 damage short. Against depots and real defenses that cost real money and require real strategic thinking it could be too high.
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? Lots of tweaks: Damage point to 0 (dps nerfed by ~10% or so as a tradeoff) +2 seconds on the bile cooldown. A few seconds morph-time more, e.g. ~4 Corrosive bile damage changed to 55(+345 vs pylons). Maybe roll in the higher-than-basic speed into the roach-speed upgrade.
|
Out of curiosity, does the following micro trick work?
- Select four ravagers and a zergling
- Engage into the zerg's fortified position
- The zergling arrives quicker and draws all lurker shots, akin to tank overkill in Brood War
- Fire off four corrosive bile shots to kill a single lurker
- The lurker dies and your ravagers escape unscathed from even the most heavily defended positions
|
On November 26 2015 04:35 Big J wrote: Corrosive bile damage changed to 55(+345 vs pylons).
lmao
That racial bias though.
I don't understand why you think that Roaches and Ravagers should require different counters.
First of all, Corrosive Bile is so imposing that it ITSELF requires that we play against it a certain way.
Second, Ravagers come from Roaches. When Zerg makes a bunch of Roaches we can't just go "oh, he'll probably turn those into Ravagers... let me just make the counter to Ravagers." Zerg always has the option to keep them Roaches. So we have to build counters to Roaches. REACTIVELY the Zerg can then make Ravagers out of his Roaches and we're fucked. Roaches are strong units and if you don't have anything that deals + damage to them they take a long time to kill.
Third, it's not like anything is especially GOOD at killing Ravagers... most things do mediocre DPS against them and take full DPS from them (both their regular attack and the Corrosive Bile). Only Zealots do full damage to Ravagers before you get to Fleet Beacon, Twilight, or Robo Bay (TIER 3 UNITS). Hatch tech should not require Tier 3 units to counter it...
|
On November 26 2015 04:52 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 04:35 Big J wrote: Corrosive bile damage changed to 55(+345 vs pylons).
lmao That racial bias though. I don't understand why you think that Roaches and Ravagers should require different counters. First of all, Corrosive Bile is so imposing that it ITSELF requires that we play against it a certain way. Second, Ravagers come from Roaches. When Zerg makes a bunch of Roaches we can't just go "oh, he'll probably turn those into Ravagers... let me just make the counter to Ravagers." Zerg always has the option to keep them Roaches. So we have to build counters to Roaches. REACTIVELY the Zerg can then make Ravagers out of his Roaches and we're fucked. Roaches are strong units and if you don't have anything that deals + damage to them they take a long time to kill. Third, it's not like anything is especially GOOD at killing Ravagers... most things do mediocre DPS against them and take full DPS from them (both their regular attack and the Corrosive Bile). Only Zealots do full damage to Ravagers before you get to Fleet Beacon, Twilight, or Robo Bay (TIER 3 UNITS). Hatch tech should not require Tier 3 units to counter it...
@corrosive bile: Yeah of course, because thats the thing you pay 25/75 for. You don't pay to get your roach downgraded in health and damage output. The corrosive bile is what makes the ravager the ravager, obviously you have to play around it when you play against ravagers.
@tech required: Protoss has been designed around early game bandaids, in particular the mothership core so that they can rush mid and hightech superfast. Hence balance- and designwise I don't see the contradiction that Protoss actually has to make use of that power to counter zergs massive larva power when they do a ravager allin. It may not be enough though, given how overpowered inject still is, especially when you can make 100/100 units in the early game off 1larva.
