EPTWhy Carriers (And also Battlecruisers) Suck - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
BearStorm
United States795 Posts
| ||
|
Mehukannu
Finland421 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:06 Muffinmanifestation wrote: 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. Hey, let's show everybody how much carriers suck versus marines with no auto-building interceptors, with no micro and no terrain abusing at all(!), because that's what it is like in the game! Seriously though, I don't see why anyone would build only carriers with no other units to mix in it like say zealots to draw fire from the interceptors or HT for storms or possibly something else too. It is good for the game if you can't win the game with just a-moving one type of units. | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
ThePlayer33
Australia2378 Posts
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. maybe watch some GSL? october/november up and down matches featured hongun vs keen carrier build. (PvT) genius did it during code A during this season. (PvZ) (cant remember game 1 or 2, genius vs symbol) | ||
|
Golgotha
Korea (South)8418 Posts
| ||
|
llKenZyll
United States853 Posts
What else are you going to do, try and counter those units? None of those units can get hard countered without the protoss/terran having 4+ bases (an unlikely scenario in PvZ and in PvT due to marine drops) | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 20 2011 06:06 Muffinmanifestation wrote: Fuck off or offer constructive criticism. 200/200 Marines vs. 200/200 Carriers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDOkzkTH8tc 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. yeah and it turns out that this can't be achieved with the current protoss capital ship design. So they change it. Of course they could have fooled around more with them, but there is actually no reason why they should. There is absolutly no scenario in the game right now, where the carrier seems to be necessary (unlike the battlecruiser which seems to be necessary in lategame TvT, at least on most maps) | ||
|
XRaDiiX
Canada1730 Posts
I guess OP's never seen Hong-un Use Mass Carrier/Voids with Mothership Storm Toilet its basically Unbeatable. Voids> Corruptors Carriers> Everything Zerg has(Except Corruptors that's where the Voids come in) Then Mothership makes it impossible For Zerg to Engage the Death ball. If the Protoss gets a Vortex off which they will when a Zerg is forced to Engage the Protoss can Storm everything coming out of the Vortex... GG | ||
|
Belha
Italy2850 Posts
| ||
|
MShaw006
United States74 Posts
| ||
|
Muffinmanifestation
United States20 Posts
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. You may have never looked at a Carrier closely, but you'll notice that they have 8 Interceptors that each do two attacks, and each of those attacks are 5 damage. I would say that each of those attacks are pretty low damage (Less than a Marine? omgnolololol). On November 20 2011 06:54 Mehukannu wrote: Hey, let's show everybody how much carriers suck versus marines with no auto-building interceptors, with no micro and no terrain abusing at all(!), because that's what it is like in the game! Seriously though, I don't see why anyone would build only carriers with no other units to mix in it like say zealots to draw fire from the interceptors or HT for storms or possibly something else too. It is good for the game if you can't win the game with just a-moving one type of units. It is true that they weren't on auto build. I still find it difficult to think that the Marines still wouldn't win. Also, the only reason the Marines won was because they killed every single Interceptor. Cliffs will not (!) save Interceptors. Finally, someone brought up that mass Carriers beats mass Marines. There was no talk of additional units, so please realize that this video was of a very narrow scope. And please, people, if you're gonna bring up these games, please post some damn videos. | ||
|
Muffinmanifestation
United States20 Posts
On November 20 2011 08:30 MShaw006 wrote: You really switched races because people were "bad mouthing" you for playing terran? Seriously? That's really ridiculous. I mean, you know you can play whatever race you want, right? You know that people who hate on people for playing a certain race are idiots, right? Yes, I know it was silly. There were other factors, namely that I was getting pissed at TvT, but if people are hating, I like to prove them wrong. | ||
|
Severus_
759 Posts
| ||
|
XerrolAvengerII
United States510 Posts
On November 20 2011 08:03 XRaDiiX wrote: Both Carrier and Battle-Cruisers are a helluva lot more Useful than Ultralisks... I guess OP's never seen Hong-un Use Mass Carrier/Voids with Mothership Storm Toilet its basically Unbeatable. Voids> Corruptors Carriers> Everything Zerg has(Except Corruptors that's where the Voids come in) Then Mothership makes it impossible For Zerg to Engage the Death ball. If the Protoss gets a Vortex off which they will when a Zerg is forced to Engage the Protoss can Storm everything coming out of the Vortex... GG No... Ultralisks are more valuable to zerg, than Carriers are to protoss, or Battlecruisers are to terran. also, if the protoss has a mothership and templar and voidrays, why would he even waste resources on carriers? for every application of a carrier, there is an alternative protoss unit that is more efficient... Carriers would be the least of the zergs problems at that point. | ||
|
Big G
Italy835 Posts
It is true that they weren't on auto build. I still find it difficult to think that the Marines still wouldn't win. Also, the only reason the Marines won was because they killed every single Interceptor. Cliffs will not (!) save Interceptors. Finally, someone brought up that mass Carriers beats mass Marines. There was no talk of additional units, so please realize that this video was of a very narrow scope. And please, people, if you're gonna bring up these games, please post some damn videos. yeah, one of the main problems is that vikings/corruptors counter Carriers WHILE marines/hydras counter interceptors. So even if you take off guard your opponent in some way (which is almost impossible), he has already the infrastructure (Terran) or the fast tech switch (Zerg) to counter carriers one way or another. | ||
|
RogerX
New Zealand3180 Posts
On November 20 2011 03:02 Microsloth wrote: why does this thread even exist? Why do posts like these exists? Read the thread title, hes trying to discuss why Carriers, BC's are bad units and why they are underused. As we're moving through the HOTS there are a huge impact on both these units thus the discussion. | ||
|
voy
Poland348 Posts
| ||
|
debasers
737 Posts
Only situation I see them being usefull. | ||
|
Staboteur
Canada1873 Posts
On November 20 2011 09:06 RogerX wrote: Why do posts like these exists? Read the thread title, hes trying to discuss why Carriers, BC's are bad units and why they are underused. As we're moving through the HOTS there are a huge impact on both these units thus the discussion. No, his question is valid; This thread doesn't have a point. Well, that isn't entirely true. This thread's point seems to be "Carriers and battlecruisers suck because armour upgrades exist. Discuss" which, though it is a point, is a reasonably empty one. There is no follow up into a suggestion on how to circumvent this problem (I.E. a build that allows a +1 air attack carrier build that is likely to hit before their targets get +1 armour, or a build that forces non-armour units and then transitions into a task force of supported battlecruisers). Ultimately, the point seems to lead to a sort of "If this fact wasn't true then carriers/bc wouldn't suck"... which is about as useful as saying "If siege tanks had infinity range they'd be better". I don't mean any offense to everyone. Just pointing out that it is a fairly empty thread :D | ||
|
voy
Poland348 Posts
| ||
| ||
