StarCraft® II

Reaver Speculation

(Locked)

Posts: 877
Reavers from SC1 were almost included in SC2 and it seems possible that they would appear in an expansion. They made awesome noises and were a major threat with drops. While the siege role technically belongs to the collosus currently, but blizzard has said that they intend to modify units in the expansions. The reaver was devestating and pairing it with a sentry's force field it would be even more so.
I would like to see the classic reaver again, but i'm sure blizzard also has plenty of other ideas for awesome protoss units as well.
Posts: 1,350
I wanna see a Shield Battery(Support Building). And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler. This would make it so we can have movable defense. In mid-late game, spreading pylons is harder than spreading creep, so if it requires tech(I'd be happy even if it required Twilight OR Robo OR Stargate), it'd be just fine.
Posts: 1,513
massive direct circular splash damage? At least templar have DoT, so they're not instant death to half my units.

I was never able to control reavers well in SC1, but when they actually do what you want them to, they did damage! I think with the auto-balling AI they might be a bit too powerful.

Think of the scarabs as banelings that can't be killed, and deal over 100+ damage with the same radius, and only cost 15 minerals.

I mean, it would definitely give Protoss an option for a slow, heavy siege unit that is greatly helped by drops, because as of right now almost all their stuff is fast enough or mobile enough to work without drops. Re-balancing aside, the reaver might actually have enough pros and cons to work, should it come back.


And @EvanorEthan: Cannon movement from cyber core would be SO powerful it's not even funny. I mean, you don't need to have pylon spread from your base to the enemy, you just need 1 proxy pylon. If that proxy pylon could summon cannons that were pre-built, that would be so OP.
Edited by KarMAzasz on 6/10/2011 4:30 PM PDT
Posts: 1,350
Just make sure it isn't random like the old one. Randomness is BAD. VERY BAD!
Posts: 1,551
06/10/2011 04:27 PMPosted by EvanorEthan
I wanna see a Shield Battery(Support Building). And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler. This would make it so we can have movable defense. In mid-late game, spreading pylons is harder than spreading creep, so if it requires tech(I'd be happy even if it required Twilight OR Robo OR Stargate), it'd be just fine.


Really is Zerg can move around their towers for free. And if you want Toss to be able to warp around their Turrets then Terran gets 100% salvage on bunkers and turrets.
Posts: 1,350
06/10/2011 05:11 PMPosted by ThatGuy
I wanna see a Shield Battery(Support Building). And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler. This would make it so we can have movable defense. In mid-late game, spreading pylons is harder than spreading creep, so if it requires tech(I'd be happy even if it required Twilight OR Robo OR Stargate), it'd be just fine.


Really is Zerg can move around their towers for free. And if you want Toss to be able to warp around their Turrets then Terran gets 100% salvage on bunkers and turrets.

With an upgrade just like Toss will have to, fine by me.
Posts: 244
They're almost certain to be in Legacy of the Void, likely in a situation where you have to choose between unlocking them or a different unit.

Bringing them back for multiplayer? Unlikely, though giving Protoss a unit that makes for exciting gameplay would be very good for players and tournaments alike. Colossi just aren't as engaging as clutch Reaver play.
Edited by Darkarbiter on 6/10/2011 6:38 PM PDT
Posts: 1,393
The reaver, while a great unit, was fundamentally flawed in the fact that it had to rely on scarabs for attack. While not a big problem as a concept, the only way it was kept balanced was by the fact the pathing for the scarabs was beyond horrible. I mean come on, it would get stuck behind mineral patches for a good four seconds before winding its way through, and by then the workers/marines/various other units would be long gone.

The Colossi is a much better idea, a more reliable AOE walker that makes the killing edge for a Protoss force. Personally the cliffwalking and extended range ideas make it a much more versitile unit anyway, I mean both were glass cannons but at least this one has a bit of maneuverability and less of a chance to wipe out your own zealots.

That being said I'd LOVE to see the reaver reappear in campaign. The modding community had some awesome mockups of them for the SC1 import.
Posts: 877
I think that the reaver is so well liked that they probably will make it reappear at least in campaign. I would like to see how well it would work with force fields that make it so that workers can't run from it during a drop. Reaper drops were extremely micro intensive and probably would be less so because the scarab build would be autocast like build interceptor for the carrier. I would like to see this unit again just because it made awesome noises.
Posts: 234
06/10/2011 04:27 PMPosted by EvanorEthan
. And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler.