@counters Just because a unit doesn't do extra damage to the ravager doesn't mean it doesn't do good amounts of damage to it. Ravagers only have 41% of the HP/cost of a roach which makes immortal shots onto ravagers just as valueable as on roaches and stalker shots much more valueable on ravagers than on roaches, despite only dealing 71% damage to it. So in general a lot of units are good counters against ravagers - if they can attack them (which often requires you to maw through the roach/ling buffer) If the ravager had some overlapping hardcounters with the roach it would have a serious problem being viable at all. The gameplay would probably be like: I made roaches, you countered them... let me never make ravagers because you already counter them so hard.
|
On November 26 2015 05:12 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 04:52 DinoMight wrote:On November 26 2015 04:35 Big J wrote: Corrosive bile damage changed to 55(+345 vs pylons).
lmao That racial bias though. I don't understand why you think that Roaches and Ravagers should require different counters. First of all, Corrosive Bile is so imposing that it ITSELF requires that we play against it a certain way. Second, Ravagers come from Roaches. When Zerg makes a bunch of Roaches we can't just go "oh, he'll probably turn those into Ravagers... let me just make the counter to Ravagers." Zerg always has the option to keep them Roaches. So we have to build counters to Roaches. REACTIVELY the Zerg can then make Ravagers out of his Roaches and we're fucked. Roaches are strong units and if you don't have anything that deals + damage to them they take a long time to kill. Third, it's not like anything is especially GOOD at killing Ravagers... most things do mediocre DPS against them and take full DPS from them (both their regular attack and the Corrosive Bile). Only Zealots do full damage to Ravagers before you get to Fleet Beacon, Twilight, or Robo Bay (TIER 3 UNITS). Hatch tech should not require Tier 3 units to counter it... @corrosive bile: Yeah of course, because thats the thing you pay 25/75 for. You don't pay to get your roach downgraded in health and damage output. The corrosive bile is what makes the ravager the ravager, obviously you have to play around it when you play against ravagers.
Well ... you morph them to get corrosive bile, and lose the armor tag, and increase the size of the unit (disabling splash, like tanks), and gain +50% attack range ... You could probably argue to completely remove Corrosive Bile and the Ravager would still be an upgraded Roach (not advocating for this, btw). An AOE attack spell that does 60 dmg at hatch tech, on cooldown, is obviously very OP.
|
On November 19 2015 10:36 Jer99 wrote:
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability.
Wait I thought it had less DPS than a roach (at least at 0-1 upgrade) unless you factored in corrosive bile.
|
Yeah I don't think you realize how strong Corrosive Bile is man.
Paying 25/75 is not the issue. Paying 25/75 at hatch tech when the only thing available to me are Zealots/Stalkers/Sentries and maybe 1 Immortal is.
This unit hits the battlefield INCREDIBLY early.
Think of what the game would look like if Terran had a Battlecruiser at Barracks tech. Sure it's expensive, but at that time in the game there's very little you can make to counter it. So Terran saves up and makes their Battlecruiser and then they win, or the Protoss/Zerg has to invest so much into defending against this that they just lose eventually anyway.
That is what Ravagers are like to play against.
|
DPS decreases from 11.2 to 10 HOWEVER, they shoot from longer range AND shoot faster which means higher efficiency (until armor starts to kick in). So against Marines and Adepts they shoot first (roach always shoots second).
Health goes from 145 to 120. HOWEVER they take considerably less damage from Stalkers, Immortals, Tanks, and Marauders as a result of this.
The Ravager itself on paper is not a bad fighting unit.
Also, it has a 7 second cooldown 60 damage aoe spell that hits air and buildings and cloaked and burrowed units.
How is this not the brokest unit in the game?
|
Canada8157 Posts
On November 26 2015 07:57 varsovie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2015 10:36 Jer99 wrote:
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability. Wait I thought it had less DPS than a roach (at least at 0-1 upgrade) unless you factored in corrosive bile.
