|
On September 29 2011 04:58 Reborn8u wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 02:22 MaderA wrote:We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership. That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__; My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them"
Because that is not how you balance a race.
|
On September 30 2011 07:55 R0YAL wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 04:58 Reborn8u wrote:On September 29 2011 02:22 MaderA wrote:We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership. That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__; My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them" Because that is not how you balance a race.
Protoss is balanced by having carriers suck?
|
On September 30 2011 07:50 scFoX wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2011 07:42 RavenLoud wrote:Just make Carriers like in BW, 6 interceptor base dmg instead of 5 and with 4 armor. Buff corruptors a bit too while they're at it  Carriers actually do 10 damage per interceptor in SC2 (the interceptors have two shots). If anything, they are stronger than their SC1 counterparts. Might I add that they start with 4 interceptors (SC1 carriers started with none) and they can purchase up to 8 without having to buy an upgrade? The only thing that the SC1 carrier has over it is +2 armor and the auto-heal interceptors when they come back in.
Ah, for some reason I thought that BW carrier had 2x attack of 6. Never mind.
It comes with 4 interceptors but that's why it takes longer to build. (The build time doesn't need a nerf imo. Carriers is one of those "counter everything when massed" units that do need to have a long build time.)
So as you said, give it 4 armor, the auto-heal and the AI that someone mentioned above in the next PTR and see what happens.
|
On September 30 2011 08:06 RavenLoud wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2011 07:50 scFoX wrote:On September 30 2011 07:42 RavenLoud wrote:Just make Carriers like in BW, 6 interceptor base dmg instead of 5 and with 4 armor. Buff corruptors a bit too while they're at it Carriers actually do 10 damage per interceptor in SC2 (the interceptors have two shots). If anything, they are stronger than their SC1 counterparts. Might I add that they start with 4 interceptors (SC1 carriers started with none) and they can purchase up to 8 without having to buy an upgrade? The only thing that the SC1 carrier has over it is +2 armor and the auto-heal interceptors when they come back in. Ah, for some reason I thought that BW carrier had 2x attack of 6. Never mind. It comes with 4 interceptors but that's why it takes longer to build. (The build time doesn't need a nerf imo. Carriers is one of those "counter everything when massed" units that do need to have a long build time.) So as you said, give it 4 armor, the auto-heal and the AI that someone mentioned above in the next PTR and see what happens.
The most powerful part of carriers in SC1 was the ability to micro them. They could attack while moving once the interceptors were out. This may not seem like a big deal to the new members of the community but its basically what defined them as unit to those who played SC1 at a high level. Interceptor auto heal is also a huge loss.
|
Rofl @ "Infestors are too general" ...have you met marines? Pretty much saying "they weren't broken but we just didn't like the unit on a philosophical level so we screwed one of the races over big-time"
|
On September 30 2011 04:41 ensign_lee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 29 2011 00:42 Thrasymachus725 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:20 Sina92 wrote:On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote:
In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK. this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait. (edit): A reasonable buff. Shorter build times?
Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable.
I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact.
Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers.
See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable.
Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game.
The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action.
Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont.
This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like.
|
since when do carriers die to vikigns x3 its the other way round, the only way to really beat carriers is to kill their interceptors and chase them down on retreat.
Carriers work just like in bw, sneak in the tech and suprise the opponent with 4 unbeatable air units. But since terran is mostly going bio and is pretty much aggressive, you have to be ahead to not die to the aggression. So carriers are already viable late late game and i don't see a reason to make them viable earlier.
When it comes to 4 base carriers are my go to unit x3 (well i only get one for sniping things most of the time)
Carriers are just underestimated and if you play something with the mind set of its bad it will be bad. Especially with such a micro intensive unit. Well they work for me. But that doesn't mean that they work in bronze or in gm. I mean banelings busts breaking the wallin is a win for the zerg in master often. In gm you just traded 2 depots for 20 banelings as the marines are in perfect anti baneling formation.
PS: i love the interceptor retreat on range 13 saving interceptors yay.
|
On September 30 2011 09:35 FeyFey wrote:
since when do carriers die to vikigns x3 its the other way round, the only way to really beat carriers is to kill their interceptors and chase them down on retreat.
Carriers work just like in bw, sneak in the tech and suprise the opponent with 4 unbeatable air units. But since terran is mostly going bio and is pretty much aggressive, you have to be ahead to not die to the aggression. So carriers are already viable late late game and i don't see a reason to make them viable earlier.
When it comes to 4 base carriers are my go to unit x3 (well i only get one for sniping things most of the time)
Carriers are just underestimated and if you play something with the mind set of its bad it will be bad. Especially with such a micro intensive unit. Well they work for me. But that doesn't mean that they work in bronze or in gm. I mean banelings busts breaking the wallin is a win for the zerg in master often. In gm you just traded 2 depots for 20 banelings as the marines are in perfect anti baneling formation.
PS: i love the interceptor retreat on range 13 saving interceptors yay.
