|
Let me explain. The Carrier and the Battlecruiser are both low damage, high rate of fire units. To keep them reasonably balanced with upgrades, their damage upgrades are only +1.
If you don't know, a Carrier has 8 interceptors that, when they attack, attack twice, dealing 5 damage a shot, effectively dealing 80 damage per round of assault. The issue with that is when you start facing armored units, or even units with armor upgrades, your damage capabilities fall off the cliff significantly. With a whole round of interceptors, one unupgraded carrier cannot 1shot a +2 armor Combat Shield Marine. Do you know how damn long it takes for a full round of Interceptors to attack? It's a little bit loaded of a scenario, yes, but if you're transitioning into Carriers and your opponent has been going Bio, you're not going to have any upgrades yet!
In a similar note, there is no difference between a 3/3 Marine vs. a 3/3/3 Carrier and a 0/0 Marine vs. a 0/0/0 Carrier. Or Battlecruiser for this instance. Isn't the purpose of Tier 3 units to step away from the low damage, low cost units into the high damage, high cost units? What incentive do you have when there's no difference, and the marines are a helluva lot cheaper!
The answer for balance is not to just increase the damage upgrade of the units. To effectively keep the same theoretical "DPS," the rate of fire also has to be decreased. Back in Brood War, Battlecruisers were pretty awful because they attacked about once every minute (it seemed), but that attack was powerful. I say that Blizzard effectively half the rate of fire, double the damage they do per shot, and make the upgrade +2. Similar vein for the Carrier. Make it so the Interceptors only take one shot, make it so they do 10 damage a shot, and increase the upgrade to +2. On paper, their DPS will be exactly the same, but when carried into the late game they'll be able to hold their ground better.
Note:
For those of you who will judge me based on my ranking, I'm a mid-level Plat player who's just switched from Terran to Zerg. I hate MMM and Tanks, always opting for something more interesting, even if I lose. I recently switched because of all the bad mouthing I get just for playing Terran. Quit hatin', bros.
|
Thanks for the effort, but Blizzard is going to remove the Carrier and buff the Battlecruiser.
|
battlecruiser will get a boost on speed, carrier removed.
|
Zerg is the only race that utilizes ALL of their units in battle. It's refreshing to see zergs do this as well. Too many useless units for protoss and terran.
|
You are only plat because you play zerg! If you played toss you'd be copper! 
~Protoss conversion team.
User was warned for this post
|
also,
get back to terran! D:
|
|
|
On November 20 2011 02:51 Al Bundy wrote:
Thanks for the effort, but Blizzard is going to remove the Carrier and buff the Battlecruiser.
They explicitly stated "For now" in the developement of HOTS, It still can return. If they for example buff the carrier in a patch and they see it works out beautifully there's a good shot they'll keep the Carrier.
|
Guys. I think I know this, I happen to follow all the Heart of the Swarm changes. But before they ultimately change the game, I'd like to see them actually try to fix the problem, not just cover it up.
And as for the Battlecruiser charge thingy. That doesn't change its damage issues.
|
Carrier needs to be used more. It makes games MUCH more interesting to watch because of how many interceptors there are and everything goes crazy. Makes Starcraft a spectator sport even more.
|
|
|
The reason Carrier is not viable is just because the Colossus is a lot better and serves nearly the same purpose, and the same units used to kill Colossus are used to kill Carrier, as well as some other units too.
To make the Carrier viable, you'd have to make it better than the Colossus, which would in turn kill the Colossus, or else change it's role somehow - in which case, why call it the Carrier? Blizzard went down the second route and replaced it with the Tempest.
|
why does this thread even exist?
|
On November 20 2011 02:54 Seiniyta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 02:51 Al Bundy wrote:
Thanks for the effort, but Blizzard is going to remove the Carrier and buff the Battlecruiser. They explicitly stated "For now" in the developement of HOTS, It still can return. If they for example buff the carrier in a patch and they see it works out beautifully there's a good shot they'll keep the Carrier.
Ok how about this:
As far as we know, Blizzard is going to remove the Carrier and buff the Battlecruiser.
|
Mass carriers is actually probably unbeatable, it's just near impossible to get there as they take so long to make, and any competent player won't let you get there
|
On November 20 2011 02:56 Muffinmanifestation wrote:In response to what?
in response why none would ever tech to carriers or battlecruisers
|
|
|
I am so sad that carriers are getting removed.... : (
|
Isn't the purpose of Tier 3 units to step away from the low damage, low cost units into the high damage, high cost units? What incentive do you have when there's no difference, and the marines are a helluva lot cheaper!
No, the purpose is to have way more supply efficiency. A carrier obviously has way more damage than 8 marines, or 4 stalkers.
The carrier is not 'low damage' unit, it simply fires a lot of little shots. It makes it better at killing smaller units instead of larger units. Like the mutalisk.
|
And by the way, don't just switch race because of a complaining player. Most of them are just frustrated..
I played a TvP this week and he engaged at the bottom of my ramp on Antiga shipyard with non upgraded units but i had upgrades! we were equal in army size , and with micro i beat him, meanwhile dropping in is main to shut down pylons and gateways. So, he had non upgraded units, engaged in a bad position. He started whinning about T being OP blahblah...
Don't take it personnaly and just play !
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6235/6364004353_727f9fa2a9_b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6105/6364003557_5be6e9bb55_b.jpg)
