[Edit - Now that I think about it, the title is kind of misleading and it doesn't really have to do much with cosmetics since the Tempest isn't just a different colored Carrier >.<.]
Originally I wanted to only talk about the "concept/mechanics" of the Tempest and whether or not the Tempest is a better unit concept than the Carrier but now I think the topic could also be used for discussion about Carriers being underused and what can be done to change it.
I've seen a few people mention the Tempest before (positively) in Carrier discussion threads which is why I'm making a thread regarding them and whether anyone else thinks positively of the Tempest or not.
Topic will be split into two parts: one is detailing the Tempest, its abilities, and whether you think the "concept/mechanics" of the Tempest is better than the Carrier) and the other part is detailing the differences of Carriers between BW and SC2 and what can be changed to "fix" Carriers/Tempest.
Differences between the Tempest and Carrier (based on its descriptions from SC2 Alpha):+ Show Spoiler +
1. The Tempest has a special shield which reduces damage taken by ground units (something like 50% or 75% reduction I'd assume).
However the Tempest has no shields against air units. Air units will damage the Tempest hit points directly regardless of shields.
So the Tempest is the ultimate Protoss air to ground unit. Very effective against ground units but very weak against air units.
2. The Tempest uses "Shurikens" which made melee attacks (and of course look cooler than Interceptors >.>). Shurikens can attack both ground and air units.
3. The Tempest is cheaper and builds faster than the Carrier but has slightly less hit points. (Exact values unknown).
Now we do not know its tech requirements (Does the Tempest require a fleet beacon?) nor do we know the exact stats.
However this is a question is a question regarding whether you think the Tempest's style (moderate cost with good air to ground attacker but weak air to air) is better fit for the game than the Carrier (expensive cost but good overall against most units).
Do you like the mechanics and concept of the Tempest over the Carrier. One thing is assume that the Tempest (and the Carrier) can be changed on the tech tree (like Fleet Beacon could be made cheaper, etc).
Keep this in mind for the poll below (I'll place the poll at the bottom of this post).
Well now onto Carriers and why they may be underused and what can be done to fix them (Carrier section):
Differences between Carriers in BW and Carriers in SC2: + Show Spoiler +
1. Carriers in SC2 only have 2 base armor (as opposed to 4 in BW).
2. Carriers cannot attack move move. In BW if you attacked, all Interceptors would keep auto attacking as long as they're out and as long as the "Stop" command is no used.
However in SC2 Carriers cannot do that. They can attack move but once the attack move "initial" targets are gone, they no longer attack move anything else. For example lets say 1 carrier attack moves into a group of hydralisk. One hydralisk is attacked by interceptors but one that hydralisk is gone, interceptors no longer attack and return.
In BW the interceptors would have kept attacking until everything was gone.
3. Interceptors do not heal when docking in the Carrier. In BW if you ordered Carriers to stop and return to cargo (or if they do it automatically), all interceptors will regain health at a very fast rate until healed completely.
However in SC2 this is not the case.
4. Of course an important thing to note is unit composition and counters are different. Instead of Scourges, you have Corruptors for example. Instead of Goliaths you have Vikings. Instead of Scouts and Dragoons you have Void Rays and Stalkers. Except Zerg, the SC2 counters are I'd assume better.
(Blink) Stalkers and Vikings all have better mobility than Dragoon and Goliath respectively (they also deal roughly the same DPS and have the same range).
Do note that Carriers have received a buff in their DPS (interceptors attack in sets of two and deal 5 damage each instead of 1 set dealing 8 damage) and cost (they now come with 4 interceptors instead of none).
However instead of having to upgrade interceptor slot (SC2 carriers come with 8 slots by default), you know have to upgrade interceptor launch speed (carriers launched interceptors nearly instantly in BW without having to have any upgrades researched) so that's sort of means no real buff or nerf from BW in terms of upgrades.
Overall it seems the Carrier has more negatives than positions from its transition to Starcraft 2.
What features of the Carrier/Tempest should be changed? Should it obtain all of its Broodwar stats (being able to attack move more easily, interceptors regain HP in cargo, +2 armor, etc) or do you think the Fleet Beacon and/or Carrier should have a cost reduction?
Finally the second question is do you prefer (in terms of concept, looks, and mechanics) the Tempest (moderate cost with good ground to air defense but weak air to air defense) or Carrier (expensive cost but good overall attack and defense against most units [in similar numbers that is])?
Poll: Would you prefer the Tempest over the Carrier?
No (Simply keep and rebalance Carrier) (48)
67%
Yes (replace the Carrier) (17)
24%
Yes (added alongside Carrier) (7)
10%
72 total votes
Your vote: Would you prefer the Tempest over the Carrier?
(Vote): Yes (replace the Carrier) (Vote): No (Simply keep and rebalance Carrier) (Vote): Yes (added alongside Carrier)
Anyone notice the Reaver in the video? ^^. Anyway, I think that the Tempest should replace the Carrier, but make it good against buildings or something instead of Ground. Hell, even make it good against Air. Protoss already has Colossus for ground.
Honestly, I feel like a large part of the reason carriers were a worthy investment at all in BW was because of the heavy econ nature of the game. If I remember correctly, carriers took 4 geysers to support and assuming a similar number of bases are necessary in SC2 (I wouldn't know, I switched races and have never ever seen a carrier used in a ZvP), it's very rare that anyone would ever even be able to support carriers, especially given the high gas cost of everything else in a P late game army comp. You didn't see carriers all that much until late late game even in BW anyways.
