|
sigh again a post over carriers with the same flaws posted that just aren't true. The only flaw it has is that interceptors don't reproduce fast enough, i want to chrono my carriers.
Also there were ninja changes :3. Imo they should give carriers and bcs a 4th weapon upgrade and if they would add another upgrade for the carriers (for example the 4 interceptors at the start), they wouldn't be so damn strong earlygame, where there can never be enough anti air out to fight them. That way they could buff the interceptors durability (if they wouldn't die so fast you had no chance as terran against fast +1 carriers).
PS: carriers always had a long build time, but now they get 4 interceptors at the start, you can even chrono them, if they would remove that and reduce the build time by 4 interceptors. It would be a tiny bit faster without chrono, but with chrono it would be slower and since you want to chrono them, this way its better.
The problem with carriers is easy though, they already are damn strong, same like ultras, but as every t3 unit you cannot mass them. Thats why blizzard can't buff them really without making them imbalanced.
Also i guess they know we want them back, so they will find a way with the last expansion, though i hope they won't do a spidermine and give it to another race.
|
4713 Posts
On January 19 2012 05:49 drop271 wrote:
@OP
Where is the 'why' in your article? In making a case for retaining the carrier, which seems to be your central point, you seem to overlook why it should be retained? You do briefly mention sentimentality, canon, and its role in Brood War, but to an extent those are irrelevant. In SC2, is having it important?
The argument you follow with regards the faults of the carrier. Fine. Blizzard know this, thats why they are removing it. How does that relate to your first point?
The reason I want the carrier to be fixed/made useful and kept in the game is because.
1st I believe it could be one of the coolest late game units in the game, with the micro-able siege abilities of BW esque carriers. But more importantly.
2nd I believe it could serve a purpose in the future meta-game. If terran mech becomes much more viable, and if it starts becoming usable in TvP. Than the carrier could serve its traditional BW purpose of anti-mech unit (with proper support of course).
The reason for this is, because terran mech is very gas intensive and doesn't allow much room to get vikings. Being mech, it marines won't make an aperance or will less effective. Mech is also slow, carriers are flying units so they are more mobile by that virtue alone. And also carriers can attack sieged tanks without the risk of getting blown apart, unlike colossus.
I also believe it might become more viable in PvZ, however I am less sure how the meta-game of PvZ will evolve in HoTS.
There are many ifs in there, and it depends a lot on how the Warhound will turn out towards the end.
I hope that answers your question.
I want to keep the unit in the game, not only because its an iconic unit, and not only because it has the potential to be micro-able and cool. But also because I legitimetly believe it could fit into the HoTS meta-game.
Edit: Day9 has also posted about 2-3 weeks ago that White-Ra is experimenting a lot with Carriers. I hope he found something cool about them to work with.
|
most likley I'm wrong, but i have this weird feeling that blizzard is not really intending to replace the carrier with the tempest, that its all a bluff (for whatever reason). i mean, i can't believe that the tempest is the best they came up with. its so boring and onedimensional. it's a tier 3 unit and it's only purpose is to counter mass mutas. this is just bad unit design. compared to the other new units, it feels like a joke.
|
On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote:
I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice.
Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers?
edit: apologies, you're were meaning PvZ
|
The carrier needs to be tweaked a bit to be a long-range, micro based unit with a TON of damage potential again. The current interceptor's damage is way too mitigated by enemy natural or upgraded armor. More than anything though, I want the carrier to be something protoss could use against the infestor/BL doom army of zerg late game that would be balanced, but not rely on something silly like an instant kill for an entire army. Hopefully this would include the old micro trick or something like it, to encourage it to be more than just a flying colossus that doesn't do splash sitting over a deathball Of course, this would also mean blizzard would have to nerf, remove, or replace the vortex. And I'm okay with that.
|
On January 19 2012 06:22 sitromit wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 05:52 aderum wrote:On December 04 2011 07:07 ArcticRaven wrote:
The carrier, iconic unit ? Maybe. Fix hydras so they are useful, first, then we'll see. what in the holy banana are you trying to say? I can agree that the hydra isnt optimal, but you still see it in ~50(+-20) % of ZvP. We never see carriers, and if we do its b/c someone is so far ahead they could fart their way into victory. Watch the last game of the recent White-Ra vs Nerchio showmatch and tell me White-Ra was "so far ahead" when he wiped out Nerchio's base with Carriers.
The point is that with the resources and time that White-Ra invested in carriers he would probably have already won if he invested it in winning the game immediately. You have to be far ahead before you can sink a massive amount of resources into getting carrier tech. In close matches people simply can't afford to dump the huge amount of resources required with such a large timing window for their opponent to exploit.
|
On January 19 2012 06:54 drop271 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote:
I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice. Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers?
