|
On November 30 2011 10:28 emc wrote:
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.
The interceptors return too quickly in SC2. The second you give the carrier another command the interceptors shoot back to it after killing their target and you have to move it back into attacking range again. You can't kite with it.
Againts vikings they just get murdered because of this. Both of toss' endgame tier 3 is weak to vikings so you may as well go colossus because they can deal damage more effectively
Colossus are actually becoming surprisingly more micro-friendly by abusing cliff mechanics and stutter stepping. The best i've seen though is warp prism micro with colossus. Absolutely stunning to watch
|
Though you have some really good points, i disagree with the concept of this post.
I don't think we need to save the carrier because it is "iconic". In fact, i really like the fact that we're moving away from SC1 units in the next expansions from SC2, creating a new visual identity and lore in these new units. Leaving something in the game because it is "iconic" doesn't justify it for me, we are getting new units, with different strategies and different control styles. Also, i do think that overlapping roles are a bad thing, and as you pointed that yourself, it ain't gonna change soon.
Moving away from SC1 and head into uncharted SC2 territories is the only way we will get nostalgia-fueled threads like this once SC3 hits, or else we will all remember it as "Starcraft: Chapter 2"
|
2 changes would make carriers viable.
Build time reduction and free interceptors.
You wouldn't go for them in every match up, but they would be at least worth-while.
tech switching to carriers requires a huge period of passivity since you need 3 stargates all chorno'ing out carriers for it to pay off, and until you've got them you're out of 24 supply,1050 min and 750gas and that's ignoring the infastructure setup costs and build time and upgrades which are required at that stage of the game for carriers to function. The timing window for your opponent to exploit is massive. A carrier tech switch is going "Gee i hope he doesn't attack for the next 3 minutes".
It's insane.
Once you do engage with a carrier fleet you can't reinforce your ground army anymore because the carriers are gobbling up all your minerals. What's that? You need more zealots to keep the ground forces back? nom nom nom.
I've "won" engagements with carriers but then lost the game due to my carriers eating all my resources while he just made marine viking and killed me int he 2nd wave.
|
It's completely insane that carriers take longer to build than a Nexus.
|
should have a poll so we can get the popular opinion 
|
The BW carrier is completely different than the SC2 incarnation.
First off, the BW carrier has 4 armor instead of 2, which is key because it means goliaths deal 8 less damage to carrier HP, and marines are negligible. Its interceptors have 5 range instead of 2. If the carrier is moving, the interceptors don't return to the carrier, instead hovering underneath it. This meant that players attacked their own Nexus to ready their carriers for combat. And of course, in a pinch, carriers could be "healed" with a shield battery.
BW carriers were mostly used in PvT on maps with cliffs. The main terran answer was the goliath, which even with charon boosters has less range (8) than a viking. By positioning the carriers over cliffs, only a certain number of goliaths could engage the carrier fleet at any one time. Building goliaths also meant less siege tanks were being built. The other answer was cloaked wraiths, which was very risky because that relied on the observer in the carrier fleet to be sniped (or blinded in Boxer's famous game, see here). The wraith only has 5 range and requires cloak to be researched. They can't be reactored out. It also only dealt 20 damage, so it's air-to-air capabilities are much weaker than that of the viking.
With vikings being the terran's go-to antiair unit in SC2, along with the carrier nerfs, carriers just don't work anymore. Carriers can't hide behind cliffs. Vikings can be built at double speed, and they outrange the carrier rather easily. I think Blizzard should at least buff the carrier back to its BW features, but even then, the real problem is that the viking, along with the improved marine, is just too effective an answer against it.