Liquipedia is wrong, the attack period for a roach is 1.43 with an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS 11.2 the attack period of a ravager is 1.14, and also has an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS of 14.04
|
On November 26 2015 09:25 Jer99 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 07:57 varsovie wrote:On November 19 2015 10:36 Jer99 wrote:
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability. Wait I thought it had less DPS than a roach (at least at 0-1 upgrade) unless you factored in corrosive bile. Liquipedia is wrong, the attack period for a roach is 1.43 with an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS 11.2 the attack period of a ravager is 1.14, and also has an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS of 14.04
This is hugely important! I assumed they at least got a DPS debuff when morphing. Increased DPS plus a 50% attack range increase? Double or triple the cooldown on corrosive bile, at a bare minimum. Move the ravager to Lair. This will barely delay the attack, but it will help in scouting.
|
On November 26 2015 09:37 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 09:25 Jer99 wrote:On November 26 2015 07:57 varsovie wrote:On November 19 2015 10:36 Jer99 wrote:
Interestingly enough, the ravager has 25hp less than a roach. While netting less survivability, this is somewhat mitigated by the increased damage output through faster attack speed, and the utility of the corrosive bile ability. Wait I thought it had less DPS than a roach (at least at 0-1 upgrade) unless you factored in corrosive bile. Liquipedia is wrong, the attack period for a roach is 1.43 with an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS 11.2 the attack period of a ravager is 1.14, and also has an attack damage of 16, giving it a DPS of 14.04 This is hugely important! I assumed they at least got a DPS debuff when morphing. Increased DPS plus a 50% attack range increase? Double or triple the cooldown on corrosive bile, at a bare minimum. Move the ravager to Lair. This will barely delay the attack, but it will help in scouting. you mean make them completely worthless? ya
|
Too strong and too well-rounded.
I also think it's silly and weird that it moves faster than a roach. It looks goofy because it is so big. When you evolve into something bigger you generally move slower.... especially if it's an artillery cannon unit.
I think the Ravager is basically the neo-SC2 design team summed up. They just don't understand RTS as well as the BW team did. This is basically why the best expansion units have been remakes of BW units (widow mine = spider mine, hellbat = firebat, etc).
And when they actually make completely new units we get stuff like the colossus and the tempest (people should be fired and lose their pension for such poorly designed units), the warhound, the ravager, and etc.
|
On November 26 2015 16:11 DemigodcelpH wrote: Too strong and too well-rounded.
I also think it's silly and weird that it moves faster than a roach. It looks goofy because it is so big. When you evolve into something bigger you generally move slower.... especially if it's an artillery cannon unit.
I think the Ravager is basically the neo-SC2 design team summed up. They just don't understand RTS as well as the BW team did. This is basically why the best expansion units have been remakes of BW units (widow mine = spider mine, hellbat = firebat, etc).
And when they actually make completely new units we get stuff like the colossus and the tempest (people should be fired and lose their pension for such poorly designed units), the warhound, the ravager, and etc. There were sometimes people that would complain about Blizzard taking units from Brood War and how it showed their dearth of creativity, and then others that wished they would take only units from Brood War because they were incapable of solid original design, and yet others that wanted Brood War units to be untarnished by the new designers. Blizzard can't do much right for some people, it's very gloomy discussion sometimes.
|
On November 26 2015 21:37 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 16:11 DemigodcelpH wrote: Too strong and too well-rounded.
I also think it's silly and weird that it moves faster than a roach. It looks goofy because it is so big. When you evolve into something bigger you generally move slower.... especially if it's an artillery cannon unit.
I think the Ravager is basically the neo-SC2 design team summed up. They just don't understand RTS as well as the BW team did. This is basically why the best expansion units have been remakes of BW units (widow mine = spider mine, hellbat = firebat, etc).
And when they actually make completely new units we get stuff like the colossus and the tempest (people should be fired and lose their pension for such poorly designed units), the warhound, the ravager, and etc. There were sometimes people that would complain about Blizzard taking units from Brood War and how it showed their dearth of creativity, and then others that wished they would take only units from Brood War because they were incapable of solid original design, and yet others that wanted Brood War units to be untarnished by the new designers. Blizzard can't do much right for some people, it's very gloomy discussion sometimes.
