|
On September 10 2011 22:16 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 21:29 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 21:17 WhiteDog wrote:
The main problem of TvP is the ghost in my opinion. It's such a freaking godly unit and it needs to be nerfed somehow in my opinion.
As for ZvP, protoss saying Zerg is OP are just blind.
About Protoss, the main problem is how the race is designed. Timing attacks are too good with warpgate tech (less after nerf) but aside from that, they are pretty weak early to mid game. Something needs to be done about warp gate tech - my opinion is that you need to upgrade zealot a bit (giving back their old shield maybe ?) and make charge easier to get while nerfing warpgate production ratio and up gateway so that protoss stay in gateway when they build up their army and switch to warpgate for attack / counter.
By the way, the colossus needs to be redesigned too, but no protoss will agree on that since they all love their a click noobish unit. We're not saying ZvP is op, we're saying it's imbalanced because of those protoss design flaws. Protoss needs to be changed, not zerg. PvZ winrates in korea are <30%! And 90% of all protoss will gladly replace the colossus with units like the reaver, which can be micro-ed and isn't just a terribly balanced and designed unit. The problem is colossus has to be so strong because without it protoss will be destroyed even more. Changing the protoss design will change that. Protoss gateway army should be buffed and colossus redesigned ; the colossus is not "strong", it's just retarded. When you have a sufficient number, you just negate the entire ground army of your opponent, and if your opponent have a sufficient number of AA units such as viking or corruptor, he negate your entire colossus force, which is by the way almost your only way of dealing damage aside from the templar. That's an idiotic design, colossus should be completly different...
Yes, I and most protoss players totally agree.
|
On September 10 2011 22:32 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 19:23 Brotocol wrote:On September 10 2011 19:20 Belial88 wrote:
White-Ra goes Carrier/VR in PvZ a lot. It's absolutely unstoppable for Zerg. NP is okay but ghosts rape that, not to mention carrier range when micro'd. It's pretty hard to get to, but on split map he does it and Zerg always loses when he does it.
I think that if someone manages to get a critical mass of carriers out, then his opponent must not have been very good. Carriers take so, so, so long to come out and are extremely expensive. the bolded statement is actually not true. lets make some protoss players have a realization! source: SC2 armory Carrier: buildtime: 120 seconds, 80 seconds if permanently chronoboosted resource cost: 350/250 (+100 minerals for interceptors give 450/250) food cost: 6 hp: 300hp + 150shield = 450 armor: 2 shield armor: 0 movement: 1.88 tags: armoured, mechanical, massive attacks: ground and air dps: unknown broodlord: paranthesis shows the difference between the carrier and broodlord stats favouring broodlord: buildtime: 40+33.83 = ~74 seconds (-46 seconds, alternatively -6 seconds) resource cost: 150/100 + 150/150 = 300/250 (-150/0) food cost: 4 (-2) shield armor: 0 (irrelevant for broodlord) stats favouring carrier hp: 225 (+225) armor: 1 (+1) movement: 1.41 (+0.43) tags: armoured, biological, massive (biological is worse than mechanical due to there being spells and bonus damages vs biological, not the case with mechanical) attacks: ground (+vs air) dps: unknown Im sorry but dps doesn't say on SC2 armory, and I don't feel like searching just to find out just how badly carriers out-dps broodlords, cause Im certain they heavily do even when counting the broodlings. range doesn't show either, so I'll just that assume that the pros and cons cancel each other out on that front. so basicly carriers beat broodlords in almost every aspect other than cost and buildtime, but lets assume blizz balanced the carrier so that you are supposed to chronoboost them, then suddenly the buildtime is extremely comparable, so the question is ultimately, are you ready to pay 150 minerals (3 probes), and 2 supply for 225 hps (!), an additional armor, higher movement speed, better tags, an air attack (!), and higher dps? for the record: I would pay that prize any day of the millenia. so obviously it is not the fact that they take a long time to build, nor the fact that they are expensive, that makes them see so little use, after all, if those were the deciding factors, then why do zergs build broodlords? the only explanation left is that they take a long time to mass true, the carrier can only be built 1 at a time, for every 2 nexi you have, since you need to permanently chronoboost them. but then I ask you: do you really need to mass them? isn't it fine just having 2 of them? (+ the rest of your army) the same way its actually fine attacking with 2 colossi. (+ army) why are you stuck in the mindset of "if I am going to use carriers, I must have 6 or more"? its just not true.
They dont have the same role.
