|
Hint: it's not siege tank
higher res version:
Note the range of siege tank indicated (13)
This is the longest range which carrier interceptor will remain on target. As you can see from that zealot indicator, it's longer than 13 (most likely 14)
Perhaps we may see this in more play in the future? This ridiculous range must be able to be exploited
P.S. Image and testing done in the unit tester map. I will try to do this on a normal map after I am done studying for the night.
EDIT: Also, just wondering, how can one earn a carrier icon next to their name? I been proving time and time again my dedication to carriers. Loving carrier since 1997 
EDIT2: more test indicate that after one target is engaged, some interceptors fly back, but often 4 remain and just attack random units. I am trying to determine at what range full interceptor fleet can remain to dish out DPS without having to return to the fighter bay.
|
so ehm ye, carriers still suck
User was temp banned for this post.
|
hmm interesting find. Was this the same for brood war also?
|
It doesn't count when you can't initiate the attack from that distance.
|
Ahahahaha your name is so adequate...
|
user name and picture is so nsync!
|
Nice find, but since interceptors barely have any range, carriers are not an effective long range unit
|
On October 06 2010 07:43 Lucius2 wrote:
so ehm ye, carriers still suck
woah man, dont be so close minded and atleast acknowledge the effort of the post before posting saying stuff like that.
I agree OP, I would love to see some cliff carrier micro like you'd see in BW and the Range of the Carrier in SC2 has not quite been exploited as much as it was in BW, not yet anyway
|
It doesn't matter since their range for interceptors to launch isn't that far. Plus corrupters/vikings still destroy carriers.
|
On October 06 2010 07:45 bjornkavist wrote:woah man, dont be so close minded and atleast acknowledge the effort of the post before posting saying stuff like that. I agree OP, I would love to see some cliff carrier micro like you'd see in BW and the Range of the Carrier in SC2 has not quite been exploited as much as it was in BW, not yet anyway
you would love to see some carriers get roflstomped by vikings/corrupters?
remember in SC:BW where the air vs air units sucked- this isn't like that.
you will never see carrier prevelant games because AA from Air is too good in this game.
|
In BW people would exploit the range by Hitting and running their Carriers over Cliffs. With the evolution of maps this while become more common.
What SC2 needs are better maps.
The only down side is that Goliaths fly now and rape everything, and Marines are Ubber easy to control and rape everything non splash
|
On October 06 2010 07:47 mnofstl007 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:45 bjornkavist wrote:On October 06 2010 07:43 Lucius2 wrote:
so ehm ye, carriers still suck woah man, dont be so close minded and atleast acknowledge the effort of the post before posting saying stuff like that. I agree OP, I would love to see some cliff carrier micro like you'd see in BW and the Range of the Carrier in SC2 has not quite been exploited as much as it was in BW, not yet anyway you would love to see some carriers get roflstomped by vikings/corrupters? remember in SC:BW where the air vs air units sucked- this isn't like that. you will never see carrier prevelant games because AA from Air is too good in this game.
No in bw air vs air units were really good.. just no one made any air units because air to ground was generally bad.
|
I thought day9's carrier funday monday showed that carriers are pretty good, or are you guys referring more to it as a late game option? I never really gave them credit till I saw that and tried it myself to great effect.
Im no pro, still I would've thought 3 or so carriers at the back constantly making new interceptors when they get shot down would be pretty good support for a solid ground army? Maybe with some phoenix thrown in for good measure (once they are fixed), or maybe some void rays. If you had blink stalkers to protect them from vikings etc it could work?
|
On October 06 2010 07:53 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:47 mnofstl007 wrote:On October 06 2010 07:45 bjornkavist wrote:On October 06 2010 07:43 Lucius2 wrote:
so ehm ye, carriers still suck woah man, dont be so close minded and atleast acknowledge the effort of the post before posting saying stuff like that. I agree OP, I would love to see some cliff carrier micro like you'd see in BW and the Range of the Carrier in SC2 has not quite been exploited as much as it was in BW, not yet anyway you would love to see some carriers get roflstomped by vikings/corrupters? remember in SC:BW where the air vs air units sucked- this isn't like that. you will never see carrier prevelant games because AA from Air is too good in this game. No in bw air vs air units were really good.. just no one made any air units because air to ground was generally bad.
not true at all. almost every air-ground unit in bw is more or less frequently seen.
|
Is it just me that thinks of Vikings more like a Wraith (awesome AA damage, relatively quick, relatively fragile, and similar price) that exchanges its cloaking ability for the ability to land on the ground than a Goliath that can fly?
|
On October 06 2010 07:47 mnofstl007 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:45 bjornkavist wrote:On October 06 2010 07:43 Lucius2 wrote:
so ehm ye, carriers still suck woah man, dont be so close minded and atleast acknowledge the effort of the post before posting saying stuff like that. I agree OP, I would love to see some cliff carrier micro like you'd see in BW and the Range of the Carrier in SC2 has not quite been exploited as much as it was in BW, not yet anyway you would love to see some carriers get roflstomped by vikings/corrupters? remember in SC:BW where the air vs air units sucked- this isn't like that. you will never see carrier prevelant games because AA from Air is too good in this game.
have you never seen a tech switch to carriers win a game yet? like a lot of strats, opting for carriers is not an every-game phenomenon, and is purely circumstantial.
this might help someone during a game who actually opts to get carrs.
|
carriers do +16 damage per volley for each +1 upgrade, they start with 2 armor. Have you seen how fast 2 carriers with catapult and +1 kill just about anything? With +1 the first volley from 1 carrier does 96 damage!! The interceptors do 5x2 damage, getting +2 damage per interceptor per upgrade. The interceptors also have a sight range of 7, which means a carrier with an interceptor at range 14 provides 21 range sight.
For costing only 25 minerals interceptors are amazing. With 40 health, 40 shield, 10 damage, and 7 sight. I might start going carriers more often in late game!!!
Unit stats here
|
Going by this logic hunter seeker missile has the longest range.
|
actually, if you look at the shadows, the attack range of the seige tank is still longer/the same. because the distance is from shadow to shadow, due to the 3d nature of the game.
the picture is misleading, due to sc2 being 3d, not 2d.
|
On October 06 2010 08:03 hellsan631 wrote:
actually, if you look at the shadows, the attack range of the seige tank is still longer/the same. because the distance is from shadow to shadow, due to the 3d nature of the game.
the picture is misleading, due to sc2 being 3d, not 2d.
I right clicked the siege tank to where the air unit location indicator is (the yellow spot indicate the precise location of air unit), then moved straight down. the siege tank should be at the center of the carrier.
it's clearly out ranged by carrier, since carrier is hitting the BC but siege tank is NOT hitting the zealot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs740.snc4/64057_10100141758137363_1223725_54965293_2803814_n.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://s1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa377/Zhongxia_Hu/?action=view¤t=rangedemo.jpg)