|
On November 30 2011 12:20 andrea20 wrote:The BW carrier is completely different than the SC2 incarnation. First off, the BW carrier has 4 armor instead of 2, which is key because it means goliaths deal 8 less damage to carrier HP, and marines are negligible. Its interceptors have 5 range instead of 2. If the carrier is moving, the interceptors don't return to the carrier, instead hovering underneath it. This meant that players attacked their own Nexus to ready their carriers for combat. And of course, in a pinch, carriers could be "healed" with a shield battery. BW carriers were mostly used in PvT on maps with cliffs. The main terran answer was the goliath, which even with charon boosters has less range (8) than a viking. By positioning the carriers over cliffs, only a certain number of goliaths could engage the carrier fleet at any one time. Building goliaths also meant less siege tanks were being built. The other answer was cloaked wraiths, which was very risky because that relied on the observer in the carrier fleet to be sniped (or blinded in Boxer's famous game, see here). The wraith only has 5 range and requires cloak to be researched. They can't be reactored out. It also only dealt 20 damage, so it's air-to-air capabilities are much weaker than that of the viking. With vikings being the terran's go-to antiair unit in SC2, along with the carrier nerfs, carriers just don't work anymore. Carriers can't hide behind cliffs. Vikings can be built at double speed, and they outrange the carrier rather easily. I think Blizzard should at least buff the carrier back to its BW features, but even then, the real problem is that the viking, along with the improved marine, is just too effective an answer against it.
I think the carrier argument can be extended to protoss air plays in general against terran. They're just not that viable outside of contains/harassment and attacking/defending all-ins
The most used flying unit protoss uses in PvT is the warp prism which is built from the robotics facility =)
|
Carriers in the hands of a decent player(read: anyone good enough to a move) just melts anything zerg can make. It is already too good. The only defence against them is to kill the protoss before he gets them in sufficient numbers. With a mothership and a few voids there is no amount of corruptors or hydras that will save the day. Zerg doesn't even have anti air tier 3. If greater spire would get your carriers instead of broodlords we'd never hear the end of the QQ saying they were OP.
However the mechanics of the game favours tier 1 and 2 units. The problem you percieve with the carrier is not a result of the carrier being bad. It's because the game is tilted towards early game & mid game. If it wasn't the 2rax plague wouldn't be so rampant.
Battlecruisers, do you see them alot more than carriers????
|
On November 30 2011 12:52 oZe wrote:
Carriers in the hands of a decent player(read: anyone good enough to a move) just melts anything zerg can make. It is already too good. The only defence against them is to kill the protoss before he gets them in sufficient numbers. With a mothership and a few voids there is no amount of corruptors or hydras that will save the day. Zerg doesn't even have anti air tier 3. If greater spire would get your carriers instead of broodlords we'd never hear the end of the QQ saying they were OP.
However the mechanics of the game favours tier 1 and 2 units. The problem you percieve with the carrier is not a result of the carrier being bad. It's because the game is tilted towards early game & mid game. If it wasn't the 2rax plague wouldn't be so rampant.
Battlecruisers, do you see them alot more than carriers????
They seem to rear their ugly head in lategame TvT. I've seen the several times in that match-up. I agree with what you say though. I think the problem is largely that endgame air is simple too slow to get out. When it does it's stupidly powerful in big numbers but it never gets to that stage. Maybe weakening the units and tweaks to the AI in exchange for the ability to get them out faster would be the better option
|
I am pretty sure removing Carriers from HotS is just a ploy so people will buy LotV.
So, to answer OP's request: Blizzard will listen when LotV comes out.
