Reavers are good if you're winning, but bad if you're losing. Because if you're winning, they have more time building ammo while marching forward. It's pretty much the middle line where they start becoming cost effective.
I really dislike reavers and think that was a mistake to tell the other guy to build them. They have nice damage, but its all front loaded. Once their ammo is gone, they're actually really bad. The ammo build time is 8 seconds for a 100 damage hit. That's 12.5 dps or 14.375 after 3 attack upgrades Even considering AoE, that's still pretty bad dps for their price. Also while it does AoE in a decent area, its fall off is pretty steep. Siege tanks will still do full damage to enemies close to the primary target, but reavers do at most 80% in splash and that's in a very close radius, and quickly falls off to 60% in the same radius that a siege tank still does 100%. I consider them somewhere between a baneling and a tank, and not as good as either. They seem like they should be a siege unit like tanks, but they act more like banes by front loading damage for a big bust, but its not nearly as cost effective at a bust as banes are. They don't do either role as well as the aforementioned units. I think the better call might have been a few high archons, a few immortals and then mass tempests. Archons have a decent attack, psi storms are nice aoe in a wider radius dealing full damage in that whole area, and they could have feedbacked Zag or the banshees. Then add a few immortals since your frontline got destroyed by the next waves's banes, having something a little tanky would have held a little till your sentinals revived. Then Tempests for big damage.
For me, Reaver ranks higher than at least Swann's tank. That tank can shoot 2-3 times max in its entire lifetime while more than 80% of the time it spent on sieging up and sieging down. It was so bad that not building it was the best decision in most battles I had as Swann. Regarding Baneling, I think the comparison will be situational since there are circumstances they are better than Baneling while sometimes they are worse. Except for Stetman's Baneling, Zagara's baneling can be easily countered with enough range attack or if the allies wave are thick enough to body-block its pathway. Reaver does not have this issue. The Scarab's damage is surely far more inferior than its SC1 counterpart but it can retarget if the initial target dies before the scarab reaches them. DPS while, it is terrible of course but it's a burst-it-down unit so we can not compare it using its weakest aspect. It takes 8s to build another scarab but it started with a load of scarabs so you can count it as multiple banelings in one package with better targeting and delivery system + the ability to resupply. Its damage vs initial target is also much better than Zagara's baneling (100 vs 80). What this means is it can burst down the enemies in a quick section and not letting said enemies to deal damage to your wave. This is why burst damage is so much more beneficial in SC than high dps for the most part. I will argue that Reaver is better than a unit with twice its dps due to its high burst damage. You can imagine this as killing enemies before they can hit you vs you let they live longer and gun you. What I am saying is Reaver is not entirely bad. It has its use. In the one department that it is useful for, it does it exceptionally well. If it can clear the frontline of your opponent's wave faster than your opponent's wave can to yours, then the backline are sitting ducks. Psi storm is just too weak. Besides its ability to restore shield in meager amount and weakly harm air, it's just too inferior to Scarabs if your opponent is heavy on ground force.
I think reavers were the right call, it’s just having a tychus who was 1 gas until the 10 minute mark and ignored all chat was kind of an impossible anchor to be tied to
@@Weigazod Yes the baneling isn't a perfect comparison. But the point was the front-loaded damage, where if your comp is heavy baneling, your damage will be front-loaded, and immediately your dps falls off a cliff. I agree that there are situations where that is useful. you need to just wipe out a wave instantly and have what's left clear it up the rest. But reavers were not doing that here. The enemy wasn't getting instantly wiped by them and it was turning into a long slog where they became dependent on long term dps. Part of that was the inferior performance by Tychus. But sometimes a weaker teammate is a circumstance you need to adapt to and play around that problem. I will also disagree on psi storm aoe being inferior. Reavers do 100 damage vs primary, then 80,60,50,25 in aoe with that damage declining over the radius. (its slightly higher with attack upgrades, but scarab damage is also affected by armor so close enough) So it will deal more to the primary target, But then rapidly decreasing aoe going outward. Psi storm does 80 to everything in the area. So most of the enemy units will receive less damage from one scarab shot than they will from a psi storm, only the primary target receives more. The exception being if an enemy unit walks out of the storm, but in direct strike, the micro potential is too low for that to be a big thing. So a single storm will deal more overall damage. So if anything, its more of a AoE burst tool than the reaver. Then storm also hits air and has some minor utility with some shield restore. Combine that with the archon's basic attack and the functionality of feedback against spell casters, and I tend to favor Archons more than reavers. And while they may both be burst tools, an archon's auto attack DPS is 20-27.2 with upgrades or 28-35.2 vs biological. Compared to a reaver's scarab build time dps of 12.5-14.375. So archons perform much better in the prolonged slog too.
![DISGUSTING ORACLE PERMASTUN - Weekly Brawl [Starcraft 2 Direct Strike]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ty1Z9WAlxVc/mqdefault.jpg)
![DISGUSTING ORACLE PERMASTUN - Weekly Brawl [Starcraft 2 Direct Strike]](/img/tr.png)
![3 BONUS RANGE FENIX BALL - Weekly Brawl [Starcraft 2 Direct Strike]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VP87KVNq6Jo/mqdefault.jpg)
Reavers are good if you're winning, but bad if you're losing. Because if you're winning, they have more time building ammo while marching forward. It's pretty much the middle line where they start becoming cost effective.
