|
On November 30 2011 04:12 GhostFall wrote:
I'd like to mention you're forgetting a micro trick with carriers from Starcraft 1. When the interceptors fan out, if the carrier was constantly moving, the interceptors would not return inside the carrier. Instead they would hover under the carrier, and fan out instantly when ordered to attack. Essentially graviton catapult through micro alone.
It's fine to eliminate this particular trick and replace it with an upgrade in the transition to SC2 (I don't think anyone up until this point has said anything bad about graviton catapult). What isn't fine is the immediate return of interceptors on a move command.
|
the tempest which was the carrier during the alpha stage has a harden shield against ground so couldn't carriers have the same but for air???
|
I can understand it if Blizzard decides in the end to cut the carrier... the cold hard truth is that no matter how much we remember the Ganthritor most SC2 players simply don't care. I feel they only added the unit to shut us up: after all, in the early days the BW fans were all there was and it would have been bad for their PR if they got away and didn’t contribute to build up hype. That’s why as a fan and a costumer I only wish Blizzard was more open about why they are removing the unit: have they tried the solutions proposed by the community? Have they at least tried to stop the interceptors from returning immediately? Can they at least show us they tried?
Even if WoL, HOtS and BW exist at the same time “go play BW” is NOT a real argument: this discussion is not about nostalgia even if some posters only argue from there, it’s about the idea of an air siege unit which is only as effective as the player controling it vs a big expensive corsair you just A-move. This discussion is about if the community has ideas that are at least good enough for testing. The day Blizz shows me the video were a carrier decimates an army because microable interceptors are just too good, that day I’ll shut up.
|
I don't care what Blizzard does to the carrier; leave it unchanged, buff it, nerf it.. just leave it in. Not arguing why the rest of you would want it, it's cool if you want it axed, but it's always held a very special place in my heart.. and I'm a Zerg.
|
Other than the fact that there has not been even one incentive to try and use the Carrier by means of a patch at all, the Tempest doesn't even remotely fulfill the Carrier's role.
The tempest is pretty much a glorified Corsair with a ground attack and no disruption web, meant to kill clumped up air units, while the Carrier is made to provide some form of aerial siege technology like Brood Lords.
In BW they were my favorite units, now only see WhiteRa and HongUn use them once in a while.
|
I'm still hopeful that the Carrier will just end up redesigned. Its so much better than the silly temptest... Same with the mothership. The mothership is already somewhat of a staple in PvZ now, as its the only good method of dealing with infestor+broodlords.
|
You have good points, but I think some of them are just symptoms of the two main points:
1 - We haven't really had carrier friendly maps in the SC2 ladder pool, ever. BW had 'carrier friendly' maps.
2 - IF you actually could to something similar to BW level micro with Carriers, THEN the other negatives wouldn't outweigh the positives anymore. But, because you can't, it seems like all the variables are negatives.
We have seen some carriers in GSL. We'd see more if we had more Carrier friendly maps.
One final point is that SC2 is being figured out from the early game onwards. This means that the lategame metagame is the last to develop. Carriers are risky, because players simply have less experience with them and are unwilling to switch to them in the late game and leave things up to chance. I fear that Carriers are still viable (though possibly a bit weak) in their current state (maybe a slight viking nerf would help), but that Blizzard will remove them before that happens, or now that Blizzard has said they will be gone in HotS, WoL players will now ignore them because Blizzard preemptively discouraged their use in competitive play. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
|
Ive played with carriers a lot and I would say one of the main problems with the carrier is that vortex eats up it's interceptors.
|
I can see the future of PvP late game turning into what is now TvT late game ie big air battles with tempests and this could not be possible without carrier. I myself am a terran and find protoss boring as hell to watch/play/play against (no offense) but if PvP revolutionised in this way then it would make things as interesting as TvT dont know what else to say but yeah.
Edit: carrier should be buffed in HOTS as a terran it will make no difference to me as i will have warhound to counter it so im happy
|
On November 30 2011 05:05 Mikelius wrote:
Other than the fact that there has not been even one incentive to try and use the Carrier by means of a patch at all, the Tempest doesn't even remotely fulfill the Carrier's role.
The tempest is pretty much a glorified Corsair with a ground attack and no disruption web, meant to kill clumped up air units, while the Carrier is made to provide some form of aerial siege technology like Brood Lords.
In BW they were my favorite units, now only see WhiteRa and HongUn use them once in a while.