I don't want to learn how to beat another race, zergtoss, since i;m already bronze, and don't want to go lower. Anyway
Posts: 978
06/10/2011 07:48 PMPosted by Subsourian
While not a big problem as a concept, the only way it was kept balanced was by the fact the pathing for the scarabs was beyond horrible. I mean come on, it would get stuck behind mineral patches for a good four seconds before winding its way through, and by then the workers/marines/various other units would be long gone.


This pretty much happened to EVERYTHING in SC1. XD
...it was a fun game.
Posts: 305
The reaver would absolutely make sense in Heart of the Swarm, even if simply for campaign.

After, the scarab did massive splash damage. It would take out massive amounts of weaker zerg units at once. What better time to reintroduce it than in the campaign where it would do the most damage and be most challenging for the player?

If it was just brought back for Legacy of the Void, I'd be slightly disappointed. It just seems better to me to have it appear in the zerg campaign.
Posts: 319
That's a pretty good idea.

It probably wouldn't work for multiplayer, but it would be a great excuse to break out the heavy zerg ground units in HotS. Kerrigan has to storm a Tal'darim held base where they've dredged up a number of reavers from the brood war. All of a sudden most of her ground forces get converted into a fine misty chum, and the skies are filled with scouts and phoenixes. You'd have to fight a heavy air war or break out something like ultralisks.
Posts: 1,379
06/10/2011 07:48 PMPosted by Subsourian
The modding community had some awesome mockups of them for the SC1 import.


Those weren't mockups, the reaver exists in galaxy editor.

On topic, as much as I miss reaver, everyone calling for it, especially the misguided zerg who want to bring back reaver in hopes of ditching collosus, the reaver would be ridiculously powerful in SCII. The ONLY thing that saved in from that in SC1 was the horrible horrible scarab pathing and wide spread of units in general. SCII has good pathing and units clump up nice and tight. Basically imagine something the size of a siege tank blast or baneling bust but doing 125 damage, and the scarab isn't targetable (and with improved pathing, probably not evadable). One reaver would take the place of 3 collosi easily.

Also note that in the campaign remakes where the protoss use reavers against you, they do in fact own you exactly that hard.
Posts: 1,704
06/10/2011 04:27 PMPosted by EvanorEthan
I wanna see a Shield Battery(Support Building). And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler. This would make it so we can have movable defense. In mid-late game, spreading pylons is harder than spreading creep, so if it requires tech(I'd be happy even if it required Twilight OR Robo OR Stargate), it'd be just fine.


I don't know I think the new shield mechanics make the shield battery obsolete. The only reason they would include the shield battery now would be as a base defense, simply keep a battery close to the enterence of your base and activate it when your attacked by your opponents.
Posts: 37
06/10/2011 04:27 PMPosted by EvanorEthan
I wanna see a Shield Battery(Support Building). And an upgrade from the cyber core that makes cannons able to re-position ala spine/spore crawler. This would make it so we can have movable defense. In mid-late game, spreading pylons is harder than spreading creep, so if it requires tech(I'd be happy even if it required Twilight OR Robo OR Stargate), it'd be just fine.


holy crap, i disagree. salvage is only done to bunkers, so i honestly dont think that matters much. the moving of zerg structures makes them unique. also, if you have a detector out and with an army of nothing, you can have an easy creep killing squad.
Posts: 7,840
06/10/2011 04:30 PMPosted by EvanorEthan
Just make sure it isn't random like the old one. Randomness is BAD. VERY BAD


random?
Posts: 229
There is nothing inherantly wrong with the reaver being added for multi (I hope it is). it does have a different role than colossi (colossi are more anti personal assault, while a reaver is more heavy seige -- destroy the largest targets and structures and bust through super heavy defenses).

But for balance, what do you use as a counter to it? Several things, i think could be done; make it as sc2 with it's rock paper scissors counter methodology and say like for toss, immortals, for zerg mutas, etc..whatever they decide).

Or, they could do something more like warhammer (tabletop i mean) balance design - more general. The reaver can only shoot once a unit is a certain distance away. It can't shoot at nearby units so if a marine is beside it, it will still shoot the structure 10 spaces away. If it's surrounded, it won't shoot at all. This makes it a general weakness. ANYTHING that gets near it, will counter it, while it has no 'pure' weakness.

That is also fine; again nothing wrong with that type of design as long as they test it thoroughly and ensure it's possible for units to close in on it assuming a player of equal skill.

Regards,

Sanjay
This topic is locked.

Please report any Code of Conduct violations, including:

Threats of violence. We take these seriously and will alert the proper authorities.

Posts containing personal information about other players. This includes physical addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers, and inappropriate photos and/or videos.

Harassing or discriminatory language. This will not be tolerated.

Forums Code of Conduct

Report Post # written by

Reason
Explain (256 characters max)

Reported!

[Close]