|
On August 17 2010 19:59 vyyye wrote:
Keep in mind that upgrades synergize better with colossi. Ground +1 will give your colossi as well as your whole gateway army +1, while ship weapons will only help your carriers.
Good point.
What I also forgot and was mentioned in this thread is that the Colossi are useless without the Thermo lance upgrade. But so are Carriers in a number lower then 2-3.
Fells like if carriers are to be rushed too, they will have to be used defensively until you have more then 3.
Still, I encourage protoss players to experiment a bit with the Carriers.
|
Carriers need to hit a critical mass to be effective, 1-2 just get their interceptors destroyed. They also move really slow and take forever to build even if you crono boost them the entire build time. Crono boost speeds up collosus production the same as it does for carriers so that's a totally moot point. Even if you didn't crono boost the collosus it would come out 5 secs faster than a fully crono boosted carrier.
|
Carriers are in insane investment and rarely yields any reward. You have to keep in my mind how important weapon damage upgrades are for carriers. If your opponent has +3 armor when your carriers pop they are only doing 40% of the their normal efficiency. So not only do you have to get the tech/unit you have to get air damage upgrades as well.
I see no real useful way to add this into your games. The risk vs reward really isn't there.
Vs. Terran vikings are easily spam able and will destroy these
Vs. Zerg corruptors get a bonus damage from massive and shield easily destroy these
Vs. Protoss Blink stalkers or speed rays will take advantage of the carriers slow speed.
|
Collosi build almost twice as fast, if I'm not mistaken. 60 seconds versus 120 seconds. When I've tried to go Carriers I've literally lost the game while they're building. Or I just get my second and my opponent pushes, and its still getting interceptors and not doing much damage.
If interceptors counted as ground weapons like broodlings they'd be amazing.
Going carriers kinda forces you to make a ton of zealots, and the fact that they will be quite unupgraded makes them sadlots.
Unlike Collosi, when your opponent whipes out your army with mass producable corrupters or vikings, you have completely lost your investment. You will have upgraded air weapons, air research, etc, and you wont be able to retake aerial dominance, especially since rebuilding a Protoss air army takes a lifetime.
The ground weapons upgrades on your Collosi wont cease to be useful if they all get pwnt.
|
On August 18 2010 00:25 Ndugu wrote:
Collosi build almost twice as fast, if I'm not mistaken. 60 seconds versus 120 seconds. When I've tried to go Carriers I've literally lost the game while they're building. Or I just get my second and my opponent pushes, and its still getting interceptors and not doing much damage.
If interceptors counted as ground weapons like broodlings they'd be amazing.
Going carriers kinda forces you to make a ton of zealots, and the fact that they will be quite unupgraded makes them sadlots.
Unlike Collosi, when your opponent whipes out your army with mass producable corrupters or vikings, you have completely lost your investment. You will have upgraded air weapons, air research, etc, and you wont be able to retake aerial dominance, especially since rebuilding a Protoss air army takes a lifetime.
The ground weapons upgrades on your Collosi wont cease to be useful if they all get pwnt.
LOL "SADLOTS", nice name.
On topic, if you look at damage output. Carrier would be stronger against small quantities of high hp units, while colossi are much better at dealing with mass quantities of low-hp units.
Now, think MM, Hydra roach Zling. those are all massed low- hp units. Which colossi is better at dealing with.
Also, I feel that there's the niches of Carriers and Voidrays are overlaped,and in many cases voidrays are much better.
|
On August 18 2010 00:36 Logican wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2010 00:25 Ndugu wrote:
Collosi build almost twice as fast, if I'm not mistaken. 60 seconds versus 120 seconds. When I've tried to go Carriers I've literally lost the game while they're building. Or I just get my second and my opponent pushes, and its still getting interceptors and not doing much damage.
If interceptors counted as ground weapons like broodlings they'd be amazing.
Going carriers kinda forces you to make a ton of zealots, and the fact that they will be quite unupgraded makes them sadlots.
Unlike Collosi, when your opponent whipes out your army with mass producable corrupters or vikings, you have completely lost your investment. You will have upgraded air weapons, air research, etc, and you wont be able to retake aerial dominance, especially since rebuilding a Protoss air army takes a lifetime.