HongUn recently left prime and progaming dont know for how long and if its permenant, i heard its mainly due to his studies but i also think the news about the carrier affected this decision too just saying
|
Good points! However I feel that the collosus is ruining star craft 2 for this exact reason: why make any other unit when you have colossus? If it was gone t would not make Vikings therefore allowing for a stargate tech switch that toss used to do in bw. The colossus IMO has broken the mechanics of the game and stalled the meta game forprotoss worse than blizz realizes. Ground aoe from the reaver would fix the carrier, because no colli means no Vikings, plus changing speed and micro would fix it to. However, bliz I think realizes this therefore it's either the carrier or colossus and they chose to keep the collosus
Edit: stupid phone
|
On November 30 2011 01:34 TheButtonmen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:22 Archybaldie wrote:On November 30 2011 01:20 TheButtonmen wrote:On November 30 2011 01:19 Archybaldie wrote: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 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. 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.
It's sad that the protoss feel in SC2 is a build deathball then 1a race. Because that's what you're arguing with the tempest.
|
On November 30 2011 06:45 andrewlt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:34 TheButtonmen wrote:On November 30 2011 01:22 Archybaldie wrote:On November 30 2011 01:20 TheButtonmen wrote:On November 30 2011 01:19 Archybaldie wrote: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 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. 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. It's sad that the protoss feel in SC2 is a build deathball then 1a race. Because that's what you're arguing with the tempest.
As much as the BW - SC2 comparison is frowned upon, this cannot be overlooked. Another example, Reaver is the antithesis of A-Move, and compare it to the Colossus. Compare BW Carriers to the Tempest. It's a bit troubling. Don't think of it as a puerile war of "My game is better than yours" think if it as "How can we improve SC2 by looking at the past". The Tempest's Micro abilities are worrisome. While SC2 fans should not necessarily be demanding the return of the Reaver, you should be demanding more of a skill ceiling than a-move colossus that you sometimes fall back or kite with. There is so much potential in SC2, including carriers, and just giving up on carriers without a balance change is troublesome.
We need to always demand the best. Even if Carriers are not used right now, would not a balance change be better than what the Tempest's current form is? I'd like to think most people would say yes.
|
Just some things that came to mind reading the OP. I wouldn't propose all of them simultaneously.
1. The carrier is too slow to build.
Could it be considered too slow because a single carrier on it's own is useless as things are?' If things were different it could be viable to mass carriers over time from a single stargate.
2. The carrier is not micro friendly.
Improve microability.
3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades.
Carrier upgrades along with ground units.
4. The carrier is too easy to counter.
Brood lord cost increase; now morphs from mutalisk. (Yes, this will in turn create some other problems, but one musn't be afraid of such.)
5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units
-
6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile.
Reduced build time or heal.
Also, I agree with maps not being very carrier friendly, or, imho, even especially creative in general right now.
|
Nice read. I would take fixed carriers over any of the current protoss units announced for Hots. It's sad to see such an iconic unit get removed without even an attempt to fix it.
|
I think Blizzard should keep a few terrible units in the game just for their potential BM factor.
As in, "lol MC massed carriers against IdrA and made him rage quit!"
Because I mean personally, the scout is more iconic to me than the carrier 
|
The carrier is good, people are too mystified to build them though.
|
On November 30 2011 05:05 Mikelius wrote:
Other than the fact that there has not been even one incentive to try and use the Carrier by means of a patch at all, the Tempest doesn't even remotely fulfill the Carrier's role.
The tempest is pretty much a glorified Corsair with a ground attack and no disruption web, meant to kill clumped up air units, while the Carrier is made to provide some form of aerial siege technology like Brood Lords.
In BW they were my favorite units, now only see WhiteRa and HongUn use them once in a while.
I don't understand the Mothership removal either. It seems like players are finally playing around with it and we're seeing some very interesting tactics and then it's gone....
Nothing is final though I suppose. I'm still expecting the replicator to get axed, it just doesn't feel organic to Protoss. They're the most technologically advanced race. It's said in game and they know it, why would they copy in their eyes lesser races.
|
the carrier wasn't micro friendly in BW either, I don't understand the difference here.
The carrier literally hasn't changed, the only difference is that the game engine changed. So, blizzard wants to add in a unit that will benefit more from the new game engine and give some power back to protoss air.
But there was another thread claiming that all of the air problems in this game stem from vikings which is partly true, at least in the case of TvP it certainly is.
|
Thanks for analyzing this! I usually get carriers late game becuase i assume they are tier 3 and should be amazing units, but they don't really do that much now that i think of it. I think its better to stick with HT and mothership
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
