On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push.
Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done.
On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option.
So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground.
Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you.
Because there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying and you're just insulted and emotional because I "insulted" your favourite unit. As it stands, I think carriers are super awesome and I hope to see them more in SC2 and use them all the time for the sake of using them. Do you even know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Seriously, you're coming off as highly emotional and offended because I used the word "cheesy" to describe something.
And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh
It's an analysis of mutas in SC2 ZvP. I have never analysed mutas in BW ZvT ever. Mutas are super staple in BW ZvT and not a surprise unit unless in some cases against mech.
Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun.
Yeah, I think you:
A: Are way too offended and emotional to think clearly, calm down and try again. B: You don't know what the term "Devil's advocate means", so here's an explanation for you:
The art of devil's advocacy is to take a very unpopular opinion, typically something the writer doesn't even agree with and try to defend it, in this sense you are being an advocate of the devil. It's typically seen as an exercise to be critical of your own believes and also see the merits of the opposing side.
That said, despite not agreeing with that carriers are uninteresting, I did not argue something I didn't believe in with lies. Carriers are reliant on a surprise factor in PvT and their primary utility has nothing to do with microability and all that fancy stuff but simply with being an air unit that can shoot downwards.
An unpopular opinion and saying things as fact that are false, clearly are two different things. Carriers are not my favorite unit. Dragoons are. I do not care how you feel about the carriers emotionally. I only care that when you state things as Facts that are indeed facts.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
Carriers: The popularity of careers has risen and fallen for many factors in brood war. The three basics fall under: 1. Map Pool 2. Protoss Players 3. Trends
1.Map Pool - There are distinct maps where playing against mech clearly favors a protoss that goes carriers. A lot of these maps are designed in a way where MICRO plays a huge role. You maintain your Carriers even against high numbers of goliaths by using cliffs and ledges around the map to hide your carriers behind. It is important to move your carriers constantly to prevent 1. the carrier to be targeted by units 2. moving the carrier will prevent the interceptors from returning to the carrier allowing them to attack longer and allowing the carrier to distance itself further from battle. If carriers are suddenly used much less in PvT it could be because the map pool does not favor Carriers. Therefore most game will rely on arbiter play as the choice mid to late game strategy.
2. Protoss Players - Using the carrier requires a good level of skill. Over time players have shown to be good drop reaver micro players (Stork), good dragoon micro players (Bisu), or great at storm micro players (Jangbi). For Carriers it is the same thing. Bisu for example is notoriously bad with carriers. Sometimes he finds himself forced to go carrier because the map specifically tells protoss players it is the best route and arbitor play is much harder to win with. On the other hand, players like Stork can go carrier on almost any map he chooses. This is because he has a comfortable handle on how to MICRO carriers properly and plays them in a very strategic manner. Carriers may be played more or less depending on who the more active protoss players are and what fits their style best.
3. Trends - Trends is a combination of both who the active players are and what the map pool is. Additionally, it can factor into who the terran is and how often they lose to carriers.
These are the three basic concepts (in short detail) on when and why carriers might be used in a PvT. There are times where carriers are seen every game for a year straight and other times where it is never seen. And these three points play a major role in why that has happened.
The carrier itself is a heavy micro unit. Take into consideration the macro that has to be conducted while the pro is expected to also babysit the carriers 24/7 and making sure the interceptors are always actively attacking the army while maxing the distance between the opponent and the core ship. All the meanwhile, you have to maintain a small supply of ground units otherwise waves of vultures can over run your bases.
To add to what a carrier provides, is that it will force your opponent to repsond with a different composition that is lighter on Science Vessels and heavier on goliaths. While the terran army becomes slightly more mobile it takes away from the positional play terrans may excel much better at. Arbiter play is something that pros like Flash may have mastered so perfectly you can't win. And then someone like Tyson on sniper ridge studies and realizes this. Therefore the option to go carrier and outplay Flash with a different unit composition then he is used to provides the best way to balance the match up in his favor and then win.
On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push.
Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done.
On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option.
So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground.
Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you.
Because there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying and you're just insulted and emotional because I "insulted" your favourite unit. As it stands, I think carriers are super awesome and I hope to see them more in SC2 and use them all the time for the sake of using them. Do you even know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Seriously, you're coming off as highly emotional and offended because I used the word "cheesy" to describe something.
And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh
It's an analysis of mutas in SC2 ZvP. I have never analysed mutas in BW ZvT ever. Mutas are super staple in BW ZvT and not a surprise unit unless in some cases against mech.
Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun.
Yeah, I think you:
A: Are way too offended and emotional to think clearly, calm down and try again. B: You don't know what the term "Devil's advocate means", so here's an explanation for you:
The art of devil's advocacy is to take a very unpopular opinion, typically something the writer doesn't even agree with and try to defend it, in this sense you are being an advocate of the devil. It's typically seen as an exercise to be critical of your own believes and also see the merits of the opposing side.
That said, despite not agreeing with that carriers are uninteresting, I did not argue something I didn't believe in with lies. Carriers are reliant on a surprise factor in PvT and their primary utility has nothing to do with microability and all that fancy stuff but simply with being an air unit that can shoot downwards.
An unpopular opinion and saying things as fact that are false, clearly are two different things. Carriers are not my favorite unit. Dragoons are. I do not care how you feel about the carriers emotionally. I only care that when you state things as Facts that are indeed facts.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
I disagree. I explain in my post above why and when we see carriers, but to add. If carrier favored maps were in the map pool every tournament then we'd most likely see carriers the majority of PvTs. You're statistics of carriers in PvT is shortsighted which is why I dislike it.
On February 08 2014 00:28 BisuDagger wrote: Carriers: The popularity of careers has risen and fallen for many factors in brood war. The three basics fall under: 1. Map Pool 2. Protoss Players 3. Trends
Agreed.
1.Map Pool - There are distinct maps where playing against mech clearly favors a protoss that goes carriers. A lot of these maps are designed in a way where MICRO plays a huge role. You maintain your Carriers even against high numbers of goliaths by using cliffs and ledges around the map to hide your carriers behind. It is important to move your carriers constantly to prevent 1. the carrier to be targeted by units 2. moving the carrier will prevent the interceptors from returning to the carrier allowing them to attack longer and allowing the carrier to distance itself further from battle. If carriers are suddenly used much less in PvT it could be because the map pool does not favor Carriers. Therefore most game will rely on arbiter play as the choice mid to late game strategy.
Agreed.
2. Protoss Players - Using the carrier requires a good level of skill. Over time players have shown to be good drop reaver micro players (Stork), good dragoon micro players (Bisu), or great at storm micro players (Jangbi). For Carriers it is the same thing. Bisu for example is notoriously bad with carriers. Sometimes he finds himself forced to go carrier because the map specifically tells protoss players it is the best route and arbitor play is much harder to win with. On the other hand, players like Stork can go carrier on almost any map he chooses. This is because he has a comfortable handle on how to MICRO carriers properly and plays them in a very strategic manner. Carriers may be played more or less depending on who the more active protoss players are and what fits their style best.
Agreed
3. Trends - Trends is a combination of both who the active players are and what the map pool is. Additionally, it can factor into who the terran is and how often they lose to carriers.
Agreed.
These are the three basic concepts (in short detail) on when and why carriers might be used in a PvT. There are times where carriers are seen every game for a year straight and other times where it is never seen. And these three points play a major role in why that has happened.
Disagreed. There are no times when carriers are seen every game for a year straight. Currently carriers are definitely in the meta a lot but there has never been a time where carriers were seen every game for a year. There are definitely maps where they are seen virtually every game but every game, or every map. No, not really.
The carrier itself is a heavy micro unit. Take into consideration the macro that has to be conducted while the pro is expected to also babysit the carriers 24/7 and making sure the interceptors are always actively attacking the army while maxing the distance between the opponent and the core ship. All the meanwhile, you have to maintain a small supply of ground units otherwise waves of vultures can over run your bases.
I would say you always have to maintain a fairly large chunk of ground units.I've never seen a pure carrier army work. They are a very tactical unit that makes advantage of terrain, just massing carriers doesn't work.
To add to what a carrier provides, is that it will force your opponent to repsond with a different composition that is lighter on Science Vessels and heavier on goliaths. While the terran army becomes slightly more mobile it takes away from the positional play terrans may excel much better at. Arbiter play is something that pros like Flash may have mastered so perfectly you can't win. And then someone like Tyson on sniper ridge studies and realizes this. Therefore the option to go carrier and outplay Flash with a different unit composition then he is used to provides the best way to balance the match up in his favor and then win.
Also agreed.
Now again, answer my question: Would you say that overall the carrier is a nonstandard alternative to the standard arbiter?
I mean, you just said it yourself. carriers force the game into a slightly nonstandard game that Terrans don't excell at, this assumes that carriers are not standard, they are an alternative. A viable alternative but still an alternative, arbiters are the standard to go way.
On February 07 2014 23:40 SiskosGoatee wrote: Banking your game on burrowed banelings is pretty gimmicky. As are drops which are a super big commitment. the thing with most of those strats in most cases is that they aren't a big commitment. Yes, they rely on not being expected but if you want to drop in most cases and your opponent is ready you just turn around and don't drop and you're fine unless you do some one base drop all in. If your carrier transition gets scouted out that's a decent hit to you, it's not the absolute end of the world but it's definitely a very big hit, carriers cost a tonne both in resources and time and they are simply much worse if they are expected and there are turrets and goliaths ready with the push.
Mutas also rely on being unexpected but the catch with Zerg is that if the spire gets scouted out you don't actually have to commit to mutas, it's a wasted 200/200 building that will probably be useful later but you can just spend those resources on something else before the spire is done.
On February 07 2014 23:38 BisuDagger wrote: Yesterdays SSL group H had carriers in every PvT game. You don't know what you're talking about. You're entire write-up about Carriers in BW is dead wrong. It's honestly offensive to mislead your readers so horribly.
I will not comment on your write-up of SC2 carriers because I'm NOT INFORMED ENOUGH to. Just like you shouldn't talk about BW if you are going to give false facts.
edit: 0 stars should be an option.
So? There have also been groups, even eras where every TvZ was mech, that doesn't make mech a situational gimmick for the most part that is dependent on map pool. I'm sorry, but overall you only see carriers in about 2/5 lategames in PvT and in the other two matchups their uses is highly restricted though certainly possible. Carriers are not common in BW, and certainly not very common, they are an option in PvT, not even the standard option which is arbiters and they are reliant on surprise factor and they are most definitely simply used because they are an air unit that can attack ground.
Edit: I would even call 2/5 a stretch.
Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph. I really don't have the energy to clarify this for you.
Because there's nothing wrong with what I'm saying and you're just insulted and emotional because I "insulted" your favourite unit. As it stands, I think carriers are super awesome and I hope to see them more in SC2 and use them all the time for the sake of using them. Do you even know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Seriously, you're coming off as highly emotional and offended because I used the word "cheesy" to describe something.
And your analysis of mutas in BW is horribly wrong too. Surprise unit? ROFL. It's expected in most TvZs and the spire provides much more then just mutas after being built. /Sigh
It's an analysis of mutas in SC2 ZvP. I have never analysed mutas in BW ZvT ever. Mutas are super staple in BW ZvT and not a surprise unit unless in some cases against mech.
Please take some time to educate yourself in BW or just don't involve it in an SC2 article. They are two different games. I'm hoping NinaZerg will arrive in this thread soon and have her fun.
Yeah, I think you:
A: Are way too offended and emotional to think clearly, calm down and try again. B: You don't know what the term "Devil's advocate means", so here's an explanation for you:
The art of devil's advocacy is to take a very unpopular opinion, typically something the writer doesn't even agree with and try to defend it, in this sense you are being an advocate of the devil. It's typically seen as an exercise to be critical of your own believes and also see the merits of the opposing side.
That said, despite not agreeing with that carriers are uninteresting, I did not argue something I didn't believe in with lies. Carriers are reliant on a surprise factor in PvT and their primary utility has nothing to do with microability and all that fancy stuff but simply with being an air unit that can shoot downwards.
An unpopular opinion and saying things as fact that are false, clearly are two different things. Carriers are not my favorite unit. Dragoons are. I do not care how you feel about the carriers emotionally. I only care that when you state things as Facts that are indeed facts.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't care about my painting carriers in a negative light with paragraphs like:
"Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself. The depth of carriers is far beyond what you fit in your paragraph."
That aside, do you or do you not agree that we don't even see carriers on average half of every PvT and that they are very rare in all other matchups and that arbiters are the more standard anti Terran solution.
I disagree. I explain in my post above why and when we see carriers, but to add. If carrier favored maps were in the map pool every tournament then we'd most likely see carriers the majority of PvTs. You're statistics of carriers in PvT is shortsighted which is why I dislike it.
Yes, I agree, like I said in the original posts, there are maps where carriers are seen virtually every game. I'm merely addressing the misconception many people seem to have that carriers are used in every matchup all the time in brood war.
Disagreed. There are no times when carriers are seen every game for a year straight. Currently carriers are definitely in the meta a lot but there has never been a time where carriers were seen every game for a year. There are definitely maps where they are seen virtually every game but every game, or every map. No, not really.
I was adding exaggeration on this point. I should have said there are times where "carriers are heavily in season".
I would say you always have to maintain a fairly large chunk of ground units.I've never seen a pure carrier army work. They are a very tactical unit that makes advantage of terrain, just massing carriers doesn't work.
Yes, I think there is a certain balance required here and it gets cringe worthy when you see pros stop macroing out of gateways because they spent so much on carriers.
saying carriers in bw are uninteresting, because arbiters are more interesting is total bull. First of all, i disagree. I think they're equally interesting. Secondly, i think bw carriers are more interesting then nearly any sc2 unit. Also, that some units in the arsenal seem more interesting then others, doesn't mean there's nothing to be seen. Interestingness isnt as black and white as you seem to think. In the other blog you also forgot this, but most units need to be seen along with it's interactions with others units. I could make a case that zerglings are not interesting at all. I could even say that defilers alone are uninteresting (depends on how you compare them with what). But the two together against a missile based enemy army make for very interesting play. In this case: carriers are very interesting as a transitional unit. The effects of carriers on composition of both players is enormous, dependent on maps and micro ability of both players. In that regard, it's more interesting then the arbiter.
You can construct an argument like this about any unit (or anything in general). Skew perception a little here, tweak facts a little there, and you've got a basis for anything you want to say really.
You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS their microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
I think you are thinking about BW carriers too much in terms of SC2. In SC2 it is more about building counters, having the proper units and army composition. Where as in BW it is more what you do what your units that counts.
BW carriers, for example, don't become useless if your opponent scouts your tech and is ready with goliaths. You can still fight the goliaths by using ledges or dragoon and zealot support. Of course the terran player will have tanks and vultures with his goliaths, so it won't be easy. Either player can win at this point.
On February 08 2014 03:38 Falling wrote: You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS there microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
Like I said, I think carriers are about the coolest thing ever. Do you know what "Devil's advocate" means?
I also think mules are terrible, yesterday I made a topic praising how mules are awesome in every single way. I'm thinking the next one will be about how PvZ is the most amazing matchup to behold ever or how TvP is super easy.
Yes, yes it does, any strategy which relies on a surprise factor is cheesy.
If you go 2 base carrier rush with no reaver or anything off like 2 gateways, then yes, it's a cheese. But if you do something like this, it isn't.
Also, when you use the word "Were" with regards to Brood War you are not specifying which time period you are referring to. For many years, carriers were more common than arbiters. Arbiters were more rare than carriers are today. Standard cookie cutter play was all about carriers, and you saw them all the time if the game went on long enough.
I am talking about 2000 - 2007, basically.
Also, you see carriers in games today often. It's not rare. It's common. It's one of the standard ways to play late game PvT. And yeah, it works from time to time, and it isn't a cheese.
On February 08 2014 03:38 Falling wrote: You seem hellbent on throwing tried and true spectator friendly elements of BW in your efforts to be the contrarian over typical SC2 arguments.
What makes them interesting IS there microbility. Try and A-move or even ye old back up a little type micro of the Collosus and see how that works vs Goliaths. The thing is Carriers are very map dependent, but I just watched yesterday Carriers used to great effect in the SSL rebroadcast. They are in fact very interesting although perhaps you do not personally find them interesting. Having failed miserably at carrier micro in games, I know very much how razor thin the position Carriers in regardless of a tech switch 'surprise.'
I don't know that the devil advocacy against BW are the strong part of these blogs.
Like I said, I think carriers are about the coolest thing ever. Do you know what "Devil's advocate" means?
Devil's advocate is about giving proper arguments for an unpopular opinion. What you are doing is called trolling for attention.
On February 07 2014 23:52 BisuDagger wrote: NinaZerg
wot
On February 07 2014 17:50 SiskosGoatee wrote: StarCraft II
BW
why...
People always say carriers were actually good in BW.
Oh, that's why...
This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air.
All right, that is fairly inaccurate, but give us some thoughts on why you think this.
The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air. Siege tanks were a real threat and the logical choice to attack them was from the air. Carriers are a flying unit that attacks ground, it isn't particularly good at it, but it does it. The use of carriers in BW has nothing to do with its 'microability', are you kidding me, if void rays existed in BW people would use that instead, it exists because the only other ATS unit that protoss has in BW are scouts and the first two rules about BW Protoss is:
A: Don't build scouts for their anti ground, the dps is terrible B: Don't build scouts, they are terrible
So that leaves you with a direct anti ground assault in the carriers, or arbiters, and arbiters are actually far more consistent and solid. The thing with arbiters is though that they don't absolutely punish lack of anti air. Which carriers do, but if there is sufficient anti air arbiters are a far more solid and less gimicky choice.
BW nostalgia about the carrier is heavily overrated, it wasn't that good or interesting a unit in BW at all, Arbiters are far more interesting and I'd rather they bring those back than the BW carrier. Arbs are very interesting spellcasters which provide for a lot of emergent gameplay especially when coupled with hallucination. Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever.
So, anyhow, someone told me about this thread and asked for me to give my opinion about it. First of all, SC2 users are way too concerned about the particulars of single unit types, i.e., infestors, hellbats, voidrays, et cetera, and many users who are frustrated with the game compare unit types in SC2 to unit types in StarCraft: BroodWar, which is actually a false equivalence. So you can just tell them that, or just call them Nostalgia-freaks. Whichever one suits your style of argumentation, but the argument meta-game is moving away from citing logical fallacies, because users generally counter with "You're misusing terminology." nowadays, but you can still gamble and use the ad hominem rush. I'm sure there's a VOD on youtube if you need the build orders.
Let's talk about two points you brought up, the first being "microability" and the second being "emergent gameplay".
Microability: What makes any unit "good"? In SC2, it's whichever unit does the most terrible, terrible damage. If the unit is not dealing terrible damage and instantly killing everything, it's not worth making. If you disagree with this premise, I will deny it to the end of time and make all kinds of claims like "Just look at the Colossus. Just look at that piece of shit. Those motherfuckers just melt everything into giant pools of molten shit. It's fucking awesome." which technically isn't a claim, but an oversimplified observation I've made as a non-SC2 player.
In StarCraft: BroodWar, what makes a unit "good" is applicability. For example, let's say you are a Zerg player playing against Protoss. You decide to just go mass mutalisks with zerglings and you kick ass every game, and then one day, you play against some guy who goes zealot/archon and has like three archons when you try to fight his army, and all your shit dies. So you demand a rematch, and the same thing happens again. Rinse and repeat. You find something out: your mutalisk/zergling combo is not exactly applicable to that particular situation. I'm not saying "Stop going muta/ling you fuck", I'm saying that engaging the Protoss army at that moment is not practical because you're attacking their strength, which is to use zealots to kill lings and archons to kill mutalisks. Instead of trying to force your units to smash through the Protoss army by brute force, you should attack the Protoss player's weakness, like using your army to backstab the Protoss player's base, and then you can defend your home base with sunken colonies and stuff.
So, when do Carriers become applicable in BroodWar, and specifically, in PvT? Well, first, you need a basic understanding of how this match-up works out. So this first part, you got right:
The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air.
Tanks and vultures are really good against Protoss units. So how does Protoss deal with this contingency? Well, for a young Protoss player, he (not "or she", girls always pick zerg or terran lawl) experiences difficulty against other noobs who pick Terran because the tanks just seem to kill everything. Then the Protoss Guy slowly learns that if he makes a lot of units, he can simply overwhelm the Terran, when Terran pushes out to attack, using tons and tons of dragoons and zealots.
Then the Protoss Guy moves up to the next level of play where he does his mass dragoon/zealot strategy and takes lots of bases and makes like 20 gateways, but the Terran opponents at this level don't ever seem to move out until they've completely maxed out their population, so it becomes impossible for Protoss Guy to simply overwhelm the Terran's attack with sheer numbers. There is a psi-cap, so the Protoss Guy's army just seems to melt away, and he throws wave after wave of units into the Terran army, but to no avail.
So here is where spells come into play. The Protoss Guy learns that if he makes arbiters, it makes his army way stronger because he can stasis tanks, and use psi storms to significantly weaken or destroy the Terran units. Now that max-population push from Terran doesn't seem invincible any longer. So then the Protoss Guy advances to the next level of Terran players, who start using science vessels. The science vessels use their EMP ability which drains all the shields and mana of the Protoss units, which kills of 40% of the units' health instantly, and takes away the spells. Terran army seems invincible again.
This is where players start to diverge into different mindsets on how to deal with Terran. Some Protoss players will try to do a lot of damage or completely kill the Terran early so the Terran cannot possibly get close to the max population army. This is the "aggressive" approach. Other Protoss players will try to take a huge number of bases, so even if the Terran pushes out and kills the whole Protoss army and then kills a base, it won't matter because first, the Terran army will take a huge hit from the engagement and be significantly weakened. Second, the Protoss can regenerate his army very quickly from 30 gateways and engage again. Third, the Protoss will have at least 6 bases or better, so losing one will not be a significant enough hit to make the Terran's attack worth it. This is the "greedy" approach, but keep in mind that both styles can be utilized in one game, like if the Protoss does some kind of early damage, then uses that time the Terran takes to recover to take bases.
Here's where carriers start to come into the picture. The "aggressive" approach will often incorporate tech rushes from Protoss, like quick reaver, quick dark templar, quick arbiters, and yes, quick carriers. Any of one of these strategies has an inherent risk of failure if the Terran can defend the attack, which will put the Terran at a slight advantage. More Protoss players, therefore, will use a more "greedy" strategy, where they get a couple of expansions, get their arbiter tech and a bunch of gateways, and use a sizable army to box the Terran in while taking a bunch of expansions. Like I eluded to earlier, the Terran will max out his army, then attack. The Protoss will engage, and in a best-case scenario, will win the engagement completely or trade armies. If both sides trade armies, the Protoss will have more production and economy to recover his army more quickly than the Terran. But winning an engagement is not always that easy. The worst case scenario is that the Terran loses nothing, and just goes on a rampage, killing everything. The next best scenario is that the Protoss kills about half the Terran army, and then has to lose a base. Most of these scenarios depend greatly on the positioning of both armies, with a large, flat surface giving Protoss the best chance to prevail, and tight chokes/high ground giving Terran a distinct advantage.
Therefore, the map type is very important to the situation - while the Protoss has the Terran boxed in, the Protoss will max out his psi to 200. While this occurs, his resources will skyrocket to a huge surplus. The Protoss can use this to take more expansions, make more gateways to regenerate his army, or make carriers. In this case, carriers are affordable because of the surplus, and the Terran army will be maxed-out on mostly tanks and vultures, and maybe a few goliaths and science vessels to deal with the arbiters, so after the first engagement, the Terran will immediately start rebuilding his army with tanks and vultures to reinforce his push. Therefore, there will be very little available supply to build goliaths with, and it takes a massive amount of anti-air to deal with carriers.
As for "microability", carriers move extremely slowly, so if you let them sit around, the goliaths will eat them alive. This is why going carriers on a wide-open map is bad for carriers, because when they get caught out in the open, they die extremely quickly. On a map with more cliffs and high ground, and lots of chokes, carriers can escape to areas that are inaccessible by goliaths, and therefore, can get out of the way of danger while doing damage continuously. NonY explains here how to extend the range of carriers:
Using the range of carriers through... micro... they become much more efficient. Therein lies the problems with your assertions that carriers do not need micro and are used as a cheese, because they do, in fact, require micro, and are applicable, and even encouraged on maps where they would more effective than gateway units for reinforcing the Protoss army. As for your argument that carriers are gimmicky units that use surprise to punish Terran with not enough anti-air, this only applies to like, 2-base carrier rushes, which is really easy to scout with a bit of experience. You just see a small number of Protoss units on 2-base play, scan, and voila. In the late game scenario which I described, carriers are used to take advantage of the terrain on particular map types. That's not a gimmick, because the amount of anti-air required to defend against carriers is almost absurd, and no Terran player would build that many goliaths "just in case", because they'd get killed by psi storms and dragoons.
Emergent gameplay: "Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever." I'll tell you why this is completely wrong. You're assuming two incorrect premises, which are that 1) Protoss needs to make a choice between arbiters or carriers, 2) Arbiters automatically add complexity to gameplay whereas carriers do not.
The first assumption is wrong because, with the exception of a 2-base carrier rush, carriers are applicable to the late-game in PvT, but to get to the late-game, arbiters are absolutely essential. What this boils down to is: Arbiters are necessary and therefore Terran players will naturally prepare for the advent of arbiters, whereas carriers are situational, so an inexperienced player may not be ready for the appearance of carriers on the battlefield.
The second assumption is wrong because you're making a generalization that does not take into account map types, players' styles, macro mechanics, and the general flow (I hate using the word "metagame") of PvT that naturally brings arbiters into play anyhow, with the possibility of a divergence into carriers later. Carriers and arbiters also serve very different functions; carriers are used for direct attack and can be used independent of supporting units, whereas arbiters are a support unit which cannot do anything on their own because their DPS is so extremely low that it is not viable as a primary means of dealing damage, and therefore require supporting units of some kind. This means that the comparison is about as useful as comparing sentries to immortals. Sentries are almost complete necessary for their spellcasting, whereas immortals are more situational, like if the Terran builds a whole bunch of armored units like tanks and thors.
I would argue that arbiters do not provide for emergent gameplay any more than carriers do.
In conclusion, I don't think you understand BroodWar enough to make the comparison between SC2 carriers and BW carriers, and then compare carriers to arbiters.
This is nonsense, carriers were not "good" in BW and they weren't commonly used either, they were a fairly cheesy surprise strategy mostly in PvT to take advantage of TErrans who did not build enough anti air.
All right, that is fairly inaccurate, but give us some thoughts on why you think this.
The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air. Siege tanks were a real threat and the logical choice to attack them was from the air. Carriers are a flying unit that attacks ground, it isn't particularly good at it, but it does it. The use of carriers in BW has nothing to do with its 'microability', are you kidding me, if void rays existed in BW people would use that instead, it exists because the only other ATS unit that protoss has in BW are scouts and the first two rules about BW Protoss is:
A: Don't build scouts for their anti ground, the dps is terrible B: Don't build scouts, they are terrible
So that leaves you with a direct anti ground assault in the carriers, or arbiters, and arbiters are actually far more consistent and solid. The thing with arbiters is though that they don't absolutely punish lack of anti air. Which carriers do, but if there is sufficient anti air arbiters are a far more solid and less gimicky choice.
BW nostalgia about the carrier is heavily overrated, it wasn't that good or interesting a unit in BW at all, Arbiters are far more interesting and I'd rather they bring those back than the BW carrier. Arbs are very interesting spellcasters which provide for a lot of emergent gameplay especially when coupled with hallucination. Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever.
So, anyhow, someone told me about this thread and asked for me to give my opinion about it. First of all, SC2 users are way too concerned about the particulars of single unit types, i.e., infestors, hellbats, voidrays, et cetera, and many users who are frustrated with the game compare unit types in SC2 to unit types in StarCraft: BroodWar, which is actually a false equivalence. So you can just tell them that, or just call them Nostalgia-freaks. Whichever one suits your style of argumentation, but the argument meta-game is moving away from citing logical fallacies, because users generally counter with "You're misusing terminology." nowadays, but you can still gamble and use the ad hominem rush. I'm sure there's a VOD on youtube if you need the build orders.
Let's talk about two points you brought up, the first being "microability" and the second being "emergent gameplay".
Microability: What makes any unit "good"? In SC2, it's whichever unit does the most terrible, terrible damage. If the unit is not dealing terrible damage and instantly killing everything, it's not worth making. If you disagree with this premise, I will deny it to the end of time and make all kinds of claims like "Just look at the Colossus. Just look at that piece of shit. Those motherfuckers just melt everything into giant pools of molten shit. It's fucking awesome." which technically isn't a claim, but an oversimplified observation I've made as a non-SC2 player.
In StarCraft: BroodWar, what makes a unit "good" is applicability. For example, let's say you are a Zerg player playing against Protoss. You decide to just go mass mutalisks with zerglings and you kick ass every game, and then one day, you play against some guy who goes zealot/archon and has like three archons when you try to fight his army, and all your shit dies. So you demand a rematch, and the same thing happens again. Rinse and repeat. You find something out: your mutalisk/zergling combo is not exactly applicable to that particular situation. I'm not saying "Stop going muta/ling you fuck", I'm saying that engaging the Protoss army at that moment is not practical because you're attacking their strength, which is to use zealots to kill lings and archons to kill mutalisks. Instead of trying to force your units to smash through the Protoss army by brute force, you should attack the Protoss player's weakness, like using your army to backstab the Protoss player's base, and then you can defend your home base with sunken colonies and stuff.
So, when do Carriers become applicable in BroodWar, and specifically, in PvT? Well, first, you need a basic understanding of how this match-up works out. So this first part, you got right:
The thing with the BW TvP army is that tanks and vultures were excellent versus protoss ground units but didn't attack air. Goliaths had meh anti ground damage but were great against air.
Tanks and vultures are really good against Protoss units. So how does Protoss deal with this contingency? Well, for a young Protoss player, he (not "or she", girls always pick zerg or terran lawl) experiences difficulty against other noobs who pick Terran because the tanks just seem to kill everything. Then the Protoss Guy slowly learns that if he makes a lot of units, he can simply overwhelm the Terran, when Terran pushes out to attack, using tons and tons of dragoons and zealots.
Then the Protoss Guy moves up to the next level of play where he does his mass dragoon/zealot strategy and takes lots of bases and makes like 20 gateways, but the Terran opponents at this level don't ever seem to move out until they've completely maxed out their population, so it becomes impossible for Protoss Guy to simply overwhelm the Terran's attack with sheer numbers. There is a psi-cap, so the Protoss Guy's army just seems to melt away, and he throws wave after wave of units into the Terran army, but to no avail.
So here is where spells come into play. The Protoss Guy learns that if he makes arbiters, it makes his army way stronger because he stasis tanks, and use psi storms to significantly weaken or destroy the Terran units. Now that max-population push from Terran doesn't seem invincible any longer. So then the Protoss Guy advances to the next level of Terran players, who start using science vessels. The science vessels use their EMP ability which drains all the shields and mana of the Protoss units, which kills of 40% of the units' health instantly, and takes away the spells. Terran army seems invincible again.
This is where players start to diverge into different mindsets on how to deal with Terran. Some Protoss players will try to do a lot of damage or completely kill the Terran early so the Terran cannot possibly get close to the max population army. This is the "aggressive" approach. Other Protoss players will try to take a huge number of bases, so even if the Terran pushes out and kills the whole Protoss army and then kills a base, it won't matter because first, the Terran army will take a huge hit from the engagement and be significantly weakened. Second, the Protoss can regenerate his army very quickly from 30 gateways and engage again. Third, the Protoss will have at least 6 bases or better, so losing one will not be a significant enough hit to make the Terran's attack worth it. This is the "greedy" approach, but keep in mind that both styles can be utilized in one game, like if the Protoss does some kind of early damage, then uses that time the Terran takes to recover to take bases.
