EPTThe future of the carrier - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ArcticRaven
France1406 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
But you can't say the Carrier isn't iconic either. It's still being used successfully in OSL finals for pete's sake. | ||
|
cLutZ
United States19574 Posts
Clearly the AOE couldn't be Reaver strong, but a nice little burst, on demand, that causes some serious AOE, then your carriers retreat. | ||
|
Captain Peabody
United States3135 Posts
On December 04 2011 07:30 cLutZ wrote: Carriers could eliminate the need for the tempest if they simply got a new ability: Detonate interceptor. Clearly the AOE couldn't be Reaver strong, but a nice little burst, on demand, that causes some serious AOE, then your carriers retreat. This would be really cool, actually. Press a button, and one of your interceptors suicides into the muta ball. Anyway, I definitely support the Carrier staying in. It does have a good, unique role, and a good, unique unit design, and with a few tweaks, could actually be quite strong. It would, in fact, be a lot stronger, I think, in conjunction with the Tempest, either as a separate unit, or an ability on the Carrier. Hear this, Blizzard? Keep the Carrier! | ||
|
Kaitokid
Germany1327 Posts
 | ||
|
BlueBoxSC
United States582 Posts
On December 04 2011 08:21 Captain Peabody wrote: This would be really cool, actually. Press a button, and one of your interceptors suicides into the muta ball. Anyway, I definitely support the Carrier staying in. It does have a good, unique role, and a good, unique unit design, and with a few tweaks, could actually be quite strong. It would, in fact, be a lot stronger, I think, in conjunction with the Tempest, either as a separate unit, or an ability on the Carrier. Hear this, Blizzard? Keep the Carrier! I actually like the idea of Protoss scourge more than losing the Carrier and getting the ugly Tempest. :< | ||
|
Govou
Canada1072 Posts
they need cheap, fast build air unit that can be massed. Otherwise, Viking owns them all in terms of cost/time. (and chances are they already have vikings out) Zerg needs better T1 scout unit and Protos needs better low tech Harass unit. Otherwise, Terrans have away too much versatility and all in attack they can pull. These have been notified time and time again from the launch. IMO they need to modify phoenix and make it cheaper/weaker and faster built unit in some ways. | ||
|
stevarius
United States1394 Posts
On November 29 2011 22:18 bladesoflight wrote: by fixing it they are removing it end of thread ! User was warned for this post I'm surprised this guy was warned when we all know the Carrier is not going to remain because of Blizzard's decision to remove it in HotS. I'd highly doubt they would revert any changes like this. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
On December 04 2011 10:42 stevarius wrote: I'm surprised this guy was warned when we all know the Carrier is not going to remain because of Blizzard's decision to remove it in HotS. I'd highly doubt they would revert any changes like this. Actually originally there were other capital ships for protoss, but everyone went crazy about them removing the carrier so they put it back. One unit that they had to "replace" the carrier was called the tempest and it couldn't shoot air. In short, they have reverted this exact change in the recent past. | ||
|
epi
Canada115 Posts
The carrier was usable in exactly one matchup: PvT. It isn't usable at all PvZ in BW because spire is a standard response to early game corsairs, and scourge counter carriers extremely efficiently. Even without that, the typical Zerg composition involves very large numbers of hydras, which do a pretty good job against interceptors. And even without that, defilers are extremely strong against carriers, making hydras invulnerable to their attacks and getting the most mileage out of their plagues on carriers. It also isn't usable in PvP because the baseline unit in that matchup was the dragoon, and Protoss casters are also strong against carriers. So in two of three matchups the BW carrier is doing no better than the SC2 one. Now it did work against Terran, but Terran has plenty of units that obliterate carriers. Marines are just as good against interceptors as in SC2. Wraiths, battlecruisers, and goliaths can all hit the carrier and all work pretty well. Why didn't any of these stop it? Let me list the ways. 1. Protoss was too strong against bio to use it. So marines are off the table, because barracks units were just worthless outside of a few offbeat timing attacks. 2. As a design decision, fighter-class air units did not do much damage to ground units, and got extremely hard-countered by dragoons, which were a backbone Protoss unit. So wraiths weren't made, either, and crucially, not starports and no air upgrades, so a switch to wraiths or battlecruisers was not possible. 3. That meant TvP was played exclusively with factory units. Mech pushes are fairly immobile, something the carrier can exploit, and it forced Terran players to use the goliath against carriers - arguably one of the weaker options in isolation. 4. The goliath is a ground unit with poor pathfinding, so only as many as can fit on a piece of terrain can shoot at a carrier at once. They are also stopped by cliffs and unwalkable space. Poor pathfinding means that the maximum possible number of goliaths in an area is almost never reached. 5. The goliath has a relatively slow moving projectile. Projectile ranged attacks are weaker against interceptors, especially slow ones, since it typically means that many more projectiles will be launched at an interceptor than are required to kill it. Of all the possible responses to carriers, goliaths are the weakest against interceptors. 