EPTThe future of the carrier - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
Masq
Canada1792 Posts
Carriers would likely see more use if colossus didn't share ground weapon upgrades with gateway units. Similar to how Terran has bio/mech/air upgrades, and zerg has ground/missle/air upgrades. Protoss synergy with ground upgrades with gateway/robo is too good to pass up, and the carrier suffers because of it. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:22 Archybaldie wrote: 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. you mean, why they didn't publicly do it? I guess because it turned out that Protoss doesn't need the carrier designwise. Also I think that people focus too much on "Carrier vs Tempest", while blizzard clearly didn't like (just like most players) the way Protoss air worked and therefore redesigned the complete air play from protoss in HotS (oracle, tempest instead of carrier, mothership, no more highground warp ins). So in conclusion I think there is a "greater plan" behind the new flagship, rather then a simple minded "carrier sucked, let's make a flagship that can make other things". | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
However the problems aren't as hard to fix as you believe. A change to interceptor AI, build times and costs are all easy adjustments. The real problem has and always will be the meta-game. If carrier was viable in the meta-game it would have seen way, way more use in tournaments then it does today. However in HoTS the meta can and will change, because the new units and interactions between them breeds new strategies and composition. The carrier can actually be useful vs mech, the same way colossus is useful vs bio. If the interceptor AI was changed then carriers could hit and run, harass etc without putting themselves in danger, unlike void rays which have 6 range and they need time to charge up. On the same note carrier can be useful vs zerg ground armies, the problem is zerg hardly ever goes pure ground, they always transition into corrupter/brood lord at some point because of how bad ultras are. With ultras, getting charge, baneling burrow movement, hydra speed and swarm hosts the meta-game for zerg could shift as well, making late game zerg ground more viable. Blizzard doesn't even need any extra effort to try to recreate the conditions of BW where the Carrier flourished, because they are already heading in that direction with HoTS, mech becoming viable etc. The reason I, and most everyone else hates the Tempest is, its a borring unit. Its slow, which means is generally bad to micro. It does huge AOE which means there is very little control needed to make them effective. And it has a very niche role. A better carrier, has a broader scope, it can potentially counter all mech and most zerg ground while also sieging and doing hit and run. It would be interesting and spectacular to watch hit and run actions, players carefully maneuvering carriers around the map, picking of targets and retreating before the enemy has time to respond. I just don't see that kind of thing from the tempest. Also, people didn't understand the counter units section. I am not saying nerf marines, hydras, vikings and corrupters. What I'm saying is, the meta-game now is in such a way that those units are the most popular and prevalent in the match-ups. If the meta-game shifts I'd love for protoss to have more options apart from colossus late game, I'd love to see mech vs carrier wars along side the bio vs GW armies, and ghost vs HT wars. | ||
|
TheButtonmen
Canada1403 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:22 Archybaldie wrote: 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. Probably because they felt that the carrier isn't a very useful / interesting unit, I mean its whole thing is that it makes units to attack with but really the broodlord does that better and the new swarmlord as well; a unit that attacks by making swarms of tiny units is a pretty zerg thing rather then protoss. By removing the carrier (which was boring / zergish) and replacing it with a new high power capital in the tempest as well as adding the Oracle (both of which actually feel protoss) they are adding much more options to the race then just buffing the carrier. | ||
|
lorestarcraft
United States1049 Posts
On November 29 2011 22:27 green.at wrote: yeah, and you help how?  OT: i am halfway through, i think the "flaws" part could just be "there are vikings" (edit: marines are like a no-issue cause you're never gonna fly your carriers over open field and corruptors are also not that good against carriers(my experience)). and the you can still get a little bit of extra range on your interceptors with micro, but as you said, its not what it was in BW. gonna read the rest later. Corruptors not good vs carriers???? Stephano beat Huk's plus 3 attack carriers with 0-0 corruptors at IPL 3!! | ||