|
On November 30 2011 12:47 Nymbul wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:20 andrea20 wrote:The BW carrier is completely different than the SC2 incarnation. First off, the BW carrier has 4 armor instead of 2, which is key because it means goliaths deal 8 less damage to carrier HP, and marines are negligible. Its interceptors have 5 range instead of 2. If the carrier is moving, the interceptors don't return to the carrier, instead hovering underneath it. This meant that players attacked their own Nexus to ready their carriers for combat. And of course, in a pinch, carriers could be "healed" with a shield battery. BW carriers were mostly used in PvT on maps with cliffs. The main terran answer was the goliath, which even with charon boosters has less range (8) than a viking. By positioning the carriers over cliffs, only a certain number of goliaths could engage the carrier fleet at any one time. Building goliaths also meant less siege tanks were being built. The other answer was cloaked wraiths, which was very risky because that relied on the observer in the carrier fleet to be sniped (or blinded in Boxer's famous game, see here). The wraith only has 5 range and requires cloak to be researched. They can't be reactored out. It also only dealt 20 damage, so it's air-to-air capabilities are much weaker than that of the viking. With vikings being the terran's go-to antiair unit in SC2, along with the carrier nerfs, carriers just don't work anymore. Carriers can't hide behind cliffs. Vikings can be built at double speed, and they outrange the carrier rather easily. I think Blizzard should at least buff the carrier back to its BW features, but even then, the real problem is that the viking, along with the improved marine, is just too effective an answer against it. I think the carrier argument can be extended to protoss air plays in general against terran. They're just not that viable outside of contains/harassment and attacking/defending all-ins The most used flying unit protoss uses in PvT is the warp prism which is built from the robotics facility =)
A lot of the problem is because vikings are phenomenal at countering armored air AND you can pop out two at a time with the reactor. There is no real elegant solution for the carrier even after the fixes you mentioned against vikings. High armor would slow things down, but vikings have such high base damage, that even 5 armor wouldn't stop vikings. The fact of the matter is, vikings were designed to handle armored air, and carrier being an armored air... makes life tough. A possibility would be to turn the viking's volley into 4 (instead of the current two), making it something like 4x 5(+3).. THEN giving carriers 4 armor, would MAYBE(!) give them a chance.
|
On November 30 2011 13:00 Crisco wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:47 Nymbul wrote:On November 30 2011 12:20 andrea20 wrote:The BW carrier is completely different than the SC2 incarnation. First off, the BW carrier has 4 armor instead of 2, which is key because it means goliaths deal 8 less damage to carrier HP, and marines are negligible. Its interceptors have 5 range instead of 2. If the carrier is moving, the interceptors don't return to the carrier, instead hovering underneath it. This meant that players attacked their own Nexus to ready their carriers for combat. And of course, in a pinch, carriers could be "healed" with a shield battery. BW carriers were mostly used in PvT on maps with cliffs. The main terran answer was the goliath, which even with charon boosters has less range (8) than a viking. By positioning the carriers over cliffs, only a certain number of goliaths could engage the carrier fleet at any one time. Building goliaths also meant less siege tanks were being built. The other answer was cloaked wraiths, which was very risky because that relied on the observer in the carrier fleet to be sniped (or blinded in Boxer's famous game, see here). The wraith only has 5 range and requires cloak to be researched. They can't be reactored out. It also only dealt 20 damage, so it's air-to-air capabilities are much weaker than that of the viking. With vikings being the terran's go-to antiair unit in SC2, along with the carrier nerfs, carriers just don't work anymore. Carriers can't hide behind cliffs. Vikings can be built at double speed, and they outrange the carrier rather easily. I think Blizzard should at least buff the carrier back to its BW features, but even then, the real problem is that the viking, along with the improved marine, is just too effective an answer against it. I think the carrier argument can be extended to protoss air plays in general against terran. They're just not that viable outside of contains/harassment and attacking/defending all-ins The most used flying unit protoss uses in PvT is the warp prism which is built from the robotics facility =) A lot of the problem is because vikings are phenomenal at countering armored air AND you can pop out two at a time with the reactor. There is no real elegant solution for the carrier even after the fixes you mentioned against vikings. High armor would slow things down, but vikings have such high base damage, that even 5 armor wouldn't stop vikings. The fact of the matter is, vikings were designed to handle armored air, and carrier being an armored air... makes life tough. A possibility would be to turn the viking's volley into 4 (instead of the current two), making it something like 4x 5(+3).. THEN giving carriers 4 armor, would MAYBE(!) give them a chance.
