EPT
Premise
If you do not want the long read, or do not feel like you want to take part in the discussion, then don't. However if you do want to participate, try and do it in a positive way with good observations, arguments and facts, please do this for the carrier's sake.
The objective of this article is quite simply to save the carrier for its inevitable removal in HoTS. The carrier is one of the most iconic unit of SC, not just BW or SC2, in all of the SC universe. It was the carrier flagship Gantrithor that Tassadar crashed into the Overmind to destroy it. In BW it gave us tons of cool games to fondly remember. The carrier is such an iconic unit, and is so loved that, Blizzard couldn't bear to not add it in SC2. And I quote " Dustin said that the Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. He mentioned that if you asked someone what his/her favorite Protoss units were, the Carrier is one that is always near the top of the list."
It is sad to see the Carrier underperform so badly in SC2 and to see so little done on Blizzard's behalf to fix it. But even more sad, I find that the community isn't rallying up to try and defend it. Given how beloved and iconic the unit is how can we allow ourselves to let this happen? I sure as hell don't plan to let this event unfold without a fight, I play terran and still find the carrier an iconic unit that is worth keeping.
To save the carrier we have to be together on this, we have to speak out Blizzard in one united voice and tell them that, we don't want the stupid Tempest, we want our Carrier, we know how good it can be, we know how it can be fixed and we want Blizzard to at least give it a chance.
As soon as this work is complete I'll make a post on Battle.net using the same arguments and solutions I come up with in this article+ the best suggestions and solutions the community comes up with. When the time comes we'll bump this discussion to the front page, week after week month after month, we can spread the word on reddit and tweeter and rally together more support, until hopefully Blizzard listens and at least gives the carrier a patch before HoTS to try it out.
With that said, be warned that this is going to be a very long post, I'll be gathering and displaying a lot of data, picking apart every flaw in the carrier design, extrapolating it and putting it into perspective of the meta game.
Now, with all that said and done, let us move on to the main course.
The Carrier Flaws
First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments.
1. The carrier is too slow to build.
2. The carrier is not micro friendly.
3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades.
4. The carrier is too easy to counter.
5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units
6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile.
Now to put things into perspective.
1 Carrier is too slow to build
To give you an idea just how slow it is, in the time it takes to build a carrier without chrono you can almost build 6 vikings from a single reactored Starport. And even with chrono you can still get 4 vikings, which is more than adequate defense versus Carriers.
For zerg, in the time it takes to make carriers they can build dozens of corrupters thanks to the larva mechanic.
To put it into perspective, the build speed is so slow that, even the Tempest, the replacement for the carrier is supposed to have a build time of 70 seconds without chrono, and even the Battlecruiser, which started life in SC2 with a build time of 110 seconds quickly came down to 90 seconds.
Another way some people have approached this was trying to hide 4-5 SG and the Fleet Beacon, so they can get their carriers out in a reasonable amount of time. The downside to this is, the very big logistics needed. The SG cost 150 M & 150 G each, unless you have integrated protoss air into your build in some way you need to invest between 600/600 and 750/750 just to get the buildings, then another 300/200 for the fleet beacon. You'll also need to be on 4 bases for sure to have enough chrono boost to build all the carriers in a reasonable amount of time.
And on top of that you need to invest 350/250 per carrier per SG for a total of 2100/1500.
Not to mention that you'll have between 24 to 30 supply stuck for at least 90 seconds doing nothing, at a time in the game when each and every supply is vital to stay alive. I doubt protoss can hold of any army with that kind of a supply deficit. And if you lose all your army you lost your support for the carriers. And on top of that you'll have no chrono to support the rest of your army because it is required for the carrier.
In PvZ, against a mostly zerg ground army, it could be a roach, infestor composition that people still like, with maybe a sprinkle or zerglings and swarm hosts come HoTS. This composition could either be from the zerg player's choosing, or forced upon the zerg because of heavy use of a GW army from the protoss.
