The video in the thread also showed marines with 0/0 upgrades. By the time units like carriers are out they will most likely be 2/2 or 3/3 in ups making carriers look even more silly.
I agree with many of the suggestions people are saying; +2 vs armor, free interceptors, longer range to deal with units like vikings and to allow the carrier to be a more micro-able unit. Greater health to the interceptor was also a good suggestion so that they don't melt as easily to marines and hydras.
What about an upgrade to give carriers more interceptors, or just allowing the carriers to hold 10 or 12 interceptors at a time from the get go. They will still be doing less damage to highly armored corruptors, but will also be better at taking down smaller units solely on the fact they will have more dps. By having more interceptors, their upgrades will stack even that much more and it(The carrier) may actually be worthy of their extremely long build time.
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.
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.
If you actually read the comments the video had, there is some guy that claims that he did the same test with auto-build on and apparently carriers won easily. Also cliffs help so he can't get to your carriers and kill them, so they can go on and make more interceptors safely. There should be talk about additional units, because not even in late game tvt terrans make just battlecruiser instead it is viking/raven/battlecruiser unit composition. It's basically like saying battlecruisers suck late game tvt because of vikings. I don't even know how anyone can even start theorycrafting with one unit compositions.
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.
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
Might I suggest you read the original post again? I pretty much explain everything you say I lack. BCs and Carriers are so far on the tech tree that there isn't necessarily a build that will force non-armored units into production a reasonable amount of the time. Battlecruisers and Carriers suck because they don't surpass armor upgrades. The (Maybe not main, but a big one) reason why armor upgrades exist is to punish people who use low tier units. Unupgraded Zealots vs. +5 Ultralisks are pitiful. And so require attack upgrades to keep up the same level of efficiency with damage that they had at the beginning of the game. Higher tier units get better damage upgrade scaling because they need to outgun the lower tier units. Battlecruisers and Carriers only getting +1 is not giving them any edge in the late game. So I propose they turn into units that attack half as much but deal twice the damage, which gives them +2 damage buffs. It's not extravagant, and it probably won't change the metagame such that everybody build nothing but BCs and Carriers, but it'll make them a little more viable as units.
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.
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.
If you actually read the comments the video had, there is some guy that claims that he did the same test with auto-build on and apparently carriers won easily. Also cliffs help so he can't get to your carriers and kill them, so they can go on and make more interceptors safely. There should be talk about additional units, because not even in late game tvt terrans make just battlecruiser instead it is viking/raven/battlecruiser unit composition. It's basically like saying battlecruisers suck late game tvt because of vikings. I don't even know how anyone can even start theorycrafting with one unit compositions.
I just tried it out in Unit Tester Online, 200 Marines vs. 33 Carriers, auto-build on, and the Carriers once again were butt stomped. Maybe he tried it where the Carriers were 3/3/3 and the Marines were unupgraded?
EDIT: Tried it without Stimpacks, Marines lose handily. Try and come up with a late game situation of Marines Vs. Carriers without Stim.
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.
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.
If you actually read the comments the video had, there is some guy that claims that he did the same test with auto-build on and apparently carriers won easily. Also cliffs help so he can't get to your carriers and kill them, so they can go on and make more interceptors safely. There should be talk about additional units, because not even in late game tvt terrans make just battlecruiser instead it is viking/raven/battlecruiser unit composition. It's basically like saying battlecruisers suck late game tvt because of vikings. I don't even know how anyone can even start theorycrafting with one unit compositions.
While I'm not taking sides on the issue of what should/could be done to make Carriers more viable, I'd like to point out that when I load up the unit tester and do exactly what is shown in that video, even with auto-build enabled, I get pretty much the same result.
In my test, I had 198 supply (33) of carriers, and 198 marines, both with no attack or armor upgrades (or shield). I give the carriers Graviton Catapults, I give the marines Stim Pack and Combat Shield. Attack-moving into each other results in the interceptors being slaughtered much faster than they are rebuilt.
However, when I did the exact same thing but with less supply it didn't hold. With 8 carriers, or 48 supply, versus 48 marines, performing the same test yields the opposite result: the carriers annihilate the marines with no losses if simply attack-moved, if instead I shift-click the carriers the marines are consistently able to focus down 5 of them before they all die. This result seems to hold up at least until 18 (108 supply) carriers versus 108 marines, I didn't test beyond that. So under more realistic numbers of mass carrier versus mass marines, carriers do seem to win.
Ultimately though, as other people have mentioned, neither test is realistic since they both involved two armies each comprised of a single unit, neither army was being micro'd, the relative upgrades aren't likely to be even in real game situation, the costs and build times of the respective armies are nothing alike.
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.
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.
If you actually read the comments the video had, there is some guy that claims that he did the same test with auto-build on and apparently carriers won easily. Also cliffs help so he can't get to your carriers and kill them, so they can go on and make more interceptors safely. There should be talk about additional units, because not even in late game tvt terrans make just battlecruiser instead it is viking/raven/battlecruiser unit composition. It's basically like saying battlecruisers suck late game tvt because of vikings. I don't even know how anyone can even start theorycrafting with one unit compositions.
