EPTIn BW Carriers were good jus because the Wraiths and Valkiries werent so effective, and you didnt build starports.
New Protoss Unit in Heart Of The Swarm - Page 76
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
haitike
Spain2711 Posts
In BW Carriers were good jus because the Wraiths and Valkiries werent so effective, and you didnt build starports. | ||
|
Amlitzer
United States471 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On October 19 2011 17:23 kickinhead wrote: I guess the SC2-Interceptors are more responsive and return to the carrier faster when you micro it back. In SCBW, you could "shake" the interceptors out and then micro back with your Carrier so it couldn't get sniped but the interceptors stayed and attacked the targets while the carrier was way back. In SC2, they return to the carrier faster when you try to micro it back, which means that the carrier needs to be closer to the opposing Units. That + most Anti-Air is actually an Air-Unit makes microing the carrier very hard and essentially useless. Could be an easy fix though: make interceptors stay out longer and maybe modify range/DMG of the viking and the Carrier is useful again. I think that the carrier is way underused now though, especially in PvZ, where ppl begin to figure out that you actually can't beat mass-phoenix with Hydras and with the corruptor being horrible. Also I think another thing that makes Carriers not as good is the maps. There was so much dead space on the edge of maps and cliffs you could hide up in broodwar, just look at Destination. Where as in current SC2 maps, there's not really anywhere to do what you could on destination. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On October 19 2011 17:23 kickinhead wrote: I guess the SC2-Interceptors are more responsive and return to the carrier faster when you micro it back. In SCBW, you could "shake" the interceptors out and then micro back with your Carrier so it couldn't get sniped but the interceptors stayed and attacked the targets while the carrier was way back. In SC2, they return to the carrier faster when you try to micro it back, which means that the carrier needs to be closer to the opposing Units. That + most Anti-Air is actually an Air-Unit makes microing the carrier very hard and essentially useless. Could be an easy fix though: make interceptors stay out longer and maybe modify range/DMG of the viking and the Carrier is useful again. I think that the carrier is way underused now though, especially in PvZ, where ppl begin to figure out that you actually can't beat mass-phoenix with Hydras and with the corruptor being horrible. If you change the carrier to "attack while moving" it will behave more like BW carriers. Although more would need to be done, like stacking, regen, etc. | ||
|
fireproofazn
United States231 Posts
| ||
|
Zaurus
Singapore676 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On October 19 2011 14:34 Ballistixz wrote: the problem with carriers is that A) they are hard countered by 3-3 rines. litterally atk move the rines and all the interceptors vanish instantly..... B) they take forever to build. C) they are hard countered by vikings which can be produced 2 at a time. D) they are hardcountered by corruptors. E) hydras do "ok" against them as long as hydras are on creep. F) they suck without upgrades in general for there cost. in PvP they are ok i guess if PvP ever miracolously goes into the very late game as a "surprise". but then again enought blink stalkers can easily take care of carriers at that point. so ummm ya, G) blink stalkers....... blizzard honestly made the wrong derp choice by buffing the Mship (a unit that needs to be REMOVED from the game) instead of carrier. now carriers either need to be removed and replaced or buffed. ALSO, in SC1 carriers had to deal with scourge which were alot better then any anti air unit in SC2. devourers were also extremly good against carriers. A: Same goes for SC1. Try it; Marines chew through Interceptors easily and cost effectively. The difference? Terrans actually go for Marines in TvP in SC2. You can't go for Marines in SC1 due to the threat of Reavers. It's hardly the fault of the Carrier that Terrans in SC2 can actually use Barracks units against Protoss. B: No moreso than in SC1. C: I mentioned that. Did you read more than one line of my post? D: See above. E: ... so? Should the Zerg be completely incapable of dealing with Carriers? Are you saying that Corruptors and Hydras, the only two anti-air units Zerg have, shouldn't be cost effective against Carriers? How the hell do you expect the Zerg to deal with them then? F: Due only to everything else previously stated. Very little of what you said is the fault of the Carrier as a unit. And your last point on Scourge is laughable. Vikings are far more cost-effective, because they both out-range Carriers and can survive successfully beating them. And they can even turn into ground units if you need a little extra ground DPS. Scourge aren't nearly as cost effective. Many will die as they approach a carrier fleet; that's gas wasted. And it still takes lots of them to even kill a Carrier, and