The person you quote isn't wrong about the units sucking, though.
The design team dropped the ball on SC2. I know it's not a popular thing to say but I really feel it's true. The units mentioned in the post above are poorly designed and poorly implemented. Much of the changes to SC2 feel like patchwork solutions to deeper issues that have never been resolved.
I understand it's hard to create and balance a game like this and I know they're trying but they're not on point like BW fans expect. That's not to say BW was perfect straight out of the gate; but it became the most popular and nearly perfectly balanced (and fun!) RTS game of all time. There's no way SC2 gets to that point the way it is now.
The problem with the ravager is that protoss doesn't have anything to stifle it. It's less that the ravager is too strong or comes out too early than it is that it has no counter. It has no counter because the new protoss units are really, really lackluster.
Ravagers will almost certainly be getting nerfed (given the amount of hate they're getting) but what really ought to happen is that the other races get a unit that can deal with them. Probably too late for that now.
|
On November 27 2015 02:46 Mjolnir wrote:Show nested quote +On November 26 2015 21:37 Grumbels wrote:On November 26 2015 16:11 DemigodcelpH wrote: Too strong and too well-rounded.
I also think it's silly and weird that it moves faster than a roach. It looks goofy because it is so big. When you evolve into something bigger you generally move slower.... especially if it's an artillery cannon unit.
I think the Ravager is basically the neo-SC2 design team summed up. They just don't understand RTS as well as the BW team did. This is basically why the best expansion units have been remakes of BW units (widow mine = spider mine, hellbat = firebat, etc).
And when they actually make completely new units we get stuff like the colossus and the tempest (people should be fired and lose their pension for such poorly designed units), the warhound, the ravager, and etc. There were sometimes people that would complain about Blizzard taking units from Brood War and how it showed their dearth of creativity, and then others that wished they would take only units from Brood War because they were incapable of solid original design, and yet others that wanted Brood War units to remain untarnished by the new designers. Blizzard can't do much right for some people, it's very gloomy discussion sometimes. The person you quote isn't wrong about the units sucking, though. The design team dropped the ball on SC2. I know it's not a popular thing to say but I really feel it's true. The units mentioned in the post above are poorly designed and poorly implemented. Much of the changes to SC2 feel like patchwork solutions to deeper issues that have never been resolved. I understand it's hard to create and balance a game like this and I know they're trying but they're not on point like BW fans expect. That's not to say BW was perfect straight out of the gate; but it became the most popular and nearly perfectly balanced (and fun!) RTS game of all time. There's no way SC2 gets to that point the way it is now. I know, I'm mostly talking about various views that I've wavered on myself over the years. However, the point remains that there are a lot of debates here which are premised on a basic lack of faith in Blizzard and it creates a sense of despondency in the tone here. I'm very guilty of it myself, that's why lately I've started to think that the discourse would be improved in trying to cease investing Blizzard with agency. We could have constructive criticism (in the literal sense) where the game itself would be the object to be investigated instead of every argument serving as a proxy for one's opinion on Blizzard and how one disagrees with their direction for the game. We have no influence over their internal dialogue and decision making regardless, incorporating Blizzard into the conversation only induces fatalism and resignation (at least if you are inclined to view them negatively, as I am wont to).
|
1. How do you feel about the ravager design in general? I am happy about it. Especially it makes Zerg having a different way to micro more than the usual flanking surrounding and splitting. I am having lots of fun in zvz once got pass the king baneling phrase because you get so much more to play with (burrow movement roach, ravager roach, lurker etc)
2. Do you feel that the ravager has a place in each matchup? Yes, but I am still uncertain about zvt, not sure if it will stay a common unit composition after a few patches. I have a feeling blizzard will do a patch to improve other unit comp and nerf ravager.