The other problem with it is that because Terran goes bio agains Protoss. He already has the reactored starport for medivacs so can easily begin production of vikings. If you tech switch to colossus, he still doesn't have to change his tactics.
|
4713 Posts
I don't believe nerfing Vikings and Corrupters is the way to go to make carriers viable. They still need a counter unit for the game to be balanced. The problem I tried to address, and most people seem to have missed, is that the current meta-game is such that Vikings and Corrupters are a go to unit of any Terran and Zerg army against Protoss.
If mech terran was viable against protoss, it would eat up so much gas, that it would be much, much more difficult to mass vikings quickly, giving the protoss an opportunity to go air.
If zerg late game ground (ultralisk), was more viable and a go to for zergs vs Protoss, there would again be a opportunity for Protoss to go air and do great damage.
Again, all this is possible in HoTS, Blizz doesn't need to do anything extra to the carrier apart from fixing the interceptor AI and tweaking some cost and build speed numbers.
And again, why would people want a Tempest over a Carrier beats me. Yes I can get the fact that people want some distinction between BW and SC2. But really, compare the Tempset a slow, hard to micro, no need to micro mass aoe, a move unit, one dimensional unit, and the BW carrier, a slow but micro-able unit, that required you to plan ahead and use every bit of terran to your advantage, and slowly wear down your opponent with hit and run.
I can't understand how anyone would like the Tempest under those conditions, from a player point of view and a spectator point of view the Tempest is boring in all regards, while the carrier has the potential to be spectacular and reward good micro and control, and it potentially fills in a bigger role in HoTS then the Tempest.
|
On November 30 2011 16:37 Destructicon wrote:
I don't believe nerfing Vikings and Corrupters is the way to go to make carriers viable. They still need a counter unit for the game to be balanced. The problem I tried to address, and most people seem to have missed, is that the current meta-game is such that Vikings and Corrupters are a go to unit of any Terran and Zerg army against Protoss.
If mech terran was viable against protoss, it would eat up so much gas, that it would be much, much more difficult to mass vikings quickly, giving the protoss an opportunity to go air.
If zerg late game ground (ultralisk), was more viable and a go to for zergs vs Protoss, there would again be a opportunity for Protoss to go air and do great damage.
Again, all this is possible in HoTS, Blizz doesn't need to do anything extra to the carrier apart from fixing the interceptor AI and tweaking some cost and build speed numbers.
And again, why would people want a Tempest over a Carrier beats me. Yes I can get the fact that people want some distinction between BW and SC2. But really, compare the Tempset a slow, hard to micro, no need to micro mass aoe, a move unit, one dimensional unit, and the BW carrier, a slow but micro-able unit, that required you to plan ahead and use every bit of terran to your advantage, and slowly wear down your opponent with hit and run.
I can't understand how anyone would like the Tempest under those conditions, from a player point of view and a spectator point of view the Tempest is boring in all regards, while the carrier has the potential to be spectacular and reward good micro and control, and it potentially fills in a bigger role in HoTS then the Tempest.
You will hardly ever see a Zerg that doesn't build a spire at any time that Carriers are viable, so I don't think that the way carriers are designed (universal high dps, vs ground and air unit) will ever make it playable in ZvP.
Also Terrans usually always have a reactored starport, no matter if they Mech (in the matchups in which mech is available) or play bio, so even in this matchup, the carrier seems useless designwise.
Protoss Airplay with Carrier:
Protoss has an air army and lets say terran or zerg reacts with vikings or corruptors --> apart from a little bit of phoenix harass the complete Protoss airpath is shut down... We never reach the Carrierphase of Protoss air!
(Possible) Protoss Airplay with Tempest:
Protoss has an air army and lets say terran or zerg reacts with vikings or corruptors --> Protoss goes Tempests and keeps air superiority.