I get you, but per my post, I was talking about PvZ.
EDIT: I'm not saying the carrier doesn't need to be changed, but as it is, I think in PvZ, it's a legitimate lategame unit when going zealot/archon.
Think about it. You already have the stargates from going early void. As you push the Z with Zealot/Archon with a few voids in the mix, build a fleet beacon and queue 2 carriers. Since Zealot/archon is so mobile, they are a perfect escort.
|
I just want to quickly suggest a reason for keeping the it in the game, more than just appealing to "role", you keep it in the game because it is pretty awesome looking and (should) be pretty awesome to play with.
I just want to remind people that we are still playing a game here, and while balance is important, having tier 3 units that feel seriously badarse, look cool, feel awesome, is just as important.
And and that is where alot of the appeals from BW fans like me come from, it was a unit you could build late game-ish, rather just when you have a ridiculous advantage, would hit the field, and then proceed to wreck havoc on enemy units with the storm of protoss anger, accompanied with the delicious sound of multiple interceptors firing.
And to me, as a (bad) player and spectator, that is the important issue, I want there to be a late game protoss air unit, that feels great to use and see used, and doesn't require a silly advantage to use.
If this unit comes out of game updates, or changes in the way people play the game, remains to be seen.
|
Good writeup!
From a lore perspective I think it would be neat to retire the carrier after Tassadar's bold move.
|
On January 19 2012 07:01 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:22 sitromit wrote:On January 19 2012 05:52 aderum wrote:On December 04 2011 07:07 ArcticRaven wrote:
The carrier, iconic unit ? Maybe. Fix hydras so they are useful, first, then we'll see. what in the holy banana are you trying to say? I can agree that the hydra isnt optimal, but you still see it in ~50(+-20) % of ZvP. We never see carriers, and if we do its b/c someone is so far ahead they could fart their way into victory. Watch the last game of the recent White-Ra vs Nerchio showmatch and tell me White-Ra was "so far ahead" when he wiped out Nerchio's base with Carriers. The point is that with the resources and time that White-Ra invested in carriers he would probably have already won if he invested it in winning the game immediately. You have to be far ahead before you can sink a massive amount of resources into getting carrier tech. In close matches people simply can't afford to dump the huge amount of resources required with such a large timing window for their opponent to exploit.
No, he wouldn't have, have you watched the game? He wasn't ahead in economy, he rushed to Carriers.
|
On November 29 2011 22:13 Destructicon wrote:
...
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.
...
Good write-up. I especially agree with points 2. and 4. (especially vikings). Microing carriers in BW was one of the most fun things to do :l
|
I dont know about it's future. The issue with it is that it can become too powerful and protoss already got good air units vs Z so if you buff it too much it can easily become too powerful.
I think it's a good idea to remove a brute powerful air unit and replace it with a unit that have a specific purpose. If they would buff the carrier I feel like it's a Voidray 2.0 that's stronger. The new air unit for protoss (forgot the name) has a specific purpose while the carriers purpose is right now unclear
|
I'm digging the idea of interceptors (or perhaps the carrier it self?) having an Air to Air AOE attack. I hope they can salvage the unit, it seems too "iconic" to remove :/ Then again, so did the Lurker...
|
The carrier is beyond salvage really. The role just overlaps too much with the colossus, buffing the carrier too much could simply replace the colossus with the carrier in many ways.
Some say it has some minor uses in PvZ but I don't see it, it's just a terrible weak slow unit imo that dies way too fast to some corruptor focus. All the idea's to fix it are nice like making it more microable and making it faster to build etc. but it either will be buffed so much it practically replaces the colossus or it will still be too weak. The only difference with the colossus really is that the carrier can hit air, but in many cases that aspect is of minimal importance.
I like the idea of the tempest quite a bit actually so why not simply replace it with that. An AoE air attack might be interesting that it can kill mass muta (yeye.. it's slow but you could camp one over a base and bring one with your army perhaps) and it might not be hard countered by viking anymore because they stack quite a bit.
|
I play Protoss to this day because my 1st glimpse of bw, in '98, was of a player using them. Good luck with your petition!
|
Oh before to many false information is spread. Interceptors never return to the carrier unless their target leaves their range of return which is 13 aroundish. The other point where they return is if their target is destroyed and they are on move command.
So yeah they are not easy to micro, but it is possible to move the carriers while constantly having your interceptors out doing damage. Which is the reason why the interceptors die so fast, because they never return to home unless you want that or the enemy is destroyed.
That being said you can actually micro interceptors in sc2, by microing the carrier, which wasn't possible in bw, they attacked did their shots and returned.
