EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
darkscream
Canada2310 Posts
| ||
|
Abenson
Canada4122 Posts
But I think the same thing can be said for the hydra, but it's not as iconic as the carrier but just as important and iconic in the zerg army | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
I think one thing that should be done is that Carrier should be changed to its BW counterpart (its BW counterpart, with the exception of not having 4 interceptors at the start, is currently superior to the SC2 counterpart). The most noticeable difference is the fact that Carrier in BW can attack move move without losing its target while in SC2 this isn't possible. For example, in BW, if a Carrier kills a target out of its default range, the interceptors will automatically acquire a new target to attack (no need to make the Carrier attack again, the interceptors automatically track new targets). In SC2, if a target dies after a Carrier moves, the Interceptors return without attacking anything else (the Carrier needs to attack again for the interceptors to attack). A huge difference IMO. It's what makes Carrier much more different and much weaker than its BW counterpart. Though I said this before but I'll say it again, I honestly don't; think overlapping units will really hurt the game unless there is some imbalanced combo. Look at DotA for example. Several heroes overlap but the game is still competitive. It's not the exact same thing of course but for the most part, unless a unit is completely identical, I think units should stay (Overseer should stay IMO). | ||
|
CakeSauc3
United States1437 Posts
On March 04 2012 11:30 Radison wrote: It's funny how every change Blizzard made to the game compared to BW made it worse...  . I wolud say - remove collosai, bring reaver back, bring old carrier back. With plus damage to air units (ground units would need to be kited using cliffs). Interceptors should have more health. This said, I doubt Blizzard is gonna admit that collosai were a mistake. I can see why the reaver was removed from bw, but the colossus is just a stupid unit as is. Its a super kill-everything machine that takes damage from air attacks. And guess what the carrier is? A super kill-everything machine that takes damage from air attacks! Tech switching doesn't give the carrier the advantage it had in bw - it forced the opponent to mass a decent anti-air unit. Now, they're already doing that against colossi, so there's no way a player can justify investing so much into the carrier now. Either you mass carrier before colossi, or you go the other way around, which just tends to work better all around. I made an observation a while ago, when I first found out that colossi took damage from air units. I was a noob at sc2 and I massed thor to counter them the first time I faced them - and I noticed that the colossus is just a wee bit taller than a thor. I've never understood this - why don't thors take damage from anti-air? If colosses are high up enough in the air to have a missile shot at them, why not the mighty thor? Or, we can use the same logic - if the thor doesn't take damage from anti-air, why does the colossus? I suggest we change the colossus. Not a nerf, necessarily - but a trade-off. Make it immune to anti-air attacks, and nerf either the colossus' initial range or the thermal lance upgrade. This will a. affect every matchup and hopefully steer us away from the current "deathball" mentality, b. force more interesting ground vs. ground engagements (siege tanks in late-game tvp? ultra/infestor more viable in zvp?) and c., it will prevent terran and zerg from thoughtlessly teching down the path towards vikings and corruptors, giving the carrier a better chance of emerging and making a splash in the lategame. Obviously, I'm sure this can't be the answer, and there has to be something wrong with what I'm suggesting or else they would have done it already, right? But I wonder if this would be a step in the right direction. | ||
|
Promethelax
Canada7089 Posts
| ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
-KarmA
United States353 Posts
I also think that a short build time decrease would help even things out just a little bit, considering they take a whopping 120 seconds to make, it just feels like if you tech that high youre gonna get boned waiting for it, maybe a 10-15 second decrease?. And now that i think about it considering since the interceptors themselves are jokes that can be wasted by a small amount of anti air that they could benefit from an armor increase as well. I love carriers and id love to see them used more. Theres my few ideas that i think would make them slightly more viable, throwing one or more of those ideas into our beloved carrier may just save it | ||
|
AnalyZ
France32 Posts
Maybe 2 new type: Shoryuken: Melee antiground interceptor Splashinterceptor: Anti air Aoe. With that modification, it will have a little new role. And maybe add the famous shiled from the Old tempest (The Carrier from the alpha) | ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
| ||
|
Xiphos
Canada7507 Posts
On March 04 2012 12:29 AnalyZ wrote: imo in HotS, they should just modifie the type of "interceptor" you can build. Maybe 2 new type: Shoryuken: Melee antiground interceptor Splashinterceptor: Anti air Aoe. With that modification, it will have a little new role. And maybe add the famous shiled from the Old tempest (The Carrier from the alpha) Or replicate the BW model, everyone wins. | ||
|
rOse_PedaL
Korea (South)450 Posts
| ||
|
pezit
Sweden302 Posts
Other things would be interceptors having one attack but getting +2 per upgrade, more armor, faster build time or giving us a chance to micro it - kiting with interceptors still attacking. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On February 11 2012 04:48 Treehead wrote: 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. Spreading nonsense is not a good way to strengthen your argument. Stalker: 14 vs armored DT: 45 Colossus: 15 Archon: 25 (+10 vs biological) Void Ray: upto 16 vs armored Enough? | ||
|
Severedevil
United States4830 Posts
On March 04 2012 12:05 VTPerfect wrote: What most people don't know is that the cost and training time isn't the only thing making the carrier a terrible unit, its DPS widely reported as "highest dps in the game" is actually Low DPS because of the high armor of units and the low base attack damage of the interceptor, making fully maxed out 200/200 carriers lose to corrupters. Protoss needs an entirely new air unit. Even ignoring armor, the Carrier's DPS is not the highest in the game, is quite mediocre for its supply, and is pathetic for its price in minerals/vespene. Carriers are bad because their numbers are bad. | ||
|
Lobber
Canada414 Posts
 ( | ||
|
NexCa
Germany954 Posts
BLIZZARD FREAKN BUFF THE CARRIERS !!!! | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
I think something like this will make Carriers slightly more usable if applied in SC2. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
Carriers arent bad, I dont know what is wrong with blizzard. Also, what people dont get is that in BW, you never just went ONLY carriers. Like you always had some level of ground support, or you could use carriers as a neat transition. Like you dont need carriers to work against 30 corrupters. Thats not the point, if you hit at key times with 3 or 4 carriers like BW (ala catch Terran without a lot of goliaths,) you can do some real magic. People want carriers to work all the time as THE major unit in a composition, when in reality it didnt even work like that in Broodwar. In BW carriers were used as a transitional tool, to force a certain reaction on an opponent thus making him predictable and hence abusable. | ||
|
DarkInfinity
121 Posts
| ||
|
diddLY
United States215 Posts
I guess it's just nostalgia, but you're killing my childhood blizzard! ^^ | ||
| ||
