EPTI really hope the Carrier sticks around- but people need to realize the colossus-carrier relationship is not the issue at hand here remotely.
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Durp
Canada3117 Posts
I really hope the Carrier sticks around- but people need to realize the colossus-carrier relationship is not the issue at hand here remotely. | ||
|
Champi
1422 Posts
The carrier needs to stay. end of story they havnt even made an effort to patch it, instead they wanna bring in their newly invented tempest bullshit theres some things u shouldnt mess with dustin browder, the carrier is one of these things. if you remove it you will regret it, the carrier is the face of starcraft. make a god damn effort please. | ||
|
Vansetsu
United States1454 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
infinity2k9
United Kingdom2397 Posts
On January 27 2012 04:58 Arisen wrote: No; this is basically the tepest. This is the very epitome of non-interesting game design. Unit A complely shits on unit B so you might as well not make unit B. This is the reason a lot of zergs won't make hydras. He gets 1 or 2 colossus out and you wasted a ton of resources on something that's about to get shit on. THe tepest and this idea would just make it so you can't make more than a handful of muta per game. This design philosophy is seen all over SC2 and I hope to not see any more in the expansions. No because the tempest does not have production of it's shots.. and is nothing like a reaver. That's precisely what it would NOT be. You wouldn't be able to just waste shots a-moving if you produced the ammo. | ||
|
Chewie
Denmark708 Posts
It looks immensely cooler from the side.  | ||
|
xpldngmn
Austria264 Posts
Give it a shield-battery-like ability. | ||
|
Mikelius
Germany517 Posts
| ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
On January 27 2012 05:36 BeeNu wrote: Can we fight for the Lurker while we're at it? Why not? Swarm host is exactly a crawling brood lord. Atleast the lurker has a different attack. | ||
|
Salteador Neo
Andorra5591 Posts
I'm not gonna buy HoTS anyway, but the carrier should stay. PD: With the nexus recall ability the slow-ass carrier would be able to actually leave a lost fight or when all the interceptors are going down. | ||
|
emc
United States3088 Posts
Think of how you'd use the carrier if it was buffed. It would be a death ball unit. It would be a big risk to tech to carriers instead of colossus/templar and wouldn't add much value to your ground army (with forge upgrades). If you TRIED to make it a mid-game unit I guarantee you die to a good scout. If it doesn't add mid-game value then all it can be is a late game investment to turtle on. HOLY CHECK, I thought that's what you guys didn't want? Look at how blizzard is looking at HotS. They want less units in a death ball, this is what the replicant, the oracle and tempest are designed as. Protoss has probably the most units that do well in a death ball because most of them are ground based and all benefit from forge upgrades, so it's ok to me that their 3 new units don't add to this. The tempest to me is NOT a death ball unit (it may very well turn out to be one) but I feel like it's going to serve mostly as a defensive muta deterrent for the late game, and with recall you'll be able to use ONE of these for the entire defense of your all your bases. and I don't agree that you need a speed buff for carriers. You complain that infestors allow brood lords to escape, well storm does the same | ||
|
Antares_
Poland269 Posts
| ||
|
Fleshcut
Germany592 Posts
| ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
Not only is it more expensive to build, but it costs more supply and has ongoing costs to keep it functioning and lacks the broodlings blocking ability to help keep units back from it. In a nut shell, it sucks. The carrier needs to be faster and micro-able and the interceptors need to be stronger and stay in combat while the carrier is manoeuvring. Reading the latest battle net blog on balance it looks like their hots testing isn't going particularly well. If they are looking at buffing the pheonix to deal with mutas before hots and keeping the carrier as was implied, then they are probably ditching the tempest. Honestly I can't see them keeping the replicator, and if someone can tell me how terran is meant to open with anything other than MM+ stim vs a protoss going 2gate robo observer, replicator that would be great. The carrier needs to be re purposed so that it integrates into the protoss army. Should it be an AA unit? Should we be getting 3 colossus and 2 carriers to protect them from vikings?. Should interceptors also function like pdd's sacrificing themselves to eat viking volleys (that would be pretty cool actually)? Or should we be thinking there are 2 protoss armies, robo and stargate like terran bio and mech where we pursue one tech path? The problem right now is that for what it is the carrier costs waaaay too much. it really is very similar to a broodlord except totally shit and expensive. On January 27 2012 08:20 Fleshcut wrote: I don't see the point of fighting for a unit nobody uses just because it was good in BW or something... The concept of the carrier is great. It's the execution that sucks. | ||
|
TheRealPaciFist
United States1049 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
collosus: high damage high risk Carrier: longer lasting against anti collosus units, more maneuverable, no splash but high damage. hardened shields would reduce viking damage against it by like 8-10 a volley per viking, and vs corruptors by 10-16 damage per volley per corruptor. it'd encourage good placement, and protecting them, as well as weaving them in and out on combat (to get shield regen). it wouldn't do much vs void rays, but it'd reduce stalker damage a little. plus it'd make even more synergy with carrier/sentry, which allows guardian shield to protect interceptors, and carriers pretty well. | ||
|
MandoRelease
France374 Posts
From what I understand the carrier was a symbol for the original starcraft, but SC2 being a different game, I find it OK to remove it. It's not being remove from the original starcraft, it's just removed from a game in which it is heavily underused though balanced (that's right, I said it). And in order to replace it by a unit we'll see more of, hopefully. So I don't really understand, nobody uses the carrier, why keep it ? + Show Spoiler + It's a rethorical question, because nothing in this topic has convinced me so far. | ||
|
DrGreen
Poland708 Posts
I would delete colossus over carrier any time. | ||
|
Biggun69
187 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On January 27 2012 09:27 MandoRelease wrote: I don't really mind the carrier being gone. Because I didn't play the original starcraft, I have no attachment whatsoever to the unit. From what I understand the carrier was a symbol for the original starcraft, but SC2 being a different game, I find it OK to remove it. It's not being remove from the original starcraft, it's just removed from a game in which it is heavily underused though balanced (that's right, I said it). And in order to replace it by a unit we'll see more of, hopefully. So I don't really understand, nobody uses the carrier, why keep it ? + Show Spoiler + It's a rethorical question, because nothing in this topic has convinced me so far. the main stupidity i see in removing the carrier, is because "there is no reason to build it over the collosus" according to kim, and so if thats the reason, why not just do something about the collosus make the collosus start dealing damage faster (not overal dps increase but make it a little more front loaded) and take away some of it's speed so that it needs to be used in prisms make it have more shields than regular armor, stuff like that removes the role overlap alot. | ||
| ||
