Before I start I'd like to give special thanks to Plexa for reviewing all the iterations of my article, pointing out flaws and all around being of great help.
Premise
If you do not want the long read, or do not feel like you want to take part in the discussion, then don't. However if you do want to participate, try and do it in a positive way with good observations, arguments and facts, please do this for the carrier's sake.
The objective of this article is quite simply to save the carrier for its inevitable removal in HoTS. The carrier is one of the most iconic unit of SC, not just BW or SC2, in all of the SC universe. It was the carrier flagship Gantrithor that Tassadar crashed into the Overmind to destroy it. In BW it gave us tons of cool games to fondly remember. The carrier is such an iconic unit, and is so loved that, Blizzard couldn't bear to not add it in SC2. And I quote " Dustin said that the Tempest didn't feel right and that there was too much of an emotional connection with the original unit. He mentioned that if you asked someone what his/her favorite Protoss units were, the Carrier is one that is always near the top of the list."
It is sad to see the Carrier underperform so badly in SC2 and to see so little done on Blizzard's behalf to fix it. But even more sad, I find that the community isn't rallying up to try and defend it. Given how beloved and iconic the unit is how can we allow ourselves to let this happen? I sure as hell don't plan to let this event unfold without a fight, I play terran and still find the carrier an iconic unit that is worth keeping.
To save the carrier we have to be together on this, we have to speak out Blizzard in one united voice and tell them that, we don't want the stupid Tempest, we want our Carrier, we know how good it can be, we know how it can be fixed and we want Blizzard to at least give it a chance.
As soon as this work is complete I'll make a post on Battle.net using the same arguments and solutions I come up with in this article+ the best suggestions and solutions the community comes up with. When the time comes we'll bump this discussion to the front page, week after week month after month, we can spread the word on reddit and tweeter and rally together more support, until hopefully Blizzard listens and at least gives the carrier a patch before HoTS to try it out.
With that said, be warned that this is going to be a very long post, I'll be gathering and displaying a lot of data, picking apart every flaw in the carrier design, extrapolating it and putting it into perspective of the meta game.
Now, with all that said and done, let us move on to the main course.
The Carrier Flaws First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments. 1. The carrier is too slow to build. 2. The carrier is not micro friendly. 3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades. 4. The carrier is too easy to counter. 5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units 6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile. Now to put things into perspective.
1 Carrier is too slow to build
To give you an idea just how slow it is, in the time it takes to build a carrier without chrono you can almost build 6 vikings from a single reactored Starport. And even with chrono you can still get 4 vikings, which is more than adequate defense versus Carriers.
For zerg, in the time it takes to make carriers they can build dozens of corrupters thanks to the larva mechanic.
To put it into perspective, the build speed is so slow that, even the Tempest, the replacement for the carrier is supposed to have a build time of 70 seconds without chrono, and even the Battlecruiser, which started life in SC2 with a build time of 110 seconds quickly came down to 90 seconds.
Another way some people have approached this was trying to hide 4-5 SG and the Fleet Beacon, so they can get their carriers out in a reasonable amount of time. The downside to this is, the very big logistics needed. The SG cost 150 M & 150 G each, unless you have integrated protoss air into your build in some way you need to invest between 600/600 and 750/750 just to get the buildings, then another 300/200 for the fleet beacon. You'll also need to be on 4 bases for sure to have enough chrono boost to build all the carriers in a reasonable amount of time. And on top of that you need to invest 350/250 per carrier per SG for a total of 2100/1500.
Not to mention that you'll have between 24 to 30 supply stuck for at least 90 seconds doing nothing, at a time in the game when each and every supply is vital to stay alive. I doubt protoss can hold of any army with that kind of a supply deficit. And if you lose all your army you lost your support for the carriers. And on top of that you'll have no chrono to support the rest of your army because it is required for the carrier.
In PvZ, against a mostly zerg ground army, it could be a roach, infestor composition that people still like, with maybe a sprinkle or zerglings and swarm hosts come HoTS. This composition could either be from the zerg player's choosing, or forced upon the zerg because of heavy use of a GW army from the protoss.
In this case, the Protoss has a window of time where he can do damage with Carriers if he had them. The carriers are slightly better vs this army then colossus, because they hard counters ground units, and they don't become vulnerable if all of a sudden forcefields are nullified or sentries get destroyed. The downside is, carriers can't be microed (I'll get to that in the next part), which leaves them open to being neural parasited and, if even one of them is spotted, then the zerg has all the time in the world to get enough anti-air and upgrades for when he will have to face the carrier threat.
Against a mech terrain in HoTS carriers could be another response, however the downside here is that, the carriers need to be massed to do any good, and again by the time you can get enough, you'll most likely be destroyed by the terran's timing push.
So there is no doubt about it, the unit is just too slow to build which allows a vast amount of time to counter them, or costs too much with too big of a logistics requirement if you want to power mass them fast.
2 The Carrier is not micro friendly
This is something more related to the AI of interceptors, how they worked in BW and how they work in SC2.
Basically in BW the carrier had the same range as in SC2, the main difference was that when interceptors where launched, they would continue attacking for a couple of seconds even after the carrier was issued a move command.
This is what ultimately made carriers such a loved and interesting unit in BW, you could micro them back and forth, across cliffs and chasms, keep them alive while inflicting punishment.
Let us remember that, even in Brood War, carriers, if you just A-moved them into a group of Goliaths, Hydras or Marines, would still die horribly. The difference between terrible carriers and incredible carriers came down to how well people could control them. There was a gradient of skill on using carriers in BW and that is always a good thing, it makes for exciting games when players can make the most out of their units and sometimes defy the odds based on how good their control is, it helps people shine when they have legendary control as opposed to someone who only has good/average control.
In SC2 that kind of AI doesn't exist, the interceptors return to the carrier immediately once you issue a move command, which makes carriers very un-interesting. They are basically just a big A move unit, and they are very easy to kite since you can hardly ever micro them.
In the current state of the game, a surprising amount of units can be microed, either they have a fast attack animation and turn rate, or they have some sort of ability that makes micro easy.
Marines and Marauders are great to micro because of stutter step thanks to the fast attack speed and turn rate, however Stalkers are equally great to micro thanks to blink. It is a bit unfortunate that Roaches aren't microed as well as they could be given the potential with burrow-heal, but the potential is there. Mutalisks are great to micro, not only for hit and run but also to magic box against the dreaded thor. Vikings can be microed well thanks to their long range.
Helions and Zerglings can be microed too, mostly because of their speed, even if it sounds odd, think of those hit and run scenarios where zerglings run in, do some small damage and then run out before they can die, especially in ZvZ, think of how zerglings can be pulled out just before they die when fighting zealots.
In short, this problem makes carriers a very boring, no skill and no depth unit and continues the trend of making them easy to kite and counter, this is the same reason why we all hated the tempest when we first saw it.
3 The Carrier is the unit dependent most on upgrades
The carrier has 8 interceptors, each interceptor has two attacks of 5 damage, that is a total damage output of 80, with an attack speed of 3. So the DPS is actually 26.6. It isn't too bad, the DPS of a Battlecruiser is very similar at 24. It is also more burst at fist which is good for hit and run.
However this leads to a problem, upgrade scaling. Each upgrade level improves each attack of the interceptor by 1, the damage from interceptor goes from 5 to 6, two attack. So a total of 96 damage. As you can see each upgrade improves the total damage of the carrier by 16, and raises the DPS by approximately 5.33.
However the reverse is equally true, for each armor upgrade the enemy gets damage of the carrier goes down by 16 and the DPS goes down equally.
This might not seem bad out of context since you will want to upgrade the carrier like any unit you get.
However, when you think about it, the carrier comes into the game at a time when most armies are running on 3/3 upgrades and at the very least 2/2. And to make it even worst, the carrier requires its own set of upgrades, which is a problem given that, in the current meta-game the rest of protoss air is hardly viable and its usually not worth getting.
So in most cases the carrier already comes from behind, the protoss needs to time things out in such a way that his +2 or +3 air attack comes out at about the same time the enemy's +2 or +3 armor and about the same time as the carrier comes out. All of this is hard to do and requires a steep investment given the viability of air at the moment.
Now this is mostly a meta-game problem, it is brought by the fact that in most MU's protoss air isn't viable, or its viable only for short periods of time, too short to warrant upgrades. It is unfortunate because this scaling is a bit of a unique characteristic of the unit and one of the things that makes it interesting.
4 The carrier is to easy to counter
This is, in a way the result and summary of all the above points but also merits its own discussion because of the counter units of the carrier, and their role in the meta-game. The hard counters to the carrier are, vikings and corrupters and the soft counters are marines and hydras.
PvT Viking Range 9, acceleration 2.625, top speed 2.75. Those are the only stats that actually matter, because of the following thing stats of the carrier - speed 1.875 acceleration 1.063.
As you can see the viking out-ranges the carrier by just enough to hit and run, and they also move fast enough that carriers can't keep up. This is the same as Vikings vs Battlecruisers, Vikings have just enough range and are just fast enough that they can absolutely decimate BC.
In the case of the Viking, with proper micro you can take out carriers while taking minimal losses, and this is compounded by the problems noted above, like the interceptor AI problem, the upgrade problem and the production problem.
While marines have smaller attacks that are slightly less effective vs carrier base 2 armor, you must remember that marines by this point in the game will get at least+ 2 attack and +3 most likely or very soon while protoss are hard pressed to get weapon damage and armor upgrades are harder to come by.
Marines attack speed with stim is also great. However what marines counter hardest is interceptors.
The attack speed and damage from upgrades, combined with the lack of shield and armor upgrades for protoss air results in interceptors dying absurdly fast and then rendering the carrier useless and vulnerable. This also goes back into the problem with interceptor AI and them not getting healed when they return to the carrier. However this also goes into a deeper problem, a meta-game problem.
In the current meta-game marines and vikings are all standard play for terrans. Bio terran is currently the only viable way for terran to play versus Protoss, which means they will always get marines, one of the easiest ground units to counter carrier. And because marines and marauders are very light on gas, the terran is free to spend his gas appropriately on medivac and viking. Viking is a core part of the terran army because of its anti-colossus capabilities.
PvZ Corrupter HP 200, armor 2, attack speed 1.9, damage 14+6 vs massive, speed 2.953 acceleration 2.625. Corruption +20% damage for 30 seconds. The HP 200 and armor 2 are the real deal here. Because of interceptor attack mechanics the corrupters are really hard to kill, and with armor upgrades they become very resilient. Corrupters also scale very good from attack upgrades vs massive, getting +2 per upgrade. With Corruption the DPS output vs massive of the Corrupter can even out scale the Viking.
Because of larva mechanics zerg can re-max faster than protoss, if carriers lose their escort and they are left alone vs corrupters they lose badly. Cost effectively though the corrupter isn't so good, at 150/150, however given how zerg armies tend to be more mineral heavy for the lower tiers this can be balanced out somewhat towards the mid to late game and depending how many bases the zerg secures.
Hydras are in the same boat as marines regarding their interaction with carriers, they do double the damage of marines but they attack slower which balances them out. The hydras are even less affected by the carrier base armor because of their higher damage, and they become deadlier with attack upgrades and the lack of armor upgrades from carriers. And again because of their damage output and speed the hydra counters interceptors.
This is another meta-game problem. Currently protoss air, actually encourages the exact follow up units they want to avoid if they go carrier. A protoss air pressure with phoenix and void ray backed up by warp prism and sentry FF, can be very deadly on its own, but it can be held. If the zerg holds, the primary way they do so is with hydra and then adds roaches for an attack. The protoss knows he has forced hydra so he transitions out of air play into colossus, the zerg, knowing this, transitions into corrupter, which is a great follow up because it both counters colossus and sets up for the brood lord follow up.
The biggest problem here is that, Carriers are countered by some of the most common units in the meta-game. Marines are the backbone of terran armies in a lot of situations and match-ups. Vikings are practically a requirement due to the current meta-game being bio oriented vs protoss.
As for zerg, while the hydra wasn't the most popular unit for a long time it has started to make a comeback in certain strategies and as a response to certain builds. Same as the corrupter, in most cases the corrupter is a natural transition for zerg armies so they can later get brood lords.
5 The carrier's roles and weaknesses seems to overlap that of other units
I think people, to a large extent, see the carrier as a sort of ultimate late game tech unit, and because it is so late game it must share the same role as the colossus and so the two cancel each other out. This isn't entirely true, while carriers and colossus do share some similarities, when you look at them in depth you'll find they are worlds apart, and I'll talk more about that later on.
However to a large extent the very hard counter of colossus, the viking and the corrupter are also hard counters for the carrier. This is a big problem because the protoss has almost no opportunity to make a viable tech switch to Carrier.
Terrans need to get Vikings by default because of colossus, which also works in handy against warp prism micro and hard counters carriers. Corrupter is a natural choice for late game zerg to transition into Brood lords later.
Given the current meta-game this doesn't look like it will change.
The role of the carrier might seem like it over-lapses that of the Void Ray as well. Void rays could be used to wreck terran mech or zerg ground. However this is mostly a result of how poorly the carrier was handled till now.
With some changes the carrier could fit a newer more interesting role that is distinct from both that of void rays and colossus. However in its current state it just doesn't deliver.
I assure you, this problem is actually not as large as you may think, this is something that could fix itself a long with the fixing of the carrier in the points I touched upon above, and along with a meta-game shift.
The biggest issue here is the meta-game, it is just too one dimensional in regards of PvT, and PvZ in the late game, however this won't always be so.
6 The carrier's interceptors are too fragile
Another key change that took place in the transition from BW to SC2 was the removal of the interceptor's heal once they returned to the carrier. Basically interceptors where always weak to marines and hydra's, even in BW, but at least they could be healed once they returned to the carrier. And they needed to be healed since they also spent more time fighting due to the different AI as explained in point 3.
Also note, the HP and shields of interceptors have not changed from BW to SC2. Interceptors have 40 HP and 40 Shields. However they did have 4 range. This 4 range was important because interceptors would spread out more and be less vulnerable against splash and be more easily protected.
If carriers could be microed the way they used to in BW, then interceptors would spend more time fighting, however if they spent lots of time fighting they take damage and eventually get destroyed.
I believe that given how fragile interceptors are, if the game where to drag on long enough after carriers were made, the costs to maintain the interceptor fleet could outweigh the benefits of the carrier, the costs could ramp up way beyond what you payed to get carriers.
A carrier costs 350 minerals and comes with only 4 interceptors, so you need to invest another 25 minerals per interceptor to make the max 8 that the carrier can hold. Now, if you lose all interceptors from say 6 carriers, you just lost almost 50% of the value of the carrier, or 1200 minerals. If you lose all interceptors again you lost a bit more than 100% the value of the carrier, or 2400 minerals and so on.
Interceptors absolutely need some extra survivability, it is bad enough that you wait a long time to get carriers, you don't want to have to wait another two minutes to re-max on interceptors.
I think this cost is too prohibitive on the carrier, a unit that already takes too long to build and is too easy to counter with not enough ways to micro. There is no equivalent in game to this.
Conclusion regarding weaknesses
While some of the more obvious weaknesses of the carrier, the build time, cost and interceptor AI can be fixed, some of the other weaknesses come in the form of the meta-game.
In the current meta-game protoss air is viable only in a very short window of time, too short to warrant upgrades, which leads to increased costs of the carrier when the switch is needed. In the current meta game the carrier comes into the game against compositions that counter it very hard.
There is however light at the end of the tunnel. That very light is Heart of the Swarm, with its new units it promises to change up the meta-game so much that, it could foster in a new era of strategies and tactics, one in which carriers have a role.
Terran mech against protoss might become viable thanks to the battle helion and warhound. While more ground orientated late game strategies could surface for zerg against protoss. But now you may be wondering, exactly where does the carrier fit?
Is there a place in SC2 for the Carrier?
Surely void rays can abuse terran mech and zerg ground well enough, surely colossus and/or storm could be better in those situations where void rays aren't good, right? Wrong!
Once buffed, carriers would have a unique set of characteristics that set them apart from both void rays and colossus, and makes them useful in situations where neither is. First lets analyze the current differences between them.
Void rays to steady DPS, they are not suitable for hit and run and they have range small enough to make them vulnerable when they engage. However the carrier already has a range long enough to assault positions that would put void rays in too much peril. The most differentiating factor however, is the way damage is dealt. When the carrier's interceptors come out they do so at almost the same time, and then they attack at almost the same time. So carriers actually deal 80 damage in a couple of seconds. This is massive, it allows the carriers to burst down certain key units or structures and then retreat to safety, something that is impossible for void rays to do. The only reason it isn't viable now is, again the match-up, but also because of the mechanics I discussed about in the above sections.
So we see the carrier's new role emerge, it now becomes a long range air siege unit, doing hit and run with its interceptors, bursting down key units/buildings and retreating before it can be harmed.
Now you may ask, doesn't the colossus fulfill the same role? Yes and no, the colossus is a very flexible unit, it does have cliff walking allowing it to attack from angles that would normally be impossible for most ground units, and it does have a long range, it feels a lot like the carrier, but that is where the similarities end.
Again a key difference comes in how attacks work. The colossus does a pair of aoe attacks in lines parallel to the colossus position, not perpendicular like the helion. So the colossus excels against mass bio or mass zerg ground, that is their role, to obliterate ground units.
The colossus however would be terrible against a well spread out and well protected tank position. Tanks deal bonus damage to armored, and they out range colossus by a substantial amount. They can also be spread in such a way as to minimize aoe while still maximizing damage output.
Ultimately the colossus is still a ground unit, they can't go everywhere, but carriers can. And carriers more focused attacks make them way more effective against other kinds of units.
And while they do share some weaknesses, like vikings and corrupters, they don't have all of them.
Imagine a map, say Metalopolis, late game, in a split map situation where terran has established a fortified line on each side of his gold base/planetary. A very difficult position to attack into thanks to the terrain, the big gaps between bases the narrow roads the space in between golds. Usually perfect for terrans. If you add a viable carrier to the mix, it turns the entire thing on its head.
The terrain terrans used to love is now being used against them, carriers are doing hit and run from across the big chasms in between bases, sieging the terran's gold base, not allowing him to mine, eroding the tank line bit by bit.
The carrier, being an air unit is not in danger of the tank's huge range and damage, and it doesn't care how spread tanks are, it can come in and burst them down before the terran has time to react.
The carrier's traditional role of, anti-mech has always held true, even in Brood War, I do believe it could hold true even in HoTS and possibly and any number of other as of yet unforeseen scenarios of the expansion.
So, I do believe the answer is a resounding yes. The carrier does have its place in SC2, it has a unique set of features that make it great in certain situations where colossus and void rays won't cut it. The carrier just needs some help to get it on track.
Main conclusion
I hope I've been able to do a good enough job of explaining why the carrier is bad at the moment, but also to explain how and why it could be very, very good in the future meta-game.
Let us not forget that, HoTS is not here and it is not final, lots of things can change till then, the match-ups can all evolve a lot till then and will develop even more after that. However, some things don't change, the fundamentals are there for carriers to be a great addition to the protoss fleet, the potential, the future meta-game the terrain.
It is impossible to hypothesize exactly how the carrier will perform in this ever shifting environment, that is why we need to push for Blizzard to include it in the beta of HoTS, so we can run tests and flesh out all of its potential.
Now it is your turn as a community to speak on behalf of the carrier. Please voice your thoughts here in as precise a manner as possible. I don't mind if you take my arguments about the future meta-game apart, as long as you pinpoint problems in an exact way and also suggest solutions we might be able to fix all the problems.
Again, this is for the future of the carrier, do we really want the carrier to fade quietly into the night? Do we want to sit quietly and observe this crime take place, without any action on our behalf? Do we really want one of the most iconic units in SC to be gone possibly never to be seen again?
NO we don't, now lets make it happen! Lets make Blizzard take notice!
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
On November 29 2011 22:22 TotalBiscuit wrote: Well written thread and 2 not so well written replies up there :/
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.
Why build carriers when you can just make chargelots lol? Not that hard to press W, and then ZZZZZZZZ hehe I mean ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, yeah, that's about right.
Great read op, fucking terrible first replies. I would like the carriers to stay in but didn't Dustin Browder say in that TL interview at Blizzcon that they wouldn't touch the ai side of things in sc2? I agree that a delay would make the unit a lot better and interesting but I don't see Blizzard doing it.
