|
On November 20 2011 02:44 Muffinmanifestation wrote:Let me explain. The Carrier and the Battlecruiser are both low damage, high rate of fire units. To keep them reasonably balanced with upgrades, their damage upgrades are only +1. If you don't know, a Carrier has 8 interceptors that, when they attack, attack twice, dealing 5 damage a shot, effectively dealing 80 damage per round of assault. The issue with that is when you start facing armored units, or even units with armor upgrades, your damage capabilities fall off the cliff significantly. With a whole round of interceptors, one unupgraded carrier cannot 1shot a +2 armor Combat Shield Marine. Do you know how damn long it takes for a full round of Interceptors to attack? It's a little bit loaded of a scenario, yes, but if you're transitioning into Carriers and your opponent has been going Bio, you're not going to have any upgrades yet! In a similar note, there is no difference between a 3/3 Marine vs. a 3/3/3 Carrier and a 0/0 Marine vs. a 0/0/0 Carrier. Or Battlecruiser for this instance. 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! The answer for balance is not to just increase the damage upgrade of the units. To effectively keep the same theoretical "DPS," the rate of fire also has to be decreased. Back in Brood War, Battlecruisers were pretty awful because they attacked about once every minute (it seemed), but that attack was powerful. I say that Blizzard effectively half the rate of fire, double the damage they do per shot, and make the upgrade +2. Similar vein for the Carrier. Make it so the Interceptors only take one shot, make it so they do 10 damage a shot, and increase the upgrade to +2. On paper, their DPS will be exactly the same, but when carried into the late game they'll be able to hold their ground better. Note: For those of you who will judge me based on my ranking, I'm a mid-level Plat player who's just switched from Terran to Zerg. I hate MMM and Tanks, always opting for something more interesting, even if I lose. I recently switched because of all the bad mouthing I get just for playing Terran. Quit hatin', bros.
My opinion with all due respect
+ Show Spoiler + no offense but someone of your skill level (or lack thereof) cannot be taken seriously regarding balance suggestions and changes. If a GM player posted a similar thread I might give it more credibility
|
Actually they suck because they move too slow, not because of their attack.
Make Battlecruisers as fast as Mutalisks and see what happens :D
|
On November 20 2011 23:31 th2pun1sh3r wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2011 02:44 Muffinmanifestation wrote:Let me explain. The Carrier and the Battlecruiser are both low damage, high rate of fire units. To keep them reasonably balanced with upgrades, their damage upgrades are only +1. If you don't know, a Carrier has 8 interceptors that, when they attack, attack twice, dealing 5 damage a shot, effectively dealing 80 damage per round of assault. The issue with that is when you start facing armored units, or even units with armor upgrades, your damage capabilities fall off the cliff significantly. With a whole round of interceptors, one unupgraded carrier cannot 1shot a +2 armor Combat Shield Marine. Do you know how damn long it takes for a full round of Interceptors to attack? It's a little bit loaded of a scenario, yes, but if you're transitioning into Carriers and your opponent has been going Bio, you're not going to have any upgrades yet! In a similar note, there is no difference between a 3/3 Marine vs. a 3/3/3 Carrier and a 0/0 Marine vs. a 0/0/0 Carrier. Or Battlecruiser for this instance. 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! The answer for balance is not to just increase the damage upgrade of the units. To effectively keep the same theoretical "DPS," the rate of fire also has to be decreased. Back in Brood War, Battlecruisers were pretty awful because they attacked about once every minute (it seemed), but that attack was powerful. I say that Blizzard effectively half the rate of fire, double the damage they do per shot, and make the upgrade +2. Similar vein for the Carrier. Make it so the Interceptors only take one shot, make it so they do 10 damage a shot, and increase the upgrade to +2. On paper, their DPS will be exactly the same, but when carried into the late game they'll be able to hold their ground better. Note: For those of you who will judge me based on my ranking, I'm a mid-level Plat player who's just switched from Terran to Zerg. I hate MMM and Tanks, always opting for something more interesting, even if I lose. I recently switched because of all the bad mouthing I get just for playing Terran. Quit hatin', bros. My opinion with all due respect + Show Spoiler + no offense but someone of your skill level (or lack thereof) cannot be taken seriously regarding balance suggestions and changes. If a GM player posted a similar thread I might give it more credibility
So if I had lied and said I was Masters, you would agree with this? Isn't there something a little bit wrong with that?
|
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.