Oh and to not have the interceptors return its fairly easy if the opponent is chasing, its basically like kiting with marines, just that you have to do it when a unit enters red health, the interceptors will kill it a second later, get their new target since the carriers are on attack, and you can move again. Imo its super easy against corrupters and vikings. And if you micro them seperatly its even better.
So microability is way greater then in bw, maybe thats why they aren't as good anymore. Since people just want to shoot their interceptors fly away till they return and do it again. Which requires almost no micro.
Anyway carriers are a good unit, sad to see them go, but against zerg air you need an anti air aoe, and sadly templars die to fungal, though carriers are perfect to snipe infestors against corrupter broodlord combos.
edit: haha i like the aoe idea, suicidal interceptor, shoots an interceptor that is red and abit slower and does air aoe damage, but is snipable. Yay terror and reaver feeling in one unit.
|
On January 19 2012 07:02 quistador wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 06:54 drop271 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote:
I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice. Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers? I get you, but per my post, I was talking about PvZ. EDIT: I'm not saying the carrier doesn't need to be changed, but as it is, I think in PvZ, it's a legitimate lategame unit when going zealot/archon. Think about it. You already have the stargates from going early void. As you push the Z with Zealot/Archon with a few voids in the mix, build a fleet beacon and queue 2 carriers. Since Zealot/archon is so mobile, they are a perfect escort .
Apologies, as you can see I didn't read your post properly 
On January 19 2012 06:47 Destructicon wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On January 19 2012 05:49 drop271 wrote:
@OP
Where is the 'why' in your article? In making a case for retaining the carrier, which seems to be your central point, you seem to overlook why it should be retained? You do briefly mention sentimentality, canon, and its role in Brood War, but to an extent those are irrelevant. In SC2, is having it important?
The argument you follow with regards the faults of the carrier. Fine. Blizzard know this, thats why they are removing it. How does that relate to your first point? The reason I want the carrier to be fixed/made useful and kept in the game is because. 1st I believe it could be one of the coolest late game units in the game, with the micro-able siege abilities of BW esque carriers. But more importantly. 2nd I believe it could serve a purpose in the future meta-game. If terran mech becomes much more viable, and if it starts becoming usable in TvP. Than the carrier could serve its traditional BW purpose of anti-mech unit (with proper support of course). The reason for this is, because terran mech is very gas intensive and doesn't allow much room to get vikings. Being mech, it marines won't make an aperance or will less effective. Mech is also slow, carriers are flying units so they are more mobile by that virtue alone. And also carriers can attack sieged tanks without the risk of getting blown apart, unlike colossus. I also believe it might become more viable in PvZ, however I am less sure how the meta-game of PvZ will evolve in HoTS. There are many ifs in there, and it depends a lot on how the Warhound will turn out towards the end. I hope that answers your question. I want to keep the unit in the game, not only because its an iconic unit, and not only because it has the potential to be micro-able and cool. But also because I legitimetly believe it could fit into the HoTS meta-game. Edit: Day9 has also posted about 2-3 weeks ago that White-Ra is experimenting a lot with Carriers. I hope he found something cool about them to work with.
I see what you mean, but your 2nd point is simply a matter of having it in order to balance something that doesn't need balancing (mech).
So you just come back to the first point - its cool and we want it. I guess that can't really be disagreed with. Opinions are opinions!
|
Saying that it is the unit that most dependent on upgrades is a statement that feels like it has a lot of bias.
I think it would be quite easy to argue that ultras and bcs are equally as easy to counter without upgrades.
|
They just can't do it. Just remember the cinematics from SC1 and BW, the carriers, the battlecruisers... zerg had.. guardians and mutas flying in space (??!?!)
but they all had capital 'things.' A carrier... was like the scary ass blimp from Red Alert 2, Kirov?? Okay, when I first played Ra2 online, I was the allies and I was just chillin, scout with a dog, making G.I.'s and putting them in those weird APC things, and then the guy comes to my base with ONE fucking blimp and destroys everything
okay fast forward, I'm playing BW, I am terran, I don't know what I am doing. Protoss knows it. He gets like 12 carriers and enters my base like "sup guys" and tears shit up
These blimps always leave their mark on my mind. I believe HoTs is ... not going to do so. I'm not going to wake up having nightmares about that one game where the guy massed MOTHERSHIPS
|
4713 Posts
@ drop271
I think this is where our points of view differ. With the addition of battle helions and warhounds, terran mech will change a lot. It is quite possible that the way mech is played in HoTS will be substantially different than now, and it also raises the possibility of there being a place for the carrier as another response. Maybe Zealot, Archon, Immortal could still work against HoTS mech, but Carrier and Air toss could work too, and its always good and healthy for the game to have options.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