On November 29 2011 22:36 DrunkenTemplar wrote: Great read op, fucking terrible first replies. I would like the carriers to stay in but didn't Dustin Browder say in that TL interview at Blizzcon that they wouldn't touch the ai side of things in sc2? I agree that a delay would make the unit a lot better and interesting but I don't see Blizzard doing it.
I believe Browder was referring to the pathfinding. They didn't want to dumb it down to prevent balling up.
On November 29 2011 22:22 TotalBiscuit wrote: Well written thread and 2 not so well written replies up there :/
But they speak the truth... I mean, do you think Blizzard will come up with a way to include the carrier again with all this new stuff around?
@Pathfinding issue: Would a pathblocking of your own units count as "dumbing down"? There are ways to improve the movements without dumbing it down, it all depends on where blizzard draws the line.
I actually use carriers REGULARLY as an actual combat unit in my PvZs. They are definitely a viable late game unit, and together with the mothership, they're almost unstoppable.
A) The vast majority of the users here haven't used them in BW to develop your nostaglia, they've grown up in the scene where carriers are a complete joke and won't miss them outside of 4v4s. B) Add Collsus and Carrier share the same counters so you can't tech swap into them and collosus are just so much better as an opening to the flaws list. C) What's so stupid about the tempest?
On November 29 2011 22:45 TheButtonmen wrote: A) The vast majority of the users here haven't used them in BW to develop your nostaglia, they've grown up in the scene where carriers are a complete joke and won't miss them outside of 4v4s. B) Add Collsus and Carrier share the same counters so you can't tech swap into them and collosus are just so much better as an opening to the flaws list. C) What's so stupid about the tempest?
The Tempest is filling the role that Phoenix were meant to fulfill. IMO, give a fleet beacon research spell for the Phoenix that helps it deal mass Mutalisks.
Yes, the carrier was (is) a cool unit is SCBW, but that does not mean that it has to be in SC2. I personally think it is a good thing to let the carrier go and let the new units take its place instead of trying to modify the game just to keep a SCBW unit in SC2. Let's let the games be different and see what happens :-)
The Carrier Flaws First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments. 1. The carrier is too slow to build. 2. The carrier is not micro friendly. 3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades. 4. The carrier is too easy to counter. 5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units 6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile.
Gonna go quickly over that, though I read most of the OP and know that much more discusable/interesting things have been written there:
ad 1) Yes and no... Chronoboost evens that out. With Zerg having no useful anticarrier T1 unit and hydralisks neither being a standard tech route for Zergs, nor good vs Carriers (that's true! Hydras get owned by Carriers BIG time... OP focused too much on how hydras are "only a little different from marines"... The truth is, that hydralisks are like 3-4times less costefficent than stim marines, even without hydrahardcounters on the battlefield), it become particulary hard to implement the carrier, as 2base carrierrushes could become quite powerful. Yet I think a little bit could be done about that. (small build time/cost buff)
ad 2) Yes. But on the other hand, in most situations I feel like it wouldn't change too much. Flagships as composition unit vs zerg are always a rather bad idea due to corruptors. If Carriers suddenly could beat corruptors on the other hand, the game would turn into a a big joke, with Protoss maxing on 2base carriers, as they would beat everything from zerg. For vT... The Carrier really shouldn't be able to be playable vs bio+vikings... It's the strongest antiair build in the game, if carriers where still playable against it, terrans couldn't even react to them, as they are already playing as hardcore AA as possible.
ad 3) Yes and no. It is an endgame unit. I don't see the problem with it needing decent upgrades... It's rather that the other Protoss airunits are not playable enough, so upgrading air for protoss early seems kind of useless.
ad 4) No. Simply no. Carriers are not easy to counter. It is rather that there isn't really a situation in which going carriers in the first place is a great choice.
ad 5) Yes. Even if you think that this isn't as big, I do. When would you like a carrier vs zerg? When he is mainly on a slow ground army... This is exactly what you want templar/colossi for. Do you want them vs broodlords or ultralisks? no, void rays are better and cheaper and easier to build reactivly. When would you want them vs terran? When he is meching/marauderheavy... Again, void rays, colossus, chargelots and immortals are already pretty good. No need to go carrier from there, if you weren't on at least 2starports before, which you will never be in this situation.
ad 6) Yes, maybe... This is mainly a problem when fighting hydras and marines. And against hydralisks, carriers still win, so it comes down to marines... I guess buffing them wouldn't be a bad thing, though it would only really help against 1-2 units which you don't want to engage with carriers anyways.
Furthermore I want to say I'm a big fan of the Tempests design and think it could really make for a great capital ship, especially in PvZ with a 1-2 starport opening with voids and pheonix + oracle and then following it up with a few Tempests to combat corruptors, so zerg has to go (and also can go, due to the carrier not being there) hydras to stand a chance.
Fuck the tempest, give air-only splash to interceptors and keep it. We almost lost it once from BW --> WoL and community reaction brought it back. We can do it again. Love me some carriers. Iconic unit imo
I see carrier as a hell of alot better then BC's so why aren't they removing BC's instead? I suppose BC does atleast have some viability in late game tvt scenarios.
10/10 for effort and 11/10 for content. Bravo ser, I look forward to more articles.
I don't have anything to add to the discussion other than I hope they rework the Carrier. I just felt I was obligated to post here to show my support for the OP and what he wrote, well done.
The Carrier Flaws First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments. 1. The carrier is too slow to build. 2. The carrier is not micro friendly. 3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades. 4. The carrier is too easy to counter. 5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units 6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile.
Gonna go quickly over that, though I read most of the OP and know that much more discusable/interesting things have been written there:
ad 1) Yes and no... Chronoboost evens that out. With Zerg having no useful anticarrier T1 unit and hydralisks neither being a standard tech route for Zergs, nor good vs Carriers (that's true! Hydras get owned by Carriers BIG time... OP focused too much on how hydras are "only a little different from marines"... The truth is, that hydralisks are like 3-4times less costefficent than stim marines, even without hydrahardcounters on the battlefield), it become particulary hard to implement the carrier, as 2base carrierrushes could become quite powerful. Yet I think a little bit could be done about that. (small build time/cost buff)
ad 2) Yes. But on the other hand, in most situations I feel like it wouldn't change too much. Flagships as composition unit vs zerg are always a rather bad idea due to corruptors. If Carriers suddenly could beat corruptors on the other hand, the game would turn into a a big joke, with Protoss maxing on 2base carriers, as they would beat everything from zerg. For vT... The Carrier really shouldn't be able to be playable vs bio+vikings... It's the strongest antiair build in the game, if carriers where still playable against it, terrans couldn't even react to them, as they are already playing as hardcore AA as possible.
I would even go further and say that Carriers are viable against bio + vikings if you combine them with storms. It's an even deadlier combo than Broodlord/Infestor because Carriers can't be sniped. The Problem is just getting there.
I don't see how you can justify 120 Carrier build time because "Chronoboost evens that out". Chronoboost is meant to compete with inject larva/mules, not an excuse for Protoss units to build slower. For comparison, Battlecruisers build in 90.
Even after the Carrier is out, it takes another 32 seconds to fill it with intercepters.
The main issue with carriers and to a larger extent all late game units are just not worth it compared to the damage, speed, and mass of the T1 and T2 units.
Carrier vs T - Vikings and Marines dominate them. Carrier vs Z - mutas and corruptors again dominate also hydras eliminate interceptors very quickly. Carrier vs P - VR and blink stalkers
Issue is that late game units are not the late game units of BW
Why build BC, Thors, Carriers, Mothership, Ultras and even Broodlords. Broodlords and Thors are built more often, but they're not what they would have been in BW. Broodlords have the ability to siege an area, but unless they have a substantial ground army below them they are weak. Thors are made to prevent mutas from stacking, but they're actually not that effective in killing mutas when split. Again not worth it.
Guys, this is Blizzard. If you need any evidence that the Carrier may end up remaining in the game, or returning in the future, go read all of the WoW patch notes ever published.
Some abilities have been changed 30 times, removed, re-added, altered, and then readjusted, and they ended up being the same as their original forms.
Seriously, it could come back, or never leave at all.
Great post, I'd agree that the problem with the carrier mostly lies in interceptor AI and the stat attributes of the carrier and the interceptor (slow build, slow move, weak as crap vs. armored, interceptors no longer heal in carrier, interceptors only 2 range, etc).
Also if you're going to post this on b.net forums with the hopes of attracting the devs attention, perhaps you should emphasize the unit mechanic points first rather than the metagame ones interspersed. By your own admission, and I agree wholeheartedly, the metagame points are necessary but almost moot to a point because we've never seen any incentive to actually seriously use carrier transitions because they suck so hard. For similar reasons you never see carrier builds that you'd see back in BW (jangbi's final win with 2base carrier against fantasy this last OSL comes readily to mind...) because 'skyprotoss' is just too much of a joke after the midgame. Anyways, just my .02 cents on article structure
I do hope that blizz actually tries to bother fixing the carrier rather than throwing in the towel and replacing it with the just-as-boring-as-the-colossus tempest -_-
Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
U can easily use the carrier, it just has to be the end get unit, in a particular build made for getting the Carrier. I currently use it quite a bit vs zerg and when i see terrans going mech (never happens.)
Though i've always been against the Carrier staying in the game, since beta. The voidray/colossus/carrier roles are too closely related in terms of roles.
There does however have to be the need for getting the fleet beacon and air upgrades and a proper end game counter to mech and other similiar death balls. In broodwar however i much rather loved the option of going arbiters vs mech and as the mothership is on the way out, i'd love some kind of arbiter with non already existing abilities.
My main problem with the tempest is the micro potential and excitement .... This is how i see the protoss units and why i dispise the colossus.
Zealot: Standard unit functionally a bit boring but in my eyes its a pretty "cool" unit. Stalker: Boring unit but has alot of micro potential making it quite a good unit. Microable Sentry: Good forcefields can swing a game in your favour great unit. Microable High templar: Fun spellcasting unit storms can be great no standard attack and is squishy. Microable Dark templar: Cloaked unit deals tons of damage easily killed. Needs to be micro'd to focus down detection or specific units. Immortal: Beefy unit needed the range upgrade but has the potential to be the meaty backbone of an army. Colossus: I hate this unit, It forces the deathball reduces mobility on the map and the only real micro is to pull it to the back or away from anti air. Archon: Fun transition from a dt or a ht when you need a unit to actually fight in your forces. Warp prism: Increases army mobility ... forces more multi tasking. Phoenix: Incredibly fun unit can give alot of harassment potential, map control and forces multi tasking. Voidray: Bit of a boring unit but keeping the charge going atleast gives it "micro potential" . Mothership: Fun spellcasting unit also promotes mobility on the map.
I left the carrier out because the OP does a good explanation of the carrier. Honestly i believe that if the carrier was more cost effective, more time effective or microable. It could be a great backbone of the protoss "fleet".
Now looking at the replacement for the carrier "the tempest" while the "stats" of the tempest might change the idea is the problem.
The tempest appears to be a large slow unit slow units in general arnt that microable. Add onto it that it would probabaly be a costly investment. Both of these lead it to be more favoured in a deathball situation where it can be protected. Additionally the tempest in general appears to be just a boring "deals alot of damage unit without much functionality unit"
Personally id much rather they removed the colossus and fixed the carrier just going by the concept a microable carrier could provide much more enjoyment then a tempest.
The tempest also appears to fill quite a niche spot (mainly vs mutalisks). The problem with the "phoenix vs mutas" situation (which the tempest seems to be specifically designed for) is when the mutas get to a large enough number that 1 micro slip up and you lost multiple phoenix's in 1 shot. But on the same token theres a number of factors that specifically lead to that. If you end up in a phoenix vs muta situation, Your less likely to get air upgrades just because your late game air tech isnt as valuable as lategame ground. Fixing the carrier would give more of a reason to get these air upgrades. Also if the "muta problem" still appears to be an issue add a minor splash to the phoenix (something like 2 damage in a small range to punish clumped up mutas but not enough of an increase that it removes the micro needed to keep the nix's alive).
I really really hope they dont remove the carrier and find some way to fix it, the tempest is a dull replacement for the carrier and would just lead to more deathballs. Add a minor splash to the phoenix and fix the carriers micro ability or something just dont get rid of the carrier. If the carrier must go then the tempest in its current form just isnt a good enough replacement.
Wow i cant believe i typed so much hopefully it makes sense and wasnt too "rambley".
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with... Further, the article isn't calling for the BW carrier to return rather that we don't let the carrier simply be removed without any shred of effort to improve the unit. I mean, the BC is getting a fucking redline reactor for crying out loud and ultralisks are getting charge. Adding a skill gradient to the carrier (while making it marginally more accessible) would go a long way to improving the unit and improving the game.
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.
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with
Back before SC2 came out the community that they were responding to were old BW fans who loved the carrier, BW fans are now a tiny minority of the SC2 scene, there is no longer the nostalgia for the carrier. To SC2 fans the carrier is a slow, boring, useless unit who's only purpose is massing in 4v4s.
It's time has come and gone, let something new replace it.
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with
Back before SC2 came out the community that they were responding to were old BW fans who loved the carrier, BW fans are now a tiny minority of the SC2 scene, there is no longer the nostalgia for the carrier. To SC2 fans the carrier is a slow, boring, useless unit who's only purpose is massing in 4v4s.
It's time has come and gone, let something new replace it.
But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role.
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with
Back before SC2 came out the community that they were responding to were old BW fans who loved the carrier, BW fans are now a tiny minority of the SC2 scene, there is no longer the nostalgia for the carrier. To SC2 fans the carrier is a slow, boring, useless unit who's only purpose is massing in 4v4s.
It's time has come and gone, let something new replace it.
Bwohoho at the bolded
What's wrong with wanting a T3 unit whose effectiveness increases with the player's ability to micro? Is that the antithesis of what this supposed majority of non-BW-fan SC2 players want?
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with
Back before SC2 came out the community that they were responding to were old BW fans who loved the carrier, BW fans are now a tiny minority of the SC2 scene, there is no longer the nostalgia for the carrier. To SC2 fans the carrier is a slow, boring, useless unit who's only purpose is massing in 4v4s.
It's time has come and gone, let something new replace it.
But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role.
how much have you played with the tempest in its final state?
If the battlecruiser can get redline reactor and the ultralisk gets charge, I say the carrier can get a new spell as well.
Give it the wormhole transit that the mothership had in beta! The one that lets it teleport to any place with a pylon field. That way carriers could strike around the map like mutas, and it would go well with warp-in too. That kind of mobility would really give players to use carriers instead of colossi for certain strats.
haha you summed up the problems quiet nicely, atleast those that are made up by people that got frustrated with carriers after they noticed they aren't that easy to control then they were in bw. (and since they are considered weak in bw by alot of people, of course there would be more hate in sc2)
Maybe you should have tried them out until you could say with no doubt that this is true. So they are slow to build, true because they are op in the early game and chronoboost is the problem for most production times toss has. So lategame, you are able to chrono 4 interceptors, basically that way its faster then bw yay. And i am not sure, but my interceptors return to my carrier if i reach the range of 13 from the target, so lovely, you can actually micro when your interceptors return yay, no more losing interceptors. Basically you need really good control for it ;o . The upgrades agreed it sucks for t3,5 units to have same upgrades as the opponent, but again this is because early game +1 carriers (+1 is super easy to get) owns the opponent who can't have +1 by that time.
Hehe easy to conter is funny, you can chase vikings enough to let the interceptors kill them, you can pull back and swiftly turn around for another wave after you returned your interceptors. Thats because vikings have a bad acceleration. If vikings chase you they die like flies if you still have enough interceptors (which is one issue by the way, interceptor production time). Oh another easy to counter think is, there is this 3 colossi is perfect because of the viking amount to conter them. 1 carrier forces an even bigger amount of vikings. Marines and hydras do well against the interceptors, but nothing against the carrier itself, making it the perfect super range unit to snipe ghosts and without ghosts, yay storm time gainst marines.
Corrupter same as for the viking, you need to many to counter a few carriers.
Carriers role overlaps yes, but yay it can fly and has super long range. and can retreat while shooting, which the voidray cannot. Yeah interceptors die fast, but you can easily prevent sending them into their doom, and if they wouldn't die fast, there would be no weakness on carriers near cliffs, since vikings for example are absolutely no threat to them without support.
I enjoy using carriers and bcs lategame and i use them all the time if the lategame allows it. And strangely i have no problem using those units. But i am not playing them bw like, get 4 stargates and pump 8 carriers with +0 and hope you don't get scouted. And carriers take alot of micro out of me to be really effective and a few tricks as well.
edit: of course that is just my masterish experience with them, which doesn't mean alot. But then again i only know one fulltime protoss that actually uses carriers and often successful without being ahead, hmmm strange...
Blizzard could have developed a story line that protoss decided to redesign the carrier and tempest is what came out and it could be still called carrier coz its carrying that blue ball or something)))))) and everyone will be happy coz we would have still have the carrier but actually useful)
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?
Feel like Blizzard included the Carrier for nostalgic purposes then couldn't wait to take it out. How many times did they tinker with the BC? Yet not one change to the Carrier before taking it out? Another facepalm decision.
Natural hard counters already exist in the metagame so I don't understand why they wouldn't mess around with some stats. Does anyone really think Carriers will be the OP thing if they built in 90 secs instead of 120?
Well written OP. Was surprised as I must say I was expecting the worst from the title.
I think that Protoss air is just not a viable route and any match up and hence investing in a tier 3 capital ship is impossible as you forgo the investment in the ground army that is there to keep you alive and win the game. I think this is mainly because of the Void Ray, VR openings work well in PvZ to pressure the Zerg, especially those with a fast third. But after that they are redundant, too slow to micro ground-to-air units and inefficient in cost to DPS when compared to ground armies.
The Star Gate tech route for toss needs to be more viable in general, needs to have more flexiblity mid-game in order for their to be sufficient investment in upgrades for tier 3 air units to come into effect.
I also like your point about the Carrier's role/weaknesses seeming to overlap with those of other units. I think overall the Toss army structure leaves a lot to be desired, the key buff I'd say would be to drive a wedge between counters for Carrier and Collosus. That's be an intersting start. (I'm gonna stop now as I can hear myself theorycrafting....)
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with... Further, the article isn't calling for the BW carrier to return rather that we don't let the carrier simply be removed without any shred of effort to improve the unit. I mean, the BC is getting a fucking redline reactor for crying out loud and ultralisks are getting charge. Adding a skill gradient to the carrier (while making it marginally more accessible) would go a long way to improving the unit and improving the game.
Well said. I was actually very suprised to hear blizz flat out remove the carrier without hardly any tinkering.
This is for the posts telling Carriers will be gone and nobody should care about the unit anymore.
Carriers will be gone in HoTS, but not in WoL and Blizz said they will be "independent" multiplayer games (they will have their own ladders and so). So they will and they should do any change and tweak to make WoL better.
Really good write up, tho you missed that in very late game PvP ( 4+ base vs 4+ base ) Carriers can dominate really well.
I wonder why they never tried to buff the carrier and / or instead of the mothership. I really dont like the idea nor the gameplay design for the tempest. Tho probably with the smarter ai, carriers wouldn't have that much use like in BW, ther goliaths kept getting confused while trying to catch carriers without really amazing control, in sc2 its so easy to control armies, i dont think so your point of being able to abuse terrain / chockes would be that big of a deal. Specially that everyone can see up if a flying unit or colossus shoting from the high ground, back than you had to throw a scan there
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with... Further, the article isn't calling for the BW carrier to return rather that we don't let the carrier simply be removed without any shred of effort to improve the unit. I mean, the BC is getting a fucking redline reactor for crying out loud and ultralisks are getting charge. Adding a skill gradient to the carrier (while making it marginally more accessible) would go a long way to improving the unit and improving the game.
The carrier is like the appendix. It used to be good for something but all it does now is take up space. The only real way to make the carrier useful again is to recreate the situations that made it good in the first place, and Blizzard has zero interest in doing that.
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
That's crap. The only reason the Carrier was included in SC2 was because of BW nostalgia to start with
Back before SC2 came out the community that they were responding to were old BW fans who loved the carrier, BW fans are now a tiny minority of the SC2 scene, there is no longer the nostalgia for the carrier. To SC2 fans the carrier is a slow, boring, useless unit who's only purpose is massing in 4v4s.
It's time has come and gone, let something new replace it.
But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role.
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?