So in conclusion the tempest seems to have a stable role in this (imaginary) metagame, while the Carrier can never have a stable role against Terran or Zerg, as long as they have good airsuperiority fighters (in Broodwar Terran didn't have a good anticarrier airsuperiority fighter)
On a sidenote, this Tempestbashing really makes me sick... There have been like a thousand threads that cried for a "corsairlike" antiair for protoss, now that they get one, everyone cries that it is a boring unit... And don't tell me the corsair is more "interesting" than the tempest gameplaywise, because noone has a clue about how the tempest will play out in the end AND the corsair wasn't really interesting either, it's rather that it was a great tool in a great build. (so we see, there is a difference between design and use!)
|
On November 29 2011 22:36 DrunkenTemplar wrote:
Great read op, fucking terrible first replies.
I don't really think they're "fucking terrible".
While the OP is a very well-written article, it really is completely pointless, except as a post mortem. Blizzard already scrapped the carrier and created a new unit with new art. This would have been relevant earlier this year, now it's like a dissertation on why roaches should not be 1 food.
|
4713 Posts
The point was, even if Terran does have a reactored SP, he will be hard pressed to produce any vikings because he is already starved for gas from having invested so much into mech. Vikings will also not have any upgrades, and if a tech switch for carriers is viable then the protoss will be getting air attack upgrades, so a viking switch for a mech terran will be way weaker then a bio terran just because of how bio plays vs protoss. That is the nature of the meta-game.
Against zerg, it might not work as well because of the larva mechanics, it could still work if zerg has invested heavy into ground upgrades, ground army and has little to no gas for a tech switch into air, or has no air upgrades.
And the way the tempest works looks quite terrible, if its supposed to be a very broad anti-air role, in the sense that the tempest can flat out counter corrupters and vikings, which are meant to hard counter air. Then the tempest will be broken when put together with colossus, and it also is another deathball unit. If the tempest is made in such a way that it counters light air specifically then its role is too narrow and its, again bad for this reason. All that on top of the fact the tempest is a boring 1 dimensional a move unit.
The carrier we want fills more roles in a possible meta-game and is not strictly a deathball unit because of its great harass potential. Hence the unit is more interesting.
The corsair-tempest comparison was pointless. The corsair was a vastly different unit, lower cost, lower supply, fast, it was micro friendly and had disruption web, a great micro ability. Tempest is none of the above, it is boring.
And everyone saying that this thread is useless. Remember HoTS is not even out yet, no beta of it is out yet. Things can change a million times over by the time of release. If the carrier finds a purpose in the HoTS meta-game, a purpose and role that is way more encompassing then the tempest, and if it is more interesting then the tempest, then it is possible that the tempest will be cut.
Its sad that everyone seems so willing to overlook this fact.
|
Some people have been asking for a corsair unit, true. But the tempest is in no way a corsair unit. It may look like one and fire like one, but its a completely different role. Corsair was an air superiority fighter, with blazing fast speed and moving shot. It provided light support. So like the phoenix but better. Tempest is an a-moving, capital ship. It is boring and a much less interesting unit than the carrier.
I can almost guarantee that more people would rather just give the phoenix an upgrade at the fleet beacon or something to improve them against mutas, instead of replacing one of the most iconic units of all of starcraft.
It's funny because simply by virtue of being a capital ship, it fails at protecting at muta harass with its current stats. Have you played the HOTS mod with stats ported from blizzcon? It's not fast. It's capitol ship speed. And it can be magic boxed. It's going to fail in its anti-muta roll similiarly to how the thor failed it's role. It's too slow to catch the mutas, and because it's a capital unit, it takes too long to make enough to fully protect multiple bases against mutas.
