EPTCarrier Micro - Page 11
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12064 Posts
The only issue I see is carriers might become too powerful against mech since the thor sucks against armored targets and finds it hard to kill interceptors. If they gave us a goliath style unit it'd own though. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:04 Qikz wrote: Really awesome post Tyler, I hope you post this over on the Battle.net forums to get blizzards attention! The only issue I see is carriers might become too powerful against mech since the thor sucks against armored targets and finds it hard to kill interceptors. If they gave us a goliath style unit it'd own though. Indeed, but thats why this is one of the best times to change/keep the Carrier. With it being the HotS closed beta, they can make all the adjustments and additions they need to, and considering they just dropped the Warhound, its even more likely everything can work out; Carrier is fixed, and Terran get a new unit. | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
Makes a world of difference. | ||
|
Defrag
Poland414 Posts
I agree, should be brought back. | ||
|
Don.681
Philippines189 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:16 i)awn wrote: Great post and video Nony. I can't believe they destroyed such an amazing unit and to even think about removing it without re-introducing these mechanics. This is the kind of units we want to see in SC2. Let's start fixing things with the carrier. In Blizzard's defense, I don't think they "destroyed" the carrier in WOL. The thing is, most micro mechanics in BW like carrier micro, vulture micro, bad pathing, etc were accidents by the engine programmers. They were like mini bugs that made the game interesting, but they were not deliberately put in the game. I think Blizzard has not been moving towards things like these because they have to deliberately re-program the game engine to do these changes. They coded an new engine specifically for SC2, they did not just make the old 2D engine into 3D. In a sense, its a lot like us asking Blizzard to "break" the game instead of us asking for a new feature to be put in. So, this lack of micro is not really blizzard "destroying" a unit (unlike LAN support, now THAT was deliberate). Its more like, the programmers, especially the pathing guys were doing too much of a good job. I think the best way to convince Blizzard to do this is for some of the Galaxy Editor experts here in TL to try and code this into the game via the Triggers. Without breaking/hacking/re-programming the engine. This should get Blizzard's attention. | ||
|
LOLItsRyann
England551 Posts
I mean in a battle, the difference with staying 8-11 range away is astounding, that's outside thor range, viking range, fungal range, neural range, makes HSM harder to cast, it really does sound needed. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On September 17 2012 09:15 Quotidian wrote: Now make a video explaining why Blizzard should remove the Colossus and bring back the Reaver  I want them to make a video explaining that gateways and warpgates should have a concession / tradeoff. Something which clearly explains that having to decide between the two adds to the strategy for the game. Rather than just having an upgrade you do once and never switch back. It's madness (long story short, the build time / cooldowns for the 2 buildings should basically be opposite) | ||
|
Don.681
Philippines189 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:42 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: I want them to make a video explaining that gateways and warpgates should have a concession / tradeoff. Something which clearly explains that having to decide between the two adds to the strategy for the game. Rather than just having an upgrade you do once and never switch back. It's madness (long story short, the build time / cooldowns for the 2 buildings should basically be opposite) I think the build times in the current game balance is the effect for chronoboost. We can chronoboost non-warpgate build times easier so they cant shorten it as much or risk breaking early game. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On September 17 2012 16:19 The_Frozen_Inferno wrote: Greetings TL. As you can plainly see from my post count, this is the first time I've felt compelled to post in here, though I've been coming here for a long while now for the epic SC2 coverage. As a map maker who works on an expanded melee map called SC2+: Bizarro World, I'm reasonably familiar with the data editor. I had no idea what BW carrier micro really was - and subsequently was just buffing the numbers on the carrier to make it actually fun to play with (though I can't guarantee anything about real balance) After seeing this thread, I think I finally know what people mean when they talk about BW carrier micro. And I believe I have successfully created a decent work-around solution for target switching in the leash zone completely within the data editor (meaning that in principle, Blizzard could do this without any hardcoding changes). -> search for the map named "Bizarro Carrier" on NA. I set it up with two planetary fortresses and 2 carriers for P1 to play around with (you can ignore all the other game changes - this is just about the carrier micro right now) If anyone is wondering about how the standard carrier's weapon actually works - it's actually a relatively complex affair. It also uses utilizes a few opaque, hard-coded ability/effect types with relatively limited customization options. A lot of its particular behaviours can't be directly controlled. (for anyone else interested, the brood lord weapon is even more complicated than the carriers) For example, if you've ever played Star Battles, you'll notice that you can't launch your interceptors while your ship is moving. As cool as it would be to launch on the move, you simply can't do it. As far as I can tell, this is a limitation of the game engine itself. A unit cannot use two 'active' abilities at the same time.(eg. the medivac cannot Move and use Heal simultaneously) I speculate that an incredibly elaborate trigger could handle it, but that's neither here nor there since Blizzard won't put triggers in their maps. At this moment in the middle of the night, I haven't any solid idea how to mimic the continuous deployment. Cmon guys, this guy has actually made a map which does exactly what (one of the skills) were and no one is testing it. I just fired it up and indeed you can change target within the leash range without requiring the need to switch to attack range. "Bizarro Carrier" on the arcade marketplace thing - for me it was the last item in the search in the lower right. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On September 17 2012 19:09 dafnay wrote: nony should post this in the "pro only" battle net forum section to get blizz attention like Grubby did. Do plebs get read access to this? I didn't even know it existed. | ||
|
Alex1Sun
494 Posts
| ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
| ||
|
Marti
552 Posts
On September 17 2012 07:15 bgx wrote: If Blizzard would really change carrier mechanics based on this intel then i would be shocked, because that would mean blizzard haven't done thier elementary homework. Do you mean like how they came out and said they were surprised to see terran splitting their marines against banelings , kind of like how BW terrans split their mnm against lurkers ? They didn't do their homework, and there's no need to look at carriers to see it... | ||
|
Saechiis
Netherlands4989 Posts
For what it's worth, I'd love to see the Carrier and it's behavior carried over from BW, replacing the Tempest altogether. | ||
|
Roggay
Switzerland6320 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:54 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Do plebs get read access to this? I didn't even know it existed. No its "pro only". And im pretty sure Tyler did anyway but he wanted to get his message across to us too. | ||
|
Ryder.
1117 Posts
This is exactly what SC2 needs IMO. Units that your casual player can still use (by just a-moving the carriers for example) with tricks like these requiring good micro if you want to get full effectiveness of unit. It allows everybody to still enjoy the unit whilst allowing the pros with excellent multi tasking to display their skills and be rewarded for it. | ||
|
Corvi
Germany1406 Posts
when was that micro most important? against ground units using cliffs etc., prime example being goliaths. in sc2 people just throw vikings and corruptors against them and they obviously dont care about terrain and are a lot faster as well. no micro can help you when a shitload of those simply right-clicks carrier after carrier away. | ||
|
Cabinet Sanchez
Australia1097 Posts
On September 17 2012 21:56 Roggay wrote: No its "pro only". And im pretty sure Tyler did anyway but he wanted to get his message across to us too. FINALLY I actually have an answer to this question now too. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=16186547 | ||
| ||
