[D] Carrier Viability + 1 Base Carrier - Page 2

On June 01 2010 17:49 DragonDefonce wrote:
This build is obviously awesome if you can hold off early pushes, which will inevitably come when your opponent comes and sees basically nothing. While every build has strength and weaknesses, this build is vulnerable to any early/midgame pushes, including early marauder pushes, speedlings, mass hydra, fast mutal, 2 starport, etc, as well as not being able to punish FE. I don't see it working beyond platinum, as better players will constantly scout and see what you are doing/whats shooting at the ramp.

On June 01 2010 19:42 Seltsam wrote:
Like several posters before me, I think it's admirable that you're trying to incorporate Carriers into your play and find a niche where they can nestle comfortably, rather than simply complaining.

Unfortunately, after watching your replays (and after having tried a few builds of my own incorporating Carriers), I feel like the exact same build would work exactly the same except better if you just dropped the Fleet Beacon and got a Void Ray or two instead of Carriers.

I think that's the big concern that people have with Carriers -- not that they are 100% useless when you have them, just that other things always work better in almost any situation.

For instance, 350 minerals and 250 gas (not even counting cost of tech) can buy you 3 stalkers with change left over (350/250/6 vs. 375/150/6; 3 stalkers is actually slightly cheaper, depending on how you look at it) and they're better at handling air. Carrier + Fleet Beacon easily buys you two Void Rays, which can annihilate a couple of Vikings (I think), and do very well against ground. Void Rays are susceptible to early Marine assaults, but 350/250/6 + Fleet Beacon + Stargate buys you somewhere in the area of 6 or 7 Zealots. I haven't done the math, but if you delay gas and use those Probes to mine minerals instead, you could probably get almost 10 Zealots, and in less time than it would take to get 1 carrier (even including Pylon build time).

Again, it's awesome that you're trying to incorporate the Carrier into your play, but from what I can tell, with proper scouting, you could easily see what general direction your opponent is going. Then, with your knowledge of your opponent's plan, you could adjust your unit composition to be significantly more effective (and more efficient) than if you had simply gone Carriers.

And as if that wasn't enough, the Carrier build you're suggesting seems to rely heavily on an opponent's lack of knowledge, and, as far as my play goes, I am extremely reluctant to force myself into a position where I am relying on an opponent's lack of competence as opposed to relying on my own competence.

I really want to stress again that I think it's great that you tried it out, but I really don't think it's viable play.

On June 01 2010 21:47 Markwerf wrote:
The problem with the carrier is just the counters it has. Vikings and corruptors absolutely own them and are both quite easy to mass fast with reactor or the zerg building mechanism. Carriers dont even have the mobility advantage anymore over their counter so there is almost no use in getting them. In PvP they can be ok but as their is NO defensive advantage in that matchup there is just no chance the game will reach that far.

Imo, the viking needs a small nerf to make the carrier more viable in PvT at least (this would also be good for TvT). The viking is too good as is at countering broodlords and colossi already so I think this can be justified. A mothership buff would also help to see more carriers as that would make getting the fleet beacon less of a waste.

On June 01 2010 23:33 Chex wrote:
Can't watch replays because at work. It seems that you will likely be very screwed if anyone even smells a stargate, which they will. I had someone try this, had 2 carriers a small ground force and even a mother ship.

Man o man did my small numbers of hydras just eat them for breakfast. It wasn't even funny. He vortexed, I moved my hydras in, banelings ate his ground army...vortex ends...carriers and mothership dead.

On June 02 2010 00:14 FabledIntegral wrote:

Odd, because Carriers are ridiculously effective against Hydras. I played a silver player who went pure hydra after drone whoring (no lings, no roaches, etc.) just coincidentally when I went this build and I still steamrolled him in seconds. From what I've seen, Carriers absolutely dominate hydralisks, especially with chargelot support, which is incorporated from the build.

On June 02 2010 00:18 Chen wrote:

dont take into account games against players who arn't diamond, everything from a decent player works against them. My friend made scouts look imba vs D/D- players, you need at the very minimum diamond level players.
From my experience a good hydra ball wipes the floor with carriers. if they arn't really far behind, hydras hold position and MELT all your interceptors. its faster than 3/3 gols tbh.

On June 02 2010 00:18 Chen wrote:

dont take into account games against players who arn't diamond, everything from a decent player works against them. My friend made scouts look imba vs D/D- players, you need at the very minimum diamond level players.
From my experience a good hydra ball wipes the floor with carriers. if they arn't really far behind, hydras hold position and MELT all your interceptors. its faster than 3/3 gols tbh.

On June 02 2010 00:42 sputnik.theory wrote:
First of all, I think it's cool that you're trying out new stuff, this is the beta after all.
I've been playing random since getting mac beta a couple of weeks ago and I have never used or seen anyone use carriers in a ladder game. Coincidentally, I have not spent much time scheming about how to use carriers but this thread has gotten me thinking about it.

As you refine your build, I suggest you experiment with opening differently in PvZ. I've had a lot of success in this matchup by opening 2gate and transitioning to a fast expo. If you can get your expo up safely you'll have delayed your carrier tech in exchange for double the economy and, possibly more importantly, double the chronoboost. I'd expect this to result in similar timings of your first carriers coming out and you'd be in much better shape economy-wise in the mid-game.

I'll test out my theory-crafting when i have time and post some reps.

On June 02 2010 00:45 junemermaid wrote:


I can confirm this.

On June 02 2010 03:41 maleorderbride wrote:
I'll try it versus zerg and see what happens. I'm top 5 diamond (only ~450ish points though).

I already just do VR variations in virtually every PvT and I don't see how this could be an improvement. All of the T counters to VRs already restrict the T army composition enough that just mass gateway units dominate.

Speedlots should help a lot versus hydras, but I definitely wouldn't want engage more than a dozen hydras without the ground army. That should be doable though.

On June 02 2010 04:11 Seltsam wrote:
Marines.

Fifteen Marines with Stim and Combat Shield (which, if you count basically any ratio of conversion from Gas to Minerals is still significantly fewer resources and less time invested than Carriers) can kill 2 Carriers with 8 Interceptors each, and Graviton Catapult upgraded.
Additionally, 6 Vikings (also a significantly smaller investment than 2 Carriers) can kill 2 Carriers.

Imagine, then, you're against an opponent who isn't totally incompetent (note that this is not a comment on the skill level of the opponents in the replays; it is simply a facet of the hypothetical scenario). The chances he won't scout the Stargate are quite small. He will then respond one of two ways: with Marines or Vikings (or a crapload of Turrets if he doesn't plan on winning). By the time you have a Carrier out, he will have produced... hmm.. I haven't done the math, but I would guess something along the lines of 20-25 Marines? That is a fairly conservative estimate I think. Those 20 Marines will absolutely decimate your Carriers, with or without Combat Shield.

By the time you get 2 Carriers, he will have at least 6 Vikings, which, again, will decimate two Carriers. Chances are he'll have more, too.

I can't speak much for PvZ, since I haven't tried Carriers in quite a while, and don't play Zerg (I have a Terran practice partner, though, which is why I try to speak for Terran), but from replays I have seen, it seems rather like Hydralisks, when focus-firing, can down Carriers rather quickly.

But, even through all of my doubts, you have my support for continued testing, as I would really like to see Carriers find a home somewhere in the game.
Although, unfortunately, I feel like they will continue to fill no acceptable role until they receive some sort of speed buff (allowing them to move out of danger while the Interceptors continue to deal damage).