Wrong on the second part. All of terran's and protoss's units are actually effective in their role. Zerg, well we have no units, so we have to use all of them... except hydras, those are useless.
|
On November 20 2011 23:31 th2pun1sh3r wrote:My opinion with all due respect + Show Spoiler + no offense but someone of your skill level (or lack thereof) cannot be taken seriously regarding balance suggestions and changes. If a GM player posted a similar thread I might give it more credibility
Nice ad potentiam, buddy. Too bad you're probably not in GM and your opinion on his opinion is shit.
Protip: No need to be a chef to tell a truffle from a turd. And obviously, Blizzard and top players share OP's opinion, since the firsts intends to remove one and buff the other, and the seconds just avoid both in 99% of their games.
my 2 cents: terrans got too much long range AA to make any of them good, and will be able to decide whether to engage or to kite. Protoss got too fast AA (stalkers and VR), so they'll force an engage by breaking the range, especially against carriers. And zergs wont give a fuck, walk past to the slow flying turds and rape your base.
Also, they're likely to be mediocre stat-wise. Mostly that.
|
3 Words.
Marines, Stalkers, Hydras.
|
On November 21 2011 10:52 Surikizu wrote:3 Words. Marines, Stalkers, Marines.
Fix'd
|
Now I know it's a bit crazy, but will most people agree with me that the Viking is just a flying Goliath from Brood War? It's shoots two AA missiles at long range (When upgraded in BW) and deals low damage, high RoF ground shots. What would happen if Vikings required an upgrade to get their 9 range similar to Goliaths? Just theorycrafting, here. It'll delay the concept of "Air superiority" when facing Terran at least for a while.
And as for th2pun1sh3r, you may not have noticed, but I'm pretty sure I put forth a very articulate, well thought out idea. You can disregard dumbasses who write reactionary posts, not having given much actual thought into the balance of the game, the state of how people play and how the game is meant to be played, but you cannot throw someone's idea out because of their ranking. If you judge someone by only one detail, then you're being closed minded. Think of the idea, not the person suggesting it.
|
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
100% true...against zerg.
|
Cuz Carriers are fucking awful
|
Carriers are fine. Interceptors, on the other hand, are awful and are just too happy to stay out of the fight and return home...
It's like having a Scarab that self-destructs midair the second you move the Reaver away :S
|
On November 21 2011 13:19 TheWickedDuck wrote:
Cuz Carriers are fucking awful
What exactly are you adding to the discussion by saying what the OP already said?
On topic, if interceptors didn't cost money then I think there would be a lot more use for them. Brood Lords and Infestors get to spawn FREE attacking units (and soon the swarm host as well) that have stackable upgrades as well...I don't know why they can't do that with the Carrier.
|
IMO they should return Carrier to BW style (being able to attack "and" move at the same time with ease), armor +2, and interceptors regaining HP while returning to the carrier.
Not only that but make Fleet Beacon cheaper (maybe 200/200) and build faster.
Mass Carriers isn't good because it's easy to counter but mixing Carriers with your regular army can work well (or doing hidden Carriers, either way). If there was an easier way to mix Carriers with your army then I could see Carrier getting more use.
If they remove the mothership, they can afford to make the fleet beacon cheaper without too much risk of crazy things happening.
In BW Carriers were decent against Terran (no Vikings like in SC2) but bad against Zerg (Scourges). In SC2 it's the other way around (Vikings are too easy to obtain/transition to as Terran while Zerg lacks Scourge).
Additionally if there is less of a risk of overproducing Vikings as Corruptors.
If you overproduce, just land vikings. Corruptors are more at risk of being overproduced (see game with San vs Dimaga for example) because you can't "as easily" transition Corruptors to BL as Vikings (Air) to Vikings (Ground).
I think they should keep the Carrier. Maybe remove the Mothership because it's still kind of broken (archon toilet still works well >.>) but even then if they have a way to fix the Mothership too they should also keep it.
Terran gets to keep most of their units (only unit being gone is the old "Thor" but it's staying as a super unit with a different role). (They should also make another Collector's Edition model for the Warhound or so. Since Thors will be less common, I'm sure many with CE may be disappointed that they don't get to show off their super thors.)
Also Overseer should stay too >.>.
|
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
This. I've 3vs1'ed players multiple times with mass carriers. They have some usage in 1v1. While I understand that I'm merely in diamond league (back in the day I was in high diamond league 2k+ pre-masters when I could play more than once every 2 months) they have a ridiculous output of damage in high numbers. They also do very well with chargelots vs most things that counter them from the ground. You can afford a lot of zealots/warp prisms with carriers, which can help you counter attack and multi-prone attack a fair amount too in the late game. Money dumping on cannons make counter attacks from the other players almost non-existent as well.
The problem is reaching critical mass of carriers is next to impossible. The only time I've been able to do so is when I've gone early air vs Zerg and maintained map control while I pick a third and cannon the crap out of those 3 bases, or when I put my opponent behind significantly with an opening followed by an expo or two. At a pro level where the people are much better about maintaining constant pressure, it'd be *very* difficult to get out enough carriers to make them worth it. They are a waste of resources in small numbers because the interceptors are easy to kill in smaller numbers by lower tier units.
Also Battlecruisers aren't entirely useless - they are very good in TvT end game. They just don't really serve much purpose in the other match-ups.
|
Make Battlecruisers as fast as Mutalisks and see what happens :D
Make Carriers and Mothership as fast as pheonix and see what happens.
I think as a unit itself they don't suck that bad, the suck part is mainly the cost and the build time. You can't be turtling for a couple of decades hoping to get out just a few of them while your opponent doesn't take the rest of the map for himself.
|
Blizzard kept carriers in against their will because the fans were in uproar. Now they can just have a cop-out argument by saying 'we tried, they didn't work.' I don't like that approach. How does replacing carriers with a unit that requires even less micro improve SC2 for spectating? They invited Jangbi to Blizzcon, but did they watch his exciting carrier game that won him an OSL title? I doubt it, because if they did, they would consider buffing carriers or fixing their micro before axing them.
Another issue is that the SC2 map pool is pretty unfriendly for carriers, so the results are skewed. BW had 'carrier maps,' or maps where you could actually safely exploit carriers.
On a positive note, I like the battlecruiser ability in terms of spectating and TvT dynamics.
|
It's not the attacks that make them weak and seldom used. It's the pricy costs associated with building them, the pricy tech needed to construct them, and the slow speed at which they can respond to threats and chase down retreating armies.
The damage itself is justified by their high health/armor and flying (duh) advantage. Tanky, low-medium dps units. See these in every RTS in the planet. Your judgement is off.
|
On November 21 2011 15:18 Satire wrote:Show nested quote +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 This. I've 3vs1'ed players multiple times with mass carriers. They have some usage in 1v1. While I understand that I'm merely in diamond league (back in the day I was in high diamond league 2k+ pre-masters when I could play more than once every 2 months) they have a ridiculous output of damage in high numbers. They also do very well with chargelots vs most things that counter them from the ground. You can afford a lot of zealots/warp prisms with carriers, which can help you counter attack and multi-prone attack a fair amount too in the late game. Money dumping on cannons make counter attacks from the other players almost non-existent as well. The problem is reaching critical mass of carriers is next to impossible. The only time I've been able to do so is when I've gone early air vs Zerg and maintained map control while I pick a third and cannon the crap out of those 3 bases, or when I put my opponent behind significantly with an opening followed by an expo or two. At a pro level where the people are much better about maintaining constant pressure, it'd be *very* difficult to get out enough carriers to make them worth it. They are a waste of resources in small numbers because the interceptors are easy to kill in smaller numbers by lower tier units. Also Battlecruisers aren't entirely useless - they are very good in TvT end game. They just don't really serve much purpose in the other match-ups.
They aren't good in other matchups because its so easy especially on most given tournament maps to just run around the BC's but since tanks are so damn immobile its nearly impossible for a Terran to do that, the speed boost should help at least somewhat in that regard.
|
Honestly with just speed boost for BC I still don't see the use of them, at least I know what Tempest are for. They should just remove the damn BCs.
|
To be honest even as a Brood War fan I don't miss the Carrier and BC. Watching them move about the map at a turtle's pace was so tedious. The Carrier-Goliath dynamic made for good gameplay but not for good spectating. BW BC vs BC are just as terribly boring to watch as SC2 TvT viking/raven wars. 15 minutes of massing up a giant clump of air units and 'microing' them back and forth and back and forth all for a 10 second battle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6235/6364004353_727f9fa2a9_b.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6105/6364003557_5be6e9bb55_b.jpg)
