|
On March 04 2012 14:04 Forikorder wrote:
why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings?
That's what they did in BW lol.
People aren't making baseless claims about the carrier given it's history. They made it work in BW with many of the attributes that have been mentioned here, which just aren't present in this inception of the Carrier.
Also, yes Devourers cost more, but they were also stronger.
The marine bit is true. I've never actually known the exact reason Carriers worked so well against marines in BW relative to SC2 that it's always interested me.
In lategame PvT the carrier was a very risky tech switch, it left you wide open to a push by the terran, you had to have room in your supply to begin with, and until you had at least 4 carriers they were more of a liability than anything, and even then if you were scouted soon enough you may need 6.
The strength of the carrier was always in it's ability to skirt the edges of the battlefield with MASSIVE damage potential on a single target. It moved the Terran around and kept them off balance for your ground army. In SC2 this is complicated because of the bio-centric TvP. However, with the fire on the move ability, and better range it can force the terran to either leave large numbers of marines around their bases or switch into a viking heavy force.
Also, when people say "fire on the move" we don't mean it in the stupid way phoenix fire on the move, but rather as a part of the micro as in BW. Not sure if that needed clarification or not.
|
On March 04 2012 14:04 Forikorder wrote:
why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings?
Not kite, it'd be completely broken if they could kite, but at least now they can become generally fun and rewarding to micro with.
|
I don't get this whole "Lets buff the carrier by giving it free interceptors that build instantly", they didn't have that in BW why do they need it now? Increase the dps a little bit, increase the speed and let them shoot while moving. That's why they were so godly in BW if you didn't know they were coming, they moved fast, they could shot while they moved and their dps was high.
I would say also reduce the building time like they did with the Ultra but i don't know the build time of the carrier, so that could be an over buff to it.
Long story short, it sucks cause it's slow, you can't micro the thing and the dps doesn't seem to be high enough.
|
On March 04 2012 14:15 0neder wrote:
Meh, I used to have your attitude, but I'm growing more apathetic as time goes on. Blizzard may have good intentions, but good intentions don't make for a game on par with Brood War.
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.
wait
your angry that the ghost has been pigeonholed into one role
and angry they are making many different comps viable?
i dont think any fire on the move micro would be enough to keep them alive and safe, VS Zerg the thing hunting them is the corrupters so theyll fly right in and FF and in VS Terran they only want to stim and slaughter the intercepters
|
just make it microable and a bit beefier like it was in sc1.. problem solved?
|
I'm still a strong supporter of the original Tempest concept which was basically a mini carrier. Would be so fun to use - assuming its cheaper and quicker in exchange for power.
|
On March 04 2012 14:00 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 13:57 Forikorder wrote: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 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.
Please. Terran buildings can fly forever without refuel. We're talking about Protoss here (the more advanced race supposedly).
|
I miss the arbiter recalling mass carriers into the main...
|
United States7483 Posts
On March 04 2012 14:17 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:04 Forikorder wrote:
why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings? That's what they did in BW lol. People aren't making baseless claims about the carrier given it's history. They made it work in BW with many of the attributes that have been mentioned here, which just aren't present in this inception of the Carrier. Also, yes Devourers cost more, but they were also stronger. The marine bit is true. I've never actually known the exact reason Carriers worked so well against marines in BW relative to SC2 that it's always interested me. In lategame PvT the carrier was a very risky tech switch, it left you wide open to a push by the terran, you had to have room in your supply to begin with, and until you had at least 4 carriers they were more of a liability than anything, and even then if you were scouted soon enough you may need 6. The strength of the carrier was always in it's ability to skirt the