EPTThe future of the carrier - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ILoveAustralia
Bangladesh104 Posts
| ||
|
Condor Hero
United States2931 Posts
How many times did they tinker with the BC? Yet not one change to the Carrier before taking it out? Another facepalm decision. Natural hard counters already exist in the metagame so I don't understand why they wouldn't mess around with some stats. Does anyone really think Carriers will be the OP thing if they built in 90 secs instead of 120? | ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
I think that Protoss air is just not a viable route and any match up and hence investing in a tier 3 capital ship is impossible as you forgo the investment in the ground army that is there to keep you alive and win the game. I think this is mainly because of the Void Ray, VR openings work well in PvZ to pressure the Zerg, especially those with a fast third. But after that they are redundant, too slow to micro ground-to-air units and inefficient in cost to DPS when compared to ground armies. The Star Gate tech route for toss needs to be more viable in general, needs to have more flexiblity mid-game in order for their to be sufficient investment in upgrades for tier 3 air units to come into effect. I also like your point about the Carrier's role/weaknesses seeming to overlap with those of other units. I think overall the Toss army structure leaves a lot to be desired, the key buff I'd say would be to drive a wedge between counters for Carrier and Collosus. That's be an intersting start. (I'm gonna stop now as I can hear myself theorycrafting....) On November 29 2011 23:24 Plexa wrote: That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with... Further, the article isn't calling for the BW carrier to return rather that we don't let the carrier simply be removed without any shred of effort to improve the unit. I mean, the BC is getting a fucking redline reactor for crying out loud and ultralisks are getting charge. Adding a skill gradient to the carrier (while making it marginally more accessible) would go a long way to improving the unit and improving the game. Well said. I was actually very suprised to hear blizz flat out remove the carrier without hardly any tinkering. | ||
|
Condor Hero
United States2931 Posts
"It came down to a choice between the Mothership and the Carrier." Both units gone in HotS. What the fuck is going on. | ||
|
Mephyss
Brazil128 Posts
Carriers will be gone in HoTS, but not in WoL and Blizz said they will be "independent" multiplayer games (they will have their own ladders and so). So they will and they should do any change and tweak to make WoL better. | ||
|
Darksoldierr
Hungary2012 Posts
I wonder why they never tried to buff the carrier and / or instead of the mothership. I really dont like the idea nor the gameplay design for the tempest. Tho probably with the smarter ai, carriers wouldn't have that much use like in BW, ther goliaths kept getting confused while trying to catch carriers without really amazing control, in sc2 its so easy to control armies, i dont think so your point of being able to abuse terrain / chockes would be that big of a deal. Specially that everyone can see up if a flying unit or colossus shoting from the high ground, back than you had to throw a scan there | ||
|
BrosephBrostar
United States445 Posts
On November 29 2011 23:24 Plexa wrote: That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with... Further, the article isn't calling for the BW carrier to return rather that we don't let the carrier simply be removed without any shred of effort to improve the unit. I mean, the BC is getting a fucking redline reactor for crying out loud and ultralisks are getting charge. Adding a skill gradient to the carrier (while making it marginally more accessible) would go a long way to improving the unit and improving the game. The carrier is like the appendix. It used to be good for something but all it does now is take up space. The only real way to make the carrier useful again is to recreate the situations that made it good in the first place, and Blizzard has zero interest in doing that. On November 29 2011 23:34 Archybaldie wrote: But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role. So is the colossus compared to the reaver. So is the roach compared to old hydralisks. So is the corruptor compared to scourge. So is the marauder compared to siege tanks. Come on guys I thought SC2 was supposed to be a new and different game. If you want BW then why not play BW? | ||
|
Taiyoken
Canada130 Posts
The Star Gate tech route for toss needs to be more viable in general, needs to have more flexiblity mid-game in order for their to be sufficient investment in upgrades for tier 3 air units to come into effect. Really? There are completely viable stargate openings for PvX. Zerg is FFE into 1/2 stargate, vs Terran you can go 3 gate/stargate and it's suddenly a very very powerful allin, vs Toss, stargate is becoming more and more popular vs most openers. Also the BC sucked worse than carriers before, that's why it got changed. It was ridiculously slow and didn't have 11 interceptor firing range so it literally could not escape any danger or siege from the air. The damage was put so it fired more regularly or it basically wasn't hitting anything, afaik it still does the same DPS but it's more sustained rather than burst. Also comparing BCs to Carriers isn't the best comparison because a mass fleet of BCs will still lose to any antiair too, it's when coupled with Ravens and Vikings that they ramp up in power. Carriers become stronger coupled with a Mothership and Void Rays, however these are more expensive and time consuming to build than Raven/Viking. As far as LATE GAME potential goes, Toss has a remarkably strong late game due to warp gates. Building mass WGs once you get 200/200 and just warping in a whole new army once you fight is probably a lot more desired than building like 3 carriers at a time. If you want the Carrier to surpass this in late game viability then it might be a bit ridiculous. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On November 29 2011 22:22 Monasou wrote: Its..not..Good..? I could see where you would want to save the integrity of the unit, but the sad thing is - It isn't the carrier we know and love. From Starcraft: Brood War we had this giant ship that destroyed buildings and armies with EASE, and you know what? We'd love for it to be in Starcraft 2 - but there isn't a place for it. The reason the carrier isn't the carrier we love from Brood War, is because it would be so fucking good it wouldn't even matter what you'd throw at the protoss - It would kill you. I'd like to hear a counter to Archon - Voidray - Colossus - Carrier (From Sc1) There wouldn't be. It would dominate the hell out of anything. That's why it was so poorly demoralized in Wings of Liberty, and that'ss why its going to be scrapped in HOTS Lol, the counter is called Vespene Gas  | ||
