|
On October 20 2011 23:25 ShatterZer0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 14:22 NicolBolas wrote:On October 19 2011 11:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:On October 19 2011 10:57 OneOther wrote:
definitely looks like a stargate unit. probably some spellcaster?
but before anything, i really hope blizzard updates the Carriers so they can return to their old glory. how bad they are in SC2 (well, i guess except for a handful of specific situations) is really insulting to the entire Protoss race. the symbol of the legend of fall needs to be revived Unfortunately, having carriers like they were in BW would break the game. In what way? Carriers in SC2 are better than their SC1 equivalents. No carrying capacity upgrade, Intercepters do more damage, etc. The problem isn't the Carriers themselves. The problem is that SC1 Carriers never had to deal with Corruptors and Vikings. So long as units like them exist, it will be more cost effective to kill Carriers than to keep them alive until you get enough to make a real Carrier-based push. You do realize that even in SC:BW... Carriers sucked shit. Korean commentators regularly called them space trash... Carriers were so expensive and utterly micro intensive that they were horrible units in general... Having Carriers like they were in BW in SC2 would just mean that every once in a while a Protoss would get mega ahead and curbstomp you in a more creative way...
Carriers rocked in SCBW. Instant unload of interceptors means kiting goliaths over cliffs means winning at PvT, and the best ATA counter was a short-ranged low-hp fighter that couldn't get close enough to kill without cloaking and sniping observers with scan.
With vikings, better marines and no instant upload, SC2 carriers don't even come close.
|
On October 21 2011 01:07 Umbrella wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 23:25 ShatterZer0 wrote:On October 19 2011 14:22 NicolBolas wrote:On October 19 2011 11:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:On October 19 2011 10:57 OneOther wrote:
definitely looks like a stargate unit. probably some spellcaster?
but before anything, i really hope blizzard updates the Carriers so they can return to their old glory. how bad they are in SC2 (well, i guess except for a handful of specific situations) is really insulting to the entire Protoss race. the symbol of the legend of fall needs to be revived Unfortunately, having carriers like they were in BW would break the game. In what way? Carriers in SC2 are better than their SC1 equivalents. No carrying capacity upgrade, Intercepters do more damage, etc. The problem isn't the Carriers themselves. The problem is that SC1 Carriers never had to deal with Corruptors and Vikings. So long as units like them exist, it will be more cost effective to kill Carriers than to keep them alive until you get enough to make a real Carrier-based push. You do realize that even in SC:BW... Carriers sucked shit. Korean commentators regularly called them space trash... Carriers were so expensive and utterly micro intensive that they were horrible units in general... Having Carriers like they were in BW in SC2 would just mean that every once in a while a Protoss would get mega ahead and curbstomp you in a more creative way... Do you even know what you are talking about? Jangbi used carriers to win the most recent starleague, and they have always been viable.
I think he has them mistaken for Scouts.
|
United States7483 Posts
Why doesn't Blizzard have their own progaming team?
|
On October 21 2011 01:17 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 23:25 ShatterZer0 wrote:On October 19 2011 14:22 NicolBolas wrote:On October 19 2011 11:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:On October 19 2011 10:57 OneOther wrote:
definitely looks like a stargate unit. probably some spellcaster?
but before anything, i really hope blizzard updates the Carriers so they can return to their old glory. how bad they are in SC2 (well, i guess except for a handful of specific situations) is really insulting to the entire Protoss race. the symbol of the legend of fall needs to be revived Unfortunately, having carriers like they were in BW would break the game. In what way? Carriers in SC2 are better than their SC1 equivalents. No carrying capacity upgrade, Intercepters do more damage, etc. The problem isn't the Carriers themselves. The problem is that SC1 Carriers never had to deal with Corruptors and Vikings. So long as units like them exist, it will be more cost effective to kill Carriers than to keep them alive until you get enough to make a real Carrier-based push. You do realize that even in SC:BW... Carriers sucked shit. Korean commentators regularly called them space trash... Carriers were so expensive and utterly micro intensive that they were horrible units in general... Having Carriers like they were in BW in SC2 would just mean that every once in a while a Protoss would get mega ahead and curbstomp you in a more creative way... Carriers rocked in SCBW. Instant unload of interceptors means kiting goliaths over cliffs means winning at PvT, and the best ATA counter was a short-ranged low-hp fighter that couldn't get close enough to kill without cloaking and sniping observers with scan. With vikings, better marines and no instant upload, SC2 carriers don't even come close.
to add to this quote snake, you forgot about the bw ghost who could easily get some carrier free kills.