those units can't be used to kill other Carriers. The gas cost in Scourge to take out an 8 Carrier fleet could easily buy enough Vikings to kill them. And you'll still have units left over. Also, you seem to be under some delusion that Blizzard buffing one unit somehow prevents them from buffing another. If they wanted to buff Carriers, their buffing Motherships would not prevent that. On October 19 2011 14:40 0neder wrote: Great point. The problem is that Blizzard has only attempted this once, with the phoenix, and the results were simultaneously horrendous and hilarious. Then again, maybe they fired the guy who gave Raven's HSM inverse dps AoE dispersion, and have a more competent guy now? We can only hope... Right. Because a simple typo is a fire-able offense. Sure. On October 19 2011 17:23 kickinhead wrote: I guess the SC2-Interceptors are more responsive and return to the carrier faster when you micro it back. In SCBW, you could "shake" the interceptors out and then micro back with your Carrier so it couldn't get sniped but the interceptors stayed and attacked the targets while the carrier was way back. In SC2, they return to the carrier faster when you try to micro it back, which means that the carrier needs to be closer to the opposing Units. That + most Anti-Air is actually an Air-Unit makes microing the carrier very hard and essentially useless. Could be an easy fix though: make interceptors stay out longer and maybe modify range/DMG of the viking and the Carrier is useful again. Yes, easily fixed. Weakening Vikings won't cause many other gameplay problems, like Terrans not being able to deal with BCs and Broodlords or something. You can't balance a game based on tunnel-vision. You can't say, "let's make Carriers used more" and just do whatever it takes to cause that to happen, because those changes have other consequences. That's why most balance changes are nerfs to a unit; it's easier to see the effect of a nerf directly to the problem unit or mechanic than it is to see what will happen if you buff the other 2 units that key on that one. | ||
|
tangwhat
New Zealand446 Posts
Also, you seem to be under some delusion that Blizzard buffing one unit somehow prevents them from buffing another. If they wanted to buff Carriers, their buffing Motherships would not prevent that. With the latest situation report they specifically said they wanted to choose between buffing motherships or carriers and in the end they chose to buff motherships. So actually yeah buffing one unit did prevent them from buffing another. Thanks for playing. | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
edit: What kind of buff? For example, units with it take 20% less damage to shields. | ||
|
simbot
Australia95 Posts
| ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I'm personally thinking about a cheap fast flyer with a weak air-to ground only attack, maybe with either bonus to light/bio or a little AOE (like a siege tank). A suicide ability that deals huge damage at the center and smaller in the same AOE as before. That way it would serve as an early worker harass for protoss (much needed) and as a sniper of ghosts/infestors in the late game. If it could also be warped from gates it would be too awesome I guess  | ||
|
Big G
Italy835 Posts
On October 19 2011 19:12 tangwhat wrote: With the latest situation report they specifically said they wanted to choose between buffing motherships or carriers and in the end they chose to buff motherships. So actually yeah buffing one unit did prevent them from buffing another. Thanks for playing. They chose the mothership because it was the safest way, with the lightest change possible. They're probably unsure about the Carrier, since it is more a matter of how it fits into the matchups than its very stats. (As a side note, every buff at those stats could screw up team games very badly) In my opinion, the general problem with carriers is that A) given the interceptors' double attack theh need to stay ahed on upgrades to be effective, but B) they are so far in the tech tree and take so long to produce that in the current game plan a 1/1 carrier usually faces 3/3 marines and/or 2/0 vikings at least. | ||
|
coko
United Kingdom570 Posts
| ||
|
oni_link
Germany165 Posts
| ||
|
Vardant
Czech Republic620 Posts
On October 19 2011 19:50 coko wrote: Has no one considered it might be a hover craft? Produced from a Robo? Maybe something fast and able to hop over small cliffs. Could almost be a phoenix on the ground? It has been mentioned several times and for me, it makes much more sense. | ||
|
kyriores
Greece178 Posts
| ||
|
Quotidian
Norway1937 Posts
On October 19 2011 19:34 Salteador Neo wrote: Lol if it's the Carrier interceptor buff this is gonna be such a troll move by Blizz. just looking at the silhouette and obvious high polygon count, there's no way it can be an interceptor-like unit. The game engine wouldn't be able to handle a huge amount of these things onscreen and still maintain the specs the game currently has. | ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
| ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
| ||
| ||
