EPTWhy Carriers (And also Battlecruisers) Suck - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Puppet_M
Finland12 Posts
| ||
|
crocodile
United States615 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2011 05:39 Muffinmanifestation wrote: 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. LOL... You're not even thinking before posting... Have you ever seen mass carrier vs mass marines? Carrier's roflstomp them. The same goes for every unit you named but Corruptor, Viking, Void Ray and Battlecruiser. Marines and blink stalkers somewhat stand a chance against them until carrier numbers get around 8 and are completly unprotected. After that it is just lights out... What do you want? A unit that is costefficient against every non pure AA-unit when you only get 1-2 of them? "Hey I built a carrier, and whatever you have built until now is useless if it isn't a viking..." Stop stating "facts" that are not true. Carriers are good units. But if you want to kill marines or hydralisks, you simply won't tech to carriers and wait until you have 8 of them when 2colossi do the same job 4mins earlier. (colossi just being an example; if you face mech the same statement would be true for immortals; if you face mutalisks the same statement would be true for phoenix etc...) High tech units in starcraft2 have to be more specialized as the low tech units are the universal ones. | ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
2 voids ---> phoenix ---> voids ---> carriers ---> mothership i dont know why they are removing carriers in favor of a god tier pvz air to air unit but whatever if more people dont start doing mass air before hots, i expect to see it after | ||
|
Muffinmanifestation
United States20 Posts
On November 20 2011 05:50 crocodile wrote: bad balance suggestion is bad Fuck off or offer constructive criticism. On November 20 2011 05:55 Big J wrote: LOL... You're not even thinking before posting... Have you ever seen mass carrier vs mass marines? Carrier's roflstomp them. The same goes for every unit you named but Corruptor, Viking, Void Ray and Battlecruiser. Marines and blink stalkers somewhat stand a chance against them until carrier numbers get around 8 and are completly unprotected. After that it is just lights out... What do you want? A unit that is costefficient against every non pure AA-unit when you only get 1-2 of them? "Hey I built a carrier, and whatever you have built until now is useless if it isn't a viking..." Stop stating "facts" that are not true. Carriers are good units. But if you want to kill marines or hydralisks, you simply won't tech to carriers and wait until you have 8 of them when 2colossi do the same job 4mins earlier. (colossi just being an example; if you face mech the same statement would be true for immortals; if you face mutalisks the same statement would be true for phoenix etc...) High tech units in starcraft2 have to be more specialized as the low tech units are the universal ones. 200/200 Marines vs. 200/200 Carriers I expect to be able to have a unit I can actually use. I don't want Carriers to "counter" everything, but I want to be able to use them without getting the shit kicked out of me. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:00 Let it Raine wrote: mass air is completely a viable strategy at all levels of pvz 2 voids ---> phoenix ---> voids ---> carriers ---> mothership i dont know why they are removing carriers in favor of a god tier pvz air to air unit but whatever if more people dont start doing mass air before hots, i expect to see it after well it's only if zerg is unexperienced against it and tries to go hydralisks, which get countered pretty brutal by carriers. If zerg realizes that the Protoss goes only air, he can just spam pure corruptor (+ling for groundcontrol) and beat the Protoss air armada in every category (costefficient, supplyefficient, maxed battle). That is what could be so cool about the tempest. If tempest adds enough splash to protoss air, that protoss wins the high supply air battle, then PvZ could turn into an awesome Protoss airarmy vs Zerg hydrabased army battle (tempest unlike carrier won't do so well against hydras; but air is more mobile and can easily attack in advantegous positions, so it might still win direct engagements in a lot of curcumstances) | ||
|
sVnteen
Germany2238 Posts
200/200 3/3/3 carriers beat everything else in the entire game (even vikings since no map is big enough to micro against so many carriers almost the same thing with battlecruisers - they win vs everything except mass carriers (and maybe mass voidray+templar or something) | ||
|
CHOMPMannER
Canada175 Posts
| ||
|
BreakfastBurrito
United States893 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:09 sVnteen wrote: this thread makes no sense at all imo 200/200 3/3/3 carriers beat everything else in the entire game (even vikings since no map is big enough to micro against so many carriers almost the same thing with battlecruisers - they win vs everything except mass carriers (and maybe mass voidray+templar or something) if you look a couple posts above youll see a video showing that marines beat carriers, and if you wanna try it yourself youll see many units beat carriers, like corrupters  | ||
|
Cyber_Cheese
Australia3615 Posts