Carriers in bw work like carriers in sc2. With the exception of that you can rush to carriers now in certain scout situations(sc2). And that they needed less micro in bw due to the interceptor mechanic. Well and of course that bcs and carriers didn't needed upgrades in bw ... while they need to be even in sc2.
That being said they really are considered space trash in bw but space trash that force a reaction that the opponent doesn't want to take, just like in sc2 
|
On October 21 2011 01:26 Whitewing wrote:
Why doesn't Blizzard have their own progaming team?
1) Why is that in this thread?
2) They don't because that would be an extreme conflict of interest.
|
why would they give carriers new interceptors
the current ones don't even have a role, there would be no choice.
|
On October 20 2011 00:37 TheAntZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 00:33 Huragius wrote:On October 20 2011 00:19 VirgilSC2 wrote:On October 20 2011 00:14 Zorgaz wrote:On October 20 2011 00:04 Daralii wrote:On October 19 2011 23:51 rpgalon wrote:On October 19 2011 22:30 Fig wrote:On October 19 2011 22:21 Fragile51 wrote:On October 19 2011 22:18 BeeNu wrote:On October 19 2011 22:08 tnud wrote:
[quote]
They have said they will remove/replace some units. They have also said they "don't like" some units, like the corruptor. I also think the Colossus is pretty high up on the "do not like" list. It's a complete mismatch of a unit for Starcraft. Every other ranged aoe unit in the all of SC history has been difficult to use and control with a decent amount of risk/reward attached to it or it was a melee unit. Think of the Lurker, Siege Tank, Reaver, all of these required good placement and micro and positioning and forethought into actually using, the Colossus is just A-Move unit with very minimal micro, it's kinda stupid. Yeah agreed. An added problem is that the Collosus gets countered by the exact same unit Carriers are weak against (Vikings and Corruptors). I really hope that the robo end unit gets replaced by something cooler. Yep the colossus is a boring unit that promotes boring gameplay. Blizzard made it an easy unit to use, with a very low skill ceiling so pros can't show their stuff, and gave it very obvious and easy counters (vikings, corruptors). It's a unit that dumbs down the game. The fact that it's design also causes it to overlap with all protoss air units is just horrible. Think about this. Out of the Robo facility, 3 of the 4 units available can be hit by anti air. Then you have all 3 of the Stargate units (plus the mothership) that can be hit by anti air. This is TERRIBLE DESIGN! I don't know how Blizzard let it end up like this, but something needs to change, and it starts with the colossus. the colossus is as boring as ultralisk/broodlords/carriers/thors/battlecruiser all A move, if you want to remove colossus, you should remove the whole T3 units too. people think protoss goes deathball because of colossus, but it is because the units protoss have needs to stick together and are so slow that after moving out, they can't retreat, so it is like an all in everytime you move out with your army. it is not the colossus fault. At this point, I'm pretty sure most people calling for the removal of colossi are T/Z players that go pure marine or hydra/ling. No it's because the Collosi has a flawed design since it is intended as the Protoss ''siege'' unit. Check this out. In BW Siege Tank - Strong but immobile, needs to siege for AoE attack. Lurker - Strong but immobile, needs to burrow to attack. Reaver - Sick AOE but really slow, needs to build scarabs and ''aim'' with it's missle attacks. In SC2 Siege Tank - same as in BW. Broodlord - strong and immobile. Collosi - Mobile and can walk cliffs. Do you see how flawed this is?! Perhaps it would make more sense if you looked at it from relative mobility. Terran and Zerg both have ridiculously mobile armies and quick units in many categories, meanwhile Protoss, aside from Blink Stalkers (which has to be researched) and Colossi, the army is much less mobile than the Terran or Zerg, therefore some of the traditionally less mobile units are more mobile, at the cost of the rest of our units being less mobile in comparison to the other races. You got to be kidding me. Ridiculously mobile compared to toss ? More like ridiculous bias... Oh yeah, MMM force is immobile as fuck. Fucking medivacs slowing down that already snail-like infantry! Dont fucking talk about bias when you're bathing in it
Collosus is as fast as stimmed MM and blink stalkers with chargelots are freaking mobile. You better stop your fucking protoss whine because it already got too far.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
|
|
On October 21 2011 01:59 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 00:37 TheAntZ wrote:On October 20 2011 00:33 Huragius wrote:On October 20 2011 00:19 VirgilSC2 wrote:On October 20 2011 00:14 Zorgaz wrote:On October 20 2011 00:04 Daralii wrote:On October 19 2011 23:51 rpgalon wrote:On October 19 2011 22:30 Fig wrote:On October 19 2011 22:21 Fragile51 wrote:On October 19 2011 22:18 BeeNu wrote:
