Goodbye Reaver?

oops i meant lightning gun, i edited my post.

yeah, that thing looks pretty cool.
they need to fix up the tech tree and add some more new units, and less old buildings.

 

Phase Prisms dude. That's the point.

 

Phase Prism... just what i was about to say. Yeah the colossi really are just the reaver revisited. They do amazing amounts of damage to small units like miners and wipe buildings clean in no time (three of those in your base is GG is you have no air defenses) and are Very slow. Stalkers with blink are hard for them to hit if micro-ed effectively. And there is no reason to drop a colossus anywhere. They just walk were they want. As for them hitting air units- what fun is that? The game is about strategy you have to group your units intelligently (ie stalkers with your colossi) not just build the super unit that kills everything. It make the game interesting. Besides the colossus’ cannons are so slow it’d never be able hit anything in the air anyway so what’s the point.

 

Actually I thought they ran pretty fast, they out ran the baneling. And as for their cannons, they kill one unit and move directly on to the next. That's uh... instantaneous, and therefore not slow at all. Eventually they have to recharge and refire, but that doesn't take a particularly long time either, maybe 1-2 seconds.

 

oh they walk fast enough (in the Blizzcon build they didn't walk as fast as in the video you are referencing, I don't think) but notice the targeting. When firing they don’t just shoot what you want directly they drag the laser across the ground before eventually finding the target and have a turning capability almost as piss poor as the Thor.
They are one of my favorite units and are powerful as hell’s furry unleashed but they have their limitations too. I wouldn’t want to try outrunning anything with one.

 

I think Blizzard should do a choice between the colossus or the reaver like having a choice between the BC's Yamato gun or the Torpedoes

 

interesting but the only differecnce is one fits in a dropship/ phase prism and has ammo you pay for and the other looks awesome as Hell.

 

This is the worst news I have heard in a long time.
None of you have any idea how sad I am.
None of you know how hard it was to read 6 pages of posts and not be able to say anything until I got to the end.

But let me say a few things:
To those who cite the existence of obstacles as making the reaver obsolete:
There were physical obstacles in SC1, check it out some time.

To those who cite that the Colossus can take the place of the Reaver:
So you expect me to shell out the minerals and gas for the creation of Collosi IN ADDITION to the money for teching up to them to battle swarms of zerglings and hydralisks? Superior numbers of lings and hydras will be available much sooner than a Colossus. So how do you propose I counter overwhelmingly large Zerg forces while I'm teching up to the ridiculously War of the Worlds-esque, POS Colossus?

To those who think that the colossus is more effective than 4 reavers:
I would rather have 4 reavers attacking 4 separate targets as they come into range (which would easily become a killing blow to at least 16 units, since 1 scarab can take out multitudes of units), rather than 1 Colossus sweeping its laser. Not to mention, if you look at one of my posts about more units being more efficient, you will understand that 4 units means 4 separate targets. That means that the group will do more damage because it will last longer, doing 100% damage possible when there are 4, 75% damage when there one dies, 50% damage when 2 die, and 25% damage when three die. This breaks up the damage given over 4 units as opposed to one unit, which would do 100% damage for a shorter amount of time, then be useless as it is dead.

In direct relation to this point, I would rather have a reaver, which can take out 4 hydralisks at once (for example), rather than a colossus, which takes them out one at a time, due to the lack of splash damage. Against 20 hydralisks, the 1 reaver would kill them by 4, so the hydras' damage would jump from 100% to 80% to 60% etc. etc. Against a colossus, the hydralisks would do 100% damage, then 95% damage, then 90% and so on and so forth. I realize that 20 hydralisks would kill a reaver, but I'm just using this scenario as an example.

To those who think that it should be scrapped because of its looks
Siege tanks. They weren't axed, and they were ugly as sin. They got remodeled.

To those who think the reaver is too specialized and not good for a multitude of situations:
Siege tanks. Colossi. Good against infantry, tier 1. Vulnerable to air.

I will never, EVER accept the colossus as a replacement. It will have to do some insane damage and kill stuff very fast for me to accept it as a substitute. I do accept that Blizzard is moving towards newer units and that they shouldn't and can't make a re-hash of the original. So I will not start a poll or thread to bring them back. Yet.

