|
On November 20 2011 03:00 SeaSwift wrote:
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.
Carrier was only good against mech. Even in broodwar, carrier was good against mech. In BW if protoss went carrier against a bio terran (which is rare to begin with) the resultant would be similar to SC2. Thus if mech became viable in SC2, then carriers would become viable and we wouldnt be seeing these kind of thread.
On a side note, yes 3-3 marine vs 3-3-3 carriers basically negate each other because all their upgrade goes up by 1. BUT there are benefit to this too. Consider a marine, he start off with 7 damage. If you upgrade +1 damage then he goes to 8 damage. This is around a 15% increase in DPS! That mean if your opponent doesnt get armor upgrade, then they will suffer from alot of damage.
Basically, unit that only small increment per upgrade will get a substantial increase in DPS per upgrade. If their opponent fall behind on upgrade then it can be game changing compare to upgrade that g ive alot like tanks. Which goes from 50 damage to 55 which is only like a 4-5% increase in DPS.
NOTE: the Percentage I am using are just estimated to prove a point. If you actually did some math you will see similar deviation between upgrades DPS increase.
|
|
|
How about just give the carrier the same speed boost ability they're giving the BC? It seems completely logical, given that the carrier needs this kind of ability to do its burst damage, run away, burst damage run away like in BW.
|
On November 20 2011 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +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.
(DPS of Marine) * SIX Marines = 7 * 6 = 42 DPS
(DPS of Stalker) * Four Stalkers = 4 * 6.9 = 27.6 DPS
DPS of Carrier = 26.7 DPS
Pardon?
On November 20 2011 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:
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 exactly. I never said it was a low damage unit, but a unit similar to a bunch of Marines. Not very high damage attacks, but a lot of them.
|
battle cruiser ground damage got nerfed by the way, since it was overpowered, so thats no point to say they are bad. Especially air is something they rip apart still.
The only issue these two units have, that you need to have 3/3, if the opponent went for upgrades. Since on even numbers they are deadly. Or if you rush for carriers, having 1 upgrade advantage is mostly to much for the opponent.
People that say carriers and bcs suck, mostly used them in a 3/3 vs 0/0 environment. I personally don't understand the hate for carriers, i sometimes even rush for them if the opposing terran expands, holds their aggression and well +1 carriers do nasty things with every terran anti air. And the kiting attempts with vikings versus carriers is always something funny to see, well not funny for the terran.
I wish you couldn't rush for these units (upgrades can delay that enough), since they have the same problem as the thors, to good early game. And lategame they need 3/3 and thats a huge investment, since most of the time you don't use air units enough throughout the game. That way blizzard could make the upgrades more effective.
But i have no problem with those units and use them in most macro games. If you don't like em don't use them, not everyone can use micro intensive units. (well the bc is more the defense line breaker unit and doesn't require alot of micro)
|
On November 20 2011 03:04 ProxyKnoxy wrote:
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
Mass Carriers will die hilariously to mass Marines, doing virtually no damage. The problem is the interceptors, they die far too quickly.
|
i don't think carriers would become viable if terran started *having success meching vs P. vikings are a reactor unit and if 1 or 2 factories already have reactors for hellions then it's as simple as building starports for a switch *going up to 4 vikings building at a time and can switch addons back around if vikings aren't needed anymore. granted that isn't nearly free (time, cost) but you don't need that many vikings to counter a realistic # of carriers in a standard game.
|
A half speed double damage for BC would be nice.
As for the carrier +2 dmg on 2x5 inecreptors would be OP lol. +32 dmg.
I would suggest making interceptors have 10 dmg instead of 2x5. This would give Mr carrier +16 with upgrades that give +2.
|
On November 20 2011 03:31 Fealthas wrote:
A half speed double damage for BC would be nice.
As for the carrier +2 dmg on 2x5 inecreptors would be OP lol. +32 dmg.
I would suggest making interceptors have 10 dmg instead of 2x5. This would give Mr carrier +16 with upgrades that give +2.
Exactly what I proposed in the OP.
|
I kind of like how they don't play a major role. Carriers can't be micro'd and battle cruisers play cameo roles in TvT. If they were stronger, games would get boring in my opinion. They're slow and need protection, if they were viable it would just slow down games and make them less interesting.
|
Carriers don't suck (vs. Zerg) the reason the two aren't seen often is because they're both expensive, slow, require completely different upgrades than what you use for your "main" army, and they can be kited by Vikings.
|
On November 20 2011 02:52 Catchafire2000 wrote:
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.
Terran uses all their stuff aswell... Battlecruisers are lategame turtle/containment breakers and counters to thors in tvt. The only thing that i can see a bit underused is the raven, however it can be needed (mostly in tvt aswell) but its abilities are very underused.
And what useless units do protoss have ? i guess that many units are not used in every matchup, but that does not make them useless.
|
United Kingdom20318 Posts
Im confused - The carrier is unused right now because the only style it works well against is mech, right? Assuming vikings are not too powerful for it.
They are making mech viable AND removing the carrier at the time we would need it most in HoTS?
|
On November 20 2011 03:37 Skwid1g wrote:
Carriers don't suck (vs. Zerg) the reason the two aren't seen often is because they're both expensive, slow, require completely different upgrades than what you use for your "main" army, and they can be kited by Vikings.
same as the reason with battlecruisers, they are hardcountered by corrupters and vikings way too costeffeciently. However carriers are not used in any matchup while bc's do have a specific role in lategame tvt.
|
Are they really going to remove carriers?  I still feel there's a place for the carrier in sc2, only blizzard fucked em up. I want mid game hidden stargate tech switch pvt ffs.
On November 20 2011 03:37 Skwid1g wrote:
Carriers don't suck (vs. Zerg) the reason the two aren't seen often is because they're both expensive, slow, require completely different upgrades than what you use for your "main" army, and they can be kited by Vikings.
Uh you just precisely explained why they do indeed suck.
|
+ Show Spoiler +Damn corrupters and viking do hard counter both battlecruisers and carriers. The units themselves are pretty good overall, but vikings and corupters pretty much make them useless.
|
Let's face it guys, even though we all love SC2 and it definitely has its place, Broodwar still is and will always be better.
User was warned for this post
|
Carriers are sickgood in pvz, and even in pvp I saw the chinese pro nvmacsed do chargelot-archon into mothership carrier which was very strong.
|
On November 20 2011 03:22 Muffinmanifestation wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 03:06 DoubleReed wrote: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. (DPS of Marine) * SIX Marines = 7 * 6 = 42 DPS (DPS of Stalker) * Four Stalkers = 4 * 6.9 = 27.6 DPS DPS of Carrier = 26.7 DPS Pardon? Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 03:06 DoubleReed wrote:
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 exactly. I never said it was a low damage unit, but a unit similar to a bunch of Marines. Not very high damage attacks, but a lot of them.
If you think 6 marines beats a carrier you're just playing a different game. Seriously, I know you think carriers are bad, but don't just say "I"D RATHER HAVE 6 MARINES THAN A CARRIER LOL."
|
On November 20 2011 04:22 DoubleReed wrote:
If you think 6 marines beats a carrier you're just playing a different game. Seriously, I know you think carriers are bad, but don't just say "I"D RATHER HAVE 6 MARINES THAN A CARRIER LOL."
You just said a Carrier has more damage than 8 Marines. It doesn't. He didn't say anything about preferring Marines over Carriers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