[quote]
I also think the Colossus is pretty high up on the "do not like" list. It's a complete mismatch of a unit for Starcraft. Every other ranged aoe unit in the all of SC history has been difficult to use and control with a decent amount of risk/reward attached to it or it was a melee unit. Think of the Lurker, Siege Tank, Reaver, all of these required good placement and micro and positioning and forethought into actually using, the Colossus is just A-Move unit with very minimal micro, it's kinda stupid. Yeah agreed. An added problem is that the Collosus gets countered by the exact same unit Carriers are weak against (Vikings and Corruptors). I really hope that the robo end unit gets replaced by something cooler. Yep the colossus is a boring unit that promotes boring gameplay. Blizzard made it an easy unit to use, with a very low skill ceiling so pros can't show their stuff, and gave it very obvious and easy counters (vikings, corruptors). It's a unit that dumbs down the game. The fact that it's design also causes it to overlap with all protoss air units is just horrible. Think about this. Out of the Robo facility, 3 of the 4 units available can be hit by anti air. Then you have all 3 of the Stargate units (plus the mothership) that can be hit by anti air. This is TERRIBLE DESIGN! I don't know how Blizzard let it end up like this, but something needs to change, and it starts with the colossus. the colossus is as boring as ultralisk/broodlords/carriers/thors/battlecruiser all A move, if you want to remove colossus, you should remove the whole T3 units too. people think protoss goes deathball because of colossus, but it is because the units protoss have needs to stick together and are so slow that after moving out, they can't retreat, so it is like an all in everytime you move out with your army. it is not the colossus fault. At this point, I'm pretty sure most people calling for the removal of colossi are T/Z players that go pure marine or hydra/ling. No it's because the Collosi has a flawed design since it is intended as the Protoss ''siege'' unit. Check this out. In BW Siege Tank - Strong but immobile, needs to siege for AoE attack. Lurker - Strong but immobile, needs to burrow to attack. Reaver - Sick AOE but really slow, needs to build scarabs and ''aim'' with it's missle attacks. In SC2 Siege Tank - same as in BW. Broodlord - strong and immobile. Collosi - Mobile and can walk cliffs. Do you see how flawed this is?! Perhaps it would make more sense if you looked at it from relative mobility. Terran and Zerg both have ridiculously mobile armies and quick units in many categories, meanwhile Protoss, aside from Blink Stalkers (which has to be researched) and Colossi, the army is much less mobile than the Terran or Zerg, therefore some of the traditionally less mobile units are more mobile, at the cost of the rest of our units being less mobile in comparison to the other races. You got to be kidding me. Ridiculously mobile compared to toss ? More like ridiculous bias... Oh yeah, MMM force is immobile as fuck. Fucking medivacs slowing down that already snail-like infantry! Dont fucking talk about bias when you're bathing in it Collosus is as fast as stimmed MM and blink stalkers with chargelots are freaking mobile. You better stop your fucking protoss whine because it already got too far.
Oh dear...
(Let's not turn this into a balance thread  )
|
On October 20 2011 23:25 ShatterZer0 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 19 2011 14:22 NicolBolas wrote:On October 19 2011 11:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:On October 19 2011 10:57 OneOther wrote:
definitely looks like a stargate unit. probably some spellcaster?
but before anything, i really hope blizzard updates the Carriers so they can return to their old glory. how bad they are in SC2 (well, i guess except for a handful of specific situations) is really insulting to the entire Protoss race. the symbol of the legend of fall needs to be revived Unfortunately, having carriers like they were in BW would break the game. In what way? Carriers in SC2 are better than their SC1 equivalents. No carrying capacity upgrade, Intercepters do more damage, etc. The problem isn't the Carriers themselves. The problem is that SC1 Carriers never had to deal with Corruptors and Vikings. So long as units like them exist, it will be more cost effective to kill Carriers than to keep them alive until you get enough to make a real Carrier-based push. You do realize that even in SC:BW... Carriers sucked shit. Korean commentators regularly called them space trash... Carriers were so expensive and utterly micro intensive that they were horrible units in general... Having Carriers like they were in BW in SC2 would just mean that every once in a while a Protoss would get mega ahead and curbstomp you in a more creative way...