I really dislike reavers and think that was a mistake to tell the other guy to build them. They have nice damage, but its all front loaded. Once their ammo is gone, they're actually really bad. The ammo build time is 8 seconds for a 100 damage hit. That's 12.5 dps or 14.375 after 3 attack upgrades Even considering AoE, that's still pretty bad dps for their price. Also while it does AoE in a decent area, its fall off is pretty steep. Siege tanks will still do full damage to enemies close to the primary target, but reavers do at most 80% in splash and that's in a very close radius, and quickly falls off to 60% in the same radius that a siege tank still does 100%. I consider them somewhere between a baneling and a tank, and not as good as either. They seem like they should be a siege unit like tanks, but they act more like banes by front loading damage for a big bust, but its not nearly as cost effective at a bust as banes are. They don't do either role as well as the aforementioned units. I think the better call might have been a few high archons, a few immortals and then mass tempests. Archons have a decent attack, psi storms are nice aoe in a wider radius dealing full damage in that whole area, and they could have feedbacked Zag or the banshees. Then add a few immortals since your frontline got destroyed by the next waves's banes, having something a little tanky would have held a little till your sentinals revived. Then Tempests for big damage.
For me, Reaver ranks higher than at least Swann's tank. That tank can shoot 2-3 times max in its entire lifetime while more than 80% of the time it spent on sieging up and sieging down. It was so bad that not building it was the best decision in most battles I had as Swann.
Regarding Baneling, I think the comparison will be situational since there are circumstances they are better than Baneling while sometimes they are worse. Except for Stetman's Baneling, Zagara's baneling can be easily countered with enough range attack or if the allies wave are thick enough to body-block its pathway. Reaver does not have this issue.
The Scarab's damage is surely far more inferior than its SC1 counterpart but it can retarget if the initial target dies before the scarab reaches them. DPS while, it is terrible of course but it's a burst-it-down unit so we can not compare it using its weakest aspect. It takes 8s to build another scarab but it started with a load of scarabs so you can count it as multiple banelings in one package with better targeting and delivery system + the ability to resupply. Its damage vs initial target is also much better than Zagara's baneling (100 vs 80). What this means is it can burst down the enemies in a quick section and not letting said enemies to deal damage to your wave. This is why burst damage is so much more beneficial in SC than high dps for the most part. I will argue that Reaver is better than a unit with twice its dps due to its high burst damage.
You can imagine this as killing enemies before they can hit you vs you let they live longer and gun you.
What I am saying is Reaver is not entirely bad. It has its use. In the one department that it is useful for, it does it exceptionally well. If it can clear the frontline of your opponent's wave faster than your opponent's wave can to yours, then the backline are sitting ducks.
Psi storm is just too weak. Besides its ability to restore shield in meager amount and weakly harm air, it's just too inferior to Scarabs if your opponent is heavy on ground force.
Reaver strikes me as a 'win more on the ground' tool, because of how limited it's DPS is.
I think reavers were the right call, it’s just having a tychus who was 1 gas until the 10 minute mark and ignored all chat was kind of an impossible anchor to be tied to
Reavers running out of ammo just means you needed more reavers.
@@Weigazod Yes the baneling isn't a perfect comparison. But the point was the front-loaded damage, where if your comp is heavy baneling, your damage will be front-loaded, and immediately your dps falls off a cliff. I agree that there are situations where that is useful. you need to just wipe out a wave instantly and have what's left clear it up the rest. But reavers were not doing that here. The enemy wasn't getting instantly wiped by them and it was turning into a long slog where they became dependent on long term dps. Part of that was the inferior performance by Tychus. But sometimes a weaker teammate is a circumstance you need to adapt to and play around that problem.
I will also disagree on psi storm aoe being inferior. Reavers do 100 damage vs primary, then 80,60,50,25 in aoe with that damage declining over the radius. (its slightly higher with attack upgrades, but scarab damage is also affected by armor so close enough) So it will deal more to the primary target, But then rapidly decreasing aoe going outward. Psi storm does 80 to everything in the area. So most of the enemy units will receive less damage from one scarab shot than they will from a psi storm, only the primary target receives more. The exception being if an enemy unit walks out of the storm, but in direct strike, the micro potential is too low for that to be a big thing. So a single storm will deal more overall damage. So if anything, its more of a AoE burst tool than the reaver. Then storm also hits air and has some minor utility with some shield restore. Combine that with the archon's basic attack and the functionality of feedback against spell casters, and I tend to favor Archons more than reavers. And while they may both be burst tools, an archon's auto attack DPS is 20-27.2 with upgrades or 28-35.2 vs biological. Compared to a reaver's scarab build time dps of 12.5-14.375. So archons perform much better in the prolonged slog too.
120 Extra HP is better on Zerglings, bois, or Zealots with resurrection? For Tanking
How does CDR work with the zealot revive?
I don't think it does unfortunately
colosssuu!!!