| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
On November 20 2011 03:27 Alzadar wrote: Mass Carriers will die hilariously to mass Marines, doing virtually no damage. The problem is the interceptors, they die far too quickly. Ah for some reason I was forgetting about marines xD But vs Zerg it is at any rate, and PvP | ||
|
NostalgiaTag
Canada508 Posts
On November 20 2011 03:57 NeThZOR wrote: 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. If I had a downvote button I would for sure hit it. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Theoretically there is still some use for carriers in pvp and perhaps with air play getting more dominant in that matchup they might see some use once, but it's very unlikely. Blizzard stated correctly, their role overlaps too much with the colossus and they need to be overhauled completely, thus the tempest. The battlecruiser can be fixed by simply adding a minor buff to it but I don't think they really want it to be a good unit as it's a boring unit. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On November 20 2011 03:10 SheaR619 wrote: 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. not sure which version of the game you have but marines does not have 7 base damage | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On November 20 2011 04:45 Markwerf wrote: Carrier can't be fixed as it is now by not completely changing the colossus. Carriers are not used now because there is a easily mass produced counter available (viking, corruptor, stalker) that simply makes them useless. If they are buffed to beat these units they would become too strong and if those counters were nerfed the colossus would become too strong. Theoretically there is still some use for carriers in pvp and perhaps with air play getting more dominant in that matchup they might see some use once, but it's very unlikely. Blizzard stated correctly, their role overlaps too much with the colossus and they need to be overhauled completely, thus the tempest. The battlecruiser can be fixed by simply adding a minor buff to it but I don't think they really want it to be a good unit as it's a boring unit. Carrier can be fixed without changing the colossus. You can't do both pre 4 base. They don't serve the same role at all. One is a unique air siege unit, the other is the go-to AoE unit which is basically required to play this game when they're so effective vs balls. Blizzard is full of BS. There are obvious fixes they've refused to implement since the nerfs from broodwar. | ||
|
Ganseng
Russian Federation473 Posts
cattlebruisers suck because they deal only 6 damage to air units. make carriers have 10 range and battlecruisers deal 8 damage to air targets and they'll be fine. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
| ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
| ||
|
purecarnagge
719 Posts
 | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Their stats are fine, some little improvements (BW like micro stuff) would be nice, but the main issue remains: the compositions which they are good against (slow ground compositions) are either not being played vs Protoss or are countered better/easier/earlier with different units For the battlecruiser: Mech is being played in TvT, that's why we see it. Again, it's stats are fine, it just doesn't have a ton of use in most situations. | ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
benefluence
United States158 Posts
The advantage in capital ships in SC2 isn't in dps, but in health pool. BC's have way more health per supply than other terran units, and having your health in fewer units helps in fights too, especially as BC's can be repaired afterwards. Capital ships do get a pretty good DPS boost when they have an upgrade advantage, but it's not that amazing, and it's pretty hard to consistently take advantage of. Carriers are in a similar boat, but are just UP. It baffles me that they're worse than BC's in nearly every stat (worse buildtime, unless you constantly chronoboost; worse dps; worse health; worse armor; equal movespeed; better range, at the cost of being able to lose interceptors, plus BC's get yamato) yet Blizz just ignores them. The stats weren't quite so lopsided when BC's had 110 build time and less movement speed, but Carriers haven't gotten any stat changes, ever, despite sorely needing them. Just dropping the build time by 20-30 seconds would make such a big difference. It's just way harder to get out the capital ship than it is to either get out the counter or deal massive damage with an attack, and they aren't good enough to make it worth the effort. | ||
|
Muffinmanifestation
United States20 Posts
On November 20 2011 05:10 eYeball wrote: They didnt bother changing Carrier, not a single change in whole WoL history. Obviously they didnt want to change it. And give Battlecruisers a speed thing in HotS, what is that good for? Once again, exactly. People. I don't mean to say that the Tempest is a particularly bad idea. What I'm saying is that they're giving up on the Carrier waaaay too easily, not even trying to fix it. As for the whole Colossus vs. Carrier debate, they're completely different units. Colossi have a niche, like was said earlier, of killing balls of enemies. It's fragile and must stay behind your main army. Carriers have a similar role (Attack from a distance), but are arguably more vulnerable with their lack of decent damage dealing capabilities. If a Colossi is able to hit just one more unit, its DPS increases to well over that of the Carrier. What's so wrong with having a unit that can defend itself? As long as Bio still remains effective, Colossi will have their place in the Metagame, but when other compositions are brought forward, having a useful Carrier would be nice. NOTE: If you have nothing worthwhile to contribute to the thread (Here's to you, TigerKarl), get off. I'm not trying to rile up the community to arms, just proposing a possibly valid solution to a long time problem. | ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
