1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Reaver

Discussion in 'Protoss' started by paragon, Jul 12, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Reaver

Discussion in 'Protoss' started by paragon, Jul 12, 2007.

  1. Rex

    Rex New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2007
    Messages:
    1,032
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Looks like its gonna fall apart... Also it looks like a very fat, and flat.
     
  2. WuHT

    WuHT New Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    199
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Reavers were one of the 3 "crummily unmanuervable" ground units capable of dealing aoe damage.

    Now with improved mechanics (blink...walking up cliffs) emphasis on maneurvability is not that important.

    ie : Siege mode'd tanks were incredibly potent, as were burrowed lurkers and the crawling reavers. This was compensated by the fact that they could not always get to where they should optimally be in the thick of battle.
     
  3. Ace_Bear

    Ace_Bear New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    68
    Likes received:
    0
    Trophy points:
    0
    Zeratul, you just explained the exact opposite of how Blizzard makes games. If they made looks the first thing done in SC and SC2 AND WoW AND all the Warcrafts those games would be better looking. To be honest the only single game that could compete graphically with the competition that came out within the same time frame was Warcraft3. SC was out of snuff in 6 months, WoW..lol there were better graphics MMO 6 months and more before WoW came out, etc.

    The thing is though, the graphics for blizzard isn't incredibly far behind other games AND their gameplay is the best to offer. No other game company I have seen puts as much effort into balance and gameplay as Blizzard does.

    Anyway the reaver was taken out because it could only be used for Reaver Drops in high-end games(Actually that was the only effective thing you could do with it across all levels, people just argue you can use it for other things, only thing is the resources are better used elsewhere for those things) which was a detraction to the game for many. It made the game slower, less fun. The reavers were long range support for the Toss but ended up being used completely different, which is another reason for the Big Colly to replace it, the Big Colly can actually support the units with enough speed and plenty of firepower.

    And WuhT: "Now with improved mechanics (blink...walking up cliffs) emphasis on maneurvability is not that important."
    Actually man it is more important now. See now that Blink and walking up cliffs is possible, choke points and defensive spots in front of your base means squat, even early and mid game. Movement is even more key to stop Blink and cliff walking base raids. Not only that but Reavers were even slower then the two units you compared it to. And you forgot one thing, Lurkers could be set up in secondary and tertiary resource areas undetected(until they attacked, which they could then move and be fine though) and Siege tanks had the longest range in the game needing units to actually go into the Fog of War to take full effect of that.

    Plus, even though the Siege and the Lurker were "slow" they still easily kept up with the rest of the attack force and most of the time weren't out ran by fellow units with proper micro, the Reaver had to be sent to the enemies' base 5 minutes before the Zeals and Dragoons just to get there in time to support the attack(not even the first one in lol). That unit could of used some type of speed upgrade(like what the Zeals have now except controllable bursts that way they could support). But why make all that effort when the big Colly is an easier solution?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.