You sound as if you never watched BW, re: jangbiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
|
I don't think that's bias, more like misinformation... people are so sensitive here lol...
|
On October 21 2011 01:59 Huragius wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2011 00:37 TheAntZ wrote:On October 20 2011 00:33 Huragius wrote:On October 20 2011 00:19 VirgilSC2 wrote:On October 20 2011 00:14 Zorgaz wrote:On October 20 2011 00:04 Daralii wrote:On October 19 2011 23:51 rpgalon wrote:On October 19 2011 22:30 Fig wrote:On October 19 2011 22:21 Fragile51 wrote:On October 19 2011 22:18 BeeNu wrote:
[quote]
I also think the Colossus is pretty high up on the "do not like" list. It's a complete mismatch of a unit for Starcraft. Every other ranged aoe unit in the all of SC history has been difficult to use and control with a decent amount of risk/reward attached to it or it was a melee unit. Think of the Lurker, Siege Tank, Reaver, all of these required good placement and micro and positioning and forethought into actually using, the Colossus is just A-Move unit with very minimal micro, it's kinda stupid. Yeah agreed. An added problem is that the Collosus gets countered by the exact same unit Carriers are weak against (Vikings and Corruptors). I really hope that the robo end unit gets replaced by something cooler. Yep the colossus is a boring unit that promotes boring gameplay. Blizzard made it an easy unit to use, with a very low skill ceiling so pros can't show their stuff, and gave it very obvious and easy counters (vikings, corruptors). It's a unit that dumbs down the game. The fact that it's design also causes it to overlap with all protoss air units is just horrible. Think about this. Out of the Robo facility, 3 of the 4 units available can be hit by anti air. Then you have all 3 of the Stargate units (plus the mothership) that can be hit by anti air. This is TERRIBLE DESIGN! I don't know how Blizzard let it end up like this, but something needs to change, and it starts with the colossus. the colossus is as boring as ultralisk/broodlords/carriers/thors/battlecruiser all A move, if you want to remove colossus, you should remove the whole T3 units too. people think protoss goes deathball because of colossus, but it is because the units protoss have needs to stick together and are so slow that after moving out, they can't retreat, so it is like an all in everytime you move out with your army. it is not the colossus fault. At this point, I'm pretty sure most people calling for the removal of colossi are T/Z players that go pure marine or hydra/ling. No it's because the Collosi has a flawed design since it is intended as the Protoss ''siege'' unit. Check this out. In BW Siege Tank - Strong but immobile, needs to siege for AoE attack. Lurker - Strong but immobile, needs to burrow to attack. Reaver - Sick AOE but really slow, needs to build scarabs and ''aim'' with it's missle attacks. In SC2 Siege Tank - same as in BW. Broodlord - strong and immobile. Collosi - Mobile and can walk cliffs. Do you see how flawed this is?! Perhaps it would make more sense if you looked at it from relative mobility. Terran and Zerg both have ridiculously mobile armies and quick units in many categories, meanwhile Protoss, aside from Blink Stalkers (which has to be researched) and Colossi, the army is much less mobile than the Terran or Zerg, therefore some of the traditionally less mobile units are more mobile, at the cost of the rest of our units being less mobile in comparison to the other races. You got to be kidding me. Ridiculously mobile compared to toss ? More like ridiculous bias... Oh yeah, MMM force is immobile as fuck. Fucking medivacs slowing down that already snail-like infantry! Dont fucking talk about bias when you're bathing in it Collosus is as fast as stimmed MM and blink stalkers with chargelots are freaking mobile. You better stop your fucking protoss whine because it already got too far.
lmao... you do realise that a colossus is fast as a Hydralisk off creep right?