In this case, the Protoss has a window of time where he can do damage with Carriers if he had them. The carriers are slightly better vs this army then colossus, because they hard counters ground units, and they don't become vulnerable if all of a sudden forcefields are nullified or sentries get destroyed. The downside is, carriers can't be microed (I'll get to that in the next part), which leaves them open to being neural parasited and, if even one of them is spotted, then the zerg has all the time in the world to get enough anti-air and upgrades for when he will have to face the carrier threat.
Against a mech terrain in HoTS carriers could be another response, however the downside here is that, the carriers need to be massed to do any good, and again by the time you can get enough, you'll most likely be destroyed by the terran's timing push.
So there is no doubt about it, the unit is just too slow to build which allows a vast amount of time to counter them, or costs too much with too big of a logistics requirement if you want to power mass them fast.
2 The Carrier is not micro friendly
This is something more related to the AI of interceptors, how they worked in BW and how they work in SC2.
Basically in BW the carrier had the same range as in SC2, the main difference was that when interceptors where launched, they would continue attacking for a couple of seconds even after the carrier was issued a move command.
This is what ultimately made carriers such a loved and interesting unit in BW, you could micro them back and forth, across cliffs and chasms, keep them alive while inflicting punishment.
Let us remember that, even in Brood War, carriers, if you just A-moved them into a group of Goliaths, Hydras or Marines, would still die horribly. The difference between terrible carriers and incredible carriers came down to how well people could control them. There was a gradient of skill on using carriers in BW and that is always a good thing, it makes for exciting games when players can make the most out of their units and sometimes defy the odds based on how good their control is, it helps people shine when they have legendary control as opposed to someone who only has good/average control.
In SC2 that kind of AI doesn't exist, the interceptors return to the carrier immediately once you issue a move command, which makes carriers very un-interesting. They are basically just a big A move unit, and they are very easy to kite since you can hardly ever micro them.
In the current state of the game, a surprising amount of units can be microed, either they have a fast attack animation and turn rate, or they have some sort of ability that makes micro easy.
Marines and Marauders are great to micro because of stutter step thanks to the fast attack speed and turn rate, however Stalkers are equally great to micro thanks to blink. It is a bit unfortunate that Roaches aren't microed as well as they could be given the potential with burrow-heal, but the potential is there. Mutalisks are great to micro, not only for hit and run but also to magic box against the dreaded thor. Vikings can be microed well thanks to their long range.
Helions and Zerglings can be microed too, mostly because of their speed, even if it sounds odd, think of those hit and run scenarios where zerglings run in, do some small damage and then run out before they can die, especially in ZvZ, think of how zerglings can be pulled out just before they die when fighting zealots.
In short, this problem makes carriers a very boring, no skill and no depth unit and continues the trend of making them easy to kite and counter, this is the same reason why we all hated the tempest when we first saw it.
3 The Carrier is the unit dependent most on upgrades
The carrier has 8 interceptors, each interceptor has two attacks of 5 damage, that is a total damage output of 80, with an attack speed of 3. So the DPS is actually 26.6. It isn't too bad, the DPS of a Battlecruiser is very similar at 24. It is also more burst at fist which is good for hit and run.
However this leads to a problem, upgrade scaling. Each upgrade level improves each attack of the interceptor by 1, the damage from interceptor goes from 5 to 6, two attack. So a total of 96 damage. As you can see each upgrade improves the total damage of the carrier by 16, and raises the DPS by approximately 5.33.
However the reverse is equally true, for each armor upgrade the enemy gets damage of the carrier goes down by 16 and the DPS goes down equally.
This might not seem bad out of context since you will want to upgrade the carrier like any unit you get.
However, when you think about it, the carrier comes into the game at a time when most armies are running on 3/3 upgrades and at the very least 2/2. And to make it even worst, the carrier requires its own set of upgrades, which is a problem given that, in the current meta-game the rest of protoss air is hardly viable and its usually not worth getting.
So in most cases the carrier already comes from behind, the protoss needs to time things out in such a way that his +2 or +3 air attack comes out at about the same time the enemy's +2 or +3 armor and about the same time as the carrier comes out. All of this is hard to do and requires a steep investment given the viability of air at the moment.