|
osudude
4 Posts
| ||
|
Deleuze
United Kingdom2102 Posts
On November 30 2011 00:10 Taiyoken wrote: Really? There are completely viable stargate openings for PvX. Zerg is FFE into 1/2 stargate, vs Terran you can go 3 gate/stargate and it's suddenly a very very powerful allin, vs Toss, stargate is becoming more and more popular vs most openers. Also the BC sucked worse than carriers before, that's why it got changed. It was ridiculously slow and didn't have 11 interceptor firing range so it literally could not escape any danger or siege from the air. The damage was put so it fired more regularly or it basically wasn't hitting anything, afaik it still does the same DPS but it's more sustained rather than burst. Also comparing BCs to Carriers isn't the best comparison because a mass fleet of BCs will still lose to any antiair too, it's when coupled with Ravens and Vikings that they ramp up in power. Carriers become stronger coupled with a Mothership and Void Rays, however these are more expensive and time consuming to build than Raven/Viking. As far as LATE GAME potential goes, Toss has a remarkably strong late game due to warp gates. Building mass WGs once you get 200/200 and just warping in a whole new army once you fight is probably a lot more desired than building like 3 carriers at a time. If you want the Carrier to surpass this in late game viability then it might be a bit ridiculous. Did you read the rest of my post where I said that Star Gate openings are very strong especially against fast third Zergs, on top of this as well is Pheonix harras (which I didn't mention)? My point was, that while openings are strong they don't really go anywhere and soon you transfer out of them leaving no room to invest in upgrades and air tech into mid-game which would make Carriers more attractive and natural late game option. I don't disagree that toss has a very strong late game due to warp tech (and indeed this may be another reason why air isn't as attarctive). I'm not sure if your mention of BCs is aimed at my post, however I agree with what I think you are saying - BCs were rubbish they got buffed and became a plausible late game option for terran, why haven't Carriers received such treatment? Also, its how Carriers fit into a toss army, as the OP suggests there is an overlap in weaknesses/role so a transition isn't as rewarding nor is having an army supported by both kinds of units (Carriers and Collosums). | ||
Kiett
United States7639 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. You're right. The hydralisk should be removed too. After all, this is a whole new game. It's not like hydras serve any real purpose other than being the most iconic unit in the starcraft universe. Get rid of that shit. | ||
|
-Archangel-
Croatia7457 Posts
On November 30 2011 00:09 BrosephBrostar wrote: So is the colossus compared to the reaver. So is the roach compared to old hydralisks. So is the corruptor compared to scourge. So is the marauder compared to siege tanks. Come on guys I thought SC2 was supposed to be a new and different game. If you want BW then why not play BW? I hate when people pull this argument. The saddest thing is even Dustin Browder pulls it in interviews. It is like if someone created Football 2 and made the ball in a shape of a cube and then when people complained how the game was more fun and faster with a round ball they would just say, well then go play Football. No, go play X if you don't like Y is not a valid argument, it is just not wanting to admit you got problems with product Y | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2011 00:39 -Archangel- wrote: I hate when people pull this argument. The saddest thing is even Dustin Browder pulls it in interviews. It is like if someone created Football 2 and made the ball in a shape of a cube and then when people complained how the game was more fun and faster with a round ball they would just say, well then go play Football. No, go play X if you don't like Y is not a valid argument, it is just not wanting to admit you got problems with product Y It is. Simple fact. Blizzard creates the game, blizzard has all rights to create it the way that they want it to be. And seeing upon the outcome, they did a very good job with broodwar and they did a very good job with starcraft:WoL. Everyone is free to choose which game he/she wants to play. I choose the one that I think is better/more fun. (yeah, everyone is free to discuss changes, but that doesn't change that in the end blizzard is in charge and that I trust them way more than some random "BUT I WANT CARRIERS" - shouters. Furthermore I believe that the blizzard balancing team does fool around quite a bit with each unit before they alter,implement or remove it, so I think that they have had the carrier, carrier buff, tempest discussion/tests themselves) | ||
|
Laserist
Turkey4269 Posts
If you look at the problems of the carrier, I asked myself: 'Why would i want this kind of a unit anymore?' Generally slow, bulky units do not fit such fast paced games like Starcraft. As long as there is marines, hydralisk, vikings and such, there is no room for them. This doesn't mean Tempest will fix the problem. It has the same characteristics of the carriers with a splash damage and no interceptors so same phenomenon. Protoss air needs an air unit which is versatile(not bulky) and still doesn't have cheap counters such as marines. As long as this conditions wouldn't satisfy, there is no room for an air unit in this game. Replace some terms with terran counterparts, you will see the battlecruiser there. | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