Interceptors can and will be shot down.
broodlings are infinite.
the reason why broodlords often times float in front of the zerg army is because they can be used to deal dmg without endangering themself, broodlings dont cost anything and they die anyway, so why not siege a turret/unit with them while you can..
if the enemy doesnt react the siege will go on forever.
Carriers on the other hand...
they dont block ground units from moving forwards, makes it easy to snipe lonely carriers.
they cant siege at all, because there is simply no infinite dps going on... the interceptors will eventually die, meaning the carriers will be useless for a certain amount of time...(wich is like a death sentence if the enemy engages in that moment)
If a broodlord shoots a bunch of marines, the marines either have to engage the broodlords or retreat, sitting there killing broodlings wont help you and it wont hurt the zerg at all.
Carriers SUCK against marines/hydras... the most vulnerable thing of a carrier is its interceptors.
kill them and then the threat is over.
Carriers are solely a tank-like battle unit, it cant be used to harras, it cant be used to siege.
It's just there dealing some (cost for cost) crappy DPS while absorbing a ton of enemy dmg.
|
"Carrier dps unknown" <- Convenient to ignore this point, even though I provided the dps in a link (here).
It does 26.67 DPS, when 8 interceptors are active. Interceptors in SC2 differ from BW in that they do not heal when they return to the carrier. They basically just die. Beyond that, if you fully upgrade air attack, Carrier does 42.67 DPS, which is lower than +0 Thor ground damage and lower than similarly upgraded BC dps. And by the time you have +3 air damage, the opponent will have +3 ground armor, which brings your carriers back to 26.67dps.
And still beyond all of the above, you can't really compare to brood lord construction time, since Zerg can build tons of units simultaneously. It's not feasible to make 6 Stargates and chrono boost all of them continuously. So, I find your build time comparison unfair, since it takes Zerg only 1.5 build cycle (corruptor -> brood) to make a whole bunch of brood lords.
Carrier as a unit is a real dud. Anyone saying it's viable has never tried using it... Any resource/time you spend making the carrier was probably better spent on something else.
|
On September 10 2011 21:15 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. I have a personal vendetta against zergs because I am annoyed by some biased zerg player making false claims? You then argue saying carrier void ray is overpowered, because queen/ultra/bl also is, according to you? Really? I'm not going to reply to you again, you're totally disconnected from reality.
What false claims?
And I never said carrier/voidray was overpowered, rofl. I never came close to ever saying that. I just said it's extremely powerful, as a response to people saying carriers were worthless. I say that, like queen/ultra/bl, it's extremely powerful, but it's pretty much impossible to get out, and it's very rare to see due to cost and infrastructure needed.
Jesus christ, some people are trolls.
|
On September 11 2011 01:24 Belial88 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 21:15 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. I have a personal vendetta against zergs because I am annoyed by some biased zerg player making false claims? You then argue saying carrier void ray is overpowered, because queen/ultra/bl also is, according to you? Really? I'm not going to reply to you again, you're totally disconnected from reality. What false claims? And I never said carrier/voidray was overpowered, rofl. I never came close to ever saying that. I just said it's extremely powerful, as a response to people saying carriers were worthless. I say that, like queen/ultra/bl, it's extremely powerful, but it's pretty much impossible to get out, and it's very rare to see due to cost and infrastructure needed. Jesus christ, some people are trolls.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST WHERE YOU SAID CARRIER AND VOID RAY WHERE UNSTOPPABLE.
This was the edited post:
On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to.
It included the statement that carriers and void ray were "unstoppable," that he had "never seen the composition lose," with the caveat that it was "pretty hard to get."
|
Edit fuck format I mistakenly quoted when I meant to edit.
|
On September 11 2011 01:28 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 01:24 Belial88 wrote:On September 10 2011 21:15 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. I have a personal vendetta against zergs because I am annoyed by some biased zerg player making false claims? You then argue saying carrier void ray is overpowered, because queen/ultra/bl also is, according to you? Really? I'm not going to reply to you again, you're totally disconnected from reality. What false claims? And I never said carrier/voidray was overpowered, rofl. I never came close to ever saying that. I just said it's extremely powerful, as a response to people saying carriers were worthless. I say that, like queen/ultra/bl, it's extremely powerful, but it's pretty much impossible to get out, and it's very rare to see due to cost and infrastructure needed. Jesus christ, some people are trolls. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST WHERE YOU SAID CARRIER AND VOID RAY WHERE UNSTOPPABLE. This was the edited post: Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. It included the statement that carriers and void ray were "unstoppable," that he had "never seen the composition lose," with the caveat that it was "pretty hard to get."