Mass Reapers is viable in that it wins the occasional game. Saying that a unit wins you games does not make that unit a "viable unit".
|
On September 30 2011 07:57 Striding Strider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2011 07:55 R0YAL wrote:On September 29 2011 04:58 Reborn8u wrote:On September 29 2011 02:22 MaderA wrote:We wanted to try to bring in a unit that’s rarely used back into the action in order to potentially create new viable strategies for protoss. In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership. That is the only part about the situation report that I found really annoying. I'm a huuuge fan of the carrier and that they choose the mothership instead is really depressing. ;__; My problem here is why did they have to make a choice at all? If both units aren't useful or cost effective in most situations, therefore they don't see the light of day very often. Why not make changes to both of them? It's silly to say "well both units are broken but we decided we only feel like fixing one of them" Because that is not how you balance a race. Protoss is balanced by having carriers suck?
No one uses carriers much. People used mothership more than carrier. Therefore they chose to improve the unit that was used more instead of using a random guess. :|
Its like how they buffed infestors when people started using them and nerfed Thors when people started going mass Thor.
|
On September 30 2011 08:50 Thrasymachus725 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2011 04:41 ensign_lee wrote:On September 29 2011 00:42 Thrasymachus725 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:20 Sina92 wrote:On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote:
In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK. this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait. (edit): A reasonable buff. Shorter build times? Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable. I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact. Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers. See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable. Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game. The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action. Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont. This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like.
When you integrate splash damage you counter the stuff that counters carriers.
Marines and Vikings get torn up by Storm. Goliaths were great against Carriers (although a bit weaker since they can't fly), but if you got the "holy trinity" of Dragoon-Templar-Carrier, than you were in good shape.
|
On September 30 2011 12:10 Tump wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2011 08:50 Thrasymachus725 wrote:On September 30 2011 04:41 ensign_lee wrote:On September 29 2011 00:42 Thrasymachus725 wrote:On September 28 2011 23:20 Sina92 wrote:On September 23 2011 10:54 ch33psh33p wrote:
In the end, it came down to a choice between the Carrier and the Mothership
WHAT THE FUCK. this goes to show that blizz needs to hire new balance designers No, this goes to show they think this through more than the whining screaming idiot people who have knee jerk reactions and lack the ability to think about what they are saying. You don't even understand WHY the carrier is UP. You just know it is, so you want a buff so it can be good. Go ahead. Name a buff that would make the carrier a viable option in the game. It's ok. I'll wait. (edit): A reasonable buff. Shorter build times? Shorter build times, so when they die horribly to vikings/corruptors you can rebuild them faster? Yeah sounds reasonable. I said: name a buff that would make the carrier a VIABLE OPTION. Build times do not do that. Sorry. The unit would stay clunky, useless, and countered by easy to get units that can come out in huge numbers very quickly. Just because you can make them faster, does not change this fact. Giving carriers a faster build time, 2 more armor, allowing interceptors to fire while the carrier is moving, and doing an instant full heal when they return would STILL not make the carrier viable. It would make it stronger, for sure... but it would still be countered brutally by both vikings and corruptors, which, by the time you can get out any threatening force of carriers, can be built REACTIVELY in large numbers. See, the carrier requires a pretty major change in game design which can only be implemented in an expansion (Possibly a new kind of interceptor that you can mix into your normal combination, or a new upgrade?) before it will be viable. Blizzard knows this. They gauged the situation, decided that any small tweak they give to carriers would ultimately be worthless because it would STILL not make carriers viable, and went with the mothership. They didn't just flip a coin. They didn't decide to succumb to their childish nostalgia. They did what was best for the game. The mothership is already close to viable in all matchups, and all it takes would be a small tweak before we could see them in action. Trust me... I want to build carriers too. But I understand their problems. I understand their limitations. I understand their counters. I can also use my brain. If any one person can give me a suggestion for a buff to the carrier that would allow it to be a viable end game option, without overpowering it or overhauling it, I will eat my hat. But I can pretty much guarantee you wont. This has been for all you whining crybabies who have difficulty reasoning through a decision they do not like. When you integrate splash damage you counter the stuff that counters carriers. Marines and Vikings get torn up by Storm. Goliaths were great against Carriers (although a bit weaker since they can't fly), but if you got the "holy trinity" of Dragoon-Templar-Carrier, than you were in good shape.
Keyword: Were. This applies nicely in SC1, but in SC2, it doesn't work so well. Storm is significantly harder to pull off, because the area of effect is very low, and anyone with a peanut for a brain can split vikings. Not to mention the presence of Ghosts. While a science vessel was an easy target back in the day, ghosts are not so much. Because of this HT value is greatly diminished in SC2 as a whole. Also, comparing vikings to goliaths is hardly apt, because Vikings are easier to spread, and stack (as an air unit) allowing more of them to attack at longer range. And while Dragoons would shit all over goliaths, Stalkers do no such thing to vikings, because of Marine support.