I just tried it out in Unit Tester Online, 200 Marines vs. 33 Carriers, auto-build on, and the Carriers once again were butt stomped. Maybe he tried it where the Carriers were 3/3/3 and the Marines were unupgraded?
EDIT: Tried it without Stimpacks, Marines lose handily. Try and come up with a late game situation of Marines Vs. Carriers without Stim.
Well, I did say someone claimed that it was the other way around. I don't know he did it, but I guess you should go on and post that replay to youtube so it can be used for future reference, unlike that one video you posted which has caused more than enough bias around the community it seems.
And you try come up a late game situation where terran lets protoss mass carriers instead of killing him right off. I have to say the only problem carrier has is the god awfully long build time and to add to that protoss doesn't even have unit that could hold ground very well like the siege tanks in tvt.
EDIT:
On November 20 2011 09:56 extropy wrote: While I'm not taking sides on the issue of what should/could be done to make Carriers more viable, I'd like to point out that when I load up the unit tester and do exactly what is shown in that video, even with auto-build enabled, I get pretty much the same result.
In my test, I had 198 supply (33) of carriers, and 198 marines, both with no attack or armor upgrades (or shield). I give the carriers Graviton Catapults, I give the marines Stim Pack and Combat Shield. Attack-moving into each other results in the interceptors being slaughtered much faster than they are rebuilt.
However, when I did the exact same thing but with less supply it didn't hold. With 8 carriers, or 48 supply, versus 48 marines, performing the same test yields the opposite result: the carriers annihilate the marines with no losses if simply attack-moved, if instead I shift-click the carriers the marines are consistently able to focus down 5 of them before they all die. This result seems to hold up at least until 18 (108 supply) carriers versus 108 marines, I didn't test beyond that. So under more realistic numbers of mass carrier versus mass marines, carriers do seem to win.
Ultimately though, as other people have mentioned, neither test is realistic since they both involved two armies each comprised of a single unit, neither army was being micro'd, the relative upgrades aren't likely to be even in real game situation, the costs and build times of the respective armies are nothing alike.
Well, that is certainly interesting, although I doubt protoss could keep up with even carrier production compared to terrans marine production in a real game anyway. But like you said, stuff like these most likely won't happen in a real game.
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.
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.
If you actually read the comments the video had, there is some guy that claims that he did the same test with auto-build on and apparently carriers won easily. Also cliffs help so he can't get to your carriers and kill them, so they can go on and make more interceptors safely. There should be talk about additional units, because not even in late game tvt terrans make just battlecruiser instead it is viking/raven/battlecruiser unit composition. It's basically like saying battlecruisers suck late game tvt because of vikings. I don't even know how anyone can even start theorycrafting with one unit compositions.
I just tried it out in Unit Tester Online, 200 Marines vs. 33 Carriers, auto-build on, and the Carriers once again were butt stomped. Maybe he tried it where the Carriers were 3/3/3 and the Marines were unupgraded?
EDIT: Tried it without Stimpacks, Marines lose handily. Try and come up with a late game situation of Marines Vs. Carriers without Stim.
Well, I did say someone claimed that it was the other way around. I don't know he did it, but I guess you should go on and post that replay to youtube so it can be used for future reference, unlike that one video you posted which has caused more than enough bias around the community it seems.
And you try come up a late game situation where terran lets protoss mass carriers instead of killing him right off. I have to say the only problem carrier has is the god awfully long build time and to add to that protoss doesn't even have unit that could hold ground very well like the siege tanks in tvt.
You can test it out for yourself, I really don't feel like goin through all that trouble only to be yelled at because I have my graphics setting set to low.
And yes, we really ought to be considering how we include Zealots/Stalkers/Other Units into the mix when trading armies, but that's not what this thread's about. If someone could do some modding to Carriers or BCs such that they meet my specifications, then test them out in compositions, I'd be overjoyed to see how they fared amongst the war.
Carriers are bad because there is no point in time where a less expensive or equal cost unit (that doesnt take a million years to build) cant do as good or better then them. BCs are actually ridiculously good when you actually use Yomato and upgrade their armor.
They should just replace BC with some new crap like destroyers or something, Terran units are pretty shit after constant nerf from Blizzard. Yes, Marines are a little OP, that's the exchange for having shitty late game units.
I made a topic about Carrier differences between BW and SC2 before and here it is Click.
tl;dr version is that Carrier in BW is better than Carrier in SC2.
Slightly lengthier version is that Carriers in BW could attack move move and regenerate their interceptors while Carriers in SC2 can't. Plus Carriers in BW had +2 armor than they currently have.
I wonder why Blizzard has never really touched or buff the Carrier ever since SC2 release ?
On November 20 2011 15:36 Goldfish wrote: I made a topic about Carrier differences between BW and SC2 before and here it is Click.
tl;dr version is that Carrier in BW is better than Carrier in SC2.