Haha, I love you. This is hilarious.
Could you please report this "Belial88" guy for trolling and the like? I can't report people yet.
|
On September 11 2011 01:36 H0i wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 01:28 -_- wrote:On September 11 2011 01:24 Belial88 wrote:On September 10 2011 21:15 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. I have a personal vendetta against zergs because I am annoyed by some biased zerg player making false claims? You then argue saying carrier void ray is overpowered, because queen/ultra/bl also is, according to you? Really? I'm not going to reply to you again, you're totally disconnected from reality. What false claims? And I never said carrier/voidray was overpowered, rofl. I never came close to ever saying that. I just said it's extremely powerful, as a response to people saying carriers were worthless. I say that, like queen/ultra/bl, it's extremely powerful, but it's pretty much impossible to get out, and it's very rare to see due to cost and infrastructure needed. Jesus christ, some people are trolls. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST WHERE YOU SAID CARRIER AND VOID RAY WHERE UNSTOPPABLE. This was the edited post: On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. It included the statement that carriers and void ray were "unstoppable," that he had "never seen the composition lose," with the caveat that it was "pretty hard to get." Haha, I love you. This is hilarious. Could you please report this "Belial88" guy for trolling and the like? I can't report people yet.
lol, to tell you the truth I don't think he's trolling. He probably just expressed himself incorrectly and got into argument because he mispoke without realizing it. .
|
On September 11 2011 01:39 -_- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 01:36 H0i wrote:On September 11 2011 01:28 -_- wrote:On September 11 2011 01:24 Belial88 wrote:On September 10 2011 21:15 H0i wrote:On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. I have a personal vendetta against zergs because I am annoyed by some biased zerg player making false claims? You then argue saying carrier void ray is overpowered, because queen/ultra/bl also is, according to you? Really? I'm not going to reply to you again, you're totally disconnected from reality. What false claims? And I never said carrier/voidray was overpowered, rofl. I never came close to ever saying that. I just said it's extremely powerful, as a response to people saying carriers were worthless. I say that, like queen/ultra/bl, it's extremely powerful, but it's pretty much impossible to get out, and it's very rare to see due to cost and infrastructure needed. Jesus christ, some people are trolls. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YOU JUST EDITED YOUR POST WHERE YOU SAID CARRIER AND VOID RAY WHERE UNSTOPPABLE. This was the edited post: On September 10 2011 21:00 Belial88 wrote:
^ Huh? When do I cry about it? Quit your personal vendetta against Zergs and chill out. I am just saying that no, carriers aren't useless, but they have a very limited role (mass siege tanks, or split map PvZ after army trades and somehow having mass stargates set up and void rays still left over).
Just like I said mass queen/ultra/BL is unstoppable, it's pretty fucking impossible to get to. It included the statement that carriers and void ray were "unstoppable," that he had "never seen the composition lose," with the caveat that it was "pretty hard to get." Haha, I love you. This is hilarious. Could you please report this "Belial88" guy for trolling and the like? I can't report people yet. lol, to tell you the truth I don't think he's trolling. He probably just expressed himself incorrectly and got into argument because he mispoke without realizing it. .
I've read some of his other posts... my troll detector really goes off. Constant baseless claims about supposed imbalance, without any good arguments.
|
I never edited out my post, I added to it. And I didn't 'just edit', I edited it last night right I after I posted because I figured some people might be too stupid to understand.
Just like Ghost/Mech is unstoppable, but also pretty ridiculously hard to get.
I don't know what you guys are ranting and raving about. I never said Carrier/VR was OP, i said it was pretty much unstoppable in PvZ, but it's as hard to get to as it is hard to stop. There's no feasible way to really get it, unless it's 6+ bases, split map, and you just had a huge army trade (and not with worthless lings or roaches, but with BLs and ultras), didn't lose your mass of void rays, and have 6+ stargates to pump out of.
It's not the hardest thing to do, on say, Shakuras, where you cannon up the middle of the map and have 6 bases.
|
On September 10 2011 22:32 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2011 19:23 Brotocol wrote:On September 10 2011 19:20 Belial88 wrote:
White-Ra goes Carrier/VR in PvZ a lot. It's absolutely unstoppable for Zerg. NP is okay but ghosts rape that, not to mention carrier range when micro'd. It's pretty hard to get to, but on split map he does it and Zerg always loses when he does it.