So while HT/Stalker/Carrier seems roughly equal to HT/Dragoon/Carrier in terms of a units position in the tech tree, they are nothing remotely similar in terms of power.
|
People who grumble about Mothership buff v. Carrier buff need to sit back a bit and look at the big picture. Mothership, while a strange concept, can be useful at the right hand - especially in PvZ. Carriers, on the other hand, simply don't have the role in current game design. (admittedly Blizzard's fault) For harrasing, pheonix do better. For DPS, Void Rays are more cost/food efficient. That leaves carriers as a seige unit, and then its role will overlap that of colossus. And they becomes too similar to brood lords.
So Carrier buff can potentially break the fragile balance. The unit needs redesign and we will have to wait for HotS for that.
|
On September 30 2011 08:35 Lumi wrote:
Rofl @ "Infestors are too general" ...have you met marines? Pretty much saying "they weren't broken but we just didn't like the unit on a philosophical level so we screwed one of the races over big-time"
how short is your memory? You are acting like an ingrate. They buff'd the heck out of the infestor previously and just took it back a bit, because they waaaayyyyyy over shot. Now you are acting like you have been robbed when it was actually a huuuugggge buff that you got on the infestor.
sigh.
|
On September 28 2011 15:59 bgx wrote:
so after a year+ Blizzard still has no balls to buff hydras? What they are waiting for expansion so they can add new icon and speed upgrade? gawd They are changing 1 unit but completely ignore other unit which is bad since the beginning.
I guess they won't do anything significant to Hydra, Carrier, Momaship and other underused unit before expansion...
In the entire thread, this is the only intelligent thing that has been said. There has been hundreds of posts in this thread, but none of them have brain. But, the hydra definitely needs buff. They currently have no role in tvp (colosus) and in tvz (they die easily).
In BW, the hydra was easy to get and amass. In SC2, hydras got screwed and zergs can't fight protoss.
|
On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote:
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins
Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t
enough said.
|
On October 03 2011 05:09 longtang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote:
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t enough said.
The ghost would like to have a word with you.
|
On October 03 2011 05:16 Thallis wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 05:09 longtang wrote:On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote:
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t enough said. The ghost would like to have a word with you.
and the colossus would like to have a word with the ghost.
Seriously, until mech becomes somewhat viable against P it isn't profitable for Terrans to go into the late game. What can we build lategame that is better than our early game units? We can upgrade our bio (and protoss always upgrades faster), we can add in some vikings (to try to counter colossi, a delicate dance at best because if you overbuild those it's gg just the same) and we can add ghosts for emp to try to counter templar and archons.
On the other hand protoss usually research charge sooner or later they can mix robo units (colossi) with the higher gateway units for a VERY harsh combination, and can stock up on 15+ warpgates if they want. That just isn't something any terran likes to face so they try to finish the game earlier...
|
On October 03 2011 05:09 longtang wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote:
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t enough said.
Is this a serious post? I see so many pro games where the toss vastly outplays the terran all game, then loses to mass EMP.
|
On October 03 2011 05:07 longtang wrote:
In the entire thread, this is the only intelligent thing that has been said. There has been hundreds of posts in this thread, but none of them have brain. But, the hydra definitely needs buff. They currently have no role in tvp (colosus) and in tvz (they die easily).
In BW, the hydra was easy to get and amass. In SC2, hydras got screwed and zergs can't fight protoss.
Hydras don't have a role in TvP? WOW, what a surprise.
This Patch is a step in the right direction, but the nerf to the Neural came out of the blue. The Mothership buff was a pleasant surprise, but their thought process on the Carrier displayed a surprising lack of logic.
|
On October 03 2011 06:09 Tula wrote:Show nested quote +On October 03 2011 05:16 Thallis wrote:On October 03 2011 05:09 longtang wrote:On September 26 2011 06:32 Dr.DoCToR wrote:
I know a grand total of 1 player (Optikzero) who does blink all-ins vs T and Z and about 10,000 players that do 111 all-ins vs protoss and Blizzard feels they have to nerf blink stalkers lol. Blink stalker all-ins aren't even half as strong as 111 all-ins Ha! what a joke! If you want terrans to do fewer all-in's, then give them a late game unit that can handle toss. Otherwise, terran is not going to be dumb enough to try to get into the late game with toss. We are not going to let you get a death ball. There is just no way we are going to let you get into the late game because in tvp, late game = gg for the t enough said. The ghost would like to have a word with you. and the colossus would like to have a word with the ghost. Seriously, until mech becomes somewhat viable against P it isn't profitable for Terrans to go into the late game. What can we build lategame that is better than our early game units? We can upgrade our bio (and protoss always upgrades faster), we can add in some vikings (to try to counter colossi, a delicate dance at best because if you overbuild those it's gg just the same) and we can add ghosts for emp to try to counter templar and archons. On the other hand protoss usually research charge sooner or later they can mix robo units (colossi) with the higher gateway units for a VERY harsh combination, and can stock up on 15+ warpgates if they want. That just isn't something any terran likes to face so they try to finish the game earlier...
I approve of this message. There is just no way I am going to let toss get into the k
Late game
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