|
Chaggi
Korea (South)1936 Posts
| ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
| ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
| ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
The only reason vikings might seem good against carriers is if they are combined with upgraded marines and terrans already have a shitton out to deal with colossi. | ||
|
FungalLove
Uruguay24 Posts
Many here speak about how the carrier is not "meta game" friendly, but the meta game slightly shifts with each update. Give them faster building time (carriers AND interceptors), cheaper costs, and some minor changes in the AI, and who knows how the meta game will look like in a few months. Honestly, I don't understand why Blizzard hasn't been addressing the carrier issue all this time. It's like they just gave up on it and left it to be ignored until its demise. | ||
|
Arceus
Vietnam8333 Posts
On November 29 2011 23:47 Souljah wrote: If they would address the non-micro issue, it would change the unit drastically IMO. Being able to inflict damage while retreating would make for some interesting engagements. Do broodlings retreat when the broodlords do? No.. why make the the interceptors do the same? Cuz Blizzard wants to make SC2 different from BW. And by "different", it could go way worse. They are like "fuck bw elitism, who needs some 12 years old mechanics". They may fix pure a-move units but I afraid that they wont ever add back bw mechanics like muta micro or autohealed interceptor. Thats stupidly stubborn. | ||
|
YipCraft
United States216 Posts
| ||
|
amazingxkcd
GRAND OLD AMERICA16375 Posts
On November 30 2011 02:12 Arceus wrote: Cuz Blizzard wants to make SC2 different from BW. And by "different", it could go way worse. They are like "fuck bw elitism, who needs some 12 years old mechanics". They may fix pure a-move units but I afraid that they wont ever add back bw mechanics like muta micro or autohealed interceptor. Thats stupidly stubborn. This design process is coming from a guy who made games that only used the a button...... | ||
|
Nizzy
United States839 Posts
Everything is a ball so when you get a few carriers/bcs in a realistic pro game setting they will just be targeted down so fast. Vikings counter them too hard as well.  | ||
|
Maxtor
United Kingdom273 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 30 2011 02:25 amazingxkcd wrote: This design process is coming from a guy who made games that only used the a button...... Such an ignorant post... C&C: RA2 and especially C&C Generals both are milestones in the history of RTS games. | ||
|
cpomz
United States76 Posts
I agree that the metagame currently seems to hard counter carrier, but that is not really the carrier's fault. My issue is that Blizzard has never done anything to help the carrier. It is a unit that many feel is a terrible unit, but has a lot of potential, and yet Blizzard has never changed it. Even with build time reductions and increased microability, it would still suffer from the current metagame, however that does not justify Blizzard's lack of trying. I do not want to see the carrier removed and I would love to see Blizzard add something to the unit. Reduced build time Interceptor shields regen Move while interceptors fire Maybe even twiddle with interceptor cost - I mean the warp prism buff was pretty substantial - interceptors can drain resources so fast... I just hope that Blizzard really doesn't give up on the unit because that it just a terrible thing to bring back a unit solely for nostalgia reasons. | ||
|
sOvrn
United States678 Posts
If that is true, then in all honesty, the carrier really has no place in SC2. For P players its much easier and more effective to use colossus any time of the day as opposed to carriers and if they ever felt like transitioning from a colo play to a carrier play you'll never catch a T/Z off guard b/c the same unit that 'counters' the colo also counters the carrier. Personally, I'm with the OP. The carrier is an iconic starcraft unit and the announcement of its removal did come as a shock to me. I would much rather see the colo go away and give some buff to the carriers, but this is simply b/c of my personal bias against the colo and how it has made P game play into deathball game play. Not to digress too much into colo hate, but seriously its a siege unit like no other that just walks up and down cliffs, or on top of your army, to do massive amounts of unavoidable damage - no other siege unit works in that way. I would much rather see good carrier play as the substitute for the current protoss siege unit, but it does appear that everyone loves the colo too much to actually remove it from the game now. It's a shame really, and I think this alternative should be explored more as opposed to just removing the carrier from the game. | ||
|
GhostFall
United States830 Posts
| ||
| ||
