|
Since this whole topic degenerated into the usual balance flamefest where every topic ends up if unmoderated it's time for it to clean up. Locking this down for a while. Any posts made after my post [page 233] not addressing the changes in this patch directly and containting flames or general balance whine will get banned for at least a week. ~Nyovne
There is way too much flaming in this thread right now. Calm down before you post! (Page 271) ~iamke55 |
On September 09 2011 07:37 Rorschach wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:26 flowSthead wrote:
This probably isn't a good comparison, but the BroodWar Carrier and Battlecruisers have changed very little.
BW BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 133 build time, 6 supply
500 life, 3 armor
SC2 BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 90 build time, 6 supply
550 life, 3 armor
The SC2 BC has 50 more health, 43 less build time, and thats it. I have difficulty comparing the damage output on liquipedia, since for the BW one they do not have dps stats and all it says is it does 25 for both air and ground. The SC2 one does 6 against air and 8 against ground, but I'm not sure if it fires multiple times.
BW Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Carrier)
350 minerals + 200 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 140 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 4 armor
SC2 Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Carrier)
350 minerals + 100 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 120 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 2 armor
The damage output has definitely been buffed for SC2 carriers since I think each interceptor does 10 damage, while in BW it did 6.
But I feel like the 2 less armor is a bigger deal. Perhaps if they buffed the armor and nerfed the damage for the Carrier it would be better? Can anyone theorycraft this?
Your forgetting a big factor of the speed of units, you can't just look at stats. One thing the carrier had on the BC was it was faster until a recent patch where BC speed was buffed considerably. So carriers can no longer kite the other capital ship which was its best attribute compared to the BC's yamato cannon...
Right, but I was more looking at how well BCs survive vs Vikings. In the recent TvTs we've seen there have been BCs put in because they kill Thors fairly well and they break up tank lines. But their high armor also means they survive for a while against Marines and Vikings. Obviously Vikings hard counter BCs, but the armor helps them deal damage longer. Carriers have relatively low armor, so they die much quicker to Vikings and Marines. That's why I was thinking they might be more useful with an armor buff. And if they are too overpowered, then wouldn't an armor buff still be useful even with a damage nerf, is what I was asking.
|
On September 09 2011 07:42 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:37 Rorschach wrote:On September 09 2011 07:26 flowSthead wrote:
This probably isn't a good comparison, but the BroodWar Carrier and Battlecruisers have changed very little.
BW BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 133 build time, 6 supply
500 life, 3 armor
SC2 BC (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battlecruiser)
400 minerals, 300 gas, 90 build time, 6 supply
550 life, 3 armor
The SC2 BC has 50 more health, 43 less build time, and thats it. I have difficulty comparing the damage output on liquipedia, since for the BW one they do not have dps stats and all it says is it does 25 for both air and ground. The SC2 one does 6 against air and 8 against ground, but I'm not sure if it fires multiple times.
BW Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Carrier)
350 minerals + 200 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 140 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 4 armor
SC2 Carrier (http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Carrier)
350 minerals + 100 minerals for interceptors, 250 gas, 120 build time, 6 supply
300 life 150 shields, 2 armor
The damage output has definitely been buffed for SC2 carriers since I think each interceptor does 10 damage, while in BW it did 6.
But I feel like the 2 less armor is a bigger deal. Perhaps if they buffed the armor and nerfed the damage for the Carrier it would be better? Can anyone theorycraft this?
Your forgetting a big factor of the speed of units, you can't just look at stats. One thing the carrier had on the BC was it was faster until a recent patch where BC speed was buffed considerably. So carriers can no longer kite the other capital ship which was its best attribute compared to the BC's yamato cannon... Right, but I was more looking at how well BCs survive vs Vikings. In the recent TvTs we've seen there have been BCs put in because they kill Thors fairly well and they break up tank lines. But their high armor also means they survive for a while against Marines and Vikings. Obviously Vikings hard counter BCs, but the armor helps them deal damage longer. Carriers have relatively low armor, so they die much quicker to Vikings and Marines. That's why I was thinking they might be more useful with an armor buff. And if they are too overpowered, then wouldn't an armor buff still be useful even with a damage nerf, is what I was asking.
needs a faster build time and speed increase first I think. an armor buff would help them stay alive longer though....
|
Interceptors also don't repair after returning to the carrier like BW, so they're even more flimsy.