I think that if someone manages to get a critical mass of carriers out, then his opponent must not have been very good. Carriers take so, so, so long to come out and are extremely expensive. the bolded statement is actually not true. lets make some protoss players have a realization! source: SC2 armory Carrier: buildtime: 120 seconds, 80 seconds if permanently chronoboosted resource cost: 350/250 (+100 minerals for interceptors give 450/250) food cost: 6 hp: 300hp + 150shield = 450 armor: 2 shield armor: 0 movement: 1.88 tags: armoured, mechanical, massive attacks: ground and air dps: unknown broodlord: paranthesis shows the difference between the carrier and broodlord stats favouring broodlord: buildtime: 40+33.83 = ~74 seconds (-46 seconds, alternatively -6 seconds) resource cost: 150/100 + 150/150 = 300/250 (-150/0) food cost: 4 (-2) shield armor: 0 (irrelevant for broodlord) stats favouring carrier hp: 225 (+225) armor: 1 (+1) movement: 1.41 (+0.43) tags: armoured, biological, massive (biological is worse than mechanical due to there being spells and bonus damages vs biological, not the case with mechanical) attacks: ground (+vs air) dps: unknown Im sorry but dps doesn't say on SC2 armory, and I don't feel like searching just to find out just how badly carriers out-dps broodlords, cause Im certain they heavily do even when counting the broodlings. range doesn't show either, so I'll just that assume that the pros and cons cancel each other out on that front. so basicly carriers beat broodlords in almost every aspect other than cost and buildtime, but lets assume blizz balanced the carrier so that you are supposed to chronoboost them, then suddenly the buildtime is extremely comparable, so the question is ultimately, are you ready to pay 150 minerals (3 probes), and 2 supply for 225 hps (!), an additional armor, higher movement speed, better tags, an air attack (!), and higher dps? for the record: I would pay that prize any day of the millenia. so obviously it is not the fact that they take a long time to build, nor the fact that they are expensive, that makes them see so little use, after all, if those were the deciding factors, then why do zergs build broodlords? the only explanation left is that they take a long time to mass true, the carrier can only be built 1 at a time, for every 2 nexi you have, since you need to permanently chronoboost them. but then I ask you: do you really need to mass them? isn't it fine just having 2 of them? (+ the rest of your army) the same way its actually fine attacking with 2 colossi. (+ army) why are you stuck in the mindset of "if I am going to use carriers, I must have 6 or more"? its just not true.
Carriers don't badly out DPS Broodlords...
I can't remember the math, but it was something like a Broodlord at it highest has around 10~ Dps more and at its lowest has 5-6~ Less than a Carrier, highest and lowest depending on the current amount of active Broodlings.
The Broodlord average DPS is something like 25? can't remember exactly but if you tie in the fact that Carriers replenish interceptors at a much slower rate, Broodlords should out DPS Carriers in a fight between two armies--Carrier DPS is generally much lower than than what the math says due to interceptor death
You need a lot of them because they aren't worth their cost otherwise... Making 2 of them just doesn't cut it. You hear about how Carriers gain +14 Damage every attack upgrade but people often neglect to mention that every armor upgrade the enemy has reduces your Carriers damage by 14
The reason you need multiple is also confounded by the fact you just need to get a few of them to make your resource investment worthwhile..you are looking at Air Attack upgrades (possibly armor), Fleet Beacon, Interceptor Upgrade and a few Stargates, that is freaking expensive for just "Two or three" carriers, completely not worth their cost
You are effectively comparing a Banshee to a DT, on paper a Banshee is better in almost every way but in late game situations, DT's are clearly superior as it is much more convenient to get multiple of them out as opposed to a Banshee, due to Gateways being readily available, sharing upgrades and warpgates.
Much the same, Broodlords are a heck of a lot easier to get out for Zerg than it is for Protoss to make Carriers despite Broodlords being weaker (and stronger in other areas, i.e forcing unseiges due to tanks firing on broodlings)
|
On September 11 2011 02:18 Belial88 wrote:
I never said Carrier/VR was OP, i said it was pretty much unstoppable in PvZ,
.....doesn't that define imbalance?
|
WRT BL v Carriers, transition is also a very important thing to note:
for example, the spire is a pretty handy building. Staple in ZvT, and zergs get corruptors for anti-colossi.
On the upgrade side, broodlords scale very well with melee upgrades, which also affect zerglings and banelings. It inherits the same upgrade path as the ling mutabane tech, as well as the ling infestor tech. For ZvP roach infestor midgames, only the carapace upgrade carries over.
