EPTGreat video Tyler, thanks for this post! It will probably won't even have to be nerfed since it's single target burst damage, and the OPness of direct ports from bw to sc2 mostly revolves around splash damage. I hope Blizzard implements this, it might "save" the unit in and on itself. If it still sees too little play one could think about proposed changes like making interceptors free and so on.
Carrier Micro - Page 17
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
chocopaw
2072 Posts
Great video Tyler, thanks for this post! It will probably won't even have to be nerfed since it's single target burst damage, and the OPness of direct ports from bw to sc2 mostly revolves around splash damage. I hope Blizzard implements this, it might "save" the unit in and on itself. If it still sees too little play one could think about proposed changes like making interceptors free and so on. | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On September 18 2012 06:50 juicyjames wrote: Dustin Browder's specific response Dustin Browder's general response A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen. | ||
|
KissKiss
United Kingdom136 Posts
And yah, great video. Was frustrating to hear they were considering removing the Carrier when they hadn't really given it a good showing. Carriers and Arbiters were the reason I played Protoss in BW...I play Zerg in SC2. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12042 Posts
On September 18 2012 07:25 SarcasmMonster wrote: A bit dissapointting but hopefully it'll eventually happen. I'm not sure I like their ideas there. I understand they have to balance the new units, but how can they balance them if they're not working in synergy with the older units? Carriers are like the core airtoss unit, without them working properly, how can they even begin to buff/nerf the tempest? | ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
| ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
On September 18 2012 07:03 Cabinet Sanchez wrote: Exactly, the dismissive, aggressive nature of the posts were always frustrating. Also the BW enthusiasts are sometimes just stark raving fucking mad. Yes skill is important but there comes a point where compromise is insane. I don't understand - compromise between skill and what else exactly? Liimiting how many units you can select or buildings is just nuts for example. Yet I saw people push for that and they wondered why the new people hated the idea. And yet every design team that worked on a Blizzard RTS pre-Browder & co has made a conscious design decision to keep the limit on control groups. I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that could vouch for their sanity. | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
Once that kind of gameplay is established THEN you can make little individual tweaks here and there to balance that gameplay/meta. Changing carriers from situational A move units to legitimate units is not a 'minor tweak', and if they adjust them as such they'll need to go back and re-tune everything from the mothership core to the tempest due to the ripples that will cause. Best do it now, not later. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
Then click on the Carrier - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Finally go to the rightmost tab on the weapon, and under "Target Sorts" add "TSPriority" (make sure TSPriority is the topmost one) and "TSDistance" (this makes it so the Interceptors automatically go after anything that is attacking, then if there are the same, they go after the nearest target) (Overall what the changes do is make the Interceptors automatically attack every enemy within 16 range. That also means that as long as there are enemies present, the Interceptors will never return to the Carrier unless you move out of the "16 leash" range distance or you press stop.) There you go. Carrier Brood War style! Additionally, if you want to keep SC2 Interceptor AI but allow an upgrade that upgrades the Interceptor into BW AI + Show Spoiler + First give the Interceptors a behavior that has "Passive Flag" on it "after" the above changes are made (give the behavior to the interceptor of course). Passive makes it so the interceptors won't auto acquire (it will still attack anything the Carrier attacks; again this should be done after the above changes). Once the upgrade is researched, you could have a validator disable the buff and thus enabling BW Interceptor AI for the Carrier. You'd need a Validator that checks if an upgrade is "not" researched. So - make a requirement that has "this upgrade is complete" under "use", make a Validator that does "not" have "Find" check and make it target that requirement, then add that Validator under "Disable" to the Behavior with the passive flag on it, finally add the behavior to the interceptor. As for Interceptors not returning while Carrier is moving? Hmm this one is a bit tricky. One idea I can think of is while the Carrier is moving at 70% speed or higher for 5 seconds [after 5 seconds past, the behavior removes itself and applies another behavior that only remains active while the carrier is moving] using a behavior that checks to see if validator is present (Carriers slowly accelerate and deaccelerate to and from their max speed), they get a buff which disables the Intercept effect that has delay, and enables another effect that has Carrier launching interceptors with no delay. That's really similar. Also, you can make interceptors regenerate health in the cargo too by making it so a behavior is added to interceptors that grants regen while interceptors are in cargo. This works similar to the bunker (bunkers actually adds a behavior that grants +1 range when units are in the cargo). | ||
|
SarcasmMonster
3136 Posts
