EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
crown77
United States157 Posts
| ||
|
Ansinjunger
United States2451 Posts
| ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
just leave it as a bm unit like it always was | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:11 noD wrote: I don't think it should be removed, but I don't think it should be adjusted either just leave it as a bm unit like it always was What? Carrier a BM unit? I beg your pardon. Carriers is the heart and soul of late game tech swtich in SC:BW. They are just so must fun too watch. What Blizzard should do is actually find a way to fix the Protoss deathball late game rather than take out one of the most iconic unit in the Starcraft universe. I'd prefer just take the Colossus out tbh, just a boring and generic unit. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
Here's my idea: Make it so the carrier slows (or even stops) when it launches interceptors, but it can move around while interceptors are out. Interceptors stay out for a fixed period of time and within a fixed range of the carrier before returning to the carrier to... refuel and rearm or whatever for a few seconds. Have an upgrade for interceptors so they refuel/reload and are better in some way as well. Make it so you can manually launch and recall interceptors as well. And really, interceptors shouldn't die when the carrier dies, they just fly around till they run out of juice, then explode. Personally, I loved playing long PvT in BW and playing the carrier/gateway vs goliath/tank dance with terran. <3 Tempest is a ginormous corsair, so that's pretty lame IMO. | ||
|
PineapplePizza
United States749 Posts
Every time I use a carrier, the problem I have is that they have to remain still when launching the interceptors (which now takes forever, even with the upgrade), not that they can't move around after launch. That, and the interceptors don't return for repairs when wounded. Is there something I'm missing? | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:34 Forikorder wrote: even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings I say remove corrupters and vikings, keep carrier :D | ||
|
kevinthemighty
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:50 synapse wrote: I say remove corrupters and vikings, keep carrier :D Do we get | ||
|
yakitate304
United States655 Posts
I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:34 Forikorder wrote: even a genius cant figure out a way to make these viable theres no way to make them viable agaisnt Zerg becuase of Corrupters no way to make them viable agaisnt Terran becuase of Vikings and no way to make them viable against Protoss becuase of void rays Terrans only use battlecruisers becuase they can use there vikings to bully the other vikings If that's the case then it's a truly sad day indeed considering how innovative and unique a unit the carrier is. That being said, I disagree. 1. The devourer was basically the Corrupter, but without having to manually use the passive degenerative ability since it was automatic. I understand that BL's are inevitable in a lategame army, and corrupters are going to be on the field anway because of colossus, but a carrier switch means less BL's. 2. Wraiths may not have the same range as the viking, but they were MUCH faster and combined with cloaking and the ability to shoot on the move I would say they countered carriers even harder than the viking. The main issue was the inability to mass them quickly, which is resolved because of reactors in the case of the viking. 3. Carriers were never really used in PvP anyway because of their costs and the tightness of the MU anyway. Blizzard hasn't even tried to save the carrier. It has a lot of potential and could be viable with some minor tweaks which were mentioned in the OP. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:56 yakitate304 wrote: The entire name "Carrier" should mean that the main ship is only the CARRIER for the Interceptors... Not something that the Interceptors are bound to, which means that when the ship moves the Interceptors shouldn't automatically follow it and stop attacking. Jet fighters who take off from naval carriers don't just disengage when the boat moves... I don't think this would fix the lategame Protoss tree, but it would certainly help if they were microable. they do if they need to refuel and its moving too far away | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On March 04 2012 13:57 Forikorder wrote: they do if they need to refuel and its moving too far away Then have it so if a carrier moves away from a battle, sometimes the refueling interceptors don't make it and crash. The you gotta make a new one. | ||
|
Bobgrimly
New Zealand250 Posts
| ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
1. The devourer was basically the Corrupter, but without having to manually use the passive degenerative ability since it was automatic. I understand that BL's are inevitable in a lategame army, and corrupters are going to be on the field anway because of colossus, but a carrier switch means less BL's. pretty sure the devourers cost alot more then corrupters, and probably more supply by alot 2. Wraiths may not have the same range as the viking, but they were MUCH faster and combined with cloaking and the ability to shoot on the move I would say they countered carriers even harder than the viking. The main issue was the inability to mass them quickly, which is resolved because of reactors in the case of the viking. i probably should ahve said marines more then vikings, stimmed marines shed intercepters too fast Blizzard hasn't even tried to save the carrier. It has a lot of potential and could be viable with some minor tweaks which were mentioned in the OP. lets look at similar level tech units 1) Broodlord only used becuase Zerg generally has more bases, more gas income, les gas usage (then other races) and max faster so can bank alot sooner, and even so theres still pretty volatile unit if you use it jsut right it can win the game but mess up and they evaporate 2) BC only ever used in extreme late game TvTs that have degenerated into mass viking/raven or when both isdes have 2 giant tank lines and none of them are budging so you see its not that the Carrier is a useless unit, its jsut that its a high tier unit on a stargate that doesnt splash aside from turning it into the collosus it just wont get use | ||
|
Blasterion
China10272 Posts
On March 04 2012 14:00 ticklishmusic wrote: Then have it so if a carrier moves away from a battle, sometimes the refueling interceptors don't make it and crash. The you gotta make a new one. I don't think Protoss Airships run on fuels though.... and that's RNG aspect that's not good for the game. | ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
| ||
|
Kamais Ookin
Canada591 Posts
| ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Pigeonholing the ghost with no PTR or feedback from top players. The 'moving shot' they gave the phoenix..... They've said they can't/won't fix micro/physics engine. The 'real time' is still missing from this 'real time strategy' game. Focus on balance rather than excitement. Nerfing of all AoE units until they are UP rather than OP. Terran bio is viable in every matchup in every situation. Boring. Inability/ignorance of exploring more high-speed microable units. So far in SC2, it's mainly the marine. | ||
| ||
