EPT[D]Why Colossi instead of Carriers? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FortuneSyn
1826 Posts
| ||
|
FatkiddsLag
United States413 Posts
| ||
|
kxr1der
United States213 Posts
On August 17 2010 19:26 Lighioana wrote: At the same time, lots of people go voidrays but they don't transition into Carriers. Fells like a waste of tech. I love when protoss players tech from voidray to carriers, all the vikings I built to kill the voids can now be used destroying carriers. | ||
|
groms
Canada1017 Posts
On August 18 2010 08:47 tetrash0t wrote: does anyone even attempt to use colossus without the range upgrade? i feel like that should be factored in I often do if the terran is pushing me hard with MMM I often opt to get a second colossus before getting range. If you micro it ok its perfectly fine to not have range. People say they are useless without range but I can assure they are not. Stimmed marauders are obviously the most dangerous threat to them but as long as you have enough zealots to clog the ground you should be fine. TO OP: Carriers are definitely an option, however robo play is just so strong against terran that I would rather go that route instead. If I was partial to VR(i'm not) I would experiment with more air play but I've found that a terran going 1/1/1 can pump a ridiculous amount of vikings without too much trouble if he scouts well enough. I will say however that I love getting carriers when I mothership rush.(which I do on ladder occasionally) | ||
|
RandomAccount#49059
United States2140 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
| ||
|
bjornkavist
Canada1235 Posts
| ||
|
Stargazer
United States10 Posts
PvP seems almost moot to talk about anything past 10 minutes right now. I don't fancy late-game stargate play in PvT but I don't think it would be as effective as robo or twilight tech trees. | ||
|
Juxx
325 Posts
| ||
|
blahman3344
United States2015 Posts
Even if you say that carriers + chrono boost makes them come out faster, you can also get colossi out faster with chrono boost, and its much cheaper overall. | ||
|
Exyia
United States17 Posts
On August 18 2010 09:23 Stargazer wrote: I think carriers can be viable as T3 stargate tech against zerg. White-ra/Duckload ra's match against Madfrog recently was really fun to watch. He 2stargated off of 2-base, harassed with phoenixes and void rays and then followed it up with carriers after they both did significant econ damage to each other. PvP seems almost moot to talk about anything past 10 minutes right now. I don't fancy late-game stargate play in PvT but I don't think it would be as effective as robo or twilight tech trees. uhhhhh...White-Ra/Duckload-Ra did not win simply because of his tech path/decision of stargates. Rewatch the cast and notice how much Day9 emphasizes the consequences of the far gold expansion and spreading too thin. He had hydra tech to counter air, but with no creep linking the gold expansion, he couldn't defend the higher mobility of air units. In a much normal situation, I haven't seen many successful stargate play PvZ. Hydra's just deal too much dps in numbers. Not to mention Corrupters absolutely destroy carriers, even when you have a good number of them There's much more strategy to SC than what tech to pick | ||
|
Powster
United States650 Posts
Anyway.. observers > everything.. so even if I was going carriers instead of colossus I would still definitely make a robotics bay.. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
| ||
|
Stargazer
United States10 Posts
On August 18 2010 09:37 Exyia wrote: uhhhhh...White-Ra/Duckload-Ra did not win simply because of his tech path/decision of stargates. Rewatch the cast and notice how much Day9 emphasizes the consequences of the far gold expansion and spreading too thin. He had hydra tech to counter air, but with no creep linking the gold expansion, he couldn't defend the higher mobility of air units. In a much normal situation, I haven't seen many successful stargate play PvZ. Hydra's just deal too much dps in numbers. Not to mention Corrupters absolutely destroy carriers, even when you have a good number of them There's much more strategy to SC than what tech to pick Actually, White Ra did win in this very specific instance bc of carriers following-up the stargate tech. They base traded and he ended up having the only army left on the map save madfrog's probes. White ra's phoenixes and vr's were able to abuse madfrog's hydra army bc of mobility, yes. But I emphasized carriers as a follow-up tech, and so does day9. And the carriers were super-important since white-ra lost his expo halfway through and was short on resources. | ||
|
dolpiff
France300 Posts
| ||
|
roymarthyup
1442 Posts
3 hydras costs 300min/150gas 4 hydras cost 400min/200gas 1 carrier costs 450min / 250gas (to fill up to 8 interceptors) what makes carriers so strong against hydras is their range against hydras plus the interceptor launch speed that lets the carriers launch all the interceptors and deal lots of damage then run away and the interceptors return to the carrier then you can attack again and launch all the interceptors again my carrier strategy seems to beat hydras but lose to curruptors if the zerg is smart and gets air armor upgrades. curruptors with 5 armor will heavily reduce my fully upgraded carriers 8 damage down to 3. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On August 18 2010 08:56 stormtemplar wrote: Two words: Yamato cannon. Where are your carriers now? one word: feedback counters to counters! isnt sc nice? | ||
|
moopie
12605 Posts
On August 18 2010 08:47 tetrash0t wrote: does anyone even attempt to use colossus without the range upgrade? i feel like that should be factored in Attempt to? of course. If you transition Collossi into your army relatively early vZ, you'll still be up against mainly roach/ling, so range 6 still works. You should always try to get the range asap (in time for hydras) but the Colossus is far from useless without it. | ||
|
bokchoi
Korea (South)9498 Posts
b) You want observers, so you're gonna get a Robo anyways c) Stargate units aren't as popular/effective in most scenarios d) Carriers much more easily countered, and not as menacing (in comparison to BW) | ||
|
Nixda
119 Posts
Not really. Sure, 350/250 is the price for them to come out, but that is with 4 interceptors only. Its 450/250 for a fully stocked one, and it makes no sense at all wanting to save 100 mins to use a carrier at half power. | ||
| ||