I can imagine a lot of players wanting to try it out, but I can think of even more that would not give up the carrier for the tempest.
|
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
Any race with "the ultimate army" is hard to beat. Getting to a " Archon - Voidray - Colossus - Carrier (From Sc1) " includes getting so far ahead of your opponent that you can afford the tech and upgrades needed to make this composition. In other words, you could probably win with nearly any standard composition.
|
I wish they don't remove it, my favorite unit in the game, made me switch to protoss.
|
On November 30 2011 18:58 Destructicon wrote:
The point was, even if Terran does have a reactored SP, he will be hard pressed to produce any vikings because he is already starved for gas from having invested so much into mech. Vikings will also not have any upgrades, and if a tech switch for carriers is viable then the protoss will be getting air attack upgrades, so a viking switch for a mech terran will be way weaker then a bio terran just because of how bio plays vs protoss. That is the nature of the meta-game.
Against zerg, it might not work as well because of the larva mechanics, it could still work if zerg has invested heavy into ground upgrades, ground army and has little to no gas for a tech switch into air, or has no air upgrades.
And the way the tempest works looks quite terrible, if its supposed to be a very broad anti-air role, in the sense that the tempest can flat out counter corrupters and vikings, which are meant to hard counter air. Then the tempest will be broken when put together with colossus, and it also is another deathball unit. If the tempest is made in such a way that it counters light air specifically then its role is too narrow and its, again bad for this reason. All that on top of the fact the tempest is a boring 1 dimensional a move unit.
The carrier we want fills more roles in a possible meta-game and is not strictly a deathball unit because of its great harass potential. Hence the unit is more interesting.
The corsair-tempest comparison was pointless. The corsair was a vastly different unit, lower cost, lower supply, fast, it was micro friendly and had disruption web, a great micro ability. Tempest is none of the above, it is boring.
And everyone saying that this thread is useless. Remember HoTS is not even out yet, no beta of it is out yet. Things can change a million times over by the time of release. If the carrier finds a purpose in the HoTS meta-game, a purpose and role that is way more encompassing then the tempest, and if it is more interesting then the tempest, then it is possible that the tempest will be cut.
Its sad that everyone seems so willing to overlook this fact.
Do you even realize how unrealistic your scenarios sound?
You're proposing to invest into air upgrades early and to build enough carriers before your opponent realizes what is going on... That's not a stable metagame, it is a hidden cheese... One that you're most likely not going to survive in the first place. Also we don't know if Mechunits are going to be viable in TvP in the first place and how those builds/compositions will look like. If they are Marinebased the most common carrier problems remain (no time/money to get to them against low tier units, doesn't work very well against marines in low numbers; Protoss needs splash to counter marines), if the warhound is really good vs carriers, same thing. If they are viking based (like TvT Mech), same thing...
Your suggesting to keep a unit that has proven to be completly useless in the current metagame, just because you hope that it will find one purpose, that seems completly unneeded right now... (Protoss has a lot of better ways to deal with mech, from mobile play with blink and warp ins to straight antimech units like immortals and chargelots)
Also all your theorycraft about what the Tempest is allowed to do and what not is straight up bullshit...
Let's say the tempest was just good enough to add enough damage so that voidray/tempest beats corruptors costwise slightly(f.e with the tempests splash not stacking, or just generally well balanced on all realistic supply levels) The moment you add something else like colossi, this balance could switch over to corruptors beating all those units...
I'd even go further and say that blizzard is trying to set the PvZ game up for Protoss opening air (voidray/phoenix + oracle) and denying zerg air (tempest), while they strengthen zergs ground play vs Air Protoss in the longrun. (swarm hosts siegeing Protoss bases until obs are out, hydra speed, smoother/faster hive transition if needed, vipers vs colossi, viper+hydra combo...)
Again, this is also just theorycraft and we will have to wait at least until the beta to see how the game turns out, but at least for me this looks quite realistic.
Furthermore your post is extremly inconsistent. On the one hand your talk about the Tempest being a boring unit, on the other hand you're saying that everything can still change. So what gives you the right to know how the Tempest will play out, but everyone else doesn't have the right to say that the carrier will most likely not fill any role in HotS?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
