EPTSame goes for probes and warp prisms. They trade well with corruptors when corruptors are getting stormed...
[D] Carrier analysis and its replacement(Tempest) - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Asmodeusx
286 Posts
Same goes for probes and warp prisms. They trade well with corruptors when corruptors are getting stormed... | ||
|
Umami
United States23 Posts
Killing shit from long range is too specific of a role now? Think of what the tempest could do to the PvP matchup with a couple of tweaks, it could finally provide for some interesting lategame PvP matches instead of the excruciatingly boring "well imma make some colossus and upgrade em some and then throw them towards you to check if you did the same". Tempest are good at killing shit from a long range what im saying though is that possibly one of the only things they will be effective against is broodlord as they do not have the dps to be good against anything else. Blizz showed that they were specifically meant for broolords when they stated their damage is + to massive maybe they should just make it a base damage stat like roaches so they are decent vs broodlords and everything else I mean with what you pay for with its expensive cost I think it could be justified. | ||
|
LuisFrost
Mexico130 Posts
| ||
|
cari-kira
Germany655 Posts
in scenarios where the map is mined out and the zerg constantly trades energy für interceptors. there is a point where you simply dont have enough minerals to rebuild them and you have to gg with an army of carriers without interceptors. thats why i dont like what bliz did to the carrier in wol. but tempest? cmon. they showed us the tempest as an aoe air solution to muta harass. now mutas arent used as much anymore because zerg learned that they can just mass roaches, and bliz thought "ok problem solved" and made the tempest a long range, overprized, low dps siege weapon, because the model was there already -.- seems quite random to me, and plays random, too | ||
|
Trotim
Germany95 Posts
They do have 22 range with their upgrade but to exploit that you need vision and every Zerg usually has overseers to snipe obs with their late game composition, which may hinder the tempest from using its 22 range at its maximum potential. Oracles can now give you vision with a scan-like spell. There's also Hallucination which, while it won't last long, is at least free vision as well. Haven't seen either of these tried yet. It's too early to say. | ||
EsportsJohn
United States4883 Posts
| ||
|
Fragile51
Netherlands15767 Posts
On September 12 2012 00:45 Umami wrote: Tempest are good at killing shit from a long range what im saying though is that possibly one of the only things they will be effective against is broodlord as they do not have the dps to be good against anything else. Blizz showed that they were specifically meant for broolords when they stated their damage is + to massive maybe they should just make it a base damage stat like roaches so they are decent vs broodlords and everything else I mean with what you pay for with its expensive cost I think it could be justified. As if what blizzard thinks it should do well against is the end-all of a units potency. Still, i think Tempest's stats need to tinkered with, and nothing more. It's a fun, new and interesting concept and it's exactly what we need in sc2 right now. | ||
|
HunterAMG
Colombia29 Posts
| ||
|
etherealfall
Australia476 Posts
On September 11 2012 17:20 Xerxes Wrath wrote: How can you know if it is severely imbalanced as you said? Just compare Carrier to BC, they're both capital ships, DPS attackers and BCs are better in EVERY way except range, but they have Yamato to make up for it. Now BCs is getting another buff, and Carriers got removed. With those buffs I mentioned above, Carriers will be able to neutralized most damage taken from marines, hydras and stalkers, but still take noticeable damage from vikings and corruptors. They will have enough DPS to fight with vikings and corruptors quite effectively with Stalkers support. Interceptors healing will make them not die in seconds, and the ability to attack while moving will add versatility to air play. I don't think you can compare BC to Carrier like that. In fact, you seem to solely complain about the Carrier given the BC buffs - which mind you, also has to account for dealing with TvX, with the only interaction with Carrier being the PvT. Now I don't particularly understand TvZ and TvT at a high level, so I can't say what justifies such a buff. But the problem has also been shown that Carriers are not PARTICULARLY effective in dealing with BL infestor. I actually like the idea of a long seige unit that the Tempest can fulfil the role as. But what I don't like is - so you're forcing reaction and he decides to attack you, but you have 20 supply locked in a useless direct engagement unit.  | ||
|
j.k.l
112 Posts
| ||
|
Xequecal
United States473 Posts
On September 11 2012 17:20 Xerxes Wrath wrote: How can you know if it is severely imbalanced as you said? Just compare Carrier to BC, they're both capital ships, DPS attackers and BCs are better in EVERY way except range, but they have Yamato to make up for it. Now BCs is getting another buff, and Carriers got removed. With those buffs I mentioned above, Carriers will be able to neutralized most damage taken from marines, hydras and stalkers, but still take noticeable damage from vikings and corruptors. They will have enough DPS to fight with vikings and corruptors quite effectively with Stalkers support. Interceptors healing will make them not die in seconds, and the ability to attack while moving will add versatility to air play. Terran is not Protoss. If Carriers have 4 base armor, how exactly does Terran EVER kill them? With 4 armor, 1 Carrier will beat 4 Vikings, and it only gets worse as the number of Carriers vs. Vikings increases and the Vikings either waste tons of shots on interceptors or all focus fire and massively overkill their targets. Battlecruisers and Marines will both be reduced to doing 2 damage a shot. Carriers can kite BCs pretty much forever too. BW Carriers had these stats because the AI was absolutely horrific, and Terran had Goliaths to counter. In SC2 the targeting AI is far superior and Terran doesn't have Goliaths. Also, Carriers are very problematic in PvZ. They're very hard to switch to, but if you do manage to switch to them you pretty much automatically win. Nothing Zerg has can beat Carrier/Archon/Zealot/HT. That army will just obliterate any Zerg composition and two or three remaxes without losing much of anything. I think the Tempest will be fine, it snipes Broodlords very well, but you know what it snipes even better? Infestors. 22 range means they can't bring their infestors anywhere near your army without losing them. All you need is 3 Tempest and you can start 1-shotting their Infestors. It's also excellent for defending expansions, just put up 30 cannons and dare the Zerg to try and attack it. They can't whittle the cannons down slowly with their Broodlords because the Tempests will kill them all. | ||