3. Is corrosive bile better versus forcefields or structures/units? Its better against units and structures for sure. There is no point to destroy forcefields in the battle when you can either do damage to the Protoss ball or force them to move back for some extra time brought
4. Is the current tech requirement of a roach warren fine, or should the requirements change to access the ravager? I like it just fine to be honest. Scouting it is hard but I believe it can be solved by meta and more understanding of the game.
5. Do you think the ravager has too many roles? I think too many is difficult to define. I like it doing a lot of things which some it excel and some it is more of a support. You don't really mass ravager like marine, it's more of a hydra kind of unit.
6. Is the current total cost of 100/100 too cheap/expensive? This is a tough call, the cost is indeed quite high because you won't get one or two ravager, you get at least 4+ Ravagers to do some sort of early pressure. People might not realise but you are losing a roach for this and you are going to need some units to replace the tanking part, whether you build lings or roach you are going to use up another larva.
For the mid game and so on, it's expensive enough to make the Zerg not able to switch to another unit comp easily.
7. Recently, ravagers changed and became unarmored. Do you agree? I think nothing much changed to be honest other than making ravager tank interaction less awkward. Once your tanking front is down, ravager are pretty much dead anyway.
8. The current morph time from roach to ravager is 9 seconds. Is this too fast? Too slow? Too fast I believe, but its always hard to make the right call on this one. Banelings for example takes short time to morph and so you can engage pretty easily after giving just enough time for opponent to secure some ground and regroup the army.
Ravagers is awkward because they are like lurker, it takes a while to morph and requires a tanking unit at front. Either you don't have them ready to deal with counter push or the tanking units aren't there yet.
9. Do you see the ravager as a support unit and/or a siege unit? Both.
10. Is the damage and/or splash from corrosive bile too much? It is pretty strong against really stationary targets like structure but at the same time I feel like this is only an early game issue. Against units it's strong if only all the hits landed which rarely happens
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? Nothing for now. Maybe improve the model visual appearance
|
11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? First, one point i have not seen in this thread. The Corrosive Bile generates an attack-information to the enemy. That happens before the Bile makes damage at the unit or the structure. My simple question is: Why? That is the only "Spell-Cast" which does this. I would be happy if this will be patched out or patched in for other units like the Liberator. If a Liberator goes in siegemode, I only recognize after the first Dronekill or if i have seen it before on the map. If I target something with the Bile, everybody gets the chance to avoid damage. This will maybe not affect bronze - gold / Platin-league, but if a player is on top of his apm, he will easily dodge almost every bileshot on important units like the Warpprism or Liberator. I know this will be a slight buff, but then we have to balance it otherwise I think. This mechanic is not well implemented if you compare it to all other units. I checked a Replay and did not see this. Did they fixed it or is it still in the game? Maybe there are not Notifications in the Replay
|
Is there even a way to deal with them as terran? Terran already has the slowest units in the game, and even the ones that are faster enough to move out of the way if possible get one shot so you can just cover the entire area and the army disappears instantly.
|
On November 26 2015 03:54 MufffinMan wrote: 11. If you could change anything on the ravager, what would it be and why? First, one point i have not seen in this thread. The Corrosive Bile generates an attack-information to the enemy. That happens before the Bile makes damage at the unit or the structure. My simple question is: Why? That is the only "Spell-Cast" which does this. I would be happy if this will be patched out or patched in for other units like the Liberator. If a Liberator goes in siegemode, I only recognize after the first Dronekill or if i have seen it before on the map. If I target something with the Bile, everybody gets the chance to avoid damage. This will maybe not affect bronze - gold / Platin-league, but if a player is on top of his apm, he will easily dodge almost every bileshot on important units like the Warpprism or Liberator. I know this will be a slight buff, but then we have to balance it otherwise I think. This mechanic is not well implemented if you compare it to all other units. On the Nerf-side i would implement a upgrade for the Roachwarren like the Lurkerden on T1. So the enemy can see what the Zerg will build and can do his counterthings vs Ravager. Also i would Nerf the Bile a little, maybe damage-reduce or Cooldown-increase. Every other spellcaster has either a high ability cooldown or is energy based. The ravager ability is spamable beyond reason. Without any notification you can just instaquit and PvZ, because you will lose a 100% of the time.