|
On September 09 2011 06:32 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 06:28 idkju wrote:On September 09 2011 06:26 farnham wrote:
why is carrier buildtime 120 when bc is 90 and ultras is 70 ? carrier has the most DPS in the game ____ loving that helion decrease  lings will have more survivability No it doesn't, where do people get this wrong idea from all the time? Carriers do not have the highest dps in the game, it's not even close compared to a certain other unit. A carrier with all 8 interceptors has a DPS of 26.7. It goes up by 5.3 for each air weapons upgrade, at 3 weapons upgrades it's at 42.6. Remember that interceptors die frequently, so it's actual effective dps will be lower a lot of the time. Compare to, let's say, the battlecruiser, which has a DPS of 35.6, and goes up by 4.4 for each air weapons upgrade (finishes higher than carrier at 3 weapons for both). 48.8 at +3 weapons upgrade Other units that do more DPS than the carrier: Thor (46.9 vs ground, highest in the game, increases by 4.7 per upgrade), anything with splash in the right circumstance (hellions hitting 4 or more light enemies, banelings against buildings/multiple light units, spellcasters hitting clumps, sieged tanks, etc.). Against ground? The Thor does a whopping 61 dps at +3 weapons. Yeah, thors are pretty good. Also, lings will still die in 2 hits from blueflame hellions, sorry. They won't last any longer than before.
don't forget bl's that have something like 86 dps if you don't kill their broodlings.
|
On September 09 2011 08:03 Striding Strider wrote:
Interceptors also don't repair after returning to the carrier like BW, so they're even more flimsy.
It doesn't matter if they repair in the hangar when half your interceptors get one hitted by a single thor volley...
|
Guys I lauchned PTR today, and it patched one more time(I already have 1.4 ptr), but there were no patch notes(I got what looked like a javascript array out of bounds error)....the patch itself was 18 mb, anyone know the patch notes?
|
On September 09 2011 07:42 flowSthead wrote:
Right, but I was more looking at how well BCs survive vs Vikings. In the recent TvTs we've seen there have been BCs put in because they kill Thors fairly well and they break up tank lines. But their high armor also means they survive for a while against Marines and Vikings. Obviously Vikings hard counter BCs, but the armor helps them deal damage longer. Carriers have relatively low armor, so they die much quicker to Vikings and Marines. That's why I was thinking they might be more useful with an armor buff. And if they are too overpowered, then wouldn't an armor buff still be useful even with a damage nerf, is what I was asking.
Carriers actually have 2 armor, compared to the Battlecruiser's 3. Note that this is only 1 less armor than Battlecruisers. While this is still significant, Carrier armor is still "relatively" high compared to every other unit in the game except Ultras.
Something else the Battlecruiser has over the Carrier, however, is the additional 100 hp (450 vs 550) that the Terran capital ship possesses.
I think the largest problems with the Carrier are still the build time (152 seconds: the time it takes to build a Carrier and construct 4 interceptors; 120 seconds: the time it takes to tech to the Carrier. Notice any problems here? For comparison, Motherships construct in 160 seconds.), the awkwardness of control/bad AI of the unit, and the relatively low DPS of the unit itself for its weaknesses and the time it takes to field them (its DPS is killable, and charged Void Rays do identical DPS versus armored units, more if it's massive and more if it has inherent armor due to the nature of the Carrier's attack[-16 per volley per armor point])
|
On September 09 2011 08:25 Glexarn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 07:42 flowSthead wrote:
Right, but I was more looking at how well BCs survive vs Vikings. In the recent TvTs we've seen there have been BCs put in because they kill Thors fairly well and they break up tank lines. But their high armor also means they survive for a while against Marines and Vikings. Obviously Vikings hard counter BCs, but the armor helps them deal damage longer. Carriers have relatively low armor, so they die much quicker to Vikings and Marines. That's why I was thinking they might be more useful with an armor buff. And if they are too overpowered, then wouldn't an armor buff still be useful even with a damage nerf, is what I was asking. Carriers actually have 2 armor, compared to the Battlecruiser's 3. Note that this is only 1 less armor than Battlecruisers. While this is still significant, Carrier armor is still "relatively" high compared to every other unit in the game except Ultras.