The Star Gate tech route for toss needs to be more viable in general, needs to have more flexiblity mid-game in order for their to be sufficient investment in upgrades for tier 3 air units to come into effect.
Really? There are completely viable stargate openings for PvX. Zerg is FFE into 1/2 stargate, vs Terran you can go 3 gate/stargate and it's suddenly a very very powerful allin, vs Toss, stargate is becoming more and more popular vs most openers.
Also the BC sucked worse than carriers before, that's why it got changed. It was ridiculously slow and didn't have 11 interceptor firing range so it literally could not escape any danger or siege from the air. The damage was put so it fired more regularly or it basically wasn't hitting anything, afaik it still does the same DPS but it's more sustained rather than burst.
Also comparing BCs to Carriers isn't the best comparison because a mass fleet of BCs will still lose to any antiair too, it's when coupled with Ravens and Vikings that they ramp up in power. Carriers become stronger coupled with a Mothership and Void Rays, however these are more expensive and time consuming to build than Raven/Viking.
As far as LATE GAME potential goes, Toss has a remarkably strong late game due to warp gates. Building mass WGs once you get 200/200 and just warping in a whole new army once you fight is probably a lot more desired than building like 3 carriers at a time. If you want the Carrier to surpass this in late game viability then it might be a bit ridiculous.
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
I'm thinking off the cuff here, but what if the carrier got a variant on the original Tempest's shields? IIRC, the original Tempest was resistant to ground attack but had no shields vs air attacks. That obviously wouldn't work with Vikings and Corruptors, but what if you reversed it and made essentially a hardened shield against air attacks but no shields against ground attacks? I don't know if that makes it viable, and it may make Colossus/Carrier overpowered, but I like Carriers and maybe some outside the box ideas are needed to improve it.
The Star Gate tech route for toss needs to be more viable in general, needs to have more flexiblity mid-game in order for their to be sufficient investment in upgrades for tier 3 air units to come into effect.
Really? There are completely viable stargate openings for PvX. Zerg is FFE into 1/2 stargate, vs Terran you can go 3 gate/stargate and it's suddenly a very very powerful allin, vs Toss, stargate is becoming more and more popular vs most openers.
Also the BC sucked worse than carriers before, that's why it got changed. It was ridiculously slow and didn't have 11 interceptor firing range so it literally could not escape any danger or siege from the air. The damage was put so it fired more regularly or it basically wasn't hitting anything, afaik it still does the same DPS but it's more sustained rather than burst.
Also comparing BCs to Carriers isn't the best comparison because a mass fleet of BCs will still lose to any antiair too, it's when coupled with Ravens and Vikings that they ramp up in power. Carriers become stronger coupled with a Mothership and Void Rays, however these are more expensive and time consuming to build than Raven/Viking.
As far as LATE GAME potential goes, Toss has a remarkably strong late game due to warp gates. Building mass WGs once you get 200/200 and just warping in a whole new army once you fight is probably a lot more desired than building like 3 carriers at a time. If you want the Carrier to surpass this in late game viability then it might be a bit ridiculous.
Did you read the rest of my post where I said that Star Gate openings are very strong especially against fast third Zergs, on top of this as well is Pheonix harras (which I didn't mention)?
My point was, that while openings are strong they don't really go anywhere and soon you transfer out of them leaving no room to invest in upgrades and air tech into mid-game which would make Carriers more attractive and natural late game option.
I don't disagree that toss has a very strong late game due to warp tech (and indeed this may be another reason why air isn't as attarctive).
I'm not sure if your mention of BCs is aimed at my post, however I agree with what I think you are saying - BCs were rubbish they got buffed and became a plausible late game option for terran, why haven't Carriers received such treatment? Also, its how Carriers fit into a toss army, as the OP suggests there is an overlap in weaknesses/role so a transition isn't as rewarding nor is having an army supported by both kinds of units (Carriers and Collosums).
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
You're right. The hydralisk should be removed too. After all, this is a whole new game. It's not like hydras serve any real purpose other than being the most iconic unit in the starcraft universe. Get rid of that shit.
On November 29 2011 23:24 Plexa wrote: But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role.
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?
I hate when people pull this argument. The saddest thing is even Dustin Browder pulls it in interviews.
It is like if someone created Football 2 and made the ball in a shape of a cube and then when people complained how the game was more fun and faster with a round ball they would just say, well then go play Football.
No, go play X if you don't like Y is not a valid argument, it is just not wanting to admit you got problems with product Y
On November 29 2011 23:24 Plexa wrote: But replace it with the tempest? The tempest is a slow and even more boring unit. I'd rather see them attempt to make the carrier a useful unit then get rid of it and replace it with a much less exciting unit designed to fulfill 1 role.
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?
I hate when people pull this argument. The saddest thing is even Dustin Browder pulls it in interviews.
It is like if someone created Football 2 and made the ball in a shape of a cube and then when people complained how the game was more fun and faster with a round ball they would just say, well then go play Football.
No, go play X if you don't like Y is not a valid argument, it is just not wanting to admit you got problems with product Y
It is. Simple fact. Blizzard creates the game, blizzard has all rights to create it the way that they want it to be. And seeing upon the outcome, they did a very good job with broodwar and they did a very good job with starcraft:WoL. Everyone is free to choose which game he/she wants to play. I choose the one that I think is better/more fun.
(yeah, everyone is free to discuss changes, but that doesn't change that in the end blizzard is in charge and that I trust them way more than some random "BUT I WANT CARRIERS" - shouters. Furthermore I believe that the blizzard balancing team does fool around quite a bit with each unit before they alter,implement or remove it, so I think that they have had the carrier, carrier buff, tempest discussion/tests themselves)
Considering the downsides that you mentioned, it should take a huge amount of work to fix the carrier and make it a usable unit
If you look at the problems of the carrier, I asked myself: 'Why would i want this kind of a unit anymore?'
Generally slow, bulky units do not fit such fast paced games like Starcraft. As long as there is marines, hydralisk, vikings and such, there is no room for them.
This doesn't mean Tempest will fix the problem. It has the same characteristics of the carriers with a splash damage and no interceptors so same phenomenon.
Protoss air needs an air unit which is versatile(not bulky) and still doesn't have cheap counters such as marines. As long as this conditions wouldn't satisfy, there is no room for an air unit in this game.
Replace some terms with terran counterparts, you will see the battlecruiser there.
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 "deathball" syndrome.
But getting away from the tempest vs carrier thing. The biggest issue is look at the units in the game. Most of the units have seen changes or there has been tweaks made to the game that effect specific mechanics of units. Where as there has never been the hint of an attempt to "fix" the carrier and then we get informed that its being thrown out.
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.
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.
This was a really enjoyable post OP. Nice work and I think you covered all of the major issues I have had in my experiences playing with it. Yet there was one major point I think you may have missed.
Maybe you should compare to BW Carriers.. why they seem more successful in BW and not SC2..
As a person who really never played BW, but was aware of the competitive scene for about a year or so and I think the major problem with the unit is not it's current stats, but rather how the role of the Carrier is not required in the current meta-game. One of the major reasons Carriers were scary in PvT in BW was their ability to devastate Terran siege lines, by being able to tear them apart at long range and not have to sack your ground forces to do so. It enabled Protoss to regain map control and balance out the positional advantages a Terran held often in the mid-game.
As the OP said before, in SC2, an improved carrier could also fulfill this role, being able to use the geography of the map and good micro to devastate Terran bases and defensive formations in order to enable the ground deathball to easily roll in and secure the win. However, this type of strategy does not exist in PvT in SC2 for the most part. Sure, a few people can make mech work in any match-up and I've seen a few marine/tank pushes on the ladder, but normally pros will simply opt for making a Bioball (marines/marauders/ghosts) with medivac support and decimate Protoss forces with a combo of EMP + Stim. This composition makes getting Carriers useless, because unlike siege lines, bio forces are much more mobile, can't be as easily focused down, and can ACTUALLY SHOOT BACK. In addition, all of the other options Protoss has to deal with it are much more cost effective and require far less time to successfully deploy. Hell, the actual role the Carrier filled has now been given to the Zerg, enabling late game positional battles that can be absolutely crazy to watch if the players in question are any good.
So this begs the question, how can we save the Carrier? Well, call me stupid and crazy, but I have a hunch Blizzard might be inadvertently doing just that with HoTS. Looking at some of the proposed new units for Terran, the Warhound and Battle Hellion, it appears that Blizz is giving Terran more reason to go mech. The Battle Hellions can now handle tougher light units aka Zealots through their cone of fire and higher health. The Warhound not only replaces the Thor but does additional damage to Mechanical units, i.e. most of the Protoss army. My thinking on this is that Blizzard is secretly preparing to either break out the Nerf Bat on Terran bio or enable the Protoss and Zerg armies to better counter bio forces, leading Terran to adopt a more mech-oriented style, and with it perhaps encouraging more siege tank usage in PvT. Do you see where I am going with this?
If these changes do occur in HoTS, then the Carrier might be able to once again adopt the mantle of siege line breaker, which currently none of the other high tech Protoss units are capable of doing cost-effectively. If the recommendations listed by the OP are introduced along with any changes towards mech-oriented styles in the meta-game, then I believe the Carrier will once again fly proudly in the skies of the Koprulu Sector.
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 unit concept.
Generally, BW carriers were something that was greatly affected by the skill of the player controlling them. The Tempest, considering its design, will most likely be an aerial version of the colossus. Haha, 2 endgame hurr durr units for the Protoss.
I agree a lot with you. But could you include some pictures as well? I think it is always funnier/more interesting to read with than just a bunch of text. Think more people will read it as well instead of skimming through all the text.
The carrier has no purpose. Colossus do the same job and have cliff walk, and are an easier tech option (and share upgrades with gateway units).
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.
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.
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".
I put of posting about solutions in the initial post, because I didn't want to play dev in the thread. 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.
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.
On November 29 2011 22:22 TotalBiscuit wrote: Well written thread and 2 not so well written replies up there :/
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!!
I don't really understand why they should remove it. I mean, it's already so under used already... if it's not a good unit, it still won't get used. What's the point in removing it when you wanna whip it out once in awhile?
they might as well keep it for casual/ladder play. if it's bad for pros, then they just won't use it. i agree that it's iconic and should not be removed from the game.
Vikings aren't good vs carrier/phoenix. I have no idea why people think this. Back in beta there was a guy I played all the time in the top200 who used to open phoenix and transition into carriers, and even when I'd mass vikings out of 2 reactored starports they would get absolutely demolished. This was back before terrans would mass marines; it was heavy maruader with some marines mixed in. The only unit terran actually has to deal reasonably with carriers is marines. And terran already has tons of marines nowadays; this is why carriers are a bad choice.
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.
Congratulations to the OP, well written and filled with truth and deep feelings.
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.
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.
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.
This design process is coming from a guy who made games that only used the a button......
Its a solid, well thought-out original post. I just think the basic answer is that Carriers & BattleCruisers aren't cost effective in this current state of the game. Massing more blink stalkers is better, getting more bio is better, or a few more tanks or thor.
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.
Great OP, i completely agree that the carrier is a truly iconic unit and deserved some attempt at addressing the issues that you've raised, it just appears that no attempt has been made to introduce the carrier into being used effectively which is such a shame in my opinion. I have nothing to add to the problems/solutions regarding the unit as so far its a very comprehensive post but i felt obligated to post as there are others who seem to be just as dissapointed in this as i am. I really hope blizzard will listen.
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.
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.
A well written OP 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.
I think the OP is on spot. Although each weakness you point out can certainly be true, I think the main flaw is what you state about the current state of the match ups and how the carrier fits in. In other words, by putting in the colossus in the game it has destroyed any chance for carrier centered strategies. If I remember correctly this is what exactly the sc2 team said regarding their decision behind removing the carrier.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 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.
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
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"
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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?
On November 30 2011 06:27 Moonling wrote: 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
I've been rather convinced of this for awhile. It's an a-move unit that's best counter is going air. It's sooo powerful and mobile (cliff-walker) but there's very little pay-off for good micro skills, thus leading to 1a deathball. However, it's huge power forces stupidly powerful counters such as 9 range vikings and armoured corrupters. Now I know people argue that BW was built on over-powered units, but it was built on over-powered units when players had the micro skills to use them (Jangbi storms, lurker hopping, dark swarm hopping, reaver micro, mine laying, plagues.) The sort of overpowered units stemming from the collosi are more boring a move units. Blizzard themselves has admitted the corrupter is pretty uninspired.
What I really don't like seeing in this thread is people arguing that the Carrier should go because it is currently a boring unit. That's precisely the point being addressed in the OP. Currently the Carrier is a boring a-move unit because of bad design and the fact that Blizzard never once touched the Carrier in all their balance changes. Even the Archon, which for the longest time was the other forgotten child, got some patches (they kept talking about the Archon being some bonus unit that would never have builds built around it.)
The problem with taking away the Carrier is it's replacement, simply by design is completely uninspired compared to the type of gameplay that BW Carriers had that SC2 Carrier could have if only Blizzard would make the right changes. Unless the Tempest has some sort of hold command, attack-retreat type micro-ability, I can only see it turning into the Collosi of the air. But it doesn't have to be that way. Choose Carriers and choose carriers that can be micro-ed. That was the entire point of getting a better UI wasn't it? (multibase, unlimited selection, automine). More time to do cool stuff like micro the army. This is one of those potentially cool things.
Edit One thing that makes me not so hopeful about carriers in general is just how useful accessible and useful air is. This was a deliberate move by Blizzard as the air units were not used as much in BW. However, it is precisely because of this, that Protoss could go air in PvT. It was the big tech switch which had it's best counter in the goliath (ground based.) When the best counter is long range and fast air, cliffs are irrelevant to the carriers (cliffs were the ultimate defence for carrier) and they can be sniped far too easily. However, by making bio as powerful as it is, and putting the medic into the stargate, Terran is going stargate everytime even if there are no collosi. So it's a simple matter to take out the couple Carriers made.
Question: if your opponent surprises you with carriers(a few carriers and mainly zealot) at a midgame timing,( 13-15 minutes), and you didnt respond to the stargate opening with a spire( you only have hydra den).
On November 30 2011 06:27 Moonling wrote: 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
I've been rather convinced of this for awhile. It's an a-move unit that's best counter is going air. It's sooo powerful and mobile (cliff-walker) but there's very little pay-off for good micro skills, thus leading to 1a deathball. However, it's huge power forces stupidly powerful counters such as 9 range vikings and armoured corrupters. Now I know people argue that BW was built on over-powered units, but it was built on over-powered units when players had the micro skills to use them (Jangbi storms, lurker hopping, dark swarm hopping, reaver micro.) The sort of overpowered units stemming from the collosi are more boring a move units. Blizzard themselves has admitted the corrupter is pretty uninspired.
What I really don't like seeing in this thread is people arguing that the Carrier should go because it is currently a boring unit. That's precisely the point being addressed in the OP. Currently the Carrier is a boring a-move unit because of bad design and the fact that Blizzard never once touched the Carrier in all their balance changes. Even the Archon, which for the longest time was the other forgotten child, got some patches (they kept talking about the Archon being some bonus unit that would never have builds built around it.)
The problem with taking away the Carrier is it's replacement, simply by design is completely uninspired compared to the type of gameplay that BW Carriers had that SC2 Carrier could have if only Blizzard would make the right changes. Unless the Tempest has some sort of hold command, attack-retreat type micro-ability, I can only see it turning into the Collosi of the air. But it doesn't have to be that way. Choose Carriers and choose carriers that can be micro-ed. That was the entire point of getting a better UI wasn't it? (multibase, unlimited selection, automine). More time to do cool stuff like micro the army. This is one of those potentially cool things.
I support these two arguments as well.
Colossus made carrier obsolete for the following 2 reasons.
#1 Vikings got a major range upgrade from what wraith used to have, in order to counter colossus' range
#2 Terran usually already has vikings out in order to counter colossus.
As things are right now, colossus and carriers can't co-exist effectively.
If anything though, to fix the problem w/o removing one of the units, I'd say raise carrier's shield & perhaps give it longer range to better fight off vikings?
I don't agree with nerfing the viking or buffing the carrier in such a way that it can fight vikings. The carrier needs to have some counters. What the carrier needs is a match-up in which those counter units aren't made regularly, mech terran is the perfect match up.
And when I mean mech I mean pure mech, Battle Helion, Siege Tank and Warhound. And the big reason why terrans want to either go, pure mech or pure bio most of the time is the way their upgrade work. Terran gets upgrades for infantry, vehicles or air, they don't share upgrades in the same way zerg and protoss do. So terran usually want to specialize. I don't see how its unrealistic in this case to have a carrier build that counters terran mech and if it doesn't win it forces a tech switch that the terran won't like.
I will start off by saying that I am thankful to OP for your effort in writing up the case for the carrier.
I think it is a travesty that Blizzard is going to remove such an iconic unit without even attempt to change/buff it in someway. I think in general, the carrier is too cost ineffective. A lot of arguments about the meta-game has been made already so I will refrain from doing so. I will just outline some possible solutions in order to improve the cost effectiveness for the carrier:
1. Reduce carrier build time from 120 to 90 - make it the same as for BC (the argument about Chronoboost is invalid as it is for Toss to catch up with terran mule and zerg massing drone) 2. Give interceptors healing when return to the carrier and improve interceptors's AI 3. Give the carrier itself (not the interceptor) a short range splash damage vs air light units similar to the Tempest. That way, protoss can just get carrier to counter mass mutalisk instead of having to add in Tempest. Also, it fixes the mass mutalisk problem vs zerg 4. Give carrier hardened shield similar to the old Tempest in WoL Beta but protect against air. Conversely, give it hardened shield similar to the immortal to increase survivability 5. Increase carrier movement speed to better microed and run away from vikings/corruptors 6. Reduce interceptor's cost to perhaps 15 mineral
While some of the above suggestions seem rather overpowered and dramatic, I believe we should really brain storm and explore all avenue to redesign the iconic carrier before complete removal. If the Battlecruiser will get redline reactor and ultralisk get charge ability, I see little problem in adding new ability/buffs for the carrier
To the Opening Post: I think when you post on B-net or get into contact with Blizzard, you should collate all the ideas for possibile solutions to fix the carrier which has been posted here in this thread. But make sure that you present a section showing all the bullet points succinctly. Then it is up to Blizzard to read through all the suggestions and make their own tweaking. Our role as a community is to help by brainstorming possible solutions, and people should't be afraid to post bold ideas.
1. Agreed to a certain extent, since I've tried playing around with carriers in some team games (i'm a terran player) and it feels a tad bit too long to transition. But no where near to the level of a carrier since chronoboost is available. The perseon above me argues that chronoboost is for toss to catch up with terran mules and zerg larvae mechanics but mules and larvae mechanics aren't used to economic benefits in the 'late game' which is when you'd usually see carrier transitions. If there are carriers coming off lets say 1/2 base, they are going to have to sacrifice that economic 'catch-up' mechanics for the allin/timing they're going for. But it can't be too fast for a tier 3 unit. Essentially, getting carriers is a tech switch which is fundamentally going to be a big investment which creates a timing attack chance for the opposing player. In brood-war, there was always the timing window for the terran player to move out and take advantage of the time it takes to get out 4 carriers to defend the push. During this window, the terran could deal fatal damage, take out 2 bases and leave the protoss without an economy to continue the transition. Starcraft 1 had a slower pace, more specifically that terrans played mech versus protoss which is much less mobile than SC2 bio. The build time for carriers in SC1 was 140 seconds, even longer than the implementation in SC2. So maybe a 30 second cut from the build time + chronoboost is still too large of a window. But lets face it, most of the protosses out there aren't using chronoboost to its full potential so maybe it can still be experimented with.
2. Agreed. Totally. Carrier control should be returned to SC2. Actually find it necessary to combat against vikings and corruptors more effectively. Without this, if there is an engagement with similar air army sizes, the protoss player will always lose atleast 1 carrier. It's not as bad as bc's vs vikings as carriers have 13 range, but the carriers cannot retreat.
3. Upgrades....... i actually laughed at this during the beta. The turrets get a +2 armor upgrade and carriers have been "nerfed" to have 2 attacks. Coming from a BW background, i thought that carriers would be a joke with mass turrets. But i never got to test it out (bio metagame and everyone going collossus rushes) Making the carriers have a single combined attack might be better. BC's also suffer from this (rapid fire vs strong burst fire). Has anyone tried a dual-core upgrade with carriers?
4. Easy to counter...... My opinion on this is mixed. Since i'm a terran player, I play with a bio-centric army and i play more puma-style with more marines anyway. Mech in sc1 played vulture tank with maybe a few goliaths mixed in, but nothing in the numbers to deal with 2/4 carriers that would pop up if the timing was planned. The timing attack would effectively be stopped once the 4 carriers arrived. But with a bio-centric army, marines are expendable anyway and fight decently versus carriers. Vikings having to be massed to deal with collossi doesn't help either. Then force a transition to marauder/ghosts from the terran player using templars and then go to a carrier transition. Templars -> collossi are frequently used because the robotics facility is already there to start the tech switch. And since you already have templar tech out, you have a unit COMPOSITION that is great at dealing with marines/vikings. The reason why carriers were so successful for a while was that 1. people found out they need a great economy to support the carriers and 2. the economy fueled both carriers AND the supporting ground army of dragoon, zealot templars. The templars would storm the goliaths that grew too large in numbers to be dealt with carrier numbers. Collossus / voidray works if a great economy is established because the composition has great synergy like muta/bling (kill off marines and mutas/voidrays take care of the rest)
5. Exactly what I want to ask you. What does a carrier offer that a collossi/templar doesn't? If you don't have either the supporting ground army and/or forcefields to stop marines from stimming and running up to the carriers and exploding them, they're just as bad as collossi/templars in those situations.
6. I honestly don't think that this matters....... not very significant
But fundamentally, what does a carrier offer that templar/collossi doesn't? As you stated, carriers have a huge build time and require a large investment for the tech switch for comparatively insignificant gains. The tech switch to air-mech with bc's in TvT requires 5/6 starports to go down at the same time + a fusion core but this is done off 4+ bases (this is a larger investment than 6 stargates and bc's cost more than carriers. And the tech switch pays off because it forces the opponent to pull back their seige line if they aren't prepared, which gives more territory to the player with air dominance. But carriers don't force much deviation from the terran player's large game plan. Also, bio with drops is specialised for hit and run tactics which exploit the slow mobility of the carriers too. Meching terrans used to drop 2 tanks to take out expos but 4/8 marauders take out expos in 8 seconds and can retreat with no losses. It's hard to find a place for carriers to fit in the current metagame.
This is a purely TvP matchup centred opinion, haven't been able to experiment much against carriers with zerg. But I did find that corruptors don't exactly take out carriers cost-effectively and forces a large reaction from the zerg player.
this is a sick post and i think the dps part is really well written. The only application i see it being used in right now, in the current game, is trolling, 3v3's, 4v4's, pro's cheesing, huk (back in the day), huk, and hungun. huk and hungun are using them in a 2 base scenario against zergs, but never consistently enough to say that is viable or efficient. but once massed a carrier has its place in any game scenario
why not change dmg from 5x2 into 10 then +attack to give +2 instead of +1? so they do 10/12/14/16 dmg as 1 attack instead of 2x 5/6/7/8, which means armor upgrades dont kill their dps as much
maybe also give it a heal all button for the interceptors with a mineral cost? like 5 min per interceptor, but it recalls all interceptors and cant attack for 5 secs
imo, they should bring back the original Tempest idea which was basically a mini, more maneuverable Carrier. Not really sure how it would all balance out but it would be fun as hell to use. Of course the role of a capital ship would have to be filled still.
On November 29 2011 22:22 TotalBiscuit wrote: Well written thread and 2 not so well written replies up there :/
well that comment is also not what the OP wants, he asked for interesting discussion on the unit, not a questioning of the intelligence of the posters by other posters.
However, the carrier death makes me sad because it seems like it would by far be the easiest unit in the game to fix. The problems are as obvious as the solutions, and Blizzard would truthfully have to work very little in order to make them useful.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that Collossi overshadow carriers in literally every way.
Almost every composition protoss faces sits on the ground. Marines, marauders. Stalkers, other collossi, zealots, immortals. Roaches, hydras, lings, infestors.
Protoss ground army sucks, particularly in extended fights when sentries go down/run out of FFs. Protoss primarily win fights by removing as much supply from the opponent in single instances, whether it is outright killing huge chunks of supply with a deathball, using mamaships void, or using FFs to separate and eliminate chunks of the enemy army.
Collossi do all this admirably. They have humongous burst DPS; carriers have higher DPS, but the lack of AOE means they lack this explosive, sudden DPS that instantly kills large pieces of the enemy army per attack. Functionally, they are the exact same; they walk over protoss units, have long range, etc. Force fields complement them by giving them nice stacks to shoot as well.
How do races counter collossi? Vikings, corruptors, neural parasite (not as much) are pretty much it. These same things counter the carrier. So what does a carrier do a collossi can't? It shoots air. There isn't much of a point of a carrier being able to attack air though. If the carrier isn't killing the ground army as fast as it can, the protoss army will just melt, particularly to stimmed bioballs. And they will still likely die anyway, as corruptors and vikings only target collossi/carrier. Often what happens is all the collossi will die, but before they die they single-handedly eliminate much of the enemy groudn army, letting mass warpgate reinforcements move in for a kill. Carriers will not do nearly as much damage because of a lack of AOE, and attacking air helps even less.
What would make the carrier more viable would be splash damage. Protoss completely relies on splash damage to win much of the time, as gateway units are normally outgunned. Whether its collossi deathballs or chargelot high templar, protoss really needs AOE for most of its matchups. Whether or not splash damage carriers would be viable is another question.
Never played broodwar, only a diamond league scrub, but I've never used carriers other than when I've played 4v4 casuals with friends, not even when I was in 1v1 bronze.
The most disappointing thing is that the carrier has been universally recognized as needing some kind of rework to make it more viable, and USUALLY when the community and the statistics speak, something happens. This could be clearly seen in the infestor fungal nerf. However, despite an incredibly long consensus on carriers requiring some fundamental change, I have yet to see a patch notes that says "carrier a.i. altered to allow for increased control" or "carrier interceptors damage increased from x to y". Maybe it has happened and I've missed it, but in that case whatever it was clearly didn't work.
Also, apparently you used to be able to chronoboost carriers to increase interceptor production but it got patched out. If the carrier DID get modified so it was viable, bringing that back as well would be AWESOME!
On November 30 2011 19:43 ThePlayer33 wrote: Question: if your opponent surprises you with carriers(a few carriers and mainly zealot) at a midgame timing,( 13-15 minutes), and you didnt respond to the stargate opening with a spire( you only have hydra den).
what would be the ideal response to such attack?
13-15minutes and no spire? your response as the zerg is to leave the game lol
as soon as you place a hydra den in zvp you think one of two things
1) I am all inning and the protoss will die
2) i am building a spire immediately after this cuz hydras suck
I'm sad that people ignored my post a few pages back.
My main points were:
A: all the other variables related to how useful/exciting a unit is completely change when you can micro it at a higher skill ceiling. If the carrier could do better micro, it might be very viable even without changing anything else about it. Another good example of this is the vulture from BW. Take away that level of moving shot micro, and it's worthless. With the micro, it's imba.
B: we haven't really had carrier-friendly maps in SC2 yet (like there were in BW). This means larger unpathable areas, like daybreak, but larger, in central map areas (not just corners and perimeters).
Well I do agree zerg should have a 1 supply units whether Hydra, roach, or something else. Didn't it feel awesome when Leenock had over a hundred zerglings last night? We need that feel with more than 1 unit.
But you can't say the Carrier isn't iconic either. It's still being used successfully in OSL finals for pete's sake.
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.
It makes me sad that the Carrier will be gone in HotS.. I think its a unit with a lot of potential and its much more interesting than the Tempest in design.
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!
I actually like the idea of Protoss scourge more than losing the Carrier and getting the ugly Tempest. :<
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.
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.
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.
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.
You've identified a lot of the flaws of the carrier, and I agree with them - but many of them were also present in the BW carrier, which suggests, at least to me, that these flaws aren't what's making the carrier unusable in SC2. The problem isn't just one of the many metagame things that people have identified in this thread, but all of them. Consider just how many things had to be just right for the carrier to work in BW.
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.
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.
OP says that roaches have potential to be burrow healed? No they don't so burrow a roach thats on red HP, it will still die due to incoming rounds before it's burrowed and will still take fire because of detection. Meaning it will just burrow and die before getting a last shot off. Burrow at yellow health? It doesnt do any damage what so ever, dps which we need because roaches are low ranged low dps units.
Anyways to the OP. Carriers also counter vikings per supply so yeah FYI.
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.
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've always felt like a lot of the big tech3 units in sc2 are countered to easily, with all the bonus dmg to massive or high range. I feel like the carrier is 1 correct buff away from being a good teir3 choice. I think in the lower levels ( non masters + ) it is still viable.
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.
Carrier will always have a place in my heart at least, well written topic. Not much to discuss for me since I agree with everything you say, I just hope Blizzards balance team sees this and agree as well. Not a single change happened to carrier in WoL, let's hope HotS will be different in that aspect!
Though I do love carriers, I don't think we should keep them because they are 'iconic'.
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?
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?
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.
If you wanna save the carrier, you gotta start playing with it. Show Blizzard that it has a use, cause iconic status ain't worth anything. As of late I have noticed that the Mothership has been used more often in real matches. Seeing the mothership be used for real makes me sad to see it go, but a super unit cannot be compared to a normal one like the carrier. Mothership will go, 99% chance. A non-super unit like the carrier however has a chance of staying, if people can find a good use for it. There's no point in whining about it's weaknesses. Just get playin' and make it work. If people start using it, Blizzard will start caring and reconsider.
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.
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!
This sort of falls into the whole Gantrithor thingy sorta neatly as well. Protoss scourge, an interesting idea.
Protoss still needs something to counter giant muta balls.
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.
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.
In my opinion the interceptor mechanic is flawed. One of the best reasons to have big, powerful units is that they still deal full damage even at low health. Remove 99% of the hitpoints from a big ball of marines and only one marine remains, dealing its damage. Remove 99% of the hitpoints from a battlecruiser and it still deals 100% of its damage.
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.
It would be nice if they at least tried to fix it. Anything looks better than the tempest. It's just another mindless A-move Aoe unit to be added into the protoss ball.
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.
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.
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.
Honestly, the no micro aspect destroys the point of the carrier, and I don't mean in a strategy sense but a literal logic sense. It is a capital ship that deploys fighters. The point of doing this is because the capital ship is slow(but not immobile), and the fighters can engage independently, the capital ship just has to be close enough so it doesn't run out of fuel getting back to it. This makes the slow ship itself doesn't have to turn and fire on the enemy, it is free to maneuver around while the fighters attack. But since interceptors return to carrier immediately now, there is no point to having a ship that launches fighters. The fighters aren't actually independent of the ship anymore(in terms of combat movement), so their role is better handled by regular air units. Why turn your airstrip into an aircraft carrier if it can't actually move 10 feet to the left while the fighters are deployed?
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?
Wow, so well written, I don't want to see the carrier gone either, I just want to see it "remade". In it's current state it is only useful in very late-game situations very rarely. I think the carrier is an icon of starcraft as you said, the tempest will never replace the carrier in my heart!
The only place I think the carrier is viable is 2v2, because your ally can get some sort of ground support until you have a critical mass of carriers. 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.
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.
I completely agree with you, carriers need to be fixed. They have been around since the start, they have not been used much because they are so hard to get/use and no one has worked out a way to make use of them as they are and blizz have never addressed the problem. Carriers need to be fixed, not removed.
I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice.
I use the unit plenty, i just don't like it. For me sc2 protoss does not need the carrier. Would rather see something else, as long as it's not the tempest, are you kiddin me...
sigh again a post over carriers with the same flaws posted that just aren't true. The only flaw it has is that interceptors don't reproduce fast enough, i want to chrono my carriers. Also there were ninja changes :3. Imo they should give carriers and bcs a 4th weapon upgrade and if they would add another upgrade for the carriers (for example the 4 interceptors at the start), they wouldn't be so damn strong earlygame, where there can never be enough anti air out to fight them. That way they could buff the interceptors durability (if they wouldn't die so fast you had no chance as terran against fast +1 carriers).
PS: carriers always had a long build time, but now they get 4 interceptors at the start, you can even chrono them, if they would remove that and reduce the build time by 4 interceptors. It would be a tiny bit faster without chrono, but with chrono it would be slower and since you want to chrono them, this way its better.
The problem with carriers is easy though, they already are damn strong, same like ultras, but as every t3 unit you cannot mass them. Thats why blizzard can't buff them really without making them imbalanced. Also i guess they know we want them back, so they will find a way with the last expansion, though i hope they won't do a spidermine and give it to another race.
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?
The reason I want the carrier to be fixed/made useful and kept in the game is because.
1st I believe it could be one of the coolest late game units in the game, with the micro-able siege abilities of BW esque carriers. But more importantly. 2nd I believe it could serve a purpose in the future meta-game. If terran mech becomes much more viable, and if it starts becoming usable in TvP. Than the carrier could serve its traditional BW purpose of anti-mech unit (with proper support of course).
The reason for this is, because terran mech is very gas intensive and doesn't allow much room to get vikings. Being mech, it marines won't make an aperance or will less effective. Mech is also slow, carriers are flying units so they are more mobile by that virtue alone. And also carriers can attack sieged tanks without the risk of getting blown apart, unlike colossus.
I also believe it might become more viable in PvZ, however I am less sure how the meta-game of PvZ will evolve in HoTS.
There are many ifs in there, and it depends a lot on how the Warhound will turn out towards the end.
I hope that answers your question. I want to keep the unit in the game, not only because its an iconic unit, and not only because it has the potential to be micro-able and cool. But also because I legitimetly believe it could fit into the HoTS meta-game.
Edit: Day9 has also posted about 2-3 weeks ago that White-Ra is experimenting a lot with Carriers. I hope he found something cool about them to work with.
most likley I'm wrong, but i have this weird feeling that blizzard is not really intending to replace the carrier with the tempest, that its all a bluff (for whatever reason). i mean, i can't believe that the tempest is the best they came up with. its so boring and onedimensional. it's a tier 3 unit and it's only purpose is to counter mass mutas. this is just bad unit design. compared to the other new units, it feels like a joke.
On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote: I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice.
Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers?
The carrier needs to be tweaked a bit to be a long-range, micro based unit with a TON of damage potential again. The current interceptor's damage is way too mitigated by enemy natural or upgraded armor. More than anything though, I want the carrier to be something protoss could use against the infestor/BL doom army of zerg late game that would be balanced, but not rely on something silly like an instant kill for an entire army. Hopefully this would include the old micro trick or something like it, to encourage it to be more than just a flying colossus that doesn't do splash sitting over a deathball Of course, this would also mean blizzard would have to nerf, remove, or replace the vortex. And I'm okay with that.
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.
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.
The point is that with the resources and time that White-Ra invested in carriers he would probably have already won if he invested it in winning the game immediately. You have to be far ahead before you can sink a massive amount of resources into getting carrier tech. In close matches people simply can't afford to dump the huge amount of resources required with such a large timing window for their opponent to exploit.
On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote: I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice.
Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers?
I get you, but per my post, I was talking about PvZ.
EDIT: I'm not saying the carrier doesn't need to be changed, but as it is, I think in PvZ, it's a legitimate lategame unit when going zealot/archon.
Think about it. You already have the stargates from going early void. As you push the Z with Zealot/Archon with a few voids in the mix, build a fleet beacon and queue 2 carriers. Since Zealot/archon is so mobile, they are a perfect escort.
I just want to quickly suggest a reason for keeping the it in the game, more than just appealing to "role", you keep it in the game because it is pretty awesome looking and (should) be pretty awesome to play with. I just want to remind people that we are still playing a game here, and while balance is important, having tier 3 units that feel seriously badarse, look cool, feel awesome, is just as important.
And and that is where alot of the appeals from BW fans like me come from, it was a unit you could build late game-ish, rather just when you have a ridiculous advantage, would hit the field, and then proceed to wreck havoc on enemy units with the storm of protoss anger, accompanied with the delicious sound of multiple interceptors firing.
And to me, as a (bad) player and spectator, that is the important issue, I want there to be a late game protoss air unit, that feels great to use and see used, and doesn't require a silly advantage to use.
If this unit comes out of game updates, or changes in the way people play the game, remains to be seen.
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.
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.
The point is that with the resources and time that White-Ra invested in carriers he would probably have already won if he invested it in winning the game immediately. You have to be far ahead before you can sink a massive amount of resources into getting carrier tech. In close matches people simply can't afford to dump the huge amount of resources required with such a large timing window for their opponent to exploit.
No, he wouldn't have, have you watched the game? He wasn't ahead in economy, he rushed to Carriers.
The Carrier Flaws First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments. 1. The carrier is too slow to build. 2. The carrier is not micro friendly. 3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades. 4. The carrier is too easy to counter. 5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units 6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile. Now to put things into perspective. ...
Good write-up. I especially agree with points 2. and 4. (especially vikings). Microing carriers in BW was one of the most fun things to do :l
I dont know about it's future. The issue with it is that it can become too powerful and protoss already got good air units vs Z so if you buff it too much it can easily become too powerful.
I think it's a good idea to remove a brute powerful air unit and replace it with a unit that have a specific purpose. If they would buff the carrier I feel like it's a Voidray 2.0 that's stronger. The new air unit for protoss (forgot the name) has a specific purpose while the carriers purpose is right now unclear
I'm digging the idea of interceptors (or perhaps the carrier it self?) having an Air to Air AOE attack. I hope they can salvage the unit, it seems too "iconic" to remove :/ Then again, so did the Lurker...
The carrier is beyond salvage really. The role just overlaps too much with the colossus, buffing the carrier too much could simply replace the colossus with the carrier in many ways. Some say it has some minor uses in PvZ but I don't see it, it's just a terrible weak slow unit imo that dies way too fast to some corruptor focus. All the idea's to fix it are nice like making it more microable and making it faster to build etc. but it either will be buffed so much it practically replaces the colossus or it will still be too weak. The only difference with the colossus really is that the carrier can hit air, but in many cases that aspect is of minimal importance.
I like the idea of the tempest quite a bit actually so why not simply replace it with that. An AoE air attack might be interesting that it can kill mass muta (yeye.. it's slow but you could camp one over a base and bring one with your army perhaps) and it might not be hard countered by viking anymore because they stack quite a bit.
Oh before to many false information is spread. Interceptors never return to the carrier unless their target leaves their range of return which is 13 aroundish. The other point where they return is if their target is destroyed and they are on move command. So yeah they are not easy to micro, but it is possible to move the carriers while constantly having your interceptors out doing damage. Which is the reason why the interceptors die so fast, because they never return to home unless you want that or the enemy is destroyed. That being said you can actually micro interceptors in sc2, by microing the carrier, which wasn't possible in bw, they attacked did their shots and returned. Oh and to not have the interceptors return its fairly easy if the opponent is chasing, its basically like kiting with marines, just that you have to do it when a unit enters red health, the interceptors will kill it a second later, get their new target since the carriers are on attack, and you can move again. Imo its super easy against corrupters and vikings. And if you micro them seperatly its even better. So microability is way greater then in bw, maybe thats why they aren't as good anymore. Since people just want to shoot their interceptors fly away till they return and do it again. Which requires almost no micro. Anyway carriers are a good unit, sad to see them go, but against zerg air you need an anti air aoe, and sadly templars die to fungal, though carriers are perfect to snipe infestors against corrupter broodlord combos.
edit: haha i like the aoe idea, suicidal interceptor, shoots an interceptor that is red and abit slower and does air aoe damage, but is snipable. Yay terror and reaver feeling in one unit.
On January 19 2012 06:39 quistador wrote: I think the carrier could be a good follow up to zealot/archon in PvZ. Given the recent meta game, with Toss going zealot/ archon a little more, I think carriers could be a good late game choice.
Why? As far as I'm aware the correct counter to Zealot/Archon is Marine/Ghost/Medivac. Wouldn't that comp fare just as well versus carriers?
I get you, but per my post, I was talking about PvZ.
EDIT: I'm not saying the carrier doesn't need to be changed, but as it is, I think in PvZ, it's a legitimate lategame unit when going zealot/archon.
Think about it. You already have the stargates from going early void. As you push the Z with Zealot/Archon with a few voids in the mix, build a fleet beacon and queue 2 carriers. Since Zealot/archon is so mobile, they are a perfect escort
.
Apologies, as you can see I didn't read your post properly
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?
The reason I want the carrier to be fixed/made useful and kept in the game is because.
1st I believe it could be one of the coolest late game units in the game, with the micro-able siege abilities of BW esque carriers. But more importantly. 2nd I believe it could serve a purpose in the future meta-game. If terran mech becomes much more viable, and if it starts becoming usable in TvP. Than the carrier could serve its traditional BW purpose of anti-mech unit (with proper support of course).
The reason for this is, because terran mech is very gas intensive and doesn't allow much room to get vikings. Being mech, it marines won't make an aperance or will less effective. Mech is also slow, carriers are flying units so they are more mobile by that virtue alone. And also carriers can attack sieged tanks without the risk of getting blown apart, unlike colossus.
I also believe it might become more viable in PvZ, however I am less sure how the meta-game of PvZ will evolve in HoTS.
There are many ifs in there, and it depends a lot on how the Warhound will turn out towards the end.
I hope that answers your question. I want to keep the unit in the game, not only because its an iconic unit, and not only because it has the potential to be micro-able and cool. But also because I legitimetly believe it could fit into the HoTS meta-game.
Edit: Day9 has also posted about 2-3 weeks ago that White-Ra is experimenting a lot with Carriers. I hope he found something cool about them to work with.
I see what you mean, but your 2nd point is simply a matter of having it in order to balance something that doesn't need balancing (mech).
So you just come back to the first point - its cool and we want it. I guess that can't really be disagreed with. Opinions are opinions!
Saying that it is the unit that most dependent on upgrades is a statement that feels like it has a lot of bias. I think it would be quite easy to argue that ultras and bcs are equally as easy to counter without upgrades.
They just can't do it. Just remember the cinematics from SC1 and BW, the carriers, the battlecruisers... zerg had.. guardians and mutas flying in space (??!?!)
but they all had capital 'things.' A carrier... was like the scary ass blimp from Red Alert 2, Kirov?? Okay, when I first played Ra2 online, I was the allies and I was just chillin, scout with a dog, making G.I.'s and putting them in those weird APC things, and then the guy comes to my base with ONE fucking blimp and destroys everything
okay fast forward, I'm playing BW, I am terran, I don't know what I am doing. Protoss knows it. He gets like 12 carriers and enters my base like "sup guys" and tears shit up
These blimps always leave their mark on my mind. I believe HoTs is ... not going to do so. I'm not going to wake up having nightmares about that one game where the guy massed MOTHERSHIPS
I think this is where our points of view differ. With the addition of battle helions and warhounds, terran mech will change a lot. It is quite possible that the way mech is played in HoTS will be substantially different than now, and it also raises the possibility of there being a place for the carrier as another response. Maybe Zealot, Archon, Immortal could still work against HoTS mech, but Carrier and Air toss could work too, and its always good and healthy for the game to have options.
Carrier cannot be taken out. Its such a great unit and I'm currently fooling around with it against the mass muta problem. I'll do anything in my power to petition against the removal of it.
I think the only real success Whitera has had with carriers is used in conjunction with mothership. Even if we "save" the carrier it's still going to have problems that vortex overcame.
On January 19 2012 07:36 FeyFey wrote: Oh before to many false information is spread. Interceptors never return to the carrier unless their target leaves their range of return which is 13 aroundish. The other point where they return is if their target is destroyed and they are on move command. So yeah they are not easy to micro, but it is possible to move the carriers while constantly having your interceptors out doing damage. Which is the reason why the interceptors die so fast, because they never return to home unless you want that or the enemy is destroyed. That being said you can actually micro interceptors in sc2, by microing the carrier, which wasn't possible in bw, they attacked did their shots and returned. Oh and to not have the interceptors return its fairly easy if the opponent is chasing, its basically like kiting with marines, just that you have to do it when a unit enters red health, the interceptors will kill it a second later, get their new target since the carriers are on attack, and you can move again. Imo its super easy against corrupters and vikings. And if you micro them seperatly its even better. So microability is way greater then in bw, maybe thats why they aren't as good anymore. Since people just want to shoot their interceptors fly away till they return and do it again. Which requires almost no micro. Anyway carriers are a good unit, sad to see them go, but against zerg air you need an anti air aoe, and sadly templars die to fungal, though carriers are perfect to snipe infestors against corrupter broodlord combos.
edit: haha i like the aoe idea, suicidal interceptor, shoots an interceptor that is red and abit slower and does air aoe damage, but is snipable. Yay terror and reaver feeling in one unit.
SC2 carriers don't micro half as well as that. And this isnt even amazing carrier micro =/
On January 19 2012 07:52 Destructicon wrote: @ drop271
I think this is where our points of view differ. With the addition of battle helions and warhounds, terran mech will change a lot. It is quite possible that the way mech is played in HoTS will be substantially different than now, and it also raises the possibility of there being a place for the carrier as another response. Maybe Zealot, Archon, Immortal could still work against HoTS mech, but Carrier and Air toss could work too, and its always good and healthy for the game to have options.
Fair opinion, but I think it is quite rampant theory crafting. A previously poster pointed out the 6 conditions as to why they worked in Brood War PvT. It wasn't just that people went mech. Warhounds will be good vs Carriers (AOE destroying interceptors). Vikings will still be good (they counter both Colossi and Carrier - why wouldn't you have them). Marines will still be very good.
I see where you're going, but I think the end point where carriers are useful without significant changes to the unit itself is more complicated to reach than just 'more mech means more good carrier"
There's two things here that OP seems to have overlooked.
The first is that carriers are actually really good in PvZ, just absurdly hard to get to. A late game carrier/mothership/storm deathball turns out to be borderline broken.
PvT, the problem is SC2's smarter targeting. Autotargeting and instant shot means a marine ball efficiently melts interceptors the instant they fly near it. They never live long enough to do damage, and don't confuse armies like they did in BW. Combine that with their reduced range and lack of regen, and the most expensive unit in the Protoss arsenal is completely useless against mineral-only T1. If Terran went mech, carriers would be really useful... but no terran in his right mind goes mech against protoss.
Personally, I'd be interested to see reduced targeting priority for interceptors tried out. I think it would help without breaking them completely. I'd also be happy to see the mothership removed in return for stronger carriers to stop the ball being completely broken lategame PvZ. It would be nice to bring back the ninja cliff-attack as well, for carriers and broodlords.
I personally believe most (if not all) Protoss Air has some issues I hope they address in Heart of the Swarm. But sticking to the carrier...
I think one of the reason carriers aren't used (aside from the fact that theyre easily countered and arent cost effective atm) is because theres no reason to get Fleet Beacon at the moment unless you plan on building Carriers or a Mothership. So I wanted to know from others, If there were upgrades for Phoenixes and Void Rays at the Fleet Beacon (or whatever HOTS basic air) (and the Carrier got some kind of buff making it more viable in terms of cost or damage) do you think there might be a window where there could potentially be a safer transition into carriers? Just wondering what others thought.
I compare it to sairs in BW, where, in order to get disruption web, you needed a fleet beacon, or for scout upgrades. So once you got these upgrades, you could choose to start building up carriers if you wanted. I thought this might encourage some more carrier use, because I really like the way they did it in BW in terms of design.
On January 19 2012 08:37 Belisarius wrote: There's two things here that OP seems to have overlooked.
The first is that carriers are actually really good in PvZ, just absurdly hard to get to. A late game carrier/mothership/storm deathball turns out to be borderline broken.
PvT, the problem is SC2's smarter targeting. Autotargeting and instant shot means a marine ball efficiently melts interceptors the instant they fly near it. They never live long enough to do damage, and don't confuse armies like they did in BW. Combine that with their reduced range and lack of regen, and the most expensive unit in the Protoss arsenal is completely useless against mineral-only T1. If Terran went mech, carriers would be really useful... but no terran in his right mind goes mech against protoss.
Personally, I'd be interested to see reduced targeting priority for interceptors tried out. I think it would help without breaking them completely. I'd also be happy to see the mothership removed in return for stronger carriers to stop the ball being completely broken lategame PvZ. It would be nice to bring back the ninja cliff-attack as well, for carriers and broodlords.
I propose a trade-off. Reduced targeting priority for carriers if the same provision is expanded to broodlings! The problem with broodlings is that they block your entire army and soak up your entire army's DPS. You blink under BLs and snipe a few, get rooted and stuck/fungalled. Then the process repeats and everything is stuck out of range until blink cooldowns. Bl/Infestor is incredibly different to deal with on anything other than open ground like in the middle of Shattered Temple for this reason.
Interceptors aren't even as big an issue as this as they don't have collision detection, and it's a pretty small change annoyed I didn't think of it myself! Worst Blizz can do is try it.
Allow carriers to start with 8 interceptors, make them immune to damage, remove the carrier upgrade from the fleet beacon and make it baseline, and maybe reduce the build time of them also. If this is too much just remove the mothership.
the void ray exists, so that's that. voids are better than carriers and a gateway army that can warp in anywhere with a warp prism is more mobile. Archons, Colossus and Storms are all you need and even the mothership is actually useful with vortex, recall and cloak.
It's being removed from HotS and I can see why... Whatever though, Zerg and terran lost a ton of great stuff from BW so don't give me that crap about how the carrier is a staple unit from BW and needs to remain in the game. The tempest with the right balancing will be a much better unit.
On January 19 2012 09:01 emc wrote: the void ray exists, so that's that. voids are better than carriers and a gateway army that can warp in anywhere with a warp prism is more mobile. Archons, Colossus and Storms are all you need and even the mothership is actually useful with vortex, recall and cloak.
It's being removed from HotS and I can see why... Whatever though, Zerg and terran lost a ton of great stuff from BW so don't give me that crap about how the carrier is a staple unit from BW and needs to remain in the game. The tempest with the right balancing will be a much better unit.
The Tempest will be an awful unit that is no fun to use. It's not fast enough to micro from what I've seen, and will have two uses, either to camp bases to prevent mutas hitting you when you push out, or as part of a deathball.
I'm not even a BW fanboy, just want some units that aren't stupid and require some actual ability to utilise well.
On January 19 2012 08:38 vicml21 wrote: I personally believe most (if not all) Protoss Air has some issues I hope they address in Heart of the Swarm. But sticking to the carrier...
I think one of the reason carriers aren't used (aside from the fact that theyre easily countered and arent cost effective atm) is because theres no reason to get Fleet Beacon at the moment unless you plan on building Carriers or a Mothership. So I wanted to know from others, If there were upgrades for Phoenixes and Void Rays at the Fleet Beacon (or whatever HOTS basic air) (and the Carrier got some kind of buff making it more viable in terms of cost or damage) do you think there might be a window where there could potentially be a safer transition into carriers? Just wondering what others thought.
I compare it to sairs in BW, where, in order to get disruption web, you needed a fleet beacon, or for scout upgrades. So once you got these upgrades, you could choose to start building up carriers if you wanted. I thought this might encourage some more carrier use, because I really like the way they did it in BW in terms of design.
You need fleet beacon for level 3 air upgrades at least.
My big problem with the Tempest is I don't see how it's any better, situationally, than carriers. Blizz seriously has no idea what's going on in the metagame if they think mass muta is imbalanced in PvZ. What I want to know is how much better will the tempest fare against marines, vikings, and corruptors. If it isn't any better than the carrier, it won't be used any more than the carrier.
I suspect Blizzard made the carrier suck on purpose. For some unknown reason they hate it (too reminiscent of BW? Requires a lot of AI to be good?)and they only put it on WoL due to the massive demand; however, the complete absense of buffs in patches reveal they really don't want it to be playable. This way, they can claim that Carriers are unpopular and hated among Sc2 only players and that they are listening the audience when taking them out. Prediction: as uninteresting as the Tempest may be, it will be buffed as hell and easily massed, so when noobs start loving them Blizzard can gloat on the success of their decision.
On January 19 2012 10:12 javert wrote: I suspect Blizzard made the carrier suck on purpose. For some unknown reason they hate it (too reminiscent of BW? Requires a lot of AI to be good?)and they only put it on WoL due to the massive demand; however, the complete absense of buffs in patches reveal they really don't want it to be playable. This way, they can claim that Carriers are unpopular and hated among Sc2 only players and that they are listening the audience when taking them out. Prediction: as uninteresting as the Tempest may be, it will be buffed as hell and easily massed, so when noobs start loving them Blizzard can gloat on the success of their decision.
Really? You think its a conspiracy against the carrier?
Both of these replays are from within two days ago. Please stop whining in threads and spend your time actually making the units to see that they DO work and they work well. In the PvT game, I think there are VERY few other solutions that would have saved me the game.
On January 19 2012 10:30 Wombat_NI wrote: Will check them out man, always cool to see carriers. Are you utilising them often or just every so often as an 'out there' build?
I usually have to resort to them vs mech terrans but I hardly ever play against mech. On large maps like tal darim, though, I have found mass air to be SOOOO good in PvZ
Both of these replays are from within two days ago. Please stop whining in threads and spend your time actually making the units to see that they DO work and they work well. In the PvT game, I think there are VERY few other solutions that would have saved me the game.
You had this game won 8:30 already, supplies are 58-27 in your favor. Yet the game lasted for more than 20 minutes more. You could have picked any unit in the game and made only those and won. Actually, you could say you won this game despite the carriers.
I think in order to make both the BC and the Carrier better, they have to find a way to make them worthwhile to get. Prehapps giving them a upgrade that gives them an interesting ability to deal with vikings or corruptors ect ect
On January 19 2012 11:23 HeeroFX wrote: I think in order to make both the BC and the Carrier better, they have to find a way to make them worthwhile to get. Prehapps giving them a upgrade that gives them an interesting ability to deal with vikings or corruptors ect ect
Yeah, BCs need some sort of ability that can stop kiting vikings from escaping. Maybe some sort of cannon that one shots vikings...
On January 19 2012 08:37 Belisarius wrote: There's two things here that OP seems to have overlooked.
The first is that carriers are actually really good in PvZ, just absurdly hard to get to. A late game carrier/mothership/storm deathball turns out to be borderline broken.
PvT, the problem is SC2's smarter targeting. Autotargeting and instant shot means a marine ball efficiently melts interceptors the instant they fly near it. They never live long enough to do damage, and don't confuse armies like they did in BW. Combine that with their reduced range and lack of regen, and the most expensive unit in the Protoss arsenal is completely useless against mineral-only T1. If Terran went mech, carriers would be really useful... but no terran in his right mind goes mech against protoss.
Personally, I'd be interested to see reduced targeting priority for interceptors tried out. I think it would help without breaking them completely. I'd also be happy to see the mothership removed in return for stronger carriers to stop the ball being completely broken lategame PvZ. It would be nice to bring back the ninja cliff-attack as well, for carriers and broodlords.
I propose a trade-off. Reduced targeting priority for carriers if the same provision is expanded to broodlings! The problem with broodlings is that they block your entire army and soak up your entire army's DPS. You blink under BLs and snipe a few, get rooted and stuck/fungalled. Then the process repeats and everything is stuck out of range until blink cooldowns. Bl/Infestor is incredibly different to deal with on anything other than open ground like in the middle of Shattered Temple for this reason.
Interceptors aren't even as big an issue as this as they don't have collision detection, and it's a pretty small change annoyed I didn't think of it myself! Worst Blizz can do is try it.
I don't think BL's are broken, and that would be way too much of a nerf. In fact, ironically, if you're having trouble with BL infestor, try carriers. They kick ass when you get a good number and have a vortex on hand.
I do think it would help carriers vT though. Unless the Terran has a brain meltdown and decides to go mech, interceptors die unreasonably quickly against rine balls.
the Tempest won't solve anything... Zerg' can do Muta switches in a matter of minutes... by that time, if you don't have a SG or a FB... which you probably wouldn't... you won't be able to get one Tempest in time to ward off the Mutas... which is the reason it' made for right? and 4 range? It'll be kited to death... it'll just join the deathball which is what Blizzard wants to avoid in general with Protoss right? (example Oracle)...
Blizzard hasn't even tried making the carrier work and after seeing Jangbi in the OSL, I was like... we got to find a way. During SotG they came up with some interesting suggestions... like:
1. free interceptors (but they gotta be pumped out manually) 2. fixing the micro-issue (perhaps have a hot key to make intercepters return back to the carrier?)
Carriers are beautiful. Shame they are (most likely) getting removed in HotS.
I would agree that the Carrier could use a few buffs, maybe cost less minerals and build faster? Also come out with fewer interceptors but have each one build faster and have slightly more HP whatever it is?
I tried to think of more suggestions but they just all end up reverting to BW, and not in a million years will Browder et al be able to accept such changes then.
Also Tempest is by no means a good enough replacement for the Carrier. It's more of a less useful Thor than a good old game-ending capital ship.
This is so well put together, and I agree wholeheartedly. (I am Zerg so no bias there.) I think a range upgrade and the ability to move and still have interceptors shoot would make the Carrier really usable and hopefully not too OP. I'm with you on this one though; startup an online petition soon and hopefully this gains momentum.
Viking Range 9, acceleration 2.625, top speed 2.75. Those are the only stats that actually matter, because of the following thing stats of the carrier - speed 1.875 acceleration 1.063.
As you can see the viking out-ranges the carrier by just enough to hit and run, and they also move fast enough that carriers can't keep up. This is the same as Vikings vs Battlecruisers, Vikings have just enough range and are just fast enough that they can absolutely decimate BC.
In the case of the Viking, with proper micro you can take out carriers while taking minimal losses, and this is compounded by the problems noted above, like the interceptor AI problem, the upgrade problem and the production problem.
Mech Rant: Classic Mech Engagement at 22 minutes 3/3 mech vs 0/0/2 protoss. 5 tanks outta the battle: 3 for defense, 2 reinforcing. Still though, it woulda been gg right after that lost battle if he had killed my expos. Thank god he didnt. Kinda hiliarous how I have 3/3 mech for like 10-15 minutes against his pathetically upgraded protoss units and he still comes out on top
Anyways the important battle is at 39 minutes. Note that I have 3/3 air and 3/3 mech. He is vastly under upgraded with 1/0/3 ground and 0/0 air.
5 carriers (in the battle, 3 reinforcing) vs 16 vikings and 2 ravens.
5 carrers cost 1250 gas. 16 vikings is 1200 gas. The vikings get dominated. I realise that storms are the victor here, but still.... T_T
Maybe if my ghosts werent afk and actually EMPd every templar. I dunno, you'd think 3/3 vikings would be better against carriers.
I've had more viking vs carrier games than this one and I really don't wanna see viking > carrier anymore.
I personally will hate to see the carrier go T_T It's a staple for me. Beautiful, graceful and majestic I would much rather see it get some buffs but on the other hand maybe there's an application that hasn't been explored o_O
The carrier can never be viable in sc2 until all terran switches to mech. in sc1 terrans build siege tanks and vultures with spider mines, so no anti-air. So when the carrier pop in bw they did allot of damage before the terran can scrap together some anti-air.
stim marines are too good vs carrier and the fact that terran goes mmm anyway doesn't help(not hating on terran )
In Hots the battle-hellion seems to to be good for soaking up splash damage, so hopefully mech(tanks and battle-hellion) can be viable in hots and that in turn will make carriers good again. Just throw in the carrier bug.
I wish they would just give it micro capability back. I wouldn't care if they only had 4 interceptors that had to be upgraded to 8 like in BW if it could be microed.
This unit has been broken for too and just ignored so that it could ultimately be removed?
Prior to this Blizz, has never removed a unit with an expansion, I am just disappointed that this is how they intend to approach the game. Removing an iconic unit because they don't feel like fixing it is just sad. Would be like removing hydralisks entirely because they aren't used much.
Honestly, i think Blizzard did a bad job on Protoss air units, not just carriers. In every aspect of the story Protoss are presented as superior tech race with their fleet counted as almost Unbeatable. And yet in the game we see that Toss are stuck with: 1. Fragile Phoenixes, which is a good scouting unit and for harrasment in descent numbers, but they are not so cost-efficent in straight-up battles, almost useless. 2. Void-rays - a big, slow, flying, heavy-fire turret. Would be very nice to use it for good hit and run on key buildings, except right now there is no Run. Speed makes efficency of void-rays go down heavy. 3. Carriers. Well a lot is explained in OP, i would only add that it's hard to think out a build with carriers as a backbone.
But lets just switch to what is said about Protoss fleet, as being air-dominant. What are Protoss Air counters to: 1. Muta - Phoenix, but muta usually overwhelms them, due production speed and quantity. 2. Corrupters - Phoenix? - nope too fragile. Void-ray - probably, but again zerg is just going to overwhelm void-ray count. Carrier? no wait, it's massive and corrupters do well agains massive, oh yes and there's corruption ability. 3. Brood lords - ALL PROTOSS AIR COUNTER BROODS CUZ THEY DONT ATTACK AIR. Hm, no wait there are usually a ton of corrupters flying with them, damn, failed. So see p.2 4. Vikings: Range 9. coolface.jpg 5. Banshee - Phoenix, yes! cuz they dont attack air, but they do have cloak, so u should get obs and speed for obs also. 6. Battlecruisers - Void ray? - Yamato fire! 7. Raven - Void ray.
So as i see it dominance of protoss in the sky is very doubtfull.
void rays were good, before the stupid nerf to range and speed; changes the minerals/gas when you want to nerf something, not always the stats, damn blizzard.
@Techno & @Topic Carrier in PvT just work with Storms over vikings, but carriers are so strong in Late Game with Storms and Chargelots and so on.
@Topic Carrier need a huge build time buff and a little speed buff, then they work (Late game). Carrier could work today if you could actually micro them. But when you micro them back the intercepters are stopping to attack... Then have to be like broodlords: go back - throw broodlings - go back - throw broodlings....
I desperately want carriers to stay in the game. They are one of my favorite units in the game. And I do believe that the carrier can me fixed to fulfill the roles it needs to. Also, removing the mothership? What is that about =[
Sadly, Blizzard rarely listen to their good player base which is why WoW ended up the way it is today.
I've watched your replay and, I really don't see how you think Vikings don't beat carriers. You've badly miss-microed your Vikings a couple of times, you stood your ground and let them pummel you to death instead of doing hit and run micro, you also stood there and ate a storm which invalidades your entire claim that Carriers do good against Vikings.
However, in the fights where you didn't get stormed and you did manage to do some hit and run micro, you compleatly obliterated the carriers.
Vikings with micro >>> Vikings without micro >>> Carriers.
I find that to be about right.
But you also let the Toss preaty much do what he wanted, you gained a lead but failed to exploit it. You went mech against Toss, which is horrible atm. You didn't EMP your own thors/banshees to prevent them from being feedbacked. You didn't use the energy on your orbitals late game. And you let him get into a split map situation where he could do what he wanted.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing on you, I'm mearly pointing out you weren't playing at the highest level possible. There is even a massive difference between GMs and ladder and then tournament winners and Code S players.
Code S players have builds and timings so rafined and do battles so cost effectively that they constantly put pressure on the protoss and never let him expand uncontrolably, always force them to build army etc, so its really hard for a protoss to get into the the super late game with enough of a margin of a bank and security to get carriers.
The only two times I've seen TvP get into a split map situation was Genious vs SC on Daybreak and Puzzle vs Keen in the recent GSL, and even in those situations they where applying so much pressure to each other that the Toss wasn't able to even think about Carriers, however when Keen went for BCs (the equivalent of going carriers for Toss) he basically flat out lost.
Though I do have to admit your replay was entertaining as a demostration of what Carriers can potentially do to mech.
Also yes, Blizz hinted very faintly that Carriers might make a combeack, at Blizzcon when Dustin Browder anounced the Tempest, his wording was "We are getting rid of the Carrier, for the moment".
WhiteRa got it right, just add some usefull spell for carriers.
For example something like slowing cloud that works only vs air units so you can slow corruptors/vikings and escape/storm them. And maby reduce building time slightly, cuz every time a carrier finishes i have more gray hairs on my head then i've had when it started building...
On November 29 2011 22:13 Destructicon wrote: The Carrier Flaws First I'll enumerate each problem and then I'll start building the arguments. 1. The carrier is too slow to build. 2. The carrier is not micro friendly. 3. The carrier is the most dependent unit on upgrades and hit hardest by enemy upgrades. 4. The carrier is too easy to counter. 5. The carrier's role and weaknesses seem to overlap that of other units 6. The carrier's interceptors are too fragile.
Every unit has it's flaws. If you really want the carrier to work, you'll find a way. Just be creative.
Let's look for solutions.
1) The building time can be avoided by some things: - Get more stargates - Use Chronoboost all the time - Have a safe transition period to stay alive. Don't think these point are impossible
2) The carrier itself might not look very micro friendly. But that doesn't mean you can't make it microable. - Use Storms/Phoenix/Stalkers/Vortex etc. to scare off vikings - Only poke with your carriers and make use of the burst damage of your interceptors. - Use Motherships Recall to make the unit "mobile"
3) - Play a playstyle that revolve around maybe getting air upgrades. - Get Shield-Upgrades first - Use a small amount of guardian shields in your transition times to emulate a part of the upgrades.
4) Counters to Carriercounters are very easy to counter. - (Once your opponent goes mass marines, storm him) - (Once your opponent goes mass vikings, build zealots or storm him) - (Once your opponent goes mass hydras, storm him [or just kill him with carriers]) - (Once your opponent goes mass corruptor, build zealots or storm him)
Another possibiliy (since you already have a fleet beacon) is just to go for a mothership and vortex his vikings/corruptor.
5) You can use this fact to your advantage. - A carrier can't be countered by marauders, while a collossus can be. - Leave out the units it's similiar to. (You don't need collossus, once you already started carrier production)
6) Poke with your Carriers, but try to avoid a big fight unless you've got a critical mass. Use Motherships Recall or Vortex ability to retreat once your interceptors are gone.
Just work around these flaws. If you look at it, you can create a very powerful way of playing:
- Get Shield-Upgrades in the early game. - Go Twilight- and Stargate-Tech (don't know about the order) - Build Carriers and HTs, while using your minerals to expand and/or zealot harass. - Transition to Archon Zealot possible (because you keep getting shield-upgrades and already have templar tech) - Transition to Archon Toilet possible (because fleet beacon is already there) - Transition to Gateway strategies possible, because they are already upgraded to a certan extend.
I don't know. I want players to work around flaws themself instead of waiting for blizzard to do something.
On January 19 2012 18:23 Rimak wrote: Honestly, i think Blizzard did a bad job on Protoss air units, not just carriers. In every aspect of the story Protoss are presented as superior tech race with their fleet counted as almost Unbeatable. And yet in the game we see that Toss are stuck with: 1. Fragile Phoenixes, which is a good scouting unit and for harrasment in descent numbers, but they are not so cost-efficent in straight-up battles, almost useless. 2. Void-rays - a big, slow, flying, heavy-fire turret. Would be very nice to use it for good hit and run on key buildings, except right now there is no Run. Speed makes efficency of void-rays go down heavy. 3. Carriers. Well a lot is explained in OP, i would only add that it's hard to think out a build with carriers as a backbone.
But lets just switch to what is said about Protoss fleet, as being air-dominant. What are Protoss Air counters to: 1. Muta - Phoenix, but muta usually overwhelms them, due production speed and quantity. 2. Corrupters - Phoenix? - nope too fragile. Void-ray - probably, but again zerg is just going to overwhelm void-ray count. Carrier? no wait, it's massive and corrupters do well agains massive, oh yes and there's corruption ability. 3. Brood lords - ALL PROTOSS AIR COUNTER BROODS CUZ THEY DONT ATTACK AIR. Hm, no wait there are usually a ton of corrupters flying with them, damn, failed. So see p.2 4. Vikings: Range 9. coolface.jpg 5. Banshee - Phoenix, yes! cuz they dont attack air, but they do have cloak, so u should get obs and speed for obs also. 6. Battlecruisers - Void ray? - Yamato fire! 7. Raven - Void ray.
So as i see it dominance of protoss in the sky is very doubtfull.
1. Phoenix are faster then mutas and can always choose when to engange, making mutas worthless at every position where a sentry is or a few canons. And actual engagements, phoenix kill mutas super fast, only reason why mutas are better is because of their splash killing even phoenix faster, which is not given if there is guardian shield or units under them. 2. voidrays pre charged destroy corrupters also corrupters can never flee against voidrays without taking additional losses. Carriers do work as they can kite corrupters reducing their hits, but a buff to the corrupter that was done because people weren't able to click a button (use the ability), and afterwards people were able to use this skill suddenly, resulting in extra damage. 3. as long as there are corrupters with the broodlords there won't be enough broodlords to produce enough broodlings, so they aren't that dangerous, especially since carriers have a range advantage over them paired with storm that makes attacking with corrupters pretty risky. 4. Vikings: can't run away from voidrays if you lose the fight you lose all your vikings, but they can abuse their range with good splitting, so its quiet even fight. Carriers on the other hand can chase vikings down and with a lil bit of micro you won't take much damage and will have your interceptors out all the time doing massive damage. 6. Battlecruisers guarantee airdominance, there is nothing in the skys that can deal with a massive sky terran army in position. But voidrays do rip them appart and while yamato guarantees losses in pvt, feedback will make sure that no yamato will ever land. 7: raven gets destroyed by phoenix, just 2 passing by slightly is the end for the raven, so better protect the raven really well if you want to keep it with energy.
Oh and phoenix are fragile and doesn't work in straight up engagements is funny. They can most of the time lift the strong units of the opponent without being in danger of being focus fired, there are actually not many units that can reach phoenix over a toss army and really deal damage to them. For example against bio, so you want to save your marauders with your marines, well go into melee with mister zealot then, that is protected by guardian shield.
And speed voidrays you have seen how imba they are, it just didn't worked having them fast. And even without speed they still do a really good job if you are careful. Which is the essence of any sky play, keeping units alive. And recall is something that makes it really easy for toss to keep carriers and voidrays alive.
it always bugs me how Carriers (and Cattlebruisers for that matter) seem so underused in serious matches. On the other hand nearly every Zerg long match strategy revolves around getting Broodlords or ultras to finish an opponent. is this just because many Zergs naturally tech into air for mutas/corruptors so broods are the natural climax whereas Protoss only really go for air as a harassment?
I don't like the "this unit is underused? might as well not be there then!" attitude taken with the carrier. Then the proposed replacement (in tech path anyway) is essentially an anti-muta only unit [from what has been shown so far anyways]. Needing a fleet beacon to build something to take out mutas seems a little bit too much investment to be worth it. <ridiculous example time!!> its like making Vikings require a fusion core to take out colossus
You should have read all my arguments, not just the summary. Basically what I said about getting more SPs and dedicating crono to it is that, you are stuck with having 12-18 supply and 3 nexus worth of crono + all the resources tied up into something that won't pay of until 2 minutes, and which at the moment requires a critical mass.
You can't make a micro unfriendly unit micro friendly, just look at the marine with stim and combat shield, it can stutter step, focus and split vs banelings, now try to do that with thors or carriers.
Saving up and investing into air upgrades hardly seems worth while when the rest of protoss air isn't worth it and usually doesn't see any use except in certain timings in PvZ. It is in no way a situation reminiscent to Terrans investing early into Vikings and Zerg investing into air upgrades, because Terran knows for sure Toss will need to get colossus at some point and he can only counter Colo with Vikings. On the other side zerg uses mutas to harass so they can start upgrades early for air units.
Also, counters of Carriers aren't easy to counter, and the counters get build in almost every game due to how the meta-game has evolved. Marines, while they do melt to storms, they are cheep and easy to replace, and they can stutter step micro along with marauders to remain a constant thread. Stutter step bio kites and trades very cost effective with mass zealots. Thanks to their range vikings can poke at carriers without risking too much damage and can even dodge storms if careful +repair vikings.
Hydras do melt to storms but and they aren't a usual part of the zerg army, but Corrupters are a regular part of the army, because they transition into Brood Lords, this combo is usually also accompanied by infestors, which makes for a very hard composition to stop, so much so lots of Toss are now going mothership late game to stand a decent chance to beat it.
The problem with carriers feels like they need to reach critical mass to be effective so pokes will be hard to do. And you don't want to risk your 2-3 carriers on a poke just to get the obliterated by a group of vikings.
Yes I kind of agree, I want players to work out some of the flaws too, but. The fact of the matter is some can't be ignored, like the silly interceptor AI, and some problems are just a matter of the meta-game being so rigid and not allowing for any innovation.
On January 19 2012 23:01 Saethwyr wrote: it always bugs me how Carriers (and Cattlebruisers for that matter) seem so underused in serious matches. On the other hand nearly every Zerg long match strategy revolves around getting Broodlords or ultras to finish an opponent. is this just because many Zergs naturally tech into air for mutas/corruptors so broods are the natural climax whereas Protoss only really go for air as a harassment?
Broodlords and Ultras are used by Zergs because they are the only two siege units that Zerg has. You cannot assault a terran or protoss main that is turtled up with static D and siege tanks / colossus before hive tech. PF's are also a massive pain to deal with before BL's or Ultras.
On January 19 2012 23:14 Destructicon wrote: ... Yes I kind of agree, I want players to work out some of the flaws too, but. The fact of the matter is some can't be ignored, like the silly interceptor AI, and some problems are just a matter of the meta-game being so rigid and not allowing for any innovation.
I agree. You can't work out every flaw (and sure, you can't run to Blizzard with everything), but asking to broodwar-ize the SC 2 carrier micro doesn't seem to be that huge.
I wrote out a whole big thing, and then closed the window by accident. So I'll just shorten it to this.
Interceptors are too vulnerable. They give the carrier the same weakness as tier 1 units, which is that their damage scales down as the low-hp units die off one by one. Other end-game units do not have this problem.
But more importantly, I had some suggestions to fix it.
Get rid of graviton catapult. It's useless, the carrier is already the slowest unit to get out, AND the extra interceptors have to be built afterward for additional cost. As a cool fact, when a carrier spawns, its DPS is lower than a single hydra, and without the upgrade, interceptors launch so slowly as to be completely useless.
Give the carrier one of two fleet beacon upgrades.
1. An interceptor repair/durability upgrade 2. A reactor upgrade that allows simultaneous building of two interceptors. Reduce interceptor cost slightly (With or without upgrade)
And, in either case. Remove build time from the unit. Either, increase the upfront cost to allow the carrier to spawn with 8 interceptors Or. Reduce build time.
Both, I feel, at least partially address the weakness of the unit, specficially vs Marines and Hydras. Marines are hydras should not be the most cost effective solution to an end-game unit. Vikings and Corrupters and VRs will still give trouble, which is as it should be
I dont think carriers are completely unviable i think if enough people tried they could work ZvP. Phoenix openere to discourage spire tech, Carrier HT Mothership is pretty sick (storm to zone away units from attacking your carriers and archon toilet if opponent goes out of position. Carriers can deny bases pretty effectively since no static defence can protect against carriers (well i mean spores but not really) then recall. alot of spare minerals to warp mass zealot everywhere on the map to harrass. But its just fairly undiscovered. But i do think a slight buff to carriers would be good maybe bit faster build time / healing the inceptors. I dont know ;p
Really good post, i would love for carriers to become viable, i have a friend who whenever he watches me lose he says: "You know why you lost? You didn't go carriers." He doesn't even play the game but he still remembers them being iconic in broodwar.
One thing that you missed i think is the way that the mothership's vortex also counters carriers, so that the two big units on the same tech tree can't be used very well together. I think making interceptors immune to the vortex might well help Carrier's in PvZ a lo in certain situations.
I've GOT IT! How about Carriers no longer cost supply, Interceptors do! Could you imagine that? Reduce Carrier build time by the same amount as the time cost for 3-4 interceptors (Carriers spawn empty)! In a sense it would be a huge buff to carriers, but also a serious nerf, seeing as a full capacity carrier would cost 2 more supply than usual.
Do you think that level of availability in Carriers would make them overpowered or still just not good enough?
I don't think increasing their level of availability will improve the unit flat out. The carrier will still be weak towards the units I listed, like Vikings, Marines, Corrupters, Hydras etc.
Untill the meta-game changes to such a degree that, those units are more uncomon, or there are strategies that work without them, than the carrier will still strugle. Again though, I believe such strategies/compositions could arise in HoTS.
Yes, I think that is part of the probem. In fact if carriers where more micro friendly they might not be hard countered as hard by vikings and corrupters, and might serve as more useful units for sniping, pushing, hit and runs, siege etc.
I kind of adressed this issue. Even if the meta-game changes, the carrier will still be a borring a-move unit. If the carrier/interceptor AI would be made to be more like BW, than it would be a much more fun and rewarding unit, and lots of people would probably find a place for them in their army.
Great OP, I hate every new unit introduced into hots and hate what they are removing. EDIT: Protoss units
In my opinion, the colossus is a bullshit easy to use barely micro-able unit that obliterates what it 'counters' with support and is absolutely trash against its own 'counters'. This is just a ridiculously stupid way to design a unit.
with some reworking of the game of course I would love to see:
Protoss
- Collosus removed - Stalker ultra significantly nerved in HP and damage, starting with default blink. (Think reaper, solves the protoss scouting issues as well as early game harassment issues and reduces the power of the 'death ball'. - Carrier with improved ai - A stronger high templar
Terran
- Marauder removed - Viking removed - Tanks buffed - Strong ground anti air (such as war hound)
I'd like a discussion on why you think this could be a bad idea from a DESIGN point of view. Obviously I'm not saying this automatically balances everything. I understand that many of the steps blizzard has taken in brainstorming hots has ticked some of these boxes, but I still think there is a long way to go.
With weaker Tier 1 ground forces the clump syndrome would be less of an issue in death balls, and also would allow for more space controlling with stronger higher tier units such as a decent tank, a lurker type unit and a strong high templar.
Without colossus, the need for marauders and roaches is drastically reduced, as well as the need for vikings and corruptors. This also means that terran and zerg will have a much easier time dealing with a protoss ground army, and in fact be at an advantage on the ground. The way this could work is that clever high templar and dark templar play can keep this at bay until protoss can get a carrier out that is improved and less easily countered to start pushing away siege lines etc.
I'm not saying this is perfect, but I believe the reason the carrier is not viable is dues to the power of the colossus, and the units blizzard has created in response to this. I would love to see a game that does not revolve around a-moving these units repeatedly, and instead a game that punishes a-moving. I think what i have suggested is a good place to start, I'd love to discuss it though, in a civilised way. I don't think many disagree that there is nothing clever about stalkercollosus/roachcorruptor/marauderviking play. It's easy, uninteresting and is imbalances other aspects of the game from a game design point of view.
honestly, i hate almost all hots units, and i'd rather have some bw units back... not out of nostalgie but because i think it makes thinks more interesting and "better"...
On November 29 2011 22:33 VPFaith wrote: Why build carriers when you can just make chargelots lol? Not that hard to press W, and then ZZZZZZZZ hehe I mean ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, yeah, that's about right.
User was warned for this post
you do realize that holding shift and clicking z will save you from spamming it.
On November 29 2011 22:33 VPFaith wrote: Why build carriers when you can just make chargelots lol? Not that hard to press W, and then ZZZZZZZZ hehe I mean ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, yeah, that's about right.
User was warned for this post
you do realize that holding shift and clicking z will save you from spamming it.
On January 21 2012 19:50 MateShade wrote: Great OP, I hate every new unit introduced into hots and hate what they are removing. EDIT: Protoss units
In my opinion, the colossus is a bullshit easy to use barely micro-able unit that obliterates what it 'counters' with support and is absolutely trash against its own 'counters'. This is just a ridiculously stupid way to design a unit.
with some reworking of the game of course I would love to see:
Protoss
- Collosus removed - Stalker ultra significantly nerved in HP and damage, starting with default blink. (Think reaper, solves the protoss scouting issues as well as early game harassment issues and reduces the power of the 'death ball'. - Carrier with improved ai - A stronger high templar
Terran
- Marauder removed - Viking removed - Tanks buffed - Strong ground anti air (such as war hound)
I'd like a discussion on why you think this could be a bad idea from a DESIGN point of view. Obviously I'm not saying this automatically balances everything. I understand that many of the steps blizzard has taken in brainstorming hots has ticked some of these boxes, but I still think there is a long way to go.
With weaker Tier 1 ground forces the clump syndrome would be less of an issue in death balls, and also would allow for more space controlling with stronger higher tier units such as a decent tank, a lurker type unit and a strong high templar.
Without colossus, the need for marauders and roaches is drastically reduced, as well as the need for vikings and corruptors. This also means that terran and zerg will have a much easier time dealing with a protoss ground army, and in fact be at an advantage on the ground. The way this could work is that clever high templar and dark templar play can keep this at bay until protoss can get a carrier out that is improved and less easily countered to start pushing away siege lines etc.
I'm not saying this is perfect, but I believe the reason the carrier is not viable is dues to the power of the colossus, and the units blizzard has created in response to this. I would love to see a game that does not revolve around a-moving these units repeatedly, and instead a game that punishes a-moving. I think what i have suggested is a good place to start, I'd love to discuss it though, in a civilised way. I don't think many disagree that there is nothing clever about stalkercollosus/roachcorruptor/marauderviking play. It's easy, uninteresting and is imbalances other aspects of the game from a game design point of view.
The stalker idea is GREAT!I have been thinking the same thing on removing the collos-roach-maurauder-viking-corrupter and getting rid of that whole boring relationship. I wish someone with power would read this because I honestly think this would make sc2 SOO much more dynamic and fix toss.
On January 21 2012 19:50 MateShade wrote: Great OP, I hate every new unit introduced into hots and hate what they are removing. EDIT: Protoss units
In my opinion, the colossus is a bullshit easy to use barely micro-able unit that obliterates what it 'counters' with support and is absolutely trash against its own 'counters'. This is just a ridiculously stupid way to design a unit.
with some reworking of the game of course I would love to see:
Protoss
- Collosus removed - Stalker ultra significantly nerved in HP and damage, starting with default blink. (Think reaper, solves the protoss scouting issues as well as early game harassment issues and reduces the power of the 'death ball'. - Carrier with improved ai - A stronger high templar
Terran
- Marauder removed - Viking removed - Tanks buffed - Strong ground anti air (such as war hound)
It is kind of going of topic, but I'll lend my thoughts on the matter.
I think that, if Marauders and Roaches where mearly nerfed, than it would be justifiable ot also nerf the Colossus, and than maybe even Vikings and Corrupters, thus BCs and Carriers could maybe see more use. However I don't agree with Carriers and BCs having no counters, you need to have at least two responses to carriers and BCs, that way you need to scout what the enemy is doing to counter you and have your own appropriate counter ready.
Though really, I'd rather have the Colossus replaced with something more micro-able, or the colossus itself is made much more micro-able, then I could let the unit live.
I really don't see the reason to remove Marauders and Roaches though. If you remove Marauders you make terran bio unviable. As a response mech has to be buffed in TvP, because pure marines melt, and then you'll only have mech TvP, which will get stale just as fast as pure bio has.
Marauders I find to be an interesting unit, because they can help kite for the terran army. While I know many people probably hate concusive shell, I the skill and APM involved in doing a succesfull stutter step, while also controling your ghosts and vikings, its really entertaining to watch and execute. Though maybe Marauders still do require a nerf in the damage department and maybe HP. I bet a lot of the hate associated with Marauders stems purely from their hard countering of anything and everything that is armored.
Roaches, I'd keep, but make them more micro friendly, put much more emphasis on burrow micro. Maybe give roaches a boost of like 10 armor for 1-2 seconds after they burrow, so you could potentially save wounded roaches as well as Protoss can save wounded stalkers with Blink micro. However if they unborrow the armor boost would disapear, to prevent abuses and such.
I'm not sure a stalker nerf is needed. If that would happen than the stalker gets relegated to a simple scouting role, simmilar to the reaper, and then never sees further use, which would be a shame. Blink micro is one of the most entertaining things to see done correctly, it would be a great waste to nerf the unit with this ability to such an extent that it becomes just a scout. If the stalker is nefed in damage and HP then it also can't fulfull its role of a harass unit and marines/hydras would just laugh and destroy it.
Also note, a nerf to the stalker, and simultaniously to the colossus, would be bad, the protoss army would not be able to fight toe to toe with the terran or zerg, you'd have to adjust it in other areas, probably creating or buffing old gimiks like Guardian shields and FFs.
If the colossus is nerfed than Stalkers should be buffed, then it could be a stronger harass unit, and the efficiency of the Protoss army would go up, it would be able to fight toe to toe with the terran and zerg army and you might see smaller engagements and skirmishes.
Though, I'd not nerf just the colossus. I'd make FFs destructible, with a HP and armor ratio that makes them good for early game and worst towards late game. And, I'd re-adjust Warp in mechanic, regular gateways produce units faster, but warp gates allow you to warp in anywhere on the map, for the price of producing units slower.
The GW mechanic would give a defenders advantage to protoss at long last and allow PvP to climb out of the stone age that seems to be 1 or 2 base plays and 4 Gate. Also a weaker WG, Colossus and FF would be enough justification to buff the GW army, make it more efficient and then it could again, fight face to face with both terrans and zergs, conduct better harass, hit and runs etc.
Vikings, I'd keep, but maybe add an upgrade so they transform faster, that way they become a better raiding unit. I find them somewhat interesting because they are relatively fragile, they die fast to fungals, storms and stalkers, so you need to hit and run and position them corectly to counter colossus. And you also need to hit and run with them to destroy BCs and Carriers, which is a good thing.
Corrupters are a bit worst in that department, you can't really hit and run because they always come into range of marines and stalkers, esentially when they move in, they need to stay there. The only saving grace is corruption, which in a good spell, requires a micro investment and focus fire to make full use of it.
Again, while you probably see Vikings and Corrupters as the sole reason why Carriers can't be viable, it still wouldn't be a good idea to remove them. They serve their purpose and are good units. The real issue is for the meta-game to change as such that, zergs and terrans have more options in composition versus protoss, compositions that don't contain corrupters and vikings. If the meta-game can stear into that direction (which is looking very likely in HoTS), than Carriers will find a place in the game.
I don't think we should jump to conclusions to quickly and ask for the removal of some units, some can be re-worked such that they can find a use, or can be made more interesting and micro-able, I see tons of wasted potential in the roach, just as much as I see in the carrier. I believe it would be best to try and fix them first, and if it doesn't work, than remove them. Those are my thoughts on the issue.
On January 21 2012 19:50 MateShade wrote: Great OP, I hate every new unit introduced into hots and hate what they are removing. EDIT: Protoss units
In my opinion, the colossus is a bullshit easy to use barely micro-able unit that obliterates what it 'counters' with support and is absolutely trash against its own 'counters'. This is just a ridiculously stupid way to design a unit.
with some reworking of the game of course I would love to see:
Protoss
- Collosus removed - Stalker ultra significantly nerved in HP and damage, starting with default blink. (Think reaper, solves the protoss scouting issues as well as early game harassment issues and reduces the power of the 'death ball'. - Carrier with improved ai - A stronger high templar
Terran
- Marauder removed - Viking removed - Tanks buffed - Strong ground anti air (such as war hound)
I'd like a discussion on why you think this could be a bad idea from a DESIGN point of view. Obviously I'm not saying this automatically balances everything. I understand that many of the steps blizzard has taken in brainstorming hots has ticked some of these boxes, but I still think there is a long way to go.
With weaker Tier 1 ground forces the clump syndrome would be less of an issue in death balls, and also would allow for more space controlling with stronger higher tier units such as a decent tank, a lurker type unit and a strong high templar.
Without colossus, the need for marauders and roaches is drastically reduced, as well as the need for vikings and corruptors. This also means that terran and zerg will have a much easier time dealing with a protoss ground army, and in fact be at an advantage on the ground. The way this could work is that clever high templar and dark templar play can keep this at bay until protoss can get a carrier out that is improved and less easily countered to start pushing away siege lines etc.
I'm not saying this is perfect, but I believe the reason the carrier is not viable is dues to the power of the colossus, and the units blizzard has created in response to this. I would love to see a game that does not revolve around a-moving these units repeatedly, and instead a game that punishes a-moving. I think what i have suggested is a good place to start, I'd love to discuss it though, in a civilised way. I don't think many disagree that there is nothing clever about stalkercollosus/roachcorruptor/marauderviking play. It's easy, uninteresting and is imbalances other aspects of the game from a game design point of view.
The stalker idea is GREAT!I have been thinking the same thing on removing the collos-roach-maurauder-viking-corrupter and getting rid of that whole boring relationship. I wish someone with power would read this because I honestly think this would make sc2 SOO much more dynamic and fix toss.
props yo
ty though the other ideas are just a brainstorm as to how to see an interesting carrier play, I'd like to see the stalker thing tried, but this isn't possible while marauders and roaches remain in the game.
On January 21 2012 20:46 d00fuz wrote: ^ Remove viking and corruptors in a thread about carriers...riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight lol
no comment lol
On January 21 2012 20:53 CeroFail wrote: Stupid set of ideas. Imbalanced as hell and would not only destroy the game in terms of balance, but make it super boring.
You obviously didn't read the post. Every single expansion is 'destroying the game in terms of balance' have you even seen the proposed hots ideas? And your idea of boring differs from mine and the general consensus of sc2 players, at the least I hope it does.
On January 21 2012 21:01 Destructicon wrote: It is kind of going of topic, but I'll lend my thoughts on the matter.
I think that, if Marauders and Roaches where mearly nerfed, than it would be justifiable ot also nerf the Colossus, and than maybe even Vikings and Corrupters, thus BCs and Carriers could maybe see more use. However I don't agree with Carriers and BCs having no counters, you need to have at least two responses to carriers and BCs, that way you need to scout what the enemy is doing to counter you and have your own appropriate counter ready.
Though really, I'd rather have the Colossus replaced with something more micro-able, or the colossus itself is made much more micro-able, then I could let the unit live.
I really don't see the reason to remove Marauders and Roaches though. If you remove Marauders you make terran bio unviable. As a response mech has to be buffed in TvP, because pure marines melt, and then you'll only have mech TvP, which will get stale just as fast as pure bio has.
Marauders I find to be an interesting unit, because they can help kite for the terran army. While I know many people probably hate concusive shell, I the skill and APM involved in doing a succesfull stutter step, while also controling your ghosts and vikings, its really entertaining to watch and execute. Though maybe Marauders still do require a nerf in the damage department and maybe HP. I bet a lot of the hate associated with Marauders stems purely from their hard countering of anything and everything that is armored.
Roaches, I'd keep, but make them more micro friendly, put much more emphasis on burrow micro. Maybe give roaches a boost of like 10 armor for 1-2 seconds after they burrow, so you could potentially save wounded roaches as well as Protoss can save wounded stalkers with Blink micro. However if they unborrow the armor boost would disapear, to prevent abuses and such.
I'm not sure a stalker nerf is needed. If that would happen than the stalker gets relegated to a simple scouting role, simmilar to the reaper, and then never sees further use, which would be a shame. Blink micro is one of the most entertaining things to see done correctly, it would be a great waste to nerf the unit with this ability to such an extent that it becomes just a scout. If the stalker is nefed in damage and HP then it also can't fulfull its role of a harass unit and marines/hydras would just laugh and destroy it.
Also note, a nerf to the stalker, and simultaniously to the colossus, would be bad, the protoss army would not be able to fight toe to toe with the terran or zerg, you'd have to adjust it in other areas, probably creating or buffing old gimiks like Guardian shields and FFs.
If the colossus is nerfed than Stalkers should be buffed, then it could be a stronger harass unit, and the efficiency of the Protoss army would go up, it would be able to fight toe to toe with the terran and zerg army and you might see smaller engagements and skirmishes.
Though, I'd not nerf just the colossus. I'd make FFs destructible, with a HP and armor ratio that makes them good for early game and worst towards late game. And, I'd re-adjust Warp in mechanic, regular gateways produce units faster, but warp gates allow you to warp in anywhere on the map, for the price of producing units slower.
The GW mechanic would give a defenders advantage to protoss at long last and allow PvP to climb out of the stone age that seems to be 1 or 2 base plays and 4 Gate. Also a weaker WG, Colossus and FF would be enough justification to buff the GW army, make it more efficient and then it could again, fight face to face with both terrans and zergs, conduct better harass, hit and runs etc.
Vikings, I'd keep, but maybe add an upgrade so they transform faster, that way they become a better raiding unit. I find them somewhat interesting because they are relatively fragile, they die fast to fungals, storms and stalkers, so you need to hit and run and position them corectly to counter colossus. And you also need to hit and run with them to destroy BCs and Carriers, which is a good thing.
Corrupters are a bit worst in that department, you can't really hit and run because they always come into range of marines and stalkers, esentially when they move in, they need to stay there. The only saving grace is corruption, which in a good spell, requires a micro investment and focus fire to make full use of it.
Again, while you probably see Vikings and Corrupters as the sole reason why Carriers can't be viable, it still wouldn't be a good idea to remove them. They serve their purpose and are good units. The real issue is for the meta-game to change as such that, zergs and terrans have more options in composition versus protoss, compositions that don't contain corrupters and vikings. If the meta-game can stear into that direction (which is looking very likely in HoTS), than Carriers will find a place in the game.
I don't think we should jump to conclusions to quickly and ask for the removal of some units, some can be re-worked such that they can find a use, or can be made more interesting and micro-able, I see tons of wasted potential in the roach, just as much as I see in the carrier. I believe it would be best to try and fix them first, and if it doesn't work, than remove them. Those are my thoughts on the issue.
Thanks for your points, I agree with most of this, I was just hypothesising an environment where carriers may be viable in a metagame, if you are worried about being on topic, though I'm aware it presents a whole new set of problems, looking at the other units might be a place to start
On November 29 2011 22:33 VPFaith wrote: Why build carriers when you can just make chargelots lol? Not that hard to press W, and then ZZZZZZZZ hehe I mean ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, yeah, that's about right.
User was warned for this post
you do realize that holding shift and clicking z will save you from spamming it.
you do realize that you can just hold down z and spam click right?
I love to use carriers and will miss them when they go. One of the reasons I love HungUn, is because on his stream he goes carriers so often, and finds ways to tech to them regardless of the race of the opponent or the circumstances. His devotion to such an underused and much maligned unit is inspirational.
I love to have a random carrier mixed in for harass. In addition to the deathball, you rally a randomm carrier or two to the edge of the mineral lines of your opponents, and perodically have them swoop in a snipe a few workers and then slowly, slowly, slowly vanish.
You obviously didn't read the post. Every single expansion is 'destroying the game in terms of balance' have you even seen the proposed hots ideas? And your idea of boring differs from mine and the general consensus of sc2 players, at the least I hope it does.
Well, from your suggestions, it seems that the game will become a lot more limited to ground units which in my opinion, reduces the variety in the game.
Also, whilst I agree with some points such as removing collosus as it is more or less just an a-click unit, some of your ideas such as removing marauders and roaches aren't that good as firstly, terran bio will not be viable any more and also, roaches are fine, but they need to be more micro-able. I don't think the High Templar needs any buffing either and the stalker shouldn't need to be nerfed that much but of course, this is all my opinion.
On another note, carriers are actually quite viable in PvZ when mixed with other units such as mothership and etc.
On November 29 2011 22:13 Destructicon wrote: To put it into perspective, the build speed is so slow that, even the Tempest, the replacement for the carrier is supposed to have a build time of 70 seconds without chrono, and even the Battlecruiser, which started life in SC2 with a build time of 110 seconds quickly came down to 90 seconds.
I think you might want to rephrase that paragraph. Loved the article!
On January 21 2012 19:50 MateShade wrote: Great OP, I hate every new unit introduced into hots and hate what they are removing. EDIT: Protoss units
In my opinion, the colossus is a bullshit easy to use barely micro-able unit that obliterates what it 'counters' with support and is absolutely trash against its own 'counters'. This is just a ridiculously stupid way to design a unit.
with some reworking of the game of course I would love to see:
Protoss
- Collosus removed - Stalker ultra significantly nerved in HP and damage, starting with default blink. (Think reaper, solves the protoss scouting issues as well as early game harassment issues and reduces the power of the 'death ball'. - Carrier with improved ai - A stronger high templar
Terran
- Marauder removed - Viking removed - Tanks buffed - Strong ground anti air (such as war hound)
I'd like a discussion on why you think this could be a bad idea from a DESIGN point of view. Obviously I'm not saying this automatically balances everything. I understand that many of the steps blizzard has taken in brainstorming hots has ticked some of these boxes, but I still think there is a long way to go.
With weaker Tier 1 ground forces the clump syndrome would be less of an issue in death balls, and also would allow for more space controlling with stronger higher tier units such as a decent tank, a lurker type unit and a strong high templar.
Without colossus, the need for marauders and roaches is drastically reduced, as well as the need for vikings and corruptors. This also means that terran and zerg will have a much easier time dealing with a protoss ground army, and in fact be at an advantage on the ground. The way this could work is that clever high templar and dark templar play can keep this at bay until protoss can get a carrier out that is improved and less easily countered to start pushing away siege lines etc.
I'm not saying this is perfect, but I believe the reason the carrier is not viable is dues to the power of the colossus, and the units blizzard has created in response to this. I would love to see a game that does not revolve around a-moving these units repeatedly, and instead a game that punishes a-moving. I think what i have suggested is a good place to start, I'd love to discuss it though, in a civilised way. I don't think many disagree that there is nothing clever about stalkercollosus/roachcorruptor/marauderviking play. It's easy, uninteresting and is imbalances other aspects of the game from a game design point of view.
Pretty pointless post since none of this will ever happen. Blizzard made a new game and they won't make radical changes that change the entire game. The game is reasonably balanced in it's current state and we shouldn't make too much changes. Also Carriers aren't not viable because Colossos are strong, it's because it's just an awful unit that makes any army worse.
99% of the current progames aren't just sit back and make a 200/200 supply army anymore. Blizzard did exactly what the community asked with SC2, make a competitive game and balance it for competitive play. If 200/200 supply A-move works in the lower levels that's just something we have to live with.
People again are missing the big problem with carriers: as the battle rages on, carriers reduce their combat ability. No other unit in the game does this. Interceptors die, the attack power of the carrier decreases, until the damn thing is useless and has to run away.
On November 29 2011 22:33 VPFaith wrote: Why build carriers when you can just make chargelots lol? Not that hard to press W, and then ZZZZZZZZ hehe I mean ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, yeah, that's about right.
User was warned for this post
you do realize that holding shift and clicking z will save you from spamming it.
Wtf, I swear that guy already posted something like this. We understood the first time, no need to troll twice the exact same way.
Has anyone mentioned yet that the carrier was NEVER been patched in any shape or form (since the beta at least) so I daresay its not gonna happen - Dustin and David have given the carrier up.
On January 21 2012 21:01 Destructicon wrote: It is kind of going of topic, but I'll lend my thoughts on the matter.
I think that, if Marauders and Roaches where mearly nerfed, than it would be justifiable ot also nerf the Colossus, and than maybe even Vikings and Corrupters, thus BCs and Carriers could maybe see more use. However I don't agree with Carriers and BCs having no counters, you need to have at least two responses to carriers and BCs, that way you need to scout what the enemy is doing to counter you and have your own appropriate counter ready.
Though really, I'd rather have the Colossus replaced with something more micro-able, or the colossus itself is made much more micro-able, then I could let the unit live.
I really don't see the reason to remove Marauders and Roaches though. If you remove Marauders you make terran bio unviable. As a response mech has to be buffed in TvP, because pure marines melt, and then you'll only have mech TvP, which will get stale just as fast as pure bio has.
Marauders I find to be an interesting unit, because they can help kite for the terran army. While I know many people probably hate concusive shell, I the skill and APM involved in doing a succesfull stutter step, while also controling your ghosts and vikings, its really entertaining to watch and execute. Though maybe Marauders still do require a nerf in the damage department and maybe HP. I bet a lot of the hate associated with Marauders stems purely from their hard countering of anything and everything that is armored.
Roaches, I'd keep, but make them more micro friendly, put much more emphasis on burrow micro. Maybe give roaches a boost of like 10 armor for 1-2 seconds after they burrow, so you could potentially save wounded roaches as well as Protoss can save wounded stalkers with Blink micro. However if they unborrow the armor boost would disapear, to prevent abuses and such.
I'm not sure a stalker nerf is needed. If that would happen than the stalker gets relegated to a simple scouting role, simmilar to the reaper, and then never sees further use, which would be a shame. Blink micro is one of the most entertaining things to see done correctly, it would be a great waste to nerf the unit with this ability to such an extent that it becomes just a scout. If the stalker is nefed in damage and HP then it also can't fulfull its role of a harass unit and marines/hydras would just laugh and destroy it.
Also note, a nerf to the stalker, and simultaniously to the colossus, would be bad, the protoss army would not be able to fight toe to toe with the terran or zerg, you'd have to adjust it in other areas, probably creating or buffing old gimiks like Guardian shields and FFs.
If the colossus is nerfed than Stalkers should be buffed, then it could be a stronger harass unit, and the efficiency of the Protoss army would go up, it would be able to fight toe to toe with the terran and zerg army and you might see smaller engagements and skirmishes.
Though, I'd not nerf just the colossus. I'd make FFs destructible, with a HP and armor ratio that makes them good for early game and worst towards late game. And, I'd re-adjust Warp in mechanic, regular gateways produce units faster, but warp gates allow you to warp in anywhere on the map, for the price of producing units slower.
The GW mechanic would give a defenders advantage to protoss at long last and allow PvP to climb out of the stone age that seems to be 1 or 2 base plays and 4 Gate. Also a weaker WG, Colossus and FF would be enough justification to buff the GW army, make it more efficient and then it could again, fight face to face with both terrans and zergs, conduct better harass, hit and runs etc.
Vikings, I'd keep, but maybe add an upgrade so they transform faster, that way they become a better raiding unit. I find them somewhat interesting because they are relatively fragile, they die fast to fungals, storms and stalkers, so you need to hit and run and position them corectly to counter colossus. And you also need to hit and run with them to destroy BCs and Carriers, which is a good thing.
Corrupters are a bit worst in that department, you can't really hit and run because they always come into range of marines and stalkers, esentially when they move in, they need to stay there. The only saving grace is corruption, which in a good spell, requires a micro investment and focus fire to make full use of it.
Again, while you probably see Vikings and Corrupters as the sole reason why Carriers can't be viable, it still wouldn't be a good idea to remove them. They serve their purpose and are good units. The real issue is for the meta-game to change as such that, zergs and terrans have more options in composition versus protoss, compositions that don't contain corrupters and vikings. If the meta-game can stear into that direction (which is looking very likely in HoTS), than Carriers will find a place in the game.
I don't think we should jump to conclusions to quickly and ask for the removal of some units, some can be re-worked such that they can find a use, or can be made more interesting and micro-able, I see tons of wasted potential in the roach, just as much as I see in the carrier. I believe it would be best to try and fix them first, and if it doesn't work, than remove them. Those are my thoughts on the issue.
I just want to say that I like most of your points (especially the part about roaches and vikings). I just would like to add some thoughts here: -) blink stalkers as they are, are already extremly strong against any zerg composition that does not contain mass broodlord or mass infestor. I just don't think there is anything doable in terms of balance without greatly improving hydralisks as well (roaches, lings and banelings are pretty much untouchable due to ZvT). -) There is no need to have a direct Air to Air "counter" for BCs and Carriers. If hydralisks could really deal with air properly (meaning smaller groups guarding expansions would work and investing into them without attacking would not be an equivalent to 'gg', while bigger groups could take on BCs and Carriers head on). That's probably the direction the Tempest and Hydraspeed-Upgrade are pointing to in the first place. Tempest>Corruptor, Hydralisks>Protoss Air, Colossus>Hydralisk, Viper>Colossus, Templar>Hydralisk, Oracle>Hydratiming/spores etc. etc. could lead to very interesting scenarios in which Zerg simply can't go corruptor against Protoss air and Protoss can't go colossus vs Hydralisks. Which could lead to very microintense harass (phoenix, oracle, drops, lings) and battles (vipersniping, colossuspulling, stormdodging, chargelotkiting, lifting...)
On November 29 2011 23:00 See.Blue wrote: Fuck the tempest, give air-only splash to interceptors and keep it. We almost lost it once from BW --> WoL and community reaction brought it back. We can do it again. Love me some carriers. Iconic unit imo
I agree. This immediately came to mind.
May still need that buildtime buff though. That's a pretty serious problem.
Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a powerful shield for G to A attacks yet had zero shield from A to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
Edit: Fixed it up after watching the alpha video again (anyone know why my video is not appearing in player form?)
On January 22 2012 06:49 terran0330 wrote: Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a hardened shield for A to A attacks yet had zero shield from G to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
I believe - and Liquipedia agrees - that you've got the old tempest's shields backwards; theoriginal tempest was an anti-ground ship.
I actually kinda liked that ship when I first heard about it, but she was... not very popular. So it goes.
Maybe join the carrier with mothership/arbiter, leave it vulnerable to vikes/corruptors/void rays, but still have a weaker version of vortex (radius like a psi storm, lasts 5-10 seconds), something that could be smartcast, because who the fuck makes 1 carrier?
Basically all problems stem from the colossus dynamic. What counters Carriers? Vikings and Corruptors. Why? One has 9 range, the other bonus damage vs massive. Again, why do they have that? Because the other races need a unit to engage a colossi-enhanced protoss ball.
Now look at ZvP. Zerg say hydra is shit and can't use them. Movement speed is one thing, but another is that they get raped silly by colossi even just by 1-2.
I'm not saying Carriers are fine - far from it. They deserve to be buffed and everything the OP says is true. It's just that by the time they join the battle, the zerg/terran player already has units that counter it on the field.
Carrier DPS is actually pretty good for a toss unit. They can dish out a lot of pain if you don't kill them immediately. They could counter late game broodlords and mutalisk balls which the protoss currently struggle against. They just need the chance to do so. (Well the ~13 minute mutalisk ball is debatable, but after you actually have a meaningful amount of carriers mutas melt)
Blizzard should really give carriers a little push in the back, a nod of approval and let them spread their wings.
On January 22 2012 06:49 terran0330 wrote: Don't know if this has been mentioned yet but back in the alpha the Carrier (or was it called the tempest back then?) Had a hardened shield for A to A attacks yet had zero shield from G to A attacks, I think this concept could be looked at again. Perhaps, leaving the health of the carrier as it is, give it a cooldown spell that gives the carrier either a 100hp hardened shield from the players choice of attacks from air or ground for maybe 6 seconds, to help with first engagements/running away from lost battles.
I believe - and Liquipedia agrees - that you've got the old tempest's shields backwards; theoriginal tempest was an anti-ground ship.
I actually kinda liked that ship when I first heard about it, but she was... not very popular. So it goes.
Yeah... and why was that? Because it was named Tempest and not Carrier or Carrier 2.0. If they had said: "Hey guys, you know: the carrier was kind of cool in BW, but you know, Protoss are intelligent and have found out that the carrier was mostly used as an AtG battleship. So what they did is: they rebuild their interceptors to shuriken, which are better vs ground, but can't attack air anymore... Basically the new Carrier 2.0 emphasizes on the AtG ground role from BW.", everyone would have cheered and probably noted that the Carrier could be imbalanced, due to the Carrier already being superstrong vs ground in BW. And now Protoss would have the Tempest called Carrier 2.0... which would be a unit that would fit in SC2 balancing, while the "Carrier" doesn't. It just fits no role and I guess it won't unless there are HUGE changes to the metagame (Mech), or huge changes to the balancing (removal of either corruptor or viking or both + all the hundrets of thousands of necessary changes that come with that... removal of colossus, introduction of new air units for Zerg/Terran, buffs/nerfs to units that are right now balanced around the Carrier/Viking/Corruptor etc etc...)
I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
The fundamental problem of carriers is the interceptor cost... They might be worth their money if they just cost the amount in the stargate, but having to rebuild interceptors (who die like flies vs. Terran) means the unit can never be cost effective.
I'd love it if Blizzard tested how much difference it would make if interceptors build a bit slower but are free (maybe make the carrier launch with 6 by default if the buildtime is really slow) that would make it usefull as a sort of hit and run unit lategame (move in, fight until interceptors die, cover retreat with storms).
Simply removing it for the tempest just doesn't feel right. SC without carriers meh, that removes one of the key aspects of protoss for me.
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
I just meant there's still ground counters to collosi that could be reinforced by anti-air. Tanks for Terran, Immortals for Toss, and Corruptors would be still pretty good for Z because of that nice boost vs. massive. Maybe ultras if corruptors don't work.
And for anti-air, the respective units would probably be Thor, Stalker... drawing blanks for zerg. Either infestor or hydra is the best I got.
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
What you're saying, but it is a good example of a word's meaning changing to fill a gap where it is needed to explain something succinctly.
Language does evolve, and in quite interesting ways and here is but one example.
On January 22 2012 09:00 UndoneJin wrote: I see the problem more being that they are removing the carrier for a relatively uninteresting unit, even if it's a very practical one. I was a BW player so of course I would prefer the carrier to stay, but if you're going to replace a classic SC unit at least make it something that feels like an "almost" even trade...
Pretty much this. I also don't get why Blizz says they're trying to get rid of deathball and then add a unit that does tonnes of AoE damage to air units, which are generally the counter to collosi, which rape everything on the ground.
Collosus/Tempest deathballs sounding fun guys?
The counter is immortal stalker. Immortals rape colossi, then bring in stalkers for antiair.
Anyways...
Blizzard. I don't give a fuck what you give the carrier. Make its interceptors shoot cupcakes. All I want is a unit that resembles a big yellow penis, with the word "Carrier" somewhere in the title, whose attack is by sending out smaller ships to do its bidding. That's all I'm asking for.
Lol at the last bit of the post. Dunno what you're referring to with the first bit, I was talking about the corruptor/collosus, viking/collosus dynamic and how the tempest can counter traditional counters to collosi, at least in theory.
I just meant there's still ground counters to collosi that could be reinforced by anti-air. Tanks for Terran, Immortals for Toss, and Corruptors would be still pretty good for Z because of that nice boost vs. massive. Maybe ultras if corruptors don't work.
And for anti-air, the respective units would probably be Thor, Stalker... drawing blanks for zerg. Either infestor or hydra is the best I got.
Oh the theoretical composition is by no means uncounterable I wasn't claiming that. I'm just pointing out the curious contradiction of Blizzard claiming they are trying to 'avoid adding units to the deathball' and adding in a unit that seems like it would (tech tree aside) augment existing Protoss deathballs.
Interceptors need to not come back when you pull them away. There should be a distance limit like around 10 or 11 where the carrier attack range remains what it is but until you pull it back the 10 to 11 distance from a unit it is attacking the interceptors should stay out. Also interceptors should get a buff to their hp and shields.
There is an air build that involves early voidray / phoenix harass into mass carriers that give Destiny a lot of trouble. Can anyone say how good this build is or if it's just Destiny being unable to abuse a timing window to kill the protoss before he can get the carriers out?
Even with MASS max supply corruptors vs max protoss air the protoss air kept winning every engagement even when the carriers were being focused down.
Make Carriers microable like they were in BW. It seems to be the most popular suggestion so far and would seem to bring about the most effective change without totally fucking up the game
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
What you're saying, but it is a good example of a word's meaning changing to fill a gap where it is needed to explain something succinctly.
Language does evolve, and in quite interesting ways and here is but one example.
Quite indeed. I'm normally the first to bring up the dynamic characteristic of language when "grammar-nazis" are around. However, in this case it's not a clear case of a broad popular movement towards the usage of the prefix meta when referring to strategies or tactics. This is a usage of an age old prefix with a widely accepted and understood meaning in a very contained and specific enviroment, namely the starcraft or rts scene.
It's not like many other internet slangs that gets rooted in the general population by it being exposed in general communications over the net – this is very confined to a small group on the internet and the use of said prefix is not under much scrutiny from the outside... everyone and his dog is using this term here. I can make up my own words in my private life but that wouldn't mean that the words were a part of the language and that I'm making the language more dynamic – for that you need alot of people and if you want to rewrite meanings of established terms – you need the general population.
"meta" is not a fresh internet term to add to the dictionary like in other cases. It has an established meaning – most educated people know what it means and would realize that it was being missused should the "SC2-lingo" be exosed to the sunlight of the outside world.
I'm not saying that it can't be turned into an accepted term in the future – but the chance for that happening is quite slim IMO – I'm just saying that people should not be surprised by "outsiders" finding the meta-game term a bit ignorant.
Honestly i don't think blizzard will buff the carrier, the way they currently work it seems like they want to build from the current meta game in HOTS, thus buffing the carrier ( which would require the other races to be buffed aswell ) will change the meta game even more thus making the beta testing needed for HOTS even longer. In my option we should be talking about ways to convince blizzard not to remove the mothership and fuck up the meta game that way ( rather than buff the carrier ). As for keeping the carrier there since its an "iconic" figure of the protoss, you can always use the carrier modle for the new anti muta aoe air unit... problem solved.
On January 22 2012 14:24 ArvickHero wrote: Make Carriers microable like they were in BW. It seems to be the most popular suggestion so far and would seem to bring about the most effective change without totally fucking up the game
this doesn't do anything about how marines annihilate interceptors though
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
Strategies are part of the meta game of SC2 because a strategy is not, in the literal sense, a part of the game code being executed on your computer. A strategy is a compilation of information about SC2, not a part of it.
Sixteen pages of back and forth? The carrier is getting removed and rightly so, it does not fit in the current game and people are Blizzard seem smart enough to realize it. I hope it'll make a comeback in Legacy of the Void, but not in its current form.
Look, guys, Carriers are a lot stronger in SC2. The problem is that Terran has Marauders in this game, which allow them to be the aggressor in the mid game, so it is very hard to transition into them. In SC1 Terran could not move out aggressively for a long time. Try Carrier builds in PvP. Pretty hard to do when the enemy is constantly in your face
The biggest problem with Protoss is they basically have two routes of tech and two main army compositions. You can either go Blink/ Colossus oriented early or Chargelot/ Archon( storm) early, and late game is a bit of both. Protoss is such a brute force race right now because of the limited tech options. Blizzard really does need to address the fact that an entire tech path is completely wasted space.
Now yes, Phoenixes and Void rays are very good units and in Beta we all saw what mass void ray could do, but that is just downright dumb at this point and the units have lost their synergy. The carrier NEVER had synergy, nor did Blizzard ever try to give it any. I really wish Blizzard would address this issue, whether it saves the carrier or not is irrelevant.
Slightly off topic but the frequent usage of the term "meta-game" when talking about in game strategies in this thread is really annoying.
Since a "meta-X" is separate from X itself then using the term "meta-game" when referring to common strategies is to say that Starcraft 2 is not a game about thinking and strategizing but only about the mechanical actions of clicking the mouse and keyboard. Meta-gaming is about using resources that lies beyond the realm of what is considered the confines of the game to gain advantages – like breaking your opponents hands before a match.
If we want to keep saying meta-game like we do atm and stay consistent at the same time we have to start to refer to the meta-sport when we discuss lineups in soccer or meta-war when talking about military operations and tactics.
It sounds stupid and you risk coming off as a dimwit when talking to someone with a basic grasp of the english language.
Strategies are part of the meta game of SC2 because a strategy is not, in the literal sense, a part of the game code being executed on your computer. A strategy is a compilation of information about SC2, not a part of it.
So by that logic any external influence applied on the game should then be considered the meta game. Operating the battlenet 2.0, giving unit commands or building anything at all – these are all happening in the game just like strategies and tactics but are not inherently phenomenon that occurs in starcraft 2 in the absence of a player. In its strictest sense you need external help in the form of processing power and monitors just to display the game thus qualifying the act of running it as a meta-game.
When we talk about sports we include the act of playing the sport and thus applying strategies and tactics alike. Just like we don't only include the leather of the ball and the sweat on the players' socks when we say soccer /soccer game – people are not only referring to the binary gamecode when referring to starcraft 2.... especially when referred to in an e-sports context.
Since this came up, I'll explain my definition of meta-game, so people can put it into context.
In SC2, all strategies start with am opening move with the purpose to give you an advantage in the early to mid game. Trough scouting and small adaptations/fine tunings, each player trys to transition out of his opening and into something to counter the enemy in the mid game. By the mid and mid to late game, the strategies have been fleshed out and the final unit composition for each player starts to unfold.
The thing about SC2 though, that final unit compositions isn't a compleatly linear thing you build up too, though it is dependent on the opener. For example, if a protoss decides to do a stargate play vs a zerg in the early-mid game, then his aim is to do some kind of early damage or outright win. If the zerg holds the SG play than the Toss will most likely transition out of SG play and into a GW + Colossus composition to counter mass hydras counter of the zerg, the zerg knowing this will also try to incorporate corrupters into his composition.
So in the above case, the SG units didn't serve an effective role outside the initial opening, but they did somewhat set up the path leading to the mid and late games, and decided a unit composition.
The totality of all the above actions of, openings, scouting, counter units and counter compositions, that leads up into the final unit composition for each side, is what I call a meta-game.
So, when I refer to the current meta-game I refer to the summary of strategies and tactics employed to build up and reach the strongest percieved unit composition for both side.
Now, while there are many openings and compositions viable in the early game and mid game. By the late game everything still converges towards the best unit compositions.
So, I could say the current meta-game for both Protoss and Terran is very rigid and limited, because, despite the multitude of openings from both sides, in the end Terran still wants MMM supported by Vikings and Ghosts, and Protoss wants a GW army to support Colossus and HT.
About TvZ though, I could say it has a much more flexible meta-game, because Terran can go bio-mech (Marines, Tanks, Medivacs into Ghosts, Vikings and Marauders) or pure mech, while zerg can go for a ling, bling muta play and transition into a BW, Infestor Corrupter comp, or a infestor ling comp that transitions into Ling, Ultra and Infestor late game.
While some could argue as to how good Ling, Ultra and Infestor is, it depends a lot on circumstances, the openness of the map, rush distance, engagements etc. But both T and Z posess different late games comps while going head to head, so that makes them have a more flexible meta-game.
If say mech was to become viable in TvP, than an entire new meta-game could evolve in that case, because new openings, mid game transitions and late game transitions would evolve to lead up into the perfect unit composition for each side.
I have used Carriers quite abit and they are amazing if used right.
I really didn't want them to be removed either.
I just think its the Build Time and Speed that are the problems.
They take too long to come out and they can't even use their 13 range because they can't get out of range of anything in the first place.
They are extremely costly yes, but carriers at the back of your army do massive DPS if left alone + the Interceptors can draw fire which for 25 minerals each isn't bad. Late game Toss I find myself with alot of spare minerals anyway since Tech is so gas intensive. Perhaps a speed boost like the BC ? The Carrier is still something like 1.2 and the BC which does about the same DPS is 1.8
On November 29 2011 23:12 BrosephBrostar wrote: Dustin Browder has said again and again that if you want to play BW then you should play BW. The carrier is a BW unit that has no place in SC2. For better or for worse Blizzard didn't attempt to recreate the race dynamics that made the carrier useful in BW and I don't see this changing. At least carrier fans can be glad that it's just being removed in it's original state instead of being left to suffer in gimped form like the hydralisk.
Dustin Browder is retarded if he thinks that the Carrier is a SC unit or BW unit only. The Carrier, as the original post said, has to be one of the most iconic units in the Starcraft universe. It bothers me to know end that they neutered it so hard for Wings of Liberty. Quite honestly I was psyched for new units in the SC2 but still wanted my carriers.
First of all I would like to see the Carrier move on with us into HotS so yea I am with you Destructicon.
I think we have alot of stuff here in this thread which is good and interesting, I do however have a teeny bit to add to that.
I believe people are not seeing the Carriers full potential, for it could be used in two pronged attacks. Attacking with your main force on one side of the map and with the carriers on the other. This is probably best against Zerg and especially easy to pull of for people who went SG earlier on to force hydras to then again counter those with collossi. Now if you split your carriers from your mainforce the the opponent will have to split his antiair making it alot harder to either defend the Carriers or the Collossi. (Probably easier for Terran than Zerg but marines for instance build in the main could fall easily to a few Carriers when still in low numbers)
A thing that further adds to this multipronged attack theme would be the mothership with recall at the side of either your main army or the carriers, enabling one to Mass recall the army away from the current fight into for instance the opponents main maybe catching the split up antiair off guard or you could get your carriers back into the main fight after he has split up.
Just my thoughts on this, I think a speed boost to carriers might allready be enough to fix them and maybe a slight build time decrease but not too much as mass Carrier can be a bit op.
Edited: Destructicon ^^ not Destruction Also that meta-game word discussion seems so pointless when talking to the TL audience everyone here knows what metagame means... even if it only does mean this too us SC lovers^^. Also I dont think calling it metagame is entirely wrong because basically we all play our build because we expect our opponents to build A so we build B to work against that. Kinda like in BW you only played mech as terran versus protoss. So we kinda play stuff without knowing all the time what our opponent is doing but we know from experience what our opponents should be doing...
EPT