The ground weapons upgrades on your Collosi wont cease to be useful if they all get pwnt. LOL "SADLOTS", nice name. On topic, if you look at damage output. Carrier would be stronger against small quantities of high hp units, while colossi are much better at dealing with mass quantities of low-hp units. Now, think MM, Hydra roach Zling. those are all massed low- hp units. Which colossi is better at dealing with. Also, I feel that there's the niches of Carriers and Voidrays are overlaped,and in many cases voidrays are much better.
Worth mentioning is that high HP units tend to have armor. 1 armor takes 16 damage away from Carriers so... there is not really a niche where they excel.
Maybe in the next expac someone will get a unit that is air to ground only and favored as a normal army composition... or something like that that will make capital ships more worthwhile.
|
vr comes much faster than carriers. a charged VR can kill 4 stimmed marines with combat shields but loses to 5.
carriers are actually stronger than VR's but carriers come so much slower that VR's do better ingame
i get carriers a lot. carriers are beefy units and they dont suck.
|
On August 17 2010 19:24 NoNoNoNoNyoron wrote:
Most of the time a player is using colossus is because they are fighting against MMM or a Hydra composition. Either would destroy all the interceptors in the carrier before it can do anything.
This is correct. Marines, at least, kill Interceptors soooo fast.
|
Carriers are like an awesome version of BC. They are way faster and deal massive damage to air as well as ground. Teching to Carriers in the late game is always a good idea against Terran.
The days of TLO's BC play are long over.
|
As said before,
You already have a robobay for observers/immortals
they benefit from your other ground UPs
They are faster
They aoe from far range
have greater harass capabilities
They basically bolster your ground army better than a carrier would.
Carries would be a natural transition from VRs or somthing. You wouldnt go voidrays then make a Collosus.
But really, who sees an army of lots/stalkers/immortals, and 1 carrier. Not only are you showing your hand, they can pop that sucker down in 2 seconds.
|
colossi has a gas heavy price ratio which give you extra minerals to get zealots(which create a wall to block units trying to focus colossi) and pylons while for carrier, you need to SAVE minerals for interceptor production if any die. If you have played BW, you would know that interceptor isnt that great anymore in sc2 which will die quite easy. one more thing is that 5 colossi can swipe out ground units almost 1 volley but carriers cant, they dont have splash.
|
I would say because Carriers are not that great and super expensive, void ray can replace those in most situation and are cheaper.
Robo will give you access to observers and those are always usefull, and sometime having a warp prism is nice too.
The fleet becon is also horribly expensive building, and you kinda need graviton catapult to make carrier better, this add even more to the cost. and you need to build some more interceptor and replace those who die.. thats ALOT of mineral and gas for a unit that is not very good.
I dont know, carrier need some sort of neat ability to make em worth this huge investment. Maybe the interceptors could go kamikaze and crash into vikings and explode a few! Or a gravity inverter beam to make light/med flyer crash!
|
Collosi tech also gives you viable units such as observers and immortals to bolster your army composition with
|
because colossi have massive splash damage that wipes out entire zerg armies, why bother going stargate tech with such a potent unit in the robo tech route. Carriers are VASTLY inferior except taht they can hit air, colossi/sentries make a protoss army completely immune to melee until ultras are out, and then they can just have immortals taking the ultra damage. I still don't know why a protoss would get HT over colossi, it just feels like colossi have an auto (albeit smaller) storm as an auto attack).
|
Colossus tech, as you call it is mostly necessary anyway (Robo) for observers, which are crucial. Observatory is also useful. Colossus transition in the midgame to back your ground armies makes a huge difference, where as 1-2 carriers are pretty worthless. Should you decide to rush to a carrier transition, skipping Robo tech, you will usually get swarmed.
|
Maybe if your long term plan is to go for Mothership, but otherwise, as others have pointed out, Robo bay just have more options to fall back on.
|
Corruptors kill carriers a lot more effectively than they do colossus, since colossus do enough damage that by the time they die all your ground ia dead.
Things like mass marines can also beat a carrier build. Carriers aren't safe for that early game.
|
simple answer: carriers suck.
they can EASILY be countered by vikings or corruptors without doing much of any dmg at all. even at critical mass i doubt carriers will do much of anything if the player has enought corruptors and vikings.
colossus is much more viable to work with ur ground army.
|
I like the investment resource/time comparison OP gave us. Wish more discussions were started like this. It's certainly something to try out. I think a lot of people just hear "man, carriers suck in sc2" and don't even give them a chance.
|
does anyone even attempt to use colossus without the range upgrade? i feel like that should be factored in
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
