|
On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw
|
On January 08 2017 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: It's funny how Carriers went from a hype unit when they were rare too a super anti hype unit when they are legit Thats about the only funny thing about them. Terrible unit that allows P to win with absolute no micro with ease.
|
Have hydras ever won vs carriers after the initial bust failed?
|
uhh Snute needed to all-in with banes and hope Zest can't micro I guess
|
That was like watching a hammer against chips.
|
Seems like Norse Gods doesn't have power over such far parts of Earth as South Korea. Pls buff range
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 Elentos wrote: Have hydras ever won vs carriers after the initial bust failed?
well ofc not, the initial bust failed :>
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 Boucot wrote: That was like watching a hammer against chips.
but who has to clean up the mess?
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what?
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 Alchemik wrote: uhh Snute needed to all-in with banes and hope Zest can't micro I guess Judging from the first 2 games he can't so that would have been a decent idea
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 Boucot wrote: That was like watching a hammer against chips. mmm... chips. Now I'm craving some chips. Damn you!
|
On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? Why not try to make it work? Don't see the issue tbh, units which are iconic for starcraft should be playable in starcraft
|
The solution is to give hydras +1 range :D
|
On January 08 2017 02:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? Why not try to make it work? Don't see the issue tbh, units which are iconic for starcraft should be playable in starcraft
how can you make such a unit work without making it completly amove though, it'd need a major redesign
|
On January 08 2017 02:10 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:09 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: It's funny how Carriers went from a hype unit when they were rare too a super anti hype unit when they are legit Thats about the only funny thing about them. Terrible unit that allows P to win with absolute no micro with ease. I have no problem with them being played from time to time. but when carrier turtle becomes one of the best ways to play the game there's a problem.
|
On January 08 2017 02:14 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: The solution is to give hydras +1 range :D
bring back the warhound while you're at it
|
On January 08 2017 02:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? Why not try to make it work? Don't see the issue tbh, units which are iconic for starcraft should be playable in starcraft no, every unit should be playable in some situations, and that's always been the case with carriers. I don't see a way to make them actually a good unit for the game, they're possibly the most a-move and mindless unit in Starcraft
|
On January 08 2017 02:14 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? Why not try to make it work? Don't see the issue tbh, units which are iconic for starcraft should be playable in starcraft how can you make such a unit work without making it completly amove though, it'd need a major redesign You have to individually micro every interceptor
|
On January 08 2017 02:14 ArtyK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:13 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? Why not try to make it work? Don't see the issue tbh, units which are iconic for starcraft should be playable in starcraft how can you make such a unit work without making it completly amove though, it'd need a major redesign carriers aren't complete amove though, you can micro them back after interceptors are out to avoid taking damage.
|
On January 08 2017 02:11 Alchemik wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2017 02:10 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 08 2017 02:08 Alchemik wrote: I really wonder why carriers actually need to be viable, with how absolutely devoid of micro or any thought they are Because it's an iconic unit. The problem is that it doesn't work nearly as well as in bw and what kind of reason is that? "oh, we need it, it was cool 10 years ago", like what? you just summed up conservative politics
|
|
|
|