Now this is mostly a meta-game problem, it is brought by the fact that in most MU's protoss air isn't viable, or its viable only for short periods of time, too short to warrant upgrades. It is unfortunate because this scaling is a bit of a unique characteristic of the unit and one of the things that makes it interesting.
4 The carrier is to easy to counter
This is, in a way the result and summary of all the above points but also merits its own discussion because of the counter units of the carrier, and their role in the meta-game.
The hard counters to the carrier are, vikings and corrupters and the soft counters are marines and hydras.
PvT
Viking
Range 9, acceleration 2.625, top speed 2.75. Those are the only stats that actually matter, because of the following thing stats of the carrier - speed 1.875 acceleration 1.063.
As you can see the viking out-ranges the carrier by just enough to hit and run, and they also move fast enough that carriers can't keep up. This is the same as Vikings vs Battlecruisers, Vikings have just enough range and are just fast enough that they can absolutely decimate BC.
In the case of the Viking, with proper micro you can take out carriers while taking minimal losses, and this is compounded by the problems noted above, like the interceptor AI problem, the upgrade problem and the production problem.
While marines have smaller attacks that are slightly less effective vs carrier base 2 armor, you must remember that marines by this point in the game will get at least+ 2 attack and +3 most likely or very soon while protoss are hard pressed to get weapon damage and armor upgrades are harder to come by.
Marines attack speed with stim is also great. However what marines counter hardest is interceptors.
The attack speed and damage from upgrades, combined with the lack of shield and armor upgrades for protoss air results in interceptors dying absurdly fast and then rendering the carrier useless and vulnerable. This also goes back into the problem with interceptor AI and them not getting healed when they return to the carrier.
However this also goes into a deeper problem, a meta-game problem.
In the current meta-game marines and vikings are all standard play for terrans. Bio terran is currently the only viable way for terran to play versus Protoss, which means they will always get marines, one of the easiest ground units to counter carrier. And because marines and marauders are very light on gas, the terran is free to spend his gas appropriately on medivac and viking. Viking is a core part of the terran army because of its anti-colossus capabilities.
PvZ
Corrupter
HP 200, armor 2, attack speed 1.9, damage 14+6 vs massive, speed 2.953 acceleration 2.625. Corruption +20% damage for 30 seconds.
The HP 200 and armor 2 are the real deal here. Because of interceptor attack mechanics the corrupters are really hard to kill, and with armor upgrades they become very resilient. Corrupters also scale very good from attack upgrades vs massive, getting +2 per upgrade. With Corruption the DPS output vs massive of the Corrupter can even out scale the Viking.
Because of larva mechanics zerg can re-max faster than protoss, if carriers lose their escort and they are left alone vs corrupters they lose badly. Cost effectively though the corrupter isn't so good, at 150/150, however given how zerg armies tend to be more mineral heavy for the lower tiers this can be balanced out somewhat towards the mid to late game and depending how many bases the zerg secures.
Hydras are in the same boat as marines regarding their interaction with carriers, they do double the damage of marines but they attack slower which balances them out. The hydras are even less affected by the carrier base armor because of their higher damage, and they become deadlier with attack upgrades and the lack of armor upgrades from carriers. And again because of their damage output and speed the hydra counters interceptors.
This is another meta-game problem. Currently protoss air, actually encourages the exact follow up units they want to avoid if they go carrier. A protoss air pressure with phoenix and void ray backed up by warp prism and sentry FF, can be very deadly on its own, but it can be held. If the zerg holds, the primary way they do so is with hydra and then adds roaches for an attack. The protoss knows he has forced hydra so he transitions out of air play into colossus, the zerg, knowing this, transitions into corrupter, which is a great follow up because it both counters colossus and sets up for the brood lord follow up.
The biggest problem here is that, Carriers are countered by some of the most common units in the meta-game. Marines are the backbone of terran armies in a lot of situations and match-ups. Vikings are practically a requirement due to the current meta-game being bio oriented vs protoss.