For example: Storm damage is over time: You can simply walk out of it. Fungal is a projectile, you can dodge it. Nuclear launch has an message displayed as well as the "notification" (aka the red dot). You can and have to move out of it.
If you just have 60 AoE damage instantly dropped on your army you dont even need to fight.
|
Storm ist instant, if you move instant out of the area after the Storm is casted you will still get a high amount of damage. Don't know what your point at Fungle is, I think it is fine how it is. Nuclear launch is an area almost the size of half a screen.... the comparison is not usefull. It is like a Nydus, you will get a notification even if it is on my side of the map.
To compare similar Abilitys
Widow Mine: no Notification, yes the Cooldown is higher but the AOE is more powerfull and the Unit is way cheaper. Also it is borrowed. Liberator: no Notification. This Thing kills at least 3 Drones before you can move out of range if you are not at place. Disruptor: No Notification, higher Cooldown, costs more, makes more damage.
If you read my comment you see, that I think that this will be a slight buff, but the mechanic makes no sense in comparison to the other abilitys. If it is a bug, I hope they will fix it. If it is no bug they have to do a Nerf otherwise. All this is my own Opinion, nothing meant to offend!
|
On November 29 2015 02:27 MufffinMan wrote: Storm ist instant, if you move instant out of the area after the Storm is casted you will still get a high amount of damage. Don't know what your point at Fungle is, I think it is fine how it is. Nuclear launch is an area almost the size of half a screen.... the comparison is not usefull. It is like a Nydus, you will get a notification even if it is on my side of the map.
To compare similar Abilitys
Widow Mine: no Notification, yes the Cooldown is higher but the AOE is more powerfull and the Unit is way cheaper. Also it is borrowed. Liberator: no Notification. This Thing kills at least 3 Drones before you can move out of range if you are not at place. Disruptor: No Notification, higher Cooldown, costs more, makes more damage.
If you read my comment you see, that I think that this will be a slight buff, but the mechanic makes no sense in comparison to the other abilitys. If it is a bug, I hope they will fix it. If it is no bug they have to do a Nerf otherwise. All this is my own Opinion, nothing meant to offend!
I think you might just be a little confused.
Widow mines shows a warning graphic to the opponent. A targeting line is drawn, giving your opponent time to disengage and take zero damage. Incidentally, the Widow Mine shot can also be dodged, even after it's locked and fired (blink, warp prism micro, etc ...).
Liberator has an animation on the unit, and a gigantic flashing red warning graphic for the opponent. Then, even after the warning graphic disappears, a permanent indicator shows up for the opponent (only unit in the game that does this). Normally a unit's range can be seen if (A) you have vision of it, and (B) you have it selected.
Disruptor's Nova Purification ball--or whatever it's called--is essentially the on-screen warning. It does no damage until the fuse burns out.
There are only a few point-and-click AOE abilities in the game, and all of them were introduced in LotV (correct me if I'm wrong!): (1) Reaper Grenade, (2) Corrosive Bile, and (3) Purification Nova. All three have on-screen warnings for the opponent. This is to create counter-play between the two players.
I do think, however, that the Reaper grenade looks incredibly weak compared to the massive, massive damage done by the other point-and-click cooldown AOE abilities. Would be nice if the grenade could be upgraded to do more damage in the later stages of the game.
There are only a few global notifications: Nuclear launch, and Nydus worm. This is because of the terrible, terrible consequences of not focusing on it.
|
I am not about the yellow mark on the ground. I thought there is a Sound-Notification when the enemy Units is only in the target. In Beta there was a Sound-Notification when an enemy-Ravager wanted to kill my Overlord with the Bile.
|
|
|
|