On November 30 2011 00:09 BrosephBrostar wrote: So is the colossus compared to the reaver. So is the roach compared to old hydralisks. So is the corruptor compared to scourge. So is the marauder compared to siege tanks. Come on guys I thought SC2 was supposed to be a new and different game. If you want BW then why not play BW? My point was not "more broodwar" my point specifically was the tempest is a sorry excuse for a replacement to the carrier. The game would be better served with a working carrier rather then then the tempest (based on the concept of the tempest shown at blizzcon). Also regarding the colossus as a protoss player i hate that unit more then anything it leads to unintresting games the tempest would just add to that "deathball" syndrome. But getting away from the tempest vs carrier thing. The biggest issue is look at the units in the game. Most of the units have seen changes or there has been tweaks made to the game that effect specific mechanics of units. Where as there has never been the hint of an attempt to "fix" the carrier and then we get informed that its being thrown out. | ||
|
TheButtonmen
Canada1403 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:19 Archybaldie wrote: My point was not "more broodwar" my point specifically was the tempest is a sorry excuse for a replacement to the carrier. The game would be better served with a working carrier rather then then the tempest (based on the concept of the tempest shown at blizzcon). Also regarding the colossus as a protoss player i hate that unit more then anything it leads to unintresting games the tempest would just add to that syndrome. You haven't even used the Tempest yet or seen it in anywhere near a finalized state, what are you basing this off of? We have no way of knowing this stuff yet, save the complaints for the beta at least. | ||
|
Archybaldie
United Kingdom818 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:20 TheButtonmen wrote: You haven't even used the Tempest yet or seen it in anywhere near a finalized state, what are you basing this off of? We have no way of knowing this stuff yet, save the complaints for the beta at least. The concept and idea that the tempest is being based on. If you have a bad foundation the building eventually falls down. So unless there is a DRAMATIC shift (which there could be) in the tempest. Then in its current state its a sorry excuse for a replacement. But lets get away from the tempest and back onto the discussion of why blizzard hasnt even attempted to fix or work with the carrier. | ||
|
Conquistador
United States40 Posts
Maybe you should compare to BW Carriers.. why they seem more successful in BW and not SC2.. As a person who really never played BW, but was aware of the competitive scene for about a year or so and I think the major problem with the unit is not it's current stats, but rather how the role of the Carrier is not required in the current meta-game. One of the major reasons Carriers were scary in PvT in BW was their ability to devastate Terran siege lines, by being able to tear them apart at long range and not have to sack your ground forces to do so. It enabled Protoss to regain map control and balance out the positional advantages a Terran held often in the mid-game. As the OP said before, in SC2, an improved carrier could also fulfill this role, being able to use the geography of the map and good micro to devastate Terran bases and defensive formations in order to enable the ground deathball to easily roll in and secure the win. However, this type of strategy does not exist in PvT in SC2 for the most part. Sure, a few people can make mech work in any match-up and I've seen a few marine/tank pushes on the ladder, but normally pros will simply opt for making a Bioball (marines/marauders/ghosts) with medivac support and decimate Protoss forces with a combo of EMP + Stim. This composition makes getting Carriers useless, because unlike siege lines, bio forces are much more mobile, can't be as easily focused down, and can ACTUALLY SHOOT BACK. In addition, all of the other options Protoss has to deal with it are much more cost effective and require far less time to successfully deploy. Hell, the actual role the Carrier filled has now been given to the Zerg, enabling late game positional battles that can be absolutely crazy to watch if the players in question are any good. So this begs the question, how can we save the Carrier? Well, call me stupid and crazy, but I have a hunch Blizzard might be inadvertently doing just that with HoTS. Looking at some of the proposed new units for Terran, the Warhound and Battle Hellion, it appears that Blizz is giving Terran more reason to go mech. The Battle Hellions can now handle tougher light units aka Zealots through their cone of fire and higher health. The Warhound not only replaces the Thor but does additional damage to Mechanical units, i.e. most of the Protoss army. My thinking on this is that Blizzard is secretly preparing to either break out the Nerf Bat on Terran bio or enable the Protoss and Zerg armies to better counter bio forces, leading Terran to adopt a more mech-oriented style, and with it perhaps encouraging more siege tank usage in PvT. Do you see where I am going with this? If these changes do occur in HoTS, then the Carrier might be able to once again adopt the mantle of siege line breaker, which currently none of the other high tech Protoss units are capable of doing cost-effectively. If the recommendations listed by the OP are introduced along with any changes towards mech-oriented styles in the meta-game, then I believe the Carrier will once again fly proudly in the skies of the Koprulu Sector. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:20 TheButtonmen wrote: You haven't even used the Tempest yet or seen it in anywhere near a finalized state, what are you basing this off of? We have no way of knowing this stuff yet, save the complaints for the beta at least. The unit concept. Generally, BW carriers were something that was greatly affected by the skill of the player controlling them. The Tempest, considering its design, will most likely be an aerial version of the colossus. Haha, 2 endgame hurr durr units for the Protoss. | ||
| ||