Slightly lengthier version is that Carriers in BW could attack move move and regenerate their interceptors while Carriers in SC2 can't. Plus Carriers in BW had +2 armor than they currently have.
I wonder why Blizzard has never really touched or buff the Carrier ever since SC2 release ?
i hope they toyed with the unit and did internal testing up until the point when they decided to cut it, as opposed to just sitting back and seeing if pros would make them viable.
That has nothing to do with why they suck. Carriers were completely viable in BW in PvT and you see that tech switch pretty common. FBH used BC's against Zerg quite a bit as well (I know the BC shoots differently in BW, but it's not the reason why they're not as good). Besides the somewhat common knowledge now that Carriers are just much worse units to micro around with, the simple answer to why they're not used a lot is quite simply this unit that is low cost, easily mass produced, and has insane AA range, aka Viking. Not to mention they are produced to counter similar units (Colossus) and are produced out of the same common building that every Terran gets (Reactored Starport).
Corruptors serve a not as effective, but similar function to what the vikings do. In conjunction with NP, it's just generally not smart to use them with such a high risk to them. Everything just does way too much damage in this game, making these slow and huge targets way too easy to bring down.
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.
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
Might I suggest you read the original post again? I pretty much explain everything you say I lack. BCs and Carriers are so far on the tech tree that there isn't necessarily a build that will force non-armored units into production a reasonable amount of the time. Battlecruisers and Carriers suck because they don't surpass armor upgrades. The (Maybe not main, but a big one) reason why armor upgrades exist is to punish people who use low tier units. Unupgraded Zealots vs. +5 Ultralisks are pitiful. And so require attack upgrades to keep up the same level of efficiency with damage that they had at the beginning of the game. Higher tier units get better damage upgrade scaling because they need to outgun the lower tier units. Battlecruisers and Carriers only getting +1 is not giving them any edge in the late game. So I propose they turn into units that attack half as much but deal twice the damage, which gives them +2 damage buffs. It's not extravagant, and it probably won't change the metagame such that everybody build nothing but BCs and Carriers, but it'll make them a little more viable as units.
I re-read the OP, and I stand by my argument.
Though I won't argue that Battlecruisers and Carriers would benefit in terms of overall combat value if given a 1/2 fire rate, 2x damage "buff", I will continue to argue that such a change would offer no functional difference in play, but only increase the potency of these units in the rare situations that they are used. It'd be like if they gave the mothership a +10 damage vs light bonus. It'd be a clear buff and noone would argue otherwise, but still anyone who was getting motherships before will continue to get them anyways, and anyone who wasn't going to get them before still won't get them now.
It should be less a question of what can be done to BC/Carriers to make them kill more stuff, and more a question of what role they fill in the game, and how they could better fill that role. Your proposed change does make them more functional as a T3 a-move unit, but that's not the point of the unit, and shouldn't be the point of the game.
Hence I say empty thread, as most "WHAT IF WE JUST CHANGE THIS STAT OF THIS UNIT*" threads are.
But that's precisely my point! If you give Carriers this buff, it'll make their hard counters, namely the Corruptor and Viking, a run for their money. A Corruptor's natural +2 Armor lowers the damage that a Carrier does to it with a volley of Interceptors by 32. 32!!! There's no reason you'd ever want to make Carriers in a situation like that. It's suicide.
And in case you haven't noticed, SCII is a bit of an "a-move" game, with much much much less micro involved than was in Brood War. And unfortunately, there's not a lot that can be done with it since the game's mechanics (Namely pathing and >12 unit selection) make it incredibly easy and efficient to do so. And you can't take that out of the game.
If the Carrier need to be able to "kill more stuff," then you have to propose what that stuff is and propose a way for that to happen. This is not a "CHANGE THIS STAT" thread. My original topic may have been, but I've learned a lot about how people feel that the Carrier needs its micro capabilities back among other things, game mechanics need to change for the Carrier for the Carrier to be better.
I wish they would just trash the Tempest and make the Carrier actually good. If it didn't take two minutes to build it would actually be really cool (and if they made them good against mutas it would be a bonus). Heck, there was a game in GSL with them recently that was really good too. I just wish Blizzard would do something other than garbage them. Same with the Mothership. They get rid of it just when we are figuring it out.
The reason carriers were viable in BW are 1) Carriers had a moving shot that would allow them to attack units at a range of 13 or 14 if micoed properly 2) Interceptors auto healed when they returned to the carrier.
There is also another reason that is a little more complicated but I'll try to go over it. PvT in BW was played completely different than in sc2. Sure you had early pressure builds like 2 fact, but most of the time terrans turtled for a bit before moving out. The timing worked out because when toss got an obs into the terrans base, they would see if a 2 base 6 fact push was coming their way or if the terran was going for 3 base macro play.
These turtle tactics not only gave protoss time to pump carriers off of 2 or 3 stargates while delaying with ground troops, in some situations (especially on certain maps), it was really hard to beat a 200/200 terran army any other way.
In sc2, terran has a lot of early pressure builds that would never allow protoss time to produce carriers.
EPT
?
