|
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.
If you look at shadows the Carrier is even farther away >.>
|
Actually longest range unit is the nuke, IIRC.
Also the inability to launch interceptors from that distance is devastating, and if your opponent pulls back out of carrier range your carrier will have to get "close" to relaunch.
|
On October 06 2010 08:00 Reborn8u wrote: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
Just pointing out the bonus they receive from upgrades doesn't show the whole picture, since they receive the same penalty against units that have base armor and/or armor upgrades.
|
has anyone else noticed that if you start casting yomato cannon on a target it will shoot on it no matter how far it runs?
i noticed this like a month ago i was playing a game vs another terran and he was using vikings vs my bc's i casted yamato cannon on a viking and it started running, by the time the yamato blast finished charging and actually blasted (shot off toward the target) the viking wasn't even on the screen anymore and was actually LONG gone... lol the yamato blasted it out of the sky from across the map
|
On October 06 2010 07:43 Lucius2 wrote:
so ehm ye, carriers still suck
clearly you never saw the funday monday with carriers that huk sent in. 50+ kills on one, averaging 30 on most of them.
|
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.
WTH are both of you talking about? Probably the only combat air unit (not counting spellcasters like Queens) that could be considered bad and underused in BW was the Scout. Aside from that, just about every single air unit was used regularly.
|
mod edit - nope
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I actually personally think carrier is strongest in early-ish game. It's micro-ability and its massive damage (a welcoming change from BW) means that it's absolutely devastating against a smaller army.
However, I feel that carrier now is a lot less "massable" and very diffcult to transition into once enemies have anti-air up.
Actually, I noticed this trend for BC as well (the infamous BC rush). BC too suck in late game (viking kite)
People starts to discover that the two capital ships of SC universe (BC and carrier) are becoming early game hero units vs. mass-able late game units. I predict that we will no longer see mass BC late game in TvT and mass carrier in PvT even if SC2 evolve strategically.
|
On October 06 2010 07:57 Impervious wrote:
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?
wraiths were much more agile than vikings. the turning mechanics pretty much destroy the similarities of all the faster air units.
in bw the wraith had a really short range, so golis were preferable. vikings dont have that handicap.
|
On October 06 2010 08:12 LegendaryZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:53 AssuredVacancy wrote: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. WTH are both of you talking about? Probably the only combat air unit (not counting spellcasters like Queens) that could be considered bad and underused in BW was the Scout. Aside from that, just about every single air unit was used regularly.
Really? Mutas/scourges/corsairs are the only combat air units that are built regularly.
|
lol it doesnt matter. In the end all your interceptors get evaporated by everything . . .
|
I say this without the least bit of sarcasm, and lol at people that say corruptors and vikings own them, ...carriers are awesome.
|
Carriers definitely don't engage targets at 13/14 range, they may be able to kite to 13/14.
|
On October 06 2010 07:57 Impervious wrote:
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?
a wraith without cloaking that can land on ground basically IS a flying goliath i dont see your point
On October 06 2010 08:19 Protoss_Carrier wrote:
I actually personally think carrier is strongest in early-ish game. It's micro-ability and its massive damage (a welcoming change from BW) means that it's absolutely devastating against a smaller army.
However, I feel that carrier now is a lot less "massable" and very diffcult to transition into once enemies have anti-air up.
Actually, I noticed this trend for BC as well (the infamous BC rush). BC too suck in late game (viking kite)
People starts to discover that the two capital ships of SC universe (BC and carrier) are becoming early game hero units vs. mass-able late game units. I predict that we will no longer see mass BC late game in TvT and mass carrier in PvT even if SC2 evolve strategically.
i agree, and i think thats a good thing, not only because it adds depth to the units, but also since small armies supported by 1 or 2 carrier look awesome
|
about the yamato canon thing, every unit does this I think. Its just that yamato takes so long to fire that its really noticeable. I always notice with roaches chasing a target, their spit can get alot longer than range 3.
|
On October 06 2010 08:03 RedTerror wrote:
Going by this logic hunter seeker missile has the longest range.
2nd. Because the HSM can't die.. just outrun
|
might as well say hunter seeker missles have the most range in the game.
edit: beaten x 50. sorry : *(
|
Carriers are boss and I cannot wait to see them used effectively late game. I try and use them in my mid game to force heavy AA and get really solid econ harass accomplished because of it.
|
On October 06 2010 08:21 AssuredVacancy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 08:12 LegendaryZ wrote:On October 06 2010 07:53 AssuredVacancy wrote: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. WTH are both of you talking about? Probably the only combat air unit (not counting spellcasters like Queens) that could be considered bad and underused in BW was the Scout. Aside from that, just about every single air unit was used regularly. Really? Mutas/scourges/corsairs are the only combat air units that are built regularly.
Carriers - Like half of PvT end games see the use of this unit
Wraiths - Extremely regular TvT unit and occasion TvZ unit
Battlecruisers - Used in end-game TvT when games get that far.
Guardians - Quite an effective ZvT and ZvP unit when used correctly.
Devourers - Seen less often than Guardians, but often show up when a Greater Spire is built in ZvP due to their strength vs. Corsairs.
Valkyrie - Long considered a crap unit that has seen much more use in recent years due to people discovering that it can actually be pretty good when used properly.
Seriously, which "air to ground" units (or any air units, for the matter) were considered bad and not built? If by "regularly" you literally mean every single game, then units like Ultralisks and Dark Templar could be considered "irregular" units too.
For me, units that weren't really built would be units like Dark Archons and Queens...
____________
Edit: And of course you're going to see Mutas, Scourge, and Corsairs more often than units like Guardians or Carriers. Mutas and Scourge are Lair tech while Guardians are Hive tech and also require a Greater Spire. Corsairs are the first and fastest Protoss air unit while the Carrier along with the Arbiter represent the Protoss end-game units.
|
On October 06 2010 08:20 seRapH wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2010 07:57 Impervious wrote:
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? wraiths were much more agile than vikings. the turning mechanics pretty much destroy the similarities of all the faster air units. in bw the wraith had a really short range, so golis were preferable. vikings dont have that handicap.
The thing is, I didn't have the micro for any cute tricks with wraiths..... Or if I did do it somewhat well, my macro suffered. I mainly used them for vision for tanks, and for their brute AtA damage.
And Vikings pretty much fill the same role now..... slightly different mechanics, and a different style when it comes to harassing ground targets, but overall its a similar role.....
The range on the Viking is definitely a bonus though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