6. The goliath costs enough gas and is weak enough against ground that building too many results in being overrun by solely gateway units. The best terran players build almost zero goliaths until they're sure there are carriers or a few arbiters - they'll even bring SCVs and build turrets rather than build goliaths. So there's six reasons why carriers worked against Terran in BW. Six reasons that contributed to one big weakness, which is what the carrier exploited. The important point is that all six of these reasons had to be true for the weakness to exist and for carriers to work. Change just point 1 - if marines work against Protoss, each of the other points can stay exactly the same and carriers drop out of the metagame completely. Or change point 5 - let's say goliaths used their machine gun against air instead of missiles - and in all likelihood carriers are unusable once again as goliaths mow interceptors out of the sky. The question isn't about whether we can make the carrier build in 90 seconds, or whether interceptors heal, or how much it helps to have or not have upgrades. Those things are relevant adjustments if the unit itself is already valuable, but they aren't, by themselves, the reason why you do or do not use the unit. In BW PvZ there was no weakness that the carrier could exploit and consequently it found itself unused, even though it was the same unit that Jangbi could use just two of to beat back a mech push in the OSL. The bottom line: in order for the carrier to be useful, it must either be radically redesigned to exploit an existing weakness, or the rest of the game needs to be adjusted such that a common strategy vs. Protoss becomes weak to carriers where it wasn't before. Anything else isn't enough. | ||
|
azngunzfoo
United States8 Posts
the video is of a modded carrier, where someone went into the galaxy editor and changed the mechanics of the carrier basically, the interceptors are already out and following the carrier (similar to the flyingbroodlings that float with the broodlords) with what we see inthe video, carriers would be able to be microd more effectively because they could more or less focus fire down units. also, with the interceptors already floating around, they could also be used as extra fodder (units to be attacked by the enemy) so that in fights when people dont focus down the carriers themselves, the carrier would not die as fast. | ||
|
Selendis
Australia509 Posts
| ||
|
Olsson
Sweden931 Posts
Anyways to the OP. Carriers also counter vikings per supply so yeah FYI. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On November 29 2011 23:26 Levistus wrote: Replace the Mothership with the motherfucking Carrier hailing "Carrier has arrived!" to change the tide of battle, which will be the case of the future Thor(Thor is here!). Just make the interceptors invincible or something. I just love the carrier and its interceptors and its "Carrier has arrived" when made. Also they should use broodwar arbiter's voice. I actually really like this idea. The carrier should be the big tide-turner. Make it like one of the "super class" ships like the Gantrithor was. It could have like 10-12 interceptors, and more armor. Maybe even an attack of its own besides the interceptors (or not, idk). It is too cool of unit to be replaced so easily. As others have said, they are helping the battlecruiser, but not the carrier!?! Which sounds much more exciting and deep? A unit that launches several other small units that dart in and out, or a unit that shoots one big splash damage shot. It isn't hard. The carrier is a much deeper unit than the tempest, with a lot more potential, if they would just spend some time with it. | ||
|
Ariuz
Germany39 Posts
| ||
|
GhostBusters
United States198 Posts
| ||
|
itsjuspeter
United States668 Posts
On December 04 2011 07:07 ArcticRaven wrote: The carrier, iconic unit ? Maybe. Fix hydras so they are useful, first, then we'll see. This is a thread discussing Carriers, do you go around starting zerg qq everywhere you go? Anyway, Carriers are indeed an iconic unit, we saw some of its promise in PvZ, the problem is the usage in PvT where high dps from marines in conjunction with vikings make them unusable unless used in a funky build. Addressing these issues should be the main thing to focus on. | ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27207 Posts
The reason they should be kept is that, if they worked like in BW they were a unit that wasn't brilliant A-moved, but was microable and scaled well with skill. Well-microed Carriers in BW were a thing of beauty. So now we hear that Carriers are gone, and replaced with the Tempest that looks like the definition of an A-move unit that requires next to no ability to use. I would prefer the Carrier to stay and be reworked, but if you [i]are/i] taking it out, replace it with a unit that requires some actual skill at this game to use. It doesn't even counter the thing it's apparently in the game for particularly well - mass mutalisks because it's so far up the Stargate tech path. Are Blizzard actually consciously trying to make the only viable styles of Protoss turtling into deathballs, or hitting 2 base timings because it sure seems that way? | ||
|
drop271
New Zealand286 Posts
Where is the 'why' in your article? In making a case for retaining the carrier, which seems to be your central point, you seem to overlook why it should be retained? You do briefly mention sentimentality, canon, and its role in Brood War, but to an extent those are irrelevant. In SC2, is having it important? The argument you follow with regards the faults of the carrier. Fine. Blizzard know this, thats why they are removing it. How does that relate to your first point? | ||
| ||