For carriers, they work with a very unique set of upgrades that benefits only stargate units (+warp prism/observer), which are often just the "support units" of your armies. Picking up those upgrades do very little in helping you in the early/midgame.
As others mentioned, every attack/armor difference is a matter of 14 damage (!!), but if carriers are produced at the broodlord timing (~20 minutes into the game), often times the standard army would be already running on 2/2 upgrades, making carriers a lot less effective.
I find that if I need that air support (anti BL/some weird heavy marauder tank comp), voidray does a very decent job.
|
Medivacs are fast, they can carry WAY TOO MANY UNITS, and they heal. Get two medivacs and trollolololol your way to a win.
Is your opponent out macroing you? Is his build clearly superior and is he about to roll you over? Then medivac is the right unit for you!! How much health do they have btw? I feel like it takes half a toss army to stop 2 of them. It's incredible how easy it is to take out two bases at once. The only unit mobile enough to make it back to the base with haste is blink stalkers and like someone said in chat 7 stalkers lose to 2 marauders and 4 marines. Yet somehow they cost way more...?
In Nony vs DDE... Tyler made some game ending mistakes in the first game. But in the last 2 I felt like he had great micro, great FF, but he still got rolled over. Doesnt add up.
|
I know someone probably already thought of this and it's a major change but hear me out:
They should switch the roles of Hydras and Roaches. Back in Brood War, the hydra was a cheap (75min 25gas). The hydra den could be made right after pool, and two upgrades were available: grooved spines and muscular augments.
Crucially, the muscular augments upgrade made the Hydralisk microable. It made them capable of dodging storms, and thus used a lot in zvp. They were also combined with mutalisks to battle mech terran, having the mutas take out the siege tanks. This is how I envision the new SC2 hydralisk should be.
The roach is not a good enough substitution for the old hydra (in terms of low tech, microable units). The fact that the roach is one of the few microable units for zerg makes the race that much weaker overall as its more of a tanky unit. I dunno, it just seems intuitive to me that roaches should be Lair tech, slow and meaty units with low range and high defense for dealing with maxed armies.
Zerg needs a fast microable hydralisk, so I propose to essentially reverse their techs. Make Hydra den pool tech with speed and range upgrades, and Roach warren lair tech with either the same speed upgrade as there is now or some sort of extra defense upgrade to emphasize their roles as tanks. Reverse the supply and costs as well.
I can already see this change helping zvp. Combined with mutas, hydras with speed could deal with the death ball by dodging storms and kiting zealots. Mutas would snipe colossi. Anyways, I'm going off on a tangent now, lemme know if it's a viable balance change. 
|
What do you guys think about this as a way to help discourage offensive 4-gate in PvP:
Units warp in without shields, but they simply recharge as normal.
I think this would help out to discourage offensive warp gate without really affecting any other match ups or situations. The only ramification is that you have to warp in you units ahead of time, not in the middle of a battle, which seems fair enough to me. Maybe mid-game has an upgrade to get warp-in with shields.
|
Even though I like bnanaPEEL's idea in terms of design, I find it a bit disheartening that the last 2 posts are aimed at worsening Protoss even more. P is doing really badly right now.
I really like the idea of Hydralisks being the staple zerg unit again, but I don't think zerg needs help with the alleged "deathball" as of the current metagame.
And a straight up gateway unit nerf... Why?
|
On September 11 2011 04:05 LXR wrote:
What do you guys think about this as a way to help discourage offensive 4-gate in PvP:
Units warp in without shields, but they simply recharge as normal.
I think this would help out to discourage offensive warp gate without really affecting any other match ups or situations. The only ramification is that you have to warp in you units ahead of time, not in the middle of a battle, which seems fair enough to me. Maybe mid-game has an upgrade to get warp-in with shields.
This would kill Protoss. They would not be able to defend because their stuff would start with -30%ish life. Its tough enough as is to defend a early MMM push with stim.
|
How about this:
The power field of friendly pylons increases shield capacity of nearby units. Like +15 or whatever is enough to give the defender an advantage but still breakable by a well micro'd or determined offense. The increase would just be in capacity, the unit would still need to stand in the field long enough for the shield recharge rate to fill it.
Or have the pylon power field remove the shield recharge delay.
Either of these would also provide some extra defense against drops and give another reason for having good pylon placement.
|
To help carriers, has anyone discussed increasing the survivability of interceptors? Adding an interceptor armor upgrade at the fleet beacon might be a reasonable idea - +2 or +3 in addition to cyber core upgrades would help quite a bit to prevent them from being shredded by marines and stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
