Disruptors are not even ....

General Discussion
The problem is mass disruptors.

I dont care if they add the old reaver. That means you need to build scarabs manually and reavers are slow. Otherwise mass reaver will be a problem.

But the old reaver will make lurkers worthless. Maybe even any zerg ground army? Whats your solution here?
08/25/2016 04:31 AMPosted by AchromicWht
08/24/2016 02:13 PMPosted by iLLuSia
To be honest, I don't see much complaining about Lurkers. It's the unit which has been changed the least and so it get's the least complaining. People say Lurkers are too strong, but about Disruptors they say it's a !@#$ing design flaw, it looks stupid and is annoying.

Why the design flaw? When they first introduced the shot of the Disruptor (or Reaver) to be controlable, I thought that was a really cool idea. And Blizzard for sure did the same, so they stuck to it with all their might. But after playing with and against Disruptors, this cool idea turned into a repellant: when a shot is fired, you cannot approach, or it will follow you and blast you away. The correct response when seeing a Disruptor shot is to run (if you have the skill and the room on the map, you can split, but it's far more difficult and risky). This in a strategical context is just horrendous.

Eh, people whine about all of it. The Lurker kinda gets off the hook because it has nostalgia; but many still thought it was too tanky and did too much damage and wanted something which felt more like the BW version.

So, is the problem the shot, or that the toss player gets to decide when each shot is fired.

Thing is, EACH shot is so big that making more disruptors means just waiting less time between shots, because you only ever fire 1-2. If the shots were smaller, maybe we'd see different use from them; also opponents would be happier to engage, as it's less damage on initial contact.
(damage spread over time, so more time for a full engagement to take place).

Well, sounds like people whine about things which were changed since BW. In BW Lurker wasn't as tanky. I think it's range was also smaller. Sounds to me like that isn't nostalgia at all, just every change the dev team makes now is disliked. Remember HotS beta? They thought the SH would make a great job at being the new Lurker. What a fail.

The problem of the Disruptor are the abilities, which sounded really cool when introduced. I also thought controlling the shot is very cool, but playing with/against this unit made me realize how many problems this actually creates. Mr GM DK didn't play enough...
Disruptor was stupid unit from a start and still is. Nothing change about it. And I will chose HT every time. May be its nostalgia but I like HT.
08/25/2016 07:16 AMPosted by todespolka
But the old reaver will make lurkers worthless. Maybe even any zerg ground army? Whats your solution here?

Would they not have the same dramatic weakness as a single unit running near them and costing you 15 minerals for every reaper they get in range of?
I feel like disruptor is limited unit because it can't auto attack like Reaver with scarabs. Allowing disruptor to have auto attack while giving option to manually control projectile (just like you can set SCV to auto repair or manually repair) would make it reliable support.

Narrower splash but reduced cool down also seems needed.
disruptors are one of the worst and most boring unit ever.

i never liked it, since the beta i have been saying that the unit sucks for many reasons.

as always, blizzard wont listen.
This unit is as wonky as the Cyclone tbh as it comes down to getting money hits I mainly play Zerg and Terran but I like this unit although attacking with it seems to be erratic as anyone I see trying to attack with has issues unless they mass a good number of them. At the same time they're can be irritating to play against because you go to attack then have to do a u-turn when it fires at you.

Reminds me of the raven nonsense tbh.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum