|
Hey guys:
I had a question. BC seems unquestionably better than the carrier in almost every single situation. The prices are 400/300 for the BC and 350/250 for the carrier (an extra a hundred for the first 4 additional interceptors, and probably more later in the game since they are killed rather easily).
Now in a 1 on 1 fight, the Battlecruiser is barely taken below half health before killing the carrier. This holds for both unupgraded and upgraded units. I would understand if carriers had some kind of special ability to make up for this difference, but the special ability resides with the BC and serves to one shot medium sized units and severely hurt large units.
So I ask you: Why does the carrier cost so much when it is not nearly as good as a BC? Does it fill some role that I don't know about? I feel like a BC is better in any situation. Am I wrong? BCs air to ground damage is even higher than their air to air damage, and they rape carriers easily. So what the hell? Please someone help me rest easy becase I definitely feel this is unfair... To make matters worse, to get carriers to keep up with upgraded BCs we need to upgrade air attack, armor and protoss shields...
|
well one thing is that the interceptors get focused first in most situations with the carrier being in the back. with a BC u need to get much closer.
but well who build carriers?^^
|
the carrier would have the range advantage for releasing the interceptors which also have a range, so these add up, so the carier could attack + reteat while the interceptors still fight the target...
sad thing is, it totally gets negated by another terran aircaft which kinda has a siege range for air.
so well some other dude already mentioned it, toss has nothing to put in the air which does not get raped by either vikings or corrupters, the same ressources put into it.
|
On August 22 2010 05:42 PaterSin wrote:
well one thing is that the interceptors get focused first in most situations with the carrier being in the back. with a BC u need to get much closer.
but well who build carriers?^^
and an opponent with a brain will focus the carriers... i dont think its a hughe problem, but 1-2 interceptors more wouldnt hurt the chances of seeing more carriers 
|
Carriers are not meant to go head-to-head with heavy units like the BC. It deals a lot of fast, light damage. As such, it is (in theory) great at attacking large clumps of units, and I would say it does this fairly well, if microed a bit.
|
you forgot that BCs are slow as all hell so a carrier can kite a BC forever and ever and take 0 damage
|
Carriers are a lot more effective with micro would be the main thing, hard to compare the two.
|
Carriers are damn scary and it's the only unit I really fear from the protoss arsenal
|
Yes carriers have a range advantage vs any unit over the BC. They can kill turrets and dumb units (be it AI or player units) without taking any damage, since they will go for the interceptors.
Carriers are also FASTER than BCs though, and therefore can continually attack battlecruisers without the battlecruisers being able to hit back.
I do not know how yamato will work in that scenario, but it would at least make things more difficult for the carriers. Even then 2 yamatos would be required to hit each carrier, which still gives carriers an advantage.
Reason BCs do so well is that they have base 3 armor, and interceptors deal 2 attacks of 5 damage, so that's a SIXTY percent (60%) damage reduction that BCs get on carrires. BCs deal only 6 damage (vs air), but carriers have only 2 armor, and only on their plating (not shields), which is only about 22% damage reduction.
|
carriers also build 33% slower than bc
but hey, carrier has more range and speed...
no wonder toss are nearly extinct in the galaxy, with air design like those youre destined to fail
|
actually, if you try to micro the carriers in sc2, they do way worse than leaving them as they are. I learned that from the challenge mission where you had carriers vs thors...
|
On August 22 2010 05:45 Drakkart wrote:
...so well some other dude already mentioned it, toss has nothing to put in the air which does not get raped by either vikings or corrupters, the same ressources put into it.
arent pheonix>vikings? at least 1on1 i thought so.
and voidrays are supposed to counter corruptors :DDD
|
On August 22 2010 05:48 iopq wrote:
you forgot that BCs are slow as all hell so a carrier can kite a BC forever and ever and take 0 damage
BCs still comes out on top thought 2 Yamatos and thats a dead carrier . With all that armor and the little damage intercetors do a BC should stay alive untill he has energy for 2 yamatos .
Don't know about Carriers since i haven't been following protoss matchups and how well they do , but i think BC should be used more in all MUs .
|
Why are people comparing BCs and Carriers by making hypothetical situations where a BC would be kited around by a carrier? Unless we're talking about Bronze level matches or FFA games, no competent protoss will try to make carriers as a response to BCs (think void rays, high templar feedback, and blink stalkers), and no terran would make BCs as a response to carriers (think vikings and thors).
They're not mirror units of each race that should be compared like this. They may be similar in that they're both high tier, high cost air unit flagships, but their roles and usage are drastically different.
BCs are more effective because of their durability and synergy with other units such as vikings whereas the carrier's interceptors can be destroyed very easy by Thor splash or hydras. Unfortunately, protoss' air to air defenses are much lower than that of the other races (void rays are terrible air to air without charge and a critical mass of void rays would mean no spare income for carriers, and phoenixes won't help carriers fend off corruptors or vikings.)
Carriers have sucked ever since the beta and they still suck now. They were pretty good in BW against Terran for some builds and late game matches, but they're the new 'Scout' in my opinion. High cost units with very little serious or practical use.
|
On August 22 2010 05:56 raga4ka wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2010 05:48 iopq wrote:
you forgot that BCs are slow as all hell so a carrier can kite a BC forever and ever and take 0 damage BCs still comes out on top thought 2 Yamatos and thats a dead carrier . With all that armor and the little damage intercetors do a BC should stay alive untill he has energy for 2 yamatos .
yeah, no amount of kiting will make up for the initial yamatos where the battlecruisers kill half their number in carriers. Yamato energy recharges relatively quickly as well.
|
BCs are an excellent late game transition in TvP. Carriers have not found their use yet. Since Blizzard put them in, I'm sure they serve some sort of purpose, so let's wait until someone uses them.
|
Carriers plus 2 HT can take a serious number of BC's...
2 HT can feedback 6 BC's...seriously damaging them and removing their ability to use Yamato.
|
17008 Posts
You can't compare units across races by price. They fulfill different roles.
Oh, and "why is [feature] in SC2 [specific way]?!" threads don't survive long. Mainly because they never get anywhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