On November 20 2011 03:04 zeru wrote: Actually carriers suck because of the whole bonus damage system sc2 has. Vikings and corruptors kind of make carriers silly. Counter units makes the units look bad because it destroys them, who knew? Honestly, I think the real problem with carriers is a combination of build time and void rays exsisting. | ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:09 sVnteen wrote: this thread makes no sense at all imo 200/200 3/3/3 carriers beat everything else in the entire game (even vikings since no map is big enough to micro against so many carriers almost the same thing with battlecruisers - they win vs everything except mass carriers (and maybe mass voidray+templar or something) Seriously? and thats why we see mass carrier/ battle cruiser in every pro game right? thats why we see at least 1 carrier and battle cruiser in every single season right? oh wait, that was all sarcasm... because the truth: Carriers and BCs aren't good enough... some mr whiny a few posts back said something about people not making BCs because they're "too expensive" but regardless they're good... look at that logic... if cost >> benefit... clearly the benefit is NOT GOOD ENOUGH!!! My suggestions stand: NECCESARIES: BC: - attack air and ground separatly/ simultaneously - attack while moving Carrier: - interceptors should be free (8 second build time only) - interceptors need (+2 vs armored damage) OPTIONALS: BC: - air damage should match ground damage - possible +1 range upgrade (hi sec auto tracking) Carrier: - interceptor shield buff (+20) - interceptor launch range +1 or 2 (graviton catapult) on paper both units seem okay, but the truth is the benefit is CURRENTLY not equavalent to the cost... I would like a world where a Carrier rush or BC rush is actually viable... where the element of surprise for such a unit is not simply "a minor setback for the opponent" I want players to FEAR Battle cruisers and Carriers in the same way people fear Ghosts and Colossus. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:08 Big J wrote: well it's only if zerg is unexperienced against it and tries to go hydralisks, which get countered pretty brutal by carriers. If zerg realizes that the Protoss goes only air, he can just spam pure corruptor (+ling for groundcontrol) and beat the Protoss air armada in every category (costefficient, supplyefficient, maxed battle). That is what could be so cool about the tempest. If tempest adds enough splash to protoss air, that protoss wins the high supply air battle, then PvZ could turn into an awesome Protoss airarmy vs Zerg hydrabased army battle (tempest unlike carrier won't do so well against hydras; but air is more mobile and can easily attack in advantegous positions, so it might still win direct engagements in a lot of curcumstances) Or zerg can make infestors and laugh his ass off.... | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
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. I know this is "the reasoning". But I think its bad reasoning. Protoss should get carriers late game because they force marines which are bad lategame. | ||
|
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:27 Techno wrote: I know this is "the reasoning". But I think its bad reasoning. Protoss should get carriers late game because they force marines which are bad lategame. Heavy +3 chargelot play forces marines too, and is also better than carriers. | ||
Falling
Canada11367 Posts
-The very existence of collosi requires things like vikings and corrupters that also happen to counter carriers. That ridiculous range makes going carrier very unsafe as it is way too easy to focus fire. -Because medivacs are required to go bio, Terran is already building starports that easily allows them to switch to making vikings -Carriers cannot be micro'ed like their BW counterpart (as explained by Tyler) -Smart casting means storm has been nerfed (compared to BW), which means Terran has no reason to tech switch away from marines. And marines kill interceptors or focus fire carriers SO fast. Just by Blizzard wanting a greater focus on air battles means Carriers will be used less because BW Carrier's greatest strength was attacking along cliff walls to abuse the mobility of goliaths. But simply because Z and T are already going the tech paths needed to stop carriers means carriers will rarely be used. Carriers gain greater strength as they add to their numbers. So it's always the tricky timing of switch tech to carrier to build up 4-6 before Terran researches range for goliaths and mass enough goliaths. But then goliaths weren't very good against ground and especially storm. There's very little timing window in SC2 to switch as typically Terran already has a ton of barracks and Stargates with no need to wait for a range upgrade. | ||
|
MugenXBanksy
United States479 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:09 sVnteen wrote: this thread makes no sense at all imo 200/200 3/3/3 carriers beat everything else in the entire game (even vikings since no map is big enough to micro against so many carriers almost the same thing with battlecruisers - they win vs everything except mass carriers (and maybe mass voidray+templar or something) um.... mass bc with yamato with repair is insanely overpowered | ||
|
ElusoryX
Singapore2047 Posts
| ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
in fact they do high damage with high fire rate, but is less tanky than battlecruisers. if you have seen genius/hongun carrier build, they have also defend their carriers really well, why in TvT, for example, BCs are used very well for tanking damage. Please stop informing the community. | ||
|
benefluence
United States158 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:09 sVnteen wrote: this thread makes no sense at all imo 200/200 3/3/3 carriers beat everything else in the entire game (even vikings since no map is big enough to micro against so many carriers almost the same thing with battlecruisers - they win vs everything except mass carriers (and maybe mass voidray+templar or something) This is not true. On November 20 2011 06:44 ThePlayer33 wrote: carrier do not do low damage with high fire rate. in fact they do high damage with high fire rate, but is less tanky than battlecruisers. if you have seen genius/hongun carrier build, they have also defend their carriers really well, why in TvT, for example, BCs are used very well for tanking damage. Please stop informing the community. Carriers have less dps than battlecruisers. What the OP meant is that carriers do damage in many small attacks, which means that they are no stronger on equal upgrades 3v3 than 0v0. Do you have stats on how well genius and hogun have done with that build? (win/loss and opponent for each use). I'd be interested in seeing it. I know the one time I saw a pro going carrier he got crushed. | ||
|
Noocta
France12578 Posts
They ain't something you build everyday but it's not because they're bad, just because it's a very very lategame choice. Very hard to transition into them. | ||
| ||