You have to consider that armor doesn't affect the shields, so there is only armor for 300 HP, that not that much.
|
Carrier is an outdated unit. When TvP is about massing siege tanks like it was in BW, then Protoss will start making carriers. It's just that Carriers aren't really great at dealing with marauders or ghosts compared to robo or twilight tech. And immortals are generally much better than carriers for siege tank/mech.
|
On September 09 2011 08:47 CruelZeratul wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 08:25 Glexarn wrote:On September 09 2011 07:42 flowSthead wrote:
Right, but I was more looking at how well BCs survive vs Vikings. In the recent TvTs we've seen there have been BCs put in because they kill Thors fairly well and they break up tank lines. But their high armor also means they survive for a while against Marines and Vikings. Obviously Vikings hard counter BCs, but the armor helps them deal damage longer. Carriers have relatively low armor, so they die much quicker to Vikings and Marines. That's why I was thinking they might be more useful with an armor buff. And if they are too overpowered, then wouldn't an armor buff still be useful even with a damage nerf, is what I was asking. Carriers actually have 2 armor, compared to the Battlecruiser's 3. Note that this is only 1 less armor than Battlecruisers. While this is still significant, Carrier armor is still "relatively" high compared to every other unit in the game except Ultras. You have to consider that armor doesn't affect the shields, so there is only armor for 300 HP, that not that much.
The Carrier is a neat unit but to be honest if people want to start using it they need to either make builds around Shield Upgrades and Stargate play early to add to it's(and interceptors) and air units hp (plus crank out those air upgrades early) for the vT or vZ matchups or they need to maybe think carriers might be only good in PvP games.
With the upcomming patch with 1 more range of Immortals and slowed down Blink Stalkers I wonder if robo into Stargate (or Vice-versa (which I doubt)) play could be viable. Considering that Protoss has the worst vs air defence Carriers in PvP with some neat transitions could be possible. To be honest I just don't see it in the 2 other matchups.
It's a lot easier to make Shield Upgrade in PvP worth while due to micro with stalkers, Archons, Immortals and Voidrays. There is no way to remove shields like in vT and zerg just need to get a Hydra den (40 seconds?) + the hydra build time and they will be more or less fine vs carriers. Or just use the spire tech which they may already have to whip out corrupters.
Plus with the Fungal Nerf air units take a bit less damage...
Really Carriers might only be usable in PvP after this patch and that's fine with me.
|
On September 09 2011 10:08 Belial88 wrote:
Carrier is an outdated unit. When TvP is about massing siege tanks like it was in BW, then Protoss will start making carriers. It's just that Carriers aren't really great at dealing with marauders or ghosts compared to robo or twilight tech. And immortals are generally much better than carriers for siege tank/mech.
Not to mention - Interceptors don't auto heal like in BW with each flight cycle. They drop like flies now.
|
Patch notes have been updated. Here's some of the updates.
- Fixed an issue where Broodlords on the high ground would not be revealed when attacking enemy units on the low ground.
- Infestor’s Neural Parasite can no longer target Massive units.
- Custom maps with dependencies containing trigger libraries will now load significantly faster in the editor.
Thoughts? Lulz? Etc? :<
*edit*
Link to updated notes
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1213111662
|
wow... Infestors neural parasite no longer target massive units? Thats thors/colossi/ultra. So zvp usage of infestors might drop a lot as neural is almost completely pointless, Mech is now 10000 times stronger as no more neural parasiting thors (easier to get the thors then tanks as tanks have such long seige). Should be interesting.
|
Almost completely negates the point of neural. I can't imagine the neural proposal going through.
|
On September 09 2011 12:12 blade55555 wrote:
wow... Infestors neural parasite no longer target massive units? Thats thors/colossi/ultra. So zvp usage of infestors might drop a lot as neural is almost completely pointless, Mech is now 10000 times stronger as no more neural parasiting thors (easier to get the thors then tanks as tanks have such long seige). Should be interesting.
mothership, archon, bc ar massive too :O
|
Colossus, Archons, Motherships, Carriers, Bcs, Ultras, Broodlords and Thors are Massive right?
That's a big buff PvZ and for Mech TvZ.
Not sure if that's the right nerf for Infestors, seems a bit overkill O_o
|
On September 09 2011 12:09 Treble557 wrote:Patch notes have been updated. Here's some of the updates. - Fixed an issue where Broodlords on the high ground would not be revealed when attacking enemy units on the low ground. - Infestor’s Neural Parasite can no longer target Massive units.- Custom maps with dependencies containing trigger libraries will now load significantly faster in the editor. Thoughts? Lulz? Etc? :< *edit* Link to updated notes http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/1213111662
no more nping thors.... what in the hell
|
You can still NP tanks and.. Void Rays, lol. Immortals too. But I mean.. that's really not gonna make it worth getting in most cases probably. Unless you REALLY wanna NP tanks, lol.
|
oh my god... I really hope this doesn't go through. Whats the point of making the Ultralisk unique but then giving part of its abilities to other units?
|
they should just remove np from the game, 0 reason to ever research it if it can't take massive units
;_;
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