|
lpunatic
235 Posts
| ||
|
Don.681
Philippines189 Posts
From my own experience, you need at least 6+ carriers for them to start being effective, that is why it is very hard to transition to them. I mean once you get the first two Colossi it immediately gives you a formidable army. But, 2 Carriers wont give you anything, add up the fact that it needs a few upgrades and another build time of interceptors to be fully operational. I don't see the tempest having the same problem though, once you get 2-3 of them, they already have utility. They are not supposed to be part of your deathball or to be massed imo. I see the meta-game shifting to Protoss getting about 3 and then moving on to other units. Although, 3 tempest wont give you the damage output 3 colossi can,1-3 Tempest could: 1. Harass the hell out of a mineral line 2. Provide good base defense against medivac drops, covering multiple drop locations. 3. Provide support to Warp Prism drops (normal drops or speed prisim colossi, tempest on hold position just outside the base) 4. Someone will think of a crazy proxy stargate build for this. It has utility in low numbers. Think it has lots of potential and will find its own niche in some match-up countering some build because it can reach effectiveness earlier than a Carrier can. We just have to get past the fact that its bad en masse. Its a unit that should slowly nip at an enemy not win games outright. | ||
|
RyLai
United States477 Posts
On September 11 2012 12:01 Umami wrote: Why then take out the carrier preemptively? Why not take the same approach to the carrier as they did with the situation report? Work on the carrier and make it easier for Protoss player and let the carrier evolve as we are starting to see more carriers enter the meta game. Could this possibly be hypocritical of blizzard to not let the carrier evolve more in the meta game? The reason is because it doesn't belong to Terran. If it belongs to Terran, the approach is to promise you'll do something, then do nothing. Or if you're Zerg, you automatically get random ass buffs (apparently whether you QQ or not). I think the biggest issue is simply the build time. If it didn't take years to get a few Carriers out, 2 base Carrier builds might come back. The damage output of Carriers aren't so bad, and they are reasonably good in large numbers. Also, maybe increasing the durability of Interceptors would help. As it is, I feel they are too easy to kill, as you can just get a large group of Stimmed Marines and literally have them sit there until all the Interceptors die. You should have to focus fire Carriers to beat them cost efficiently (which is significantly easier than getting under Broodlords to do the same). | ||
|
ChoDing
United States740 Posts
but oracle in other hand.... | ||
|
StoleitfromKilgore
Austria15 Posts
Also, Carriers are very problematic in PvZ. They're very hard to switch to, but if you do manage to switch to them you pretty much automatically win. Nothing Zerg has can beat Carrier/Archon/Zealot/HT. That army will just obliterate any Zerg composition and two or three remaxes without losing much of anything. From all I've seen recently even a well-balanced composition with a lot of Carriers and a sufficient amount of HTs is not exactly able to just overrun the appropriate Zerg-counterpart. The standard spine-walls make it hard for the Protoss ground support to do anything. Especially Feedbacks and Storms are just too important to risk losing your Templars to static defenses. The Zerg usually should have a good amount of Infestors and at least the tech to reinforce with a lot of Corrupters. The usefulness of Spore Crawlers against Interceptors should also not to be underestimated. One example would be one of the games of Curious vs. Squirtle in TSL4. I think the Tempest will be fine, it snipes Broodlords very well, but you know what it snipes even better? Infestors. 22 range means they can't bring their infestors anywhere near your army without losing them. All you need is 3 Tempest and you can start 1-shotting their Infestors. It's also excellent for defending expansions, just put up 30 cannons and dare the Zerg to try and attack it. They can't whittle the cannons down slowly with their Broodlords because the Tempests will kill them all. So true. As we all know, taking the Infestors out of the Broodlord-Infestor equation can make it look really weak. And feedbacking or Blink-sniping Infestors might not always be the best option. Or at least it can be quite risky. The only thing I don't get about the Temepst is its cost and HP-count. The current 300/300 Tempest might be useful in some functions, but with such a high cost and low Dps it will probably only be used in late-late-game. And the high HP-count doesn't really make sense on an Artillery-unit. I believe it would make sense to get rid of some of the hitpoints and reduce its resource cost to 200/200 and its supply cost to 4 or something along those lines. Leave the range-upgrade on the Fleet Beacon. This should help to make the Tempest a bit more of a flexible choice, that might be usable in the mid-game. Coupled with the Oracle and some changes to the Carrier this might actually make Sky-Toss a less risky, more harass-oriented playstyle. Edit: Sorry, forget to mention, that the Tempest should be available on plain Stargate, but the Range-upgrade only on Fleet Beacon. Also, can somebody tell me what Blizzard is trying to achieve by removing the Carrier ? I mean, the Tempest and the Void-Ray both fill completely different roles. It's not like removing the Carrier will add anything to the game. | ||
|
durr
United States148 Posts
| ||
| ||