|
anyone whos ever played tvp or pvt knows stimmed bio is faster than anything P has on the ground, so it's def bias. and if he doesn't know something as simple as that he shouldn't be balance whining
|
On October 21 2011 01:35 FeyFey wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 01:17 SharkSpider wrote:On October 20 2011 23:25 ShatterZer0 wrote:On October 19 2011 14:22 NicolBolas wrote:On October 19 2011 11:03 RogerChillingworth wrote:On October 19 2011 10:57 OneOther wrote:
definitely looks like a stargate unit. probably some spellcaster?
but before anything, i really hope blizzard updates the Carriers so they can return to their old glory. how bad they are in SC2 (well, i guess except for a handful of specific situations) is really insulting to the entire Protoss race. the symbol of the legend of fall needs to be revived Unfortunately, having carriers like they were in BW would break the game. In what way? Carriers in SC2 are better than their SC1 equivalents. No carrying capacity upgrade, Intercepters do more damage, etc. The problem isn't the Carriers themselves. The problem is that SC1 Carriers never had to deal with Corruptors and Vikings. So long as units like them exist, it will be more cost effective to kill Carriers than to keep them alive until you get enough to make a real Carrier-based push. You do realize that even in SC:BW... Carriers sucked shit. Korean commentators regularly called them space trash... Carriers were so expensive and utterly micro intensive that they were horrible units in general... Having Carriers like they were in BW in SC2 would just mean that every once in a while a Protoss would get mega ahead and curbstomp you in a more creative way... Carriers rocked in SCBW. Instant unload of interceptors means kiting goliaths over cliffs means winning at PvT, and the best ATA counter was a short-ranged low-hp fighter that couldn't get close enough to kill without cloaking and sniping observers with scan. With vikings, better marines and no instant upload, SC2 carriers don't even come close. to add to this quote snake, you forgot about the bw ghost who could easily get some carrier free kills. Carriers in bw work like carriers in sc2. With the exception of that you can rush to carriers now in certain scout situations(sc2). And that they needed less micro in bw due to the interceptor mechanic. Well and of course that bcs and carriers didn't needed upgrades in bw ... while they need to be even in sc2. That being said they really are considered space trash in bw but space trash that force a reaction that the opponent doesn't want to take, just like in sc2
Literally everything you said here is factually wrong.
EDIT:
1) Ghosts. Sure lockdown was good but you also needed goliaths to actually shoot them. That's ignoring the fact that the ghost techtree was huge and lockdown was expensive.
2) "you can rush to carriers now": Never seen 2 base carrier rush in BW?
3) "less micro in bw" ...
4) "bcs and carriers didnt needed upgrades" ...
5) "they really are considered space trash in bw"...
|
This thread has gone to shit, literally a bunch of people who obviously play ladder whining about what kind of irreversible damage Blizzard did to their beloved game.
Let's get back on topic people, the thread is about the new unit not what repercussions it might create(because they have been discussed THOROUGHLY).
Looks like a better phoenix... like with an energy ball in the middle. Like maybe a baby void ray... that'd be an ugly baby then because void rays scare the shit outta me,
it's definitely air-borne. some sort of craft.. I say new concept to the phoenix.
|
When they first started showing units for Starcraft 2, they had the tempest, which was just a blue carrier, but it had a shield that blocked damage from the ground. Maybe it would be fun if they brought back the shield idea.
|
On October 21 2011 02:39 SCShield wrote:
When they first started showing units for Starcraft 2, they had the tempest, which was just a blue carrier, but it had a shield that blocked damage from the ground. Maybe it would be fun if they brought back the shield idea.
Another unit that would be counter by... more vikings.
|
I feel like this could basically be a Protoss version of a wraith. It would be fun 
|
My point of view this unit will be an air ground unit with an AoE (possibly able to take down hydra & marine).
Actually stargate is the only protoss tech tree without AoE on ground.
Think about it ; phenixes with these new babies swarming death on the zerg bases.
Yes : that's imba can still dream no ?
|
I honestly think it's some sort of hover tank. Perhaps an energy based AoE harass unit?. 25 energy for a 30+20 to light reaver scarab. IMO Phoenix is a pretty amazingly designed air-unit, but the voidray concept was not that great, so the other option is that this is a voidray replacement that's an air siege unit. Perhaps it bursts high damage against armor at medium-long range.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
