On November 29 2011 23:00 See.Blue wrote: Fuck the tempest, give air-only splash to interceptors and keep it. We almost lost it once from BW --> WoL and community reaction brought it back. We can do it again. Love me some carriers. Iconic unit imo
I agree. This immediately came to mind.
May still need that buildtime buff though. That's a pretty serious problem.
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a powerful shield for G to A attacks yet had zero shield from A to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
Edit: Fixed it up after watching the alpha video again (anyone know why my video is not appearing in player form?)
On January 22 2012 06:49 terran0330 wrote: Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a hardened shield for A to A attacks yet had zero shield from G to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
I believe - and Liquipedia agrees - that you've got the old tempest's shields backwards; theoriginal tempest was an anti-ground ship.
I actually kinda liked that ship when I first heard about it, but she was... not very popular. So it goes.
Maybe join the carrier with mothership/arbiter, leave it vulnerable to vikes/corruptors/void rays, but still have a weaker version of vortex (radius like a psi storm, lasts 5-10 seconds), something that could be smartcast, because who the fuck makes 1 carrier?
Basically all problems stem from the colossus dynamic. What counters Carriers? Vikings and Corruptors. Why? One has 9 range, the other bonus damage vs massive. Again, why do they have that? Because the other races need a unit to engage a colossi-enhanced protoss ball.
Now look at ZvP. Zerg say hydra is shit and can't use them. Movement speed is one thing, but another is that they get raped silly by colossi even just by 1-2.
I'm not saying Carriers are fine - far from it. They deserve to be buffed and everything the OP says is true. It's just that by the time they join the battle, the zerg/terran player already has units that counter it on the field.
Carrier DPS is actually pretty good for a toss unit. They can dish out a lot of pain if you don't kill them immediately. They could counter late game broodlords and mutalisk balls which the protoss currently struggle against. They just need the chance to do so. (Well the ~13 minute mutalisk ball is debatable, but after you actually have a meaningful amount of carriers mutas melt)
Blizzard should really give carriers a little push in the back, a nod of approval and let them spread their wings.
On January 22 2012 06:49 terran0330 wrote: Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a hardened shield for A to A attacks yet had zero shield from G to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
I believe - and Liquipedia agrees - that you've got the old tempest's shields backwards; theoriginal tempest was an anti-ground ship.
I actually kinda liked that ship when I first heard about it, but she was... not very popular. So it goes.
Yeah... and why was that? Because it was named Tempest and not Carrier or Carrier 2.0. If they had said: "Hey guys, you know: the carrier was kind of cool in BW, but you know, Protoss are intelligent and have found out that the carrier was mostly used as an AtG battleship. So what they did is: they rebuild their interceptors to shuriken, which are better vs ground, but can't attack air anymore... Basically the new Carrier 2.0 emphasizes on the AtG ground role from BW.", everyone would have cheered and probably noted that the Carrier could be imbalanced, due to the Carrier already being superstrong vs ground in BW. And now Protoss would have the Tempest called Carrier 2.0... which would be a unit that would fit in SC2 balancing, while the "Carrier" doesn't. It just fits no role and I guess it won't unless there are HUGE changes to the metagame (Mech), or huge changes to the balancing (removal of either corruptor or viking or both + all the hundrets of thousands of necessary changes that come with that... removal of colossus, introduction of new air units for Zerg/Terran, buffs/nerfs to units that are right now balanced around the Carrier/Viking/Corruptor etc etc...)
I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
The fundamental problem of carriers is the interceptor cost... They might be worth their money if they just cost the amount in the stargate, but having to rebuild interceptors (who die like flies vs. Terran) means the unit can never be cost effective.
I'd love it if Blizzard tested how much difference it would make if interceptors build a bit slower but are free (maybe make the carrier launch with 6 by default if the buildtime is really slow) that would make it usefull as a sort of hit and run unit lategame (move in, fight until interceptors die, cover retreat with storms).
Simply removing it for the tempest just doesn't feel right. SC without carriers meh, that removes one of the key aspects of protoss for me.
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
I just meant there's still ground counters to collosi that could be reinforced by anti-air. Tanks for Terran, Immortals for Toss, and Corruptors would be still pretty good for Z because of that nice boost vs. massive. Maybe ultras if corruptors don't work.
And for anti-air, the respective units would probably be Thor, Stalker... drawing blanks for zerg. Either infestor or hydra is the best I got.
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
What you're saying, but it is a good example of a word's meaning changing to fill a gap where it is needed to explain something succinctly.
Language does evolve, and in quite interesting ways and here is but one example.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
I just meant there's still ground counters to collosi that could be reinforced by anti-air. Tanks for Terran, Immortals for Toss, and Corruptors would be still pretty good for Z because of that nice boost vs. massive. Maybe ultras if corruptors don't work.
And for anti-air, the respective units would probably be Thor, Stalker... drawing blanks for zerg. Either infestor or hydra is the best I got.
Oh the theoretical composition is by no means uncounterable I wasn't claiming that. I'm just pointing out the curious contradiction of Blizzard claiming they are trying to 'avoid adding units to the deathball' and adding in a unit that seems like it would (tech tree aside) augment existing Protoss deathballs.
Interceptors need to not come back when you pull them away. There should be a distance limit like around 10 or 11 where the carrier attack range remains what it is but until you pull it back the 10 to 11 distance from a unit it is attacking the interceptors should stay out. Also interceptors should get a buff to their hp and shields.
There is an air build that involves early voidray / phoenix harass into mass carriers that give Destiny a lot of trouble. Can anyone say how good this build is or if it's just Destiny being unable to abuse a timing window to kill the protoss before he can get the carriers out?
Even with MASS max supply corruptors vs max protoss air the protoss air kept winning every engagement even when the carriers were being focused down.
EPT