 

It didn't make them obsolete in SC1 because ALL ground units had to walk the same path than the scarabs had to. So, it had a point.

Colossus is in the exact same place in the tech tree as reaver was. So if you could get one, you can get the other.

I never said it was as good as 4 reavers, but that as far as price goes, it's HPs are same as 4 reavers, which makes up his cost beeing reaver's double. It also spends no money in recharging. And it always hits it's targets. It's not that reavers cannot do more, but as far as planning and strategy, certainty is more valuable than possibility!

I also agree with you on that, STs are damn ungly this time :-/ But if you choose to compare the concept of Colossi and reavers, I'm still with the Colossi. Taste is not something to argue about, it's something to feel sorry about. ;-)

Colossus is good for base raiding, just like the reapers. They can cross mountains and go unreachable by most units. It's vulnerability to anti-air was a necessary balancing tool, otherwise it would be unfair. Its said they work great vs. buildings.

Only siege-tanks can be compared, but they have many more uses than the reaver does as well. I've seen many times a ST stopping beyond some water division on the land and attacking my base from the field. But it's not a 2 possible uses like the reavers. These were dead meat on the field, and couldn't be escorted by any unit, as it's speed is much much diferent.

I also believe that the Reaver's play has been divided by both Warp Rays and Colossi. It's unfair even to compare these 2, as they are in fact 2 diferent units, and it was thought before that they could even work together. Who knows if an expansion set won't bring it back?

 

Regarding cliffs:
My point was that you were citing the cliffs as a reason to why they got scrapped, but if they were such a big obstacle, why were reavers in the original in the first place? It's not like cliffs just appeared in SC2.

Regarding specialization:
Colossi are way more expensive than reapers. Refer back to my "more lower tier units is better" philosophy. Siege tanks couldn't be plopped down in a mineral field and attack units immediately, and reavers were not meant to walk across the map; you needed to use shuttles to escort them around.

Regarding teching:
Ok, but that still means that I have to pay double (confirmation please?) to get a colossus when I could have 1 reaver to help out earlier while the second one builds.

Regarding taste:
Well said. But I would rather have an original reaver rather than a borrowed Colossus

I can only hope that it will come back as a hero in one of the campaigns, if not in the expansion, like you said. :'(

EDIT: w00t 700 posts

 

i read the double cost of reaver for colossus too. i dont remember where though.

Warbringer FTW! that would be great to have in a campaign.

 

ok so I read (skimmed sorta tho lol) like almost 7 pages of posts and I think someone has failed to mention this:

I like the reaver and I wish they came back. And yes I disagree that the colossus does NOT replace the reaver. However, if you look at it this way. The reaver was paired along with the shuttle. And for it to be a successful drop, you always need a quick pickup to protect your reavers an fly away. In starcraft I, it worked (of course lol); however, in starcraft 2... we have no shuttle... we have the phase prisms now.

So if you look at the mechanics of the phase prism, we see that the units "warp out" of the phase prisms and it's mostly likely it'll "warp in" when picked up. I don't know fully how it works but it seems like it would not be a quick drop or pickup. Plus the phase prisms don't look as fast as the shuttle (with the upgrade)

Does anyone see what I mean? Or anyone willing to attempt to translate? ^_^ Maybe what I'm trying to say is we need the shuttle for the reaver to be kept in the game.

 

Ok, I'll try to be more clear this time: cliffs were always there, and the need to go around them was shared by all walking unit alike. Even by the scarabs and reavers. Now, since there are units who don't need to follow the path, scarabs are easily dodged. If they could go straight to their targets, like a missile shot, it would be unfair and reaver would have to be nerfed somehow. In other words, reaver would have to stop beeing reaver.

Siege tanks can attack units immediately and faster than reavers: that's why they are good enough to be on the battle-front. It's the siege-mode that needs preparation, and Siege-tank is not entirely about that. The fact that you don't need to use it necessarily in siege-mode makes it a still usable unit in SC2, because it can still move faster and attack with different cooldown than the static siege-mode. Also, it's attack can cross any kinds of barriers, so it fits in the new game style as well.