Here's where carriers start to come into the picture. The "aggressive" approach will often incorporate tech rushes from Protoss, like quick reaver, quick dark templar, quick arbiters, and yes, quick carriers. Any of one of these strategies has an inherent risk of failure if the Terran can defend the attack, which will put the Terran at a slight advantage. More Protoss players, therefore, will use a more "greedy" strategy, where they get a couple of expansions, get their arbiter tech and a bunch of gateways, and use a sizable army to box the Terran in while taking a bunch of expansions. Like I eluded to earlier, the Terran will max out his army, then attack. The Protoss will engage, and in a best-case scenario, will win the engagement completely or trade armies. If both sides trade armies, the Protoss will have more production and economy to recover his army more quickly than the Terran. But winning an engagement is not always that easy. The worst case scenario is that the Terran loses nothing, and just goes on a rampage, killing everything. The next best scenario is that the Protoss kills about half the Terran army, and then has to lose a base. Most of these scenarios depend greatly on the positioning of both armies, with a large, flat surface giving Protoss the best chance to prevail, and tight chokes/high ground giving Terran a distinct advantage.
Therefore, the map type is very important to the situation - while the Protoss has the Terran boxed in, the Protoss will max out his psi to 200. While this occurs, his resources will skyrocket to a huge surplus. The Protoss can use this to take more expansions, make more gateways to regenerate his army, or make carriers. In this case, carriers are affordable because of the surplus, and the Terran army will be maxed-out on mostly tanks and vultures, and maybe a few goliaths and science vessels to deal with the arbiters, so after the first engagement, the Terran will immediately start rebuilding his army with tanks and vultures to reinforce his push. Therefore, there will be very little available supply to build goliaths with, and it takes a massive amount of anti-air to deal with carriers.
As for "microability", carriers move extremely slowly, so if you let them sit around, the goliaths will eat them alive. This is why going carriers on a wide-open map is bad for carriers, because when they get caught out in the open, they die extremely quickly. On a map with more cliffs and high ground, and lots of chokes, carriers can escape to areas that are inaccessible by goliaths, and therefore, can get out of the way of danger while doing damage continuously. NonY explains here how to extend the range of carriers:
Using the range of carriers through... micro... they become much more efficient. Therein lies the problems with your assertions that carriers do not need micro and are used as a cheese, because they do, in fact, require micro, and are applicable, and even encouraged on maps where they would more effective than gateway units for reinforcing the Protoss army. As for your argument that carriers are gimmicky units that use surprise to punish Terran with not enough anti-air, this only applies to like, 2-base carrier rushes, which is really easy to scout with a bit of experience. You just see a small number of Protoss units on 2-base play, scan, and voila. In the late game scenario which I described, carriers are used to take advantage of the terrain on particular map types. That's not a gimmick, because the amount of anti-air required to defend against carriers is almost absurd, and no Terran player would build that many goliaths "just in case", because they'd get killed by psi storms and dragoons.
Emergent gameplay: "Carriers do not provide for any emergent gameplay ever." I'll tell you why this is completely wrong. You're assuming two incorrect premises, which are that 1) Protoss needs to make a choice between arbiters or carriers, 2) Arbiters automatically add complexity to gameplay whereas carriers do not.
The first assumption is wrong because, with the exception of a 2-base carrier rush, carriers are applicable to the late-game in PvT, but to get to the late-game, arbiters are absolutely essential. What this boils down to is: Arbiters are necessary and therefore Terran players will naturally prepare for the advent of arbiters, whereas carriers are situational, so an inexperienced player may not be ready for the appearance of carriers on the battlefield.
The second assumption is wrong because you're making a generalization that does not take into account map types, players' styles, macro mechanics, and the general flow (I hate using the word "metagame") of PvT that naturally brings arbiters into play anyhow, with the possibility of a divergence into carriers later. Carriers and arbiters also server very different functions; carriers are used for direct attack and can be used independent of supporting units, whereas arbiters are a support unit which cannot do anything on their own because their DPS is so extremely low that it is not viable as a primary means of dealing damage, and therefore require supporting units of some kind. This means that the comparison is about as useful as comparing sentries to immortals. Sentries are almost complete necessary for their spellcasting, whereas immortals are more situational, like if the Terran builds a whole bunch of armored units like tanks and thors.
I would argue that arbiters do not provide for emergent gameplay any more than carriers do.
In conclusion, I don't think you understand BroodWar enough to make the comparison between SC2 carriers and BW carriers, and then compare carriers to arbiters.
EPT
explains here how to extend the range of carriers:
