The future of the carrier - Page 11

On January 19 2012 08:00 Sadist wrote:
carrier is strong as fuck vs mech. Thats about all I can think of using it against.

On January 19 2012 07:36 FeyFey wrote:
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 07:52 Destructicon wrote:
@ 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.

On January 19 2012 08:37 Belisarius wrote:
There's two things here that OP seems to have overlooked.

The first is that carriers are actually really good in PvZ, just absurdly hard to get to. A late game carrier/mothership/storm deathball turns out to be borderline broken.

PvT, the problem is SC2's smarter targeting. Autotargeting and instant shot means a marine ball efficiently melts interceptors the instant they fly near it. They never live long enough to do damage, and don't confuse armies like they did in BW. Combine that with their reduced range and lack of regen, and the most expensive unit in the Protoss arsenal is completely useless against mineral-only T1. If Terran went mech, carriers would be really useful... but no terran in his right mind goes mech against protoss.

Personally, I'd be interested to see reduced targeting priority for interceptors tried out. I think it would help without breaking them completely. I'd also be happy to see the mothership removed in return for stronger carriers to stop the ball being completely broken lategame PvZ. It would be nice to bring back the ninja cliff-attack as well, for carriers and broodlords.

On January 19 2012 09:01 emc wrote:
the void ray exists, so that's that. voids are better than carriers and a gateway army that can warp in anywhere with a warp prism is more mobile. Archons, Colossus and Storms are all you need and even the mothership is actually useful with vortex, recall and cloak.

It's being removed from HotS and I can see why... Whatever though, Zerg and terran lost a ton of great stuff from BW so don't give me that crap about how the carrier is a staple unit from BW and needs to remain in the game. The tempest with the right balancing will be a much better unit.

On January 19 2012 08:38 vicml21 wrote:
I personally believe most (if not all) Protoss Air has some issues I hope they address in Heart of the Swarm. But sticking to the carrier...

I think one of the reason carriers aren't used (aside from the fact that theyre easily countered and arent cost effective atm) is because theres no reason to get Fleet Beacon at the moment unless you plan on building Carriers or a Mothership. So I wanted to know from others, If there were upgrades for Phoenixes and Void Rays at the Fleet Beacon (or whatever HOTS basic air) (and the Carrier got some kind of buff making it more viable in terms of cost or damage) do you think there might be a window where there could potentially be a safer transition into carriers? Just wondering what others thought.

I compare it to sairs in BW, where, in order to get disruption web, you needed a fleet beacon, or for scout upgrades. So once you got these upgrades, you could choose to start building up carriers if you wanted. I thought this might encourage some more carrier use, because I really like the way they did it in BW in terms of design.

On January 19 2012 10:12 javert wrote:
I suspect Blizzard made the carrier suck on purpose. For some unknown reason they hate it (too reminiscent of BW? Requires a lot of AI to be good?)and they only put it on WoL due to the massive demand; however, the complete absense of buffs in patches reveal they really don't want it to be playable. This way, they can claim that Carriers are unpopular and hated among Sc2 only players and that they are listening the audience when taking them out. Prediction: as uninteresting as the Tempest may be, it will be buffed as hell and easily massed, so when noobs start loving them Blizzard can gloat on the success of their decision.