So basically, carriers are too much of a gas investment for most 1v1 games even if you buff them, and while tempest(s?) might be more practical economically, all the races have much stronger ATA options that make the tempest kind of useless even if you could afford it (vikings, corruptors, phoenix/VR). I don't really prefer either since they're both kinda useless in competitive 1v1.
Just my two cents. Of course, I could be completely wrong.
Most of the generic "counters" to big air units for all three races are also air units (blink stalkers arguably for protoss). It'll just melt to a charged Voidray, or a handful of Vikings/Corrupters.
On July 26 2011 14:31 Logarythm wrote: Most of the generic "counters" to big air units for all three races are also air units (blink stalkers arguably for protoss). It'll just melt to a charged Voidray, or a handful of Vikings/Corrupters.
This.
Adding a unit that is weak to Antiair in SC2 is not a god idea because all good Antiair units are Air units in SC2 (not like BW). So noone would even consider this unit since it would get countered before you even build it.
Thus I think there is no space for another strong antiground unit in Protoss Techpath. You already have HT, COlossus - it doesnt need more.
On July 26 2011 14:40 KaBoom300 wrote: my problem is that carriers don't really die to ground units when I get them (unless its a rush) they die to corruptors and vikings quite easily.
To extend your argument, this would make the tempest a somewhat useless replacement for the carrier. Carriers are not particularly weak against ground to air attacks as is, so I wouldn't really see the tempest filling any kind of role the carrier doesn't already fill.
On July 26 2011 14:40 KaBoom300 wrote: my problem is that carriers don't really die to ground units when I get them (unless its a rush) they die to corruptors and vikings quite easily.
To extend your argument, this would make the tempest a somewhat useless replacement for the carrier. Carriers are not particularly weak against ground to air attacks as is, so I wouldn't really see the tempest filling any kind of role the carrier doesn't already fill.
I would agree, carriers are not weak to ground by any means. However I feel that interceptors are. When a small squad of marines can take carriers out of the fight by shooting down all the interceptors, there is a problem. To amend this I think interceptor shields implementing the tempest's XX% damage reduction from ground units is necessary.
The only unit in the protoss arsenal I think that should recieve stat changes is the mothership - 2 armour for 400/400 capital ship is kinda bleh, you'd expect to see at minimum equivalent to the battlecruiser, if not 1 more.
Personally, I feel that there three main reasons as to why carriers are underused, and, im my opinion, underpowered:
1: The interceptors are weak, and don't regenerate health. As a result of this, when attacking into any form of fast firing units, such as marines and hydralisks, interceptors die extremely quickly. The graviton catapult upgrade seems to simply be a method of giving the opponent more time to kill your interceptors. Indeed, even without regeneration, the carrier interceptors are still quite weak. I once attempted a carrier transition to punish a terran who went for an almost exclusively mech army composition. The result of this was having most of my interceptors being killed by a single volley from a single thor. The solution to this first problem would be to firstly remove the 'light' tag from interceptors, and also to have them regenerate health when they return to the carrier like in BW. This would also improve the effectiveness of the graviton catapult upgrade.
2. Although carriers have a higher base DPS than in BW, they have two attacks. This means that against any units with even 1 base armour, the carrier's damage output is reduced to BW levels. From here, any additional enemy armour will further reduce the damage per interceptor by 2. In the late game scenarios, where the opponent is likely to have +3 armour, the carrier damage will be actually quite low. This can be easily addressed by changing the interceptor damage from being 5 x 2, to a base of 10 damage in one attack, with each upgrade adding a further +2 damage per interceptor (or perhaps +1 for balance purposes).
3. A key part of the strength of the carrier in BW was its ability to abuse its large range to get in additional volleys on enemy units before they were able to get into attacking range. This was only possible due to the carrier being able to launch all its interceptors at once, and to keep its interceptors attacking while the carrier is moving. Personally I think reverting both of these aspects back to BW style would make carriers overpowered, and making the carrier launch all its interceptors at once would make the graviton catapult upgrade redundant. As such, I feel that to address this issue the carrier simple needs to be able to attack whilst moving, in a similar method to the phoenix, but with the ability to choose whether or not to deploy the interceptors.
@NubbleST - That's a good point about gas. Gas is a bit harder to obtain in SC2 (takes 6 probes to saturated one base as opposed to just 3 probes in BW) and requires much more investment.
On July 26 2011 14:10 SniXSniPe wrote: The concept of the Tempest would be pointless though.
It's weak against air units, but strong against ground units.... Colossus much?
Protoss don't need another unit good against ground when they have Templars/Colossus/Archons.
Hmm true. Though the Tempest is more of a tank (against ground) in contrast to the Colossus . Though both are weak to air, the Tempest can only be really damaged by air units (since its shields are good against ground units).
Of course the question is - is that useful (Ground to Air damage tank)? Well maybe if the Tempest was a much lower tier unit but currently I do agree that Tempest and Carriers are practically useless due to air to air counters.
Blizzard doesn't want to buff the carrier. They think it's a mothership or a casual unit. Is it really that awful that there units with some overlap? Marines & marauders and carriers & colossus. Is it so evil that we can have a preference or style? Buff carriers please. BW had way more viable units. Blizzard likes to eliminate factors to balance this game. Even hinting to us they might actually remove units in expansions lol.
Wow, it would've cool to see Tempests in SC2 (never knew about it till now). it's like a stalker carrier, maybe if they did a bit more tweaking to it, the stuff that made it different from carriers were just dumb imo, I just like the color.
EPT