Regarding teching:
1 reaver alone wasn't that much of a defense. It was trapped behind your cannons or exposed without where to run in front of them. Or too far anyway. 1 reaver alone was going to get killed while the second hadn't got there. Add to it the time to recharge, AND to get extra money to pay for the scarabs (which would surely get in the way of saving enough for your second reaver, thus slowing it down even more). If you could save money while the building was beeing warped (preferably), then the same would be worthy to the Colossus, and it would be ready in almost same time (if you add the time to fill the scarabs). Also, they wouldn't die in the first attack, beeing a more steady defense unit than the reavers.

Now, I said this and will repeat yet again: Colossus would have other uses than to sit by your base or be thrown inside the enemy's to die. Reavers can't stand in the battle front, because they would need constantly the shuttle to move them fast, and take excessive micro if you still have to make scarabs. They're too slow compared to regular mode STs.

And in the end, cannons are there for defense. Reavers and Colossi are there to play a support role. The diference is that the Colossi do it better, as it can cross other units and stay behind them, and is more resilient. It works better with zealots, giving the player more freedom. If you see it working you'll understand. ;-)

 

just because a unit needs micro doesn't mean it should be axed!! So what if you needed to use shuttles? So what if you needed to stay on top of it and build scarabs? It separated the men from the boys, and added depth to the game that the casual players could strive to reach.

The fact that you think that the reaver was good for nothing more than "suicide drops" and defense nullifies your argument that the colossus would be able to do more than the reaver

if it was stuck behind cannons, it was your fault, not the reaver's
if it missed, it was because of shitty AI, not the reaver itself

we haven't see the colossus side by side with the reaver, so we can't say that one is better, except in things like "Who can go over cliffs better" in which the colossus obviously pwns ;D

And please don't say stuff like "If you see it working you'll understand." Even if you are not trying to, it sounds condescending

 

hhmm.. i agree with both of you. lol

but i think the main(or half) reason why they removed the reaver is simply because of the LOOK and feel of it in starcraft 2 specially in protoss campaign. basic units like zealots, dt, archon remains because ofcourse they are the infantary army of the protoss in their campaign. colossusm, stalker, immortals etc will be introduced in the campaign very well. and for the reaver there seem no place for it in starcraft 2 universe anymore. maybe will see them as cameo or broken pieces and remains . entaru reaver.

sorry i distracted your arguments.

 

Ok, sry if I was too hard on my comments. What I was trying to say with that is that "you'll get the freedom feeling, when you're able to move your defence line forward, with the Colossus and the Zealots as a group".

It's hard for me to think that players would actually go through all the trouble to move the reaver forward, by using a shuttle constantly. I know some players can actually do that with ease, it's true. I've seen ppl who play hide and seek with a group by picking their reavers by shuttle and moving across the enemies to hit them from the other side and back. I just think it's too unpractical.

And all for what? It's not like the reavers were a free win. Specially if the enemy is a protoss specialized in air (like me! ), and keeps mostly Photon cannons on the ground. In the end, I admit I also feel that the Colossus is also kind of useless to my main strategies, as I have mentioned before. I also think that the main reason one person defends the Colossus or the Reaver is it's preference in stile! lol Reavers were always looked down by me because they were easy to kill and couldn't escape when I targeted them! xD

So the coming of Colossus in it's place felt like an upgrade: "a unit that's harder to kill and can move away decently!", I thought. I don't know. Good thing about a debate is to raise different points of view and make us think. And it's done. I really don't have any other argument against the reaver. ;-)

 

I guess it just boils down to personal preference in a lot of cases. I always <3 loved <3 the reaver, so I am sad to see it go, but others maybe didn't love it so much or just didn't use it as much, and are happy to see a newer unit to kinda fill the same roll. Too bad they can't peacefully coincide :'(

 

Colossus to the Reavers- "Can't we all just get along?" :upset:

 

eh ya never know nikzad, they could bring it back. I feel like it's a 75 pro-reaver/25 anti-reaver. There's still plenty of time left to consider it.

 

yea, I loved the reaver too. But honestly, the collossus looks freakin' awesome. I think it will replace the reaver, in attack sense, very well.