EPTThe future of the carrier - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hossinaut
United States453 Posts
| ||
ArvickHero
10387 Posts
| ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
On January 22 2012 10:05 Wombat_NI wrote: 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. Quite indeed. I'm normally the first to bring up the dynamic characteristic of language when "grammar-nazis" are around. However, in this case it's not a clear case of a broad popular movement towards the usage of the prefix meta when referring to strategies or tactics. This is a usage of an age old prefix with a widely accepted and understood meaning in a very contained and specific enviroment, namely the starcraft or rts scene. It's not like many other internet slangs that gets rooted in the general population by it being exposed in general communications over the net – this is very confined to a small group on the internet and the use of said prefix is not under much scrutiny from the outside... everyone and his dog is using this term here. I can make up my own words in my private life but that wouldn't mean that the words were a part of the language and that I'm making the language more dynamic – for that you need alot of people and if you want to rewrite meanings of established terms – you need the general population. "meta" is not a fresh internet term to add to the dictionary like in other cases. It has an established meaning – most educated people know what it means and would realize that it was being missused should the "SC2-lingo" be exosed to the sunlight of the outside world. I'm not saying that it can't be turned into an accepted term in the future – but the chance for that happening is quite slim IMO – I'm just saying that people should not be surprised by "outsiders" finding the meta-game term a bit ignorant. | ||
|
Aterons_toss
Romania1275 Posts
In my option we should be talking about ways to convince blizzard not to remove the mothership and fuck up the meta game that way ( rather than buff the carrier ). As for keeping the carrier there since its an "iconic" figure of the protoss, you can always use the carrier modle for the new anti muta aoe air unit... problem solved. | ||
|
DashedHopes
Canada414 Posts
| ||
|
BlueBoxSC
United States582 Posts
 Dur hurr hurr that was funny. But really, losing the Carrier isn't! D:< | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
On January 22 2012 14:24 ArvickHero wrote: Make Carriers microable like they were in BW. It seems to be the most popular suggestion so far and would seem to bring about the most effective change without totally fucking up the game this doesn't do anything about how marines annihilate interceptors though | ||
|
Vaporak
70 Posts
On January 22 2012 09:58 theJob wrote: 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. Strategies are part of the meta game of SC2 because a strategy is not, in the literal sense, a part of the game code being executed on your computer. A strategy is a compilation of information about SC2, not a part of it. | ||
|
bashalisk
102 Posts
| ||
|
50bani
Romania480 Posts
| ||
|
ClydeFrogSC2
United States29 Posts
Now yes, Phoenixes and Void rays are very good units and in Beta we all saw what mass void ray could do, but that is just downright dumb at this point and the units have lost their synergy. The carrier NEVER had synergy, nor did Blizzard ever try to give it any. I really wish Blizzard would address this issue, whether it saves the carrier or not is irrelevant. | ||
|
theJob
272 Posts
On January 22 2012 17:30 Vaporak wrote: Strategies are part of the meta game of SC2 because a strategy is not, in the literal sense, a part of the game code being executed on your computer. A strategy is a compilation of information about SC2, not a part of it. So by that logic any external influence applied on the game should then be considered the meta game. Operating the battlenet 2.0, giving unit commands or building anything at all – these are all happening in the game just like strategies and tactics but are not inherently phenomenon that occurs in starcraft 2 in the absence of a player. In its strictest sense you need external help in the form of processing power and monitors just to display the game thus qualifying the act of running it as a meta-game. When we talk about sports we include the act of playing the sport and thus applying strategies and tactics alike. Just like we don't only include the leather of the ball and the sweat on the players' socks when we say soccer /soccer game – people are not only referring to the binary gamecode when referring to starcraft 2.... especially when referred to in an e-sports context. | ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
In SC2, all strategies start with am opening move with the purpose to give you an advantage in the early to mid game. Trough scouting and small adaptations/fine tunings, each player trys to transition out of his opening and into something to counter the enemy in the mid game. By the mid and mid to late game, the strategies have been fleshed out and the final unit composition for each player starts to unfold. The thing about SC2 though, that final unit compositions isn't a compleatly linear thing you build up too, though it is dependent on the opener. For example, if a protoss decides to do a stargate play vs a zerg in the early-mid game, then his aim is to do some kind of early damage or outright win. If the zerg holds the SG play than the Toss will most likely transition out of SG play and into a GW + Colossus composition to counter mass hydras counter of the zerg, the zerg knowing this will also try to incorporate corrupters into his composition. So in the above case, the SG units didn't serve an effective role outside the initial opening, but they did somewhat set up the path leading to the mid and late games, and decided a unit composition. The totality of all the above actions of, openings, scouting, counter units and counter compositions, that leads up into the final unit composition for each side, is what I call a meta-game. So, when I refer to the current meta-game I refer to the summary of strategies and tactics employed to build up and reach the strongest percieved unit composition for both side. Now, while there are many openings and compositions viable in the early game and mid game. By the late game everything still converges towards the best unit compositions. So, I could say the current meta-game for both Protoss and Terran is very rigid and limited, because, despite the multitude of openings from both sides, in the end Terran still wants MMM supported by Vikings and Ghosts, and Protoss wants a GW army to support Colossus and HT. About TvZ though, I could say it has a much more flexible meta-game, because Terran can go bio-mech (Marines, Tanks, Medivacs into Ghosts, Vikings and Marauders) or pure mech, while zerg can go for a ling, bling muta play and transition into a BW, Infestor Corrupter comp, or a infestor ling comp that transitions into Ling, Ultra and Infestor late game. While some could argue as to how good Ling, Ultra and Infestor is, it depends a lot on circumstances, the openness of the map, rush distance, engagements etc. But both T and Z posess different late games comps while going head to head, so that makes them have a more flexible meta-game. If say mech was to become viable in TvP, than an entire new meta-game could evolve in that case, because new openings, mid game transitions and late game transitions would evolve to lead up into the perfect unit composition for each side. | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
| ||
|
Ssoulle
United Kingdom149 Posts
I really didn't want them to be removed either. I just think its the Build Time and Speed that are the problems. They take too long to come out and they can't even use their 13 range because they can't get out of range of anything in the first place. They are extremely costly yes, but carriers at the back of your army do massive DPS if left alone + the Interceptors can draw fire which for 25 minerals each isn't bad. Late game Toss I find myself with alot of spare minerals anyway since Tech is so gas intensive. Perhaps a speed boost like the BC ? The Carrier is still something like 1.2 and the BC which does about the same DPS is 1.8 | ||
|
StimedSheep
United States51 Posts
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk. Dustin Browder is retarded if he thinks that the Carrier is a SC unit or BW unit only. The Carrier, as the original post said, has to be one of the most iconic units in the Starcraft universe. It bothers me to know end that they neutered it so hard for Wings of Liberty. Quite honestly I was psyched for new units in the SC2 but still wanted my carriers. | ||
|
Igaryu85
Germany195 Posts
I think we have alot of stuff here in this thread which is good and interesting, I do however have a teeny bit to add to that. I believe people are not seeing the Carriers full potential, for it could be used in two pronged attacks. Attacking with your main force on one side of the map and with the carriers on the other. This is probably best against Zerg and especially easy to pull of for people who went SG earlier on to force hydras to then again counter those with collossi. Now if you split your carriers from your mainforce the the opponent will have to split his antiair making it alot harder to either defend the Carriers or the Collossi. (Probably easier for Terran than Zerg but marines for instance build in the main could fall easily to a few Carriers when still in low numbers) A thing that further adds to this multipronged attack theme would be the mothership with recall at the side of either your main army or the carriers, enabling one to Mass recall the army away from the current fight into for instance the opponents main maybe catching the split up antiair off guard or you could get your carriers back into the main fight after he has split up. Just my thoughts on this, I think a speed boost to carriers might allready be enough to fix them and maybe a slight build time decrease but not too much as mass Carrier can be a bit op. Edited: Destructicon ^^ not Destruction Also that meta-game word discussion seems so pointless when talking to the TL audience everyone here knows what metagame means... even if it only does mean this too us SC lovers^^. Also I dont think calling it metagame is entirely wrong because basically we all play our build because we expect our opponents to build A so we build B to work against that. Kinda like in BW you only played mech as terran versus protoss. So we kinda play stuff without knowing all the time what our opponent is doing but we know from experience what our opponents should be doing... | ||
| ||