As for zerg, while the hydra wasn't the most popular unit for a long time it has started to make a comeback in certain strategies and as a response to certain builds. Same as the corrupter, in most cases the corrupter is a natural transition for zerg armies so they can later get brood lords.
5 The carrier's roles and weaknesses seems to overlap that of other units
I think people, to a large extent, see the carrier as a sort of ultimate late game tech unit, and because it is so late game it must share the same role as the colossus and so the two cancel each other out. This isn't entirely true, while carriers and colossus do share some similarities, when you look at them in depth you'll find they are worlds apart, and I'll talk more about that later on.
However to a large extent the very hard counter of colossus, the viking and the corrupter are also hard counters for the carrier. This is a big problem because the protoss has almost no opportunity to make a viable tech switch to Carrier.
Terrans need to get Vikings by default because of colossus, which also works in handy against warp prism micro and hard counters carriers.
Corrupter is a natural choice for late game zerg to transition into Brood lords later.
Given the current meta-game this doesn't look like it will change.
The role of the carrier might seem like it over-lapses that of the Void Ray as well. Void rays could be used to wreck terran mech or zerg ground. However this is mostly a result of how poorly the carrier was handled till now.
With some changes the carrier could fit a newer more interesting role that is distinct from both that of void rays and colossus. However in its current state it just doesn't deliver.
I assure you, this problem is actually not as large as you may think, this is something that could fix itself a long with the fixing of the carrier in the points I touched upon above, and along with a meta-game shift.
The biggest issue here is the meta-game, it is just too one dimensional in regards of PvT, and PvZ in the late game, however this won't always be so.
6 The carrier's interceptors are too fragile
Another key change that took place in the transition from BW to SC2 was the removal of the interceptor's heal once they returned to the carrier. Basically interceptors where always weak to marines and hydra's, even in BW, but at least they could be healed once they returned to the carrier. And they needed to be healed since they also spent more time fighting due to the different AI as explained in point 3.
Also note, the HP and shields of interceptors have not changed from BW to SC2. Interceptors have 40 HP and 40 Shields. However they did have 4 range. This 4 range was important because interceptors would spread out more and be less vulnerable against splash and be more easily protected.
If carriers could be microed the way they used to in BW, then interceptors would spend more time fighting, however if they spent lots of time fighting they take damage and eventually get destroyed.
I believe that given how fragile interceptors are, if the game where to drag on long enough after carriers were made, the costs to maintain the interceptor fleet could outweigh the benefits of the carrier, the costs could ramp up way beyond what you payed to get carriers.
A carrier costs 350 minerals and comes with only 4 interceptors, so you need to invest another 25 minerals per interceptor to make the max 8 that the carrier can hold. Now, if you lose all interceptors from say 6 carriers, you just lost almost 50% of the value of the carrier, or 1200 minerals. If you lose all interceptors again you lost a bit more than 100% the value of the carrier, or 2400 minerals and so on.
Interceptors absolutely need some extra survivability, it is bad enough that you wait a long time to get carriers, you don't want to have to wait another two minutes to re-max on interceptors.
I think this cost is too prohibitive on the carrier, a unit that already takes too long to build and is too easy to counter with not enough ways to micro. There is no equivalent in game to this.
Conclusion regarding weaknesses
While some of the more obvious weaknesses of the carrier, the build time, cost and interceptor AI can be fixed, some of the other weaknesses come in the form of the meta-game.
In the current meta-game protoss air is viable only in a very short window of time, too short to warrant upgrades, which leads to increased costs of the carrier when the switch is needed. In the current meta game the carrier comes into the game against compositions that counter it very hard.
There is however light at the end of the tunnel. That very light is Heart of the Swarm, with its new units it promises to change up the meta-game so much that, it could foster in a new era of strategies and tactics, one in which carriers have a role.
Terran mech against protoss might become viable thanks to the battle helion and warhound. While more ground orientated late game strategies could surface for zerg against protoss.
But now you may be wondering, exactly where does the carrier fit?
Is there a place in SC2 for the Carrier?
Surely void rays can abuse terran mech and zerg ground well enough, surely colossus and/or storm could be better in those situations where void rays aren't good, right? Wrong!
