Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. This was a relatively short time into a normal length game. At this time, the warrior had l3, but not much hp, and was fighting a spec ops. The l3 kills the reavers, but you also don't get exp for it when you l3 em. This way, warrior was alone, since both partners were dead, with no way to kill the battle tanks.

Most of the time there is always a way to beat the battle tanks. Battle tanks are quite useless one at a time, so if they only have one factory then it's only feed (unless they build up). A warrior for example could start getting hp ups and easily 1v1 a single reaver. Basically that's no problem unless the other team has built 10 factories, then a L3-less Warrior is being overrun by reavers. To get those 10 factories would take a lot of time and minerals in which they are wasting minerals and xp on what could be used for spells and upgrades. They are also excellent for breaking out of stalemate positions.

There is of course heroes that cannot counter reavers at all, but as long as each team have at least one heavy spawn killer (e.g Mutant, Archer) then spawn usually pose no threat. The only heroes I find that have no chance against reavers would be Dark Mage (although its high hp and damage can defend from a very few at a time), Medic (concussive) and an early game summoner. Every other hero has a way to defend from them, unless the numbers pass their breaking point.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 26 2009, 5:57 am by Iceman16.

once that happens.. the heroes should focus on taking out those factories too... ...
Obviously it may be well defended... but your team's exp should be higher than those that are spawning the reavers... So you SHOULD be able to sneak in here and kill those spawners....

There's no way for most classes to "sneak in" past 3 cannons on the way in, sit in range of two temple cannons to kill the spawner which has a ton of life, and then "sneak out" past the 3 cannons again.

Have you ever actually tried that? Do you understand how long it takes to deal 1500 damage? I've never seen anyone do it, not even an Assassin. CAFG was the one who initially threw the idea around and I've still yet to see it done. Either you have a class that counters reavers well or you don't.

I've done that with summoner! But you have to time the spawning time. Don't wanna send the lings in when the reavers spawns :{

this.

Not to mention making your own spawn to counter the push, which would take the pressure away from the temple.

Yes, obviously you can counter spawn with spawn. I prefer games that require at least a small bit of skill.

Define skill.

Unit micromanagement...

Do you want troll defined too?

I was pointing out ways to counter spawn because you brought it up. If you don't wish to counter a spawn a particular away because you "prefer games that require at least a small bit of skill" then that's your fault.

CAFG, lose the strawman argument please. All of what you mentioned are strategic choices, not skillful ones. Are they important, definitely and obviously, but playing smart and playing skillfully are very distinct things. To make an analogy to melee, it would be like 4 pooling and having the computer control your zerglings. You take the outcome of the game completely out of your own hands, and thus skill is obviously not a factor. Why even bother playing, and hence why even bother leaving the strategy available in the map?

I'd rather lose a game than win it with reavers. Having fun is far more important to me than using a boring strategy that absolutely ANY newb can do. I can teach someone to go reavers or dragoon spawns the most efficient way in about 30 seconds. You're going to honestly try to tell me that takes skill to execute?

Reavers have many ways to counter and almost have a 100% guarantee to feed in a 3v3. You may rather lose a fair game where the match up is possible to win, but when it's very one sided reavers are needed to give the one team an edge.

For example, Summoner vs Mech. Let's face it, mech has no hope once those lings reach that temple so the only chance the mech would have is to reaver. I would never say reavering against a summoner is a guaranteed win because the summoner is going to be destroying those reavers if it's late game and you have only made one factory. The summoner will also be annoying your base trying to get those factories which means you need to protect them while helping push the reavers so they don't just feed and actually build up to an offensive number.

The Mech may still lose with or without reavers but at least they DO give the Mech a chance. Remember this is only an example so don't bother trying to tell me "but the summoner can just swarm the factories which would mean staying at the temple would be pointless".

I don't see how someone can just make reavers and sit back and win. Yes, it may take 'no skill to execute', but the choices after do.

Nobody is making the argument that you can stop playing once you make the Reaver spawns and win.

I don't think that FaZ- is trying to imply that you can just stop mining or building new units and buildings. He is making an analogy... you would have the same level of control over what those Zerglings in melee do as you do the Reavers in Temple Siege.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Apr 27 2009, 11:56 am by Mini Moose 2707.

Summoner is considered VERY imbalanced in 2v2, and you're using it as an example to try to prove your point in a 1v1 situation... seriously?

Because of the huge amount of experience that spawned units give, the PvP game is nonexistent shortly after one team decides to spawn. The heroes which are defending against Reavers are going to take a huge lead, and the team of the player that created them is quickly hopeless in a hero battle. You can harass a bit and support the initial reavers, that's about it. You have thus effectively put all your eggs in one basket, either Reaver spawns win the game for you or they don't.

What does them winning or losing the game rely on? It seems pretty obvious to me that it's mostly about the other team's hero composition. If you rush reavers, only a few classes can stop them. If you use them mid- or late-game, a few more classes can stop them if they've used the right build. If I wanted to play against a computer, I wouldn't be playing Temple Siege.


In my opinion, the only time spawns improve gameplay is when a team is playing defense right by their temple. They've clearly lost map control and it's just a matter of time until they lose... unless you play impatiently, which is very often the case. Reavers or Dragoons or even upgrading spawns ends this more quickly.

Yes I agree with that. My point was never that reavers =/= gg, but rather that there are more than enough ways to counter them. The only place where I mentioned 'sitting back and making reavers' was against summoner, only because most people find that making one factory means end of the summoner

As I said, it was CLEARLY an EXAMPLE of how reavers are used to solve an un-winnable match up. Does it make you feel better if I use heroes such as MEDIC vs LM or WARRIOR vs DARK MAGE. There are 3v3 matches which can end up being summoner vs another hero. I appreciate the replies but please read in between the lines rather then taking what is being said too literal.

Yes, that makes a huge difference, because those matchups are not inherently imbalanced. Still, it's a 1v1 scenario for which Temple Siege is NOT and has never claimed to be balanced for. If the game is reduced to such a 1v1 by eliminations, consider it good planning by the team with a summoner or the otherwise advantageous match-up.

For your examples:
- If you use Medic vs LM, obviously the LM is hugely countered by disable and lack of mobility. (A teleport would fix that and make this matchup even, however.) This isn't true for any other characters.
- I'm not sure which side you think has the unwinnable advantage in Warrior vs DM... A Warrior is definitely countered in the PvP matchup but a DM can't really hit a base at all, even extreme late-game. I'd say a smart warrior (mana) would probably win that match up easily, in the long run.

The difference in 1v1 is that for the most part you can choose to avoid PvP conflict if the matchup isn't in your favor. The game is more boring that way, but at least it's still players doing the fighting that matters, not computer allies.


So yes, you can reduce the game to an essential coin flip to solve the issue of a 1v1 matchup that can't be won... is that really a better solution?