EPTSo instead of letting carrier help with that roll as a siege unit while having mobility in its flying capacities - We dump it.
And... give them a capital anti muta ship which is terrible
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Facultyadjutant
Sweden1876 Posts
So instead of letting carrier help with that roll as a siege unit while having mobility in its flying capacities - We dump it. And... give them a capital anti muta ship which is terrible | ||
KarneEspada
United States72 Posts
A main glaring issue the carrier in sc2 is that it is barely microable compared to BW... So what if we make it more like a brood lord? It does an initial attack where, say, all the interceptors do damage a once to a target when they zoom out then proceed to do their normal mechanic? If the interceptor dps were nerfed this would mitigate them from being op whilst allowing carriers to be micro'd. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
The Tempest was intended as a Fleet Beacon tech level answer to mutalisks and other air units. In the patch report thing, Blizzard said this Phoenix buff was for the very same reason. Is it time for us to celebrate our victory? With the tempest gone, could it be possible that Blizzard is finally considering making the appropriate changes to the carrier? Will it finally be able to attack while moving, granting it the ability to micro and keep its self alive while still being an effective damage dealer? | ||
|
Nekratos
Singapore16 Posts
Completely in agreement with OP! BUFF CARRIERS and give them a shot Blizz! | ||
|
Bagration
United States18282 Posts
On February 11 2012 04:00 Mohdoo wrote: Felt inclined to bump this after the news that Patch 1.4.3 introduces Fleet Beacon tech which makes phoenix counter mutalisks, invalidating the tempest entirely. The Tempest was intended as a Fleet Beacon tech level answer to mutalisks and other air units. In the patch report thing, Blizzard said this Phoenix buff was for the very same reason. Is it time for us to celebrate our victory? With the tempest gone, could it be possible that Blizzard is finally considering making the appropriate changes to the carrier? Will it finally be able to attack while moving, granting it the ability to micro and keep its self alive while still being an effective damage dealer? No, still too early in my opinion. If anything, the phoenix makes the possibility of the carrier even less viable, as it makes the phoenix an even better answer to the carrier in dealing with massed light air. I think the upgrade for phoenix is a plus, but I do not think it necessarily helps the carrier, as it still does not have a good use for most protoss players. I would have liked to see a carrier buff though, such as ability to micro or some characteristics from BW. | ||
|
Stropheum
United States1124 Posts
| ||
|
Special Endrey
Germany1929 Posts
| ||
|
LeibSaiLeib
173 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:30 EternaLLegacy wrote: Oh how wrong you are... Carriers were used in PvZ on very rare occasion, but it was extremely map dependent. Terran needs anti-air to shoot shuttle very early on, and to clear out observers and arbiters later. You should always have some goliaths on hand past earlygame. Every race in BW had a long range ATA unit too: Scouts, Wraiths, and Devourers. Carriers melt because dps of units in SC2 is higher, and they have I believe 2 base armor vs the 4 they have in BW. Carriers are actually quite useful vs T, but you are correct, they are simply outclassed by so many other options, and very few T gets mech these days cause it's not viable. It's not that carriers are useless and have to be removed, it's that mech is stupid and bad and needs to be fixed. oh i remember the epic games whre mass air vs mass air, 50 scourage flying to prootos massive air fleet, devauvers etc... oh those games 5 years ago... EDIT: why do everyone even need hard counters for every single thing, in BW nothing hard countered carriers, hell, you made 8 carriers and they might have survived for 30 minutes (interceptors die alot thou and take minerals, talking about PvT). But terrans still could win. Soft counters make games much more interesting. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
Hell, they could easily tack on an upgrade to increase interceptor build speed and decrease the cost of them. | ||
|
VGhost
United States3618 Posts
It's overpowered. (Apparently not, but a possible objection.) Solution: nerf, baby, nerf. It's underpowered. Buff? Or if that's not viable and it's just that... It's useless. Ladies and gentlemen... the scout. Or maybe the valkyrie, depending how useless. Or nukes. Queens? "Useless" and hard-to-use units have their place in competitive gaming, and a mentality of "well just get rid of it" is not something we want to cultivate. | ||
|
Spieltor
327 Posts
they're getting rid of the carrier cause they didnt make it. they wont get rid of the colossus because they did make it. Pure egoism. | ||
|
The KY
United Kingdom6252 Posts
Look, I miss CARRIER HAS ARRIVED as much as the next guy but there's no reason to keep it for sentimental value. It's bad, if they want to get rid of it the w/e. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
On February 11 2012 04:25 The KY wrote: WE MUST KEEP CARRIERS because they...were...in BW and are cool... Look, I miss CARRIER HAS ARRIVED as much as the next guy but there's no reason to keep it for sentimental value. It's bad, if they want to get rid of it the w/e. Remember how bad infestors were? Ultralisks? Stalkers? Warp Prism? BCs also got substantial changes to make them used more often. All Carriers need is the attack while moving mechanism they had in BW and its a solid unit. | ||
|
miniwheats
Canada187 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img841.imageshack.us/img841/8289/carrierx.jpg) | ||
|
Hinanawi
United States2250 Posts
2. Bring back the Reaver 3. Tweak the Carrier I would probably start watching SC2 again (at least PvX matches) if the reaver came back. Such a brilliant unit, so unlike the colossus. | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
| ||
|
awesomoecalypse
United States2235 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
The carrier should stay ingame not because we lack the air to air aoe, it should stay ingame because its a siege weapon that is the total opposite to the colossus, being really effective against high hp units and immune to ground attacks, which makes them really important in some matchups. Zerg will get 2 siege weapons as well (though the swarmhost is pretty useless since broodlords can use creep tumors to create broodlings and send them into the enemy defense line.) The reason because they get contered by the same units doesn't apply for me, since corrupters will get a damage nerf with HotS (damage skill removed). And you can already kite vikings and corrupters with carriers fairly cost effective. For me the carrier is an really important tool against lategame deathball zerg or mech even if you don't face it often. | ||
|
Spicy_Curry
United States10573 Posts
| ||
|
Treehead
999 Posts
On February 11 2012 04:19 Whitewing wrote: I'd rather have the tempest than the carrier as it is now. If they fix the carrier so that it A: can be micro'd, B: intercepters don't die instantly and don't drain shit tons of money, and C: Carriers have an actual purpose then I'll be ecstatic. Hell, they could easily tack on an upgrade to increase interceptor build speed and decrease the cost of them. A lot is still unknown about the tempest. It might be amazing. I'm worried that it's going to end up the same speed as the carrier, less range, less armor and more gas intensive. I think interceptors are underappreciated. They have a lot of health for something that only costs minerals and is worth no food. Then again, it would be nice if there were another protoss unit (other than the immortal) for which armor upgrades were not a major barrier. It is a bit confounding that there is only one protoss unit which does more than 10 damage per shot. | ||
| ||