Once buffed, carriers would have a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from both void rays and colossus, and makes them useful in situations where neither is. First lets analyze the current differences between them.
Void rays to steady DPS, they are not suitable for hit and run and they have range small enough to make them vulnerable when they engage. However the carrier already has a range long enough to assault positions that would put void rays in too much peril. The most differentiating factor however, is the way damage is dealt. When the carrier's interceptors come out they do so at almost the same time, and then they attack at almost the same time. So carriers actually deal 80 damage in a couple of seconds. This is massive, it allows the carriers to burst down certain key units or structures and then retreat to safety, something that is impossible for void rays to do.
The only reason it isn't viable now is, again the match-up, but also because of the mechanics I discussed about in the above sections.
So we see the carrier's new role emerge, it now becomes a long range air siege unit, doing hit and run with its interceptors, bursting down key units/buildings and retreating before it can be harmed.
Now you may ask, doesn't the colossus fulfill the same role? Yes and no, the colossus is a very flexible unit, it does have cliff walking allowing it to attack from angles that would normally be impossible for most ground units, and it does have a long range, it feels a lot like the carrier, but that is where the similarities end.
Again a key difference comes in how attacks work. The colossus does a pair of aoe attacks in lines parallel to the colossus position, not perpendicular like the helion. So the colossus excels against mass bio or mass zerg ground, that is their role, to obliterate ground units.
The colossus however would be terrible against a well spread out and well protected tank position. Tanks deal bonus damage to armored, and they out range colossus by a substantial amount. They can also be spread in such a way as to minimize aoe while still maximizing damage output.
Ultimately the colossus is still a ground unit, they can't go everywhere, but carriers can. And carriers more focused attacks make them way more effective against other kinds of units.
And while they do share some weaknesses, like vikings and corrupters, they don't have all of them.
Imagine a map, say Metalopolis, late game, in a split map situation where terran has established a fortified line on each side of his gold base/planetary. A very difficult position to attack into thanks to the terrain, the big gaps between bases the narrow roads the space in between golds. Usually perfect for terrans. If you add a viable carrier to the mix, it turns the entire thing on its head.
The terrain terrans used to love is now being used against them, carriers are doing hit and run from across the big chasms in between bases, sieging the terran's gold base, not allowing him to mine, eroding the tank line bit by bit.
The carrier, being an air unit is not in danger of the tank's huge range and damage, and it doesn't care how spread tanks are, it can come in and burst them down before the terran has time to react.
The carrier's traditional role of, anti-mech has always held true, even in Brood War, I do believe it could hold true even in HoTS and possibly and any number of other as of yet unforeseen scenarios of the expansion.
So, I do believe the answer is a resounding yes. The carrier does have its place in SC2, it has a unique set of features that make it great in certain situations where colossus and void rays won't cut it. The carrier just needs some help to get it on track.
Main conclusion
I hope I've been able to do a good enough job of explaining why the carrier is bad at the moment, but also to explain how and why it could be very, very good in the future meta-game.
Let us not forget that, HoTS is not here and it is not final, lots of things can change till then, the match-ups can all evolve a lot till then and will develop even more after that. However, some things don't change, the fundamentals are there for carriers to be a great addition to the protoss fleet, the potential, the future meta-game the terrain.
It is impossible to hypothesize exactly how the carrier will perform in this ever shifting environment, that is why we need to push for Blizzard to include it in the beta of HoTS, so we can run tests and flesh out all of its potential.
Now it is your turn as a community to speak on behalf of the carrier. Please voice your thoughts here in as precise a manner as possible. I don't mind if you take my arguments about the future meta-game apart, as long as you pinpoint problems in an exact way and also suggest solutions we might be able to fix all the problems.
Again, this is for the future of the carrier, do we really want the carrier to fade quietly into the night? Do we want to sit quietly and observe this crime take place, without any action on our behalf? Do we really want one of the most iconic units in SC to be gone possibly never to be seen again?
NO we don't, now lets make it happen! Lets make Blizzard take notice!