For the BATTLECRUISER, i wanted to make it unique... its normal damage against ground is roughly equal to 4 marines (2 stimmed, 2 unstimmed) this makes the BC inefficient in supply and resources.. not to mention immobile and easy to focus fire... I thought about the various attack mechanics and the game, and settled on the fact the BCs have 2 separate weapons... an air to ground and air to air attack. My change was to let the Battlecruiser use both weapons simultaneously... this keeps the battle cruiser evenly strong against specific units, but allows the battlecruiser to be "stronger" against an opponent building a diverse force. I made this mechanic more practical by allowing battlecruisers to attack while moving (encouraging micromanagment and positioning) lastly, for my fun i let hi-sec autotracking increase the battery range by +1... and i increased the air damage to 8 matching the ground... even so, vikings/void rays/corruptors are still dominant in the air... and BCs are still vulnerable to high templar /ghosts/ infestors. In this way, the BC doesn't "counter" anything, its strenght is "loosly" perportional to the opponents diversity, since its damage output doubles when fighting both ground and air units... On paper, the damage is amazing, making the BC a pair of flying bunkers (1 vs ground, 1 vs air)... however, because hte damage is split between 2 targets (and there wont always be both unit types) it prevents the BC from being to strong.... now for the CARRIER: Carrier's have a unique mechanic on their own: interceptors, so i didn't need to make carriers more unique, however it gave me the opportunity to work directly with interceptors to solve the carrier's problems. my fundamental change for the carrier, was to make interceptors free (and set them autocast) this allows protoss players to be more aggressive with carriers, since protecting the carrier itself is the primary goal. In addition, i increased interceptor shields to 60 (from 40) to reinforce the need to attack the carrier directly, and i increased interceptor damage by (+2 vs armored) to allow carriers to compete with voidrays... Lastly, i made the Graviton Catapult increase the launch range by +1 (to total of 9) allowing carriers to fight vikings and voidrays more effectively. I AM DISAPPOINTED IN BLIZZARD who removed the carrier, and made the wrong choice for the battle cruiser. By giving the BC a "sprint like" ability, all blizzard does is reinforce the BC use in TvT... since that is the only matchup where BCs getting "kyted" is an issue... seeing as blizzard was hoping to cover the "weaknesses" of units, i am sad that the weakness of the BC according to them, is that BCs can be kyted by vikings... its so depressing that their narrow vision doesnt even deal with the other matchups.. because BCs are used SOO OFTEN in the other matchups... /sarcasm DAVID KIM SAID, after buffing BC speed from 1.41 to 1.875, WE DON"T WANT TO SEE BCs IN EVERY GAME <paraphrased> at the time i found this laughable that they would be concerned about seeing battle cruisers in every game, when Colossus (yet another late game unit like the BC) were the go to unit in EVERY SINGLE PROTOSS MATCHUP during that period of balance. This is horribly depressing to know that blizzard sees the BCs role as supporting viking battles only, so i don't expect any changes to encourage BC use in the other matchups. | ||
|
MaV_gGSC
Canada1345 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2011 05:22 Muffinmanifestation wrote: What's so wrong with having a unit that can defend itself? As long as Bio still remains effective, Colossi will have their place in the Metagame, but when other compositions are brought forward, having a useful Carrier would be nice. Nothing. The Carrier is such a unit. It is extremly good at defending itself and being costefficient against every unit but 1-2 from each race. (viking and in low-mid numbers marines; blink stalkers and void rays; corruptors) Therefore it is lacking specialized abilities. Therefore other units are chosen over it. The carrier needs LESS variety, so it can be better at dealing with ONE or two specific things. That means it has to be redesigned. --> make it good vs air, not so good vs ground. Rename it Tempest, because it has nothing in common with a carrier anymore. | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
| ||
|
Muffinmanifestation
United States20 Posts
On November 20 2011 05:30 Big J wrote: Nothing. The Carrier is such a unit. It is extremly good at defending itself and being costefficient against every unit but 1-2 from each race. (viking and in low-mid numbers marines; blink stalkers and void rays; corruptors) Therefore it is lacking specialized abilities. Therefore other units are chosen over it. The carrier needs LESS variety, so it can be better at dealing with ONE or two specific things. That means it has to be redesigned. --> make it good vs air, not so good vs ground. Rename it Tempest, because it has nothing in common with a carrier anymore. Let's name all of the anti-air units in the game, mkay? Terran: Marine Ghost Thor Viking Battlecruiser Protoss: Stalker Sentry Archon Phoenix Void Ray Carrier Mothership Zerg: Queen Hydralisk Mutalisk Corruptor Infested Terran Now let's name all of the units Carriers are good against. Terran: Ghost Thor Protoss: Sentry Phoenix Zerg: Currently, the Carrier does shit vs. everything. The only thing you might want to make Carriers for is against Thors, and even then, HTs and Zealots are better. If Blizzard really doesn't want to buff the Carrier, fine, but at least make it viable in end game compositions by giving it a change to be more effective against other upgraded units. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games Organizations Other Games Counter-Strike Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Bisu
OSC
OSC
MaxPax vs Gerald
Solar vs Krystianer
PAPI vs Lemon
Ryung vs Moja
Nice vs NightPhoenix
Cham vs TBD
MaNa vs TriGGeR
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
The PondCast
OSC
Wardi Open
CranKy Ducklings
Safe House 2
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