On September 18 2012 07:55 Goldfish wrote: To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI - Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None. Then click on the Carrier - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Finally go to the rightmost tab on the weapon, and under "Target Sorts" add "TSPriority" (make sure TSPriority is the topmost one) and "TSDistance" (this makes it so the Interceptors automatically go after anything that is attacking, then if there are the same, they go after the nearest target) (Overall what the changes do is make the Interceptors automatically attack every enemy within 16 range. That also means that as long as there are enemies present, the Interceptors will never return to the Carrier unless you move out of the "16 leash" range distance or you press stop.) There you go. Carrier Brood War style! Additionally, if you want to keep SC2 Interceptor AI but allow an upgrade that upgrades the Interceptor into BW AI + Show Spoiler + First give the Interceptors a behavior that has "Passive Flag" on it "after" the above changes are made (give the behavior to the interceptor of course). Passive makes it so the interceptors won't auto acquire (it will still attack anything the Carrier attacks; again this should be done after the above changes). Once the upgrade is researched, you could have a validator disable the buff and thus enabling BW Interceptor AI for the Carrier. You'd need a Validator that checks if an upgrade is "not" researched. So - make a requirement that has "this upgrade is complete" under "use", make a Validator that does "not" have "Find" check and make it target that requirement, then add that Validator under "Disable" to the Behavior with the passive flag on it, finally add the behavior to the interceptor. As for Interceptors not returning while Carrier is moving? Hmm this one is a bit tricky. One idea I can think of is while the Carrier is moving at 70% speed or higher for 5 seconds [after 5 seconds past, the behavior removes itself and applies another behavior that only remains active while the carrier is moving] using a behavior that checks to see if validator is present (Carriers slowly accelerate and deaccelerate to and from their max speed), they get a buff which disables the Intercept effect that has delay, and enables another effect that has Carrier launching interceptors with no delay. That's really similar. Also, you can make interceptors regenerate health in the cargo too by making it so a behavior is added to interceptors that grants regen while interceptors are in cargo. This works similar to the bunker (bunkers actually adds a behavior that grants +1 range when units are in the cargo). Smart stuff. But I don't think implementation is the tricky part, convincing Browder is. | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
Please someone put this on the battle.net forums in the relevant thread, I don't have a character on NA. | ||
|
gh0un
601 Posts
Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind. | ||
|
floor exercise
Canada5847 Posts
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind. Here's a frightening thought: what if he's the smartest guy in the room | ||
|
FuGGu
United States176 Posts
 | ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
On September 18 2012 08:35 floor exercise wrote: Here's a frightening thought: what if he's the smartest guy in the room I'm really scared now. | ||
|
FuGGu
United States176 Posts
On September 18 2012 08:17 gh0un wrote: Dustin demonstrates once again that he just doesnt get it. Why is such an incompetent guy even employed at blizzard escapes my mind. Agreed. After watching David Kim and Dustin Browder's interview, I was shocked at alot of their responses...it just didn't seem like they knew alot about competitive play or paid much attention to community feedback. I get they want to assess community feedback and game ideas slowly, but what SERIOUS reason do they have for not remodeling the way the carrier attacks? This is especially obnoxious because the game is in beta right now, and it's a PERFECT time to implement it! | ||
|
Koriel
United States19 Posts
On September 18 2012 08:43 FuGGu wrote: Agreed. After watching David Kim and Dustin Browder's interview, I was shocked at alot of their responses...it just didn't seem like they knew alot about competitive play or paid much attention to community feedback. I get they want to assess community feedback and game ideas slowly, but what SERIOUS reason do they have for not remodeling the way the carrier attacks? This is especially obnoxious because the game is in beta right now, and it's a PERFECT time to implement it! I was very glad when I saw the latest HOTS patch notes and thought that with the return of the carrier they had also decided to put some thought into how they could make it work. It seems like that was not the case, which is unfortunate. | ||
|
[]Phase[]
Belgium927 Posts
Bit disappointed, but atleast we know they are aware of it. If they'd make the change later id still be glad, but if they didnt id like a good reason for it. | ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
Give us something cool, and we'll work around. Don't give us a mundane unit and instruct us its functions. | ||
|
The_Frozen_Inferno
Canada98 Posts
In fact, what this does is automize the re-targeting of interceptors onto new targets after the main target dies while you're in leash range. So, the carrier doesn't need to enter range 8 to retarget things to keep attacking at range 12 (that is to say, no micro needed). Ironically, if you do go and manually try to give an attack order while in leash range, the carrier will move back to range 8 in order to change targets. So, it's actually more effective to not micro your carriers. As for the interceptors staying external while the carrier is moving, I'm not sure it can be done with the data editor. The ability that controls the 'fires them one at a time' or the 'interceptors appear all at once at the target' behaviour is actually the same ability that controls the leashing and building of the interceptors themselves. Because you can't dynamically change that value, to change between those types of behaviours seems to require having 2 separate hangars. At best, you'd have 2 sets of 8 interceptors, but only able to employ either set at any one time (not sure how to get that working yet). But then you'll also be able to lose one set, but continue firing with the other. Which would be odd if you're only supposed to actually have 8 interceptors. As for the bunker-like buff to heal, it's actually the load command itself that confers the buff to the unit. But the carrier doesn't use a load command - it uses a special 'arm magazine' type ability to recall and leash units. I don't actually know if there's a validator type to check for 'in magazine' status. The game might not even recognize the units as 'in' the carrier - rather, they're actually just sitting there by the carrier (normally hidden inside of the carrier's model, but floating there nonetheless). So, the implemenation I think would still be pretty tricky. One should not underestimate the hard limitations of the data editor concerning this opaque ability. Maybe ask SoulFilcher, MavercK, Xenox, etc. to chime in with any ideas. tl;dr: Even if this was possible, all of this is moot if DB doesn't implement the changes or tweak the game engine. Argue eloquently TL and fight for the carrier we all want! | ||
|
Zer atai
United States691 Posts
| ||
| ||
