| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
aderum
Sweden1459 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. what in the holy banana are you trying to say? I can agree that the hydra isnt optimal, but you still see it in ~50(+-20) % of ZvP. We never see carriers, and if we do its b/c someone is so far ahead they could fart their way into victory. | ||
|
Poehalcho
149 Posts
| ||
|
Snowbear
Korea (South)1925 Posts
On January 19 2012 05:08 Ariuz wrote: one of the best threads I`ve ever seen on TL forums, I agree with u in all terms, I just think removing the battlecruser would make more sence, give the carrier a chance! sometimes I use it in lategame PvZ when they have to many broodlords, I just dont really like it that I need to pay for my intercepters and the broodlord gets his broodlings for free. I have no problem with a carrier change, if mech would be possible in tvp. Atm mech is a joke in tvp, just as the carrier. | ||
|
Modernist
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 135096
3624 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! This sort of falls into the whole Gantrithor thingy sorta neatly as well. Protoss scourge, an interesting idea. | ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3462 Posts
| ||
|
MrFrenchy
Canada37 Posts
Perhaps the solution would be to make the carrier serve the tempest's intended purpose to gain air superiority? Maybe you could give the interceptors a single splash attack (think thor anti air attack)? This would also help fix it's massive weakness to massed marines/hydras. | ||
|
Mikelius
Germany517 Posts
On January 19 2012 05:49 drop271 wrote: @OP 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? What upsets most people is how Blizzard has acknowledge the Carrier's faults, but has done absolutely nothing to help improve it slightly. When most people wanted it from the start, they just gave us a crappy unit and because no one used if they go "Fuck it" and scrap it entirely. | ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
Carriers, however, suffer from attack power attrition like small groups of weaker units. Instead of getting better over time, like a void ray, or at least staying even, like a BC, carriers lose attack strength as the battle wages on. This is inherently disadvantageous, and unless they are buffed to have some other advantage in battle they will remain unused at the top levels of play. Personally, I would like to see two types of interceptors that you could build, one with good anti-armour abilities and one with lower AOE, so you could actually use the interceptor-building mechanic and customize your load-out on the go, making it a boon, not a curse. I still expect the carrier to make a triumphant return in LotV, after they remove the tempest. | ||
|
hitpoint
United States1511 Posts
| ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
On January 19 2012 05:49 drop271 wrote: @OP 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? Why have a unit in the game that is useless? Blizzard has already shown they are willing to buff units so they see more play (see the patch notes re: the ghost cost buff). They have never done anything to even attempt to fix the carrier. I will say, with regard to this, however, is that the carrier is mostly obsolete due to metagame issues: marines and vikings, which hard counter carriers and interceptors, are already a staple unit, as well as corruptors which are necessary for lategame Zerg compositions involving brood lords. The only reason you don't see carriers in PvP is because the matchup is broken and it never progresses past two-base.  | ||
|
sitromit
7051 Posts
On January 19 2012 05:52 aderum wrote: what in the holy banana are you trying to say? I can agree that the hydra isnt optimal, but you still see it in ~50(+-20) % of ZvP. We never see carriers, and if we do its b/c someone is so far ahead they could fart their way into victory. Watch the last game of the recent White-Ra vs Nerchio showmatch and tell me White-Ra was "so far ahead" when he wiped out Nerchio's base with Carriers. | ||
|
OzkanTheFlip
United States246 Posts
nice read eitherway though | ||
|
Fyrewolf
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
drop271
New Zealand286 Posts
Neither of you answer my question. I agree, as I said, that they are flawed. But I ask why we should retain it in HotS (as the OP asks). I agree it stinks Blizzard never patched it, and I agree that it was questionable to include it in the beginning without it working. But, do you believe that because they did include it that they are some how obligated to continue having it? Really? | ||
|
QNdie
Poland210 Posts
| ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
With my friend T, we play PT at a 2v2 top #50 EU level, and carriers are a very effective way to metagame vs PT against the usual "P makes colossus" and "T makes bio/mech". I would add that PT vs PT is probably our best matchup by far (something like 90% winrate maybe last 2 months), because it's usually quite macro oriented. Here's a replay showcasing this, against decent 1v1 players (but not so experimented in 2v2 most likely) (a high master and a GM) http://drop.sc/94245 As long as you're very map aware and you scout well what they're going for, with T's mech granting you cover, you can allow yourself to be a bit light on units for a while, while still taking expansions and teching to carriers. + Show Spoiler + Another one with carriers, but from 2 months ago with a way lower 2v2 MMR: http://drop.sc/94577 In 1v1, I would buff carriers by simply reducing the build time, and/or allowing carrier micro. But Protoss doesn't need this atm obviously ^^. Edit: I'd note that you can't accomplish the same thing with void-rays. Thors and psi-storm are too powerful against those, and it's quite impossible to magic box void rays :p. Plus carriers have essentially the same range as siege tanks, hence have a great synergy with them. | ||
|
paddyz
Ireland628 Posts
| ||
|
quistador
United States43 Posts
| ||
|
ejozl
Denmark3462 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs Zoun
Classic vs Reynor
Maru vs SHIN
MaxPax vs TriGGeR
BSL: GosuLeague
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
RSL Revival
WardiTV Korean Royale
IPSL
Julia vs Artosis
JDConan vs DragOn
RSL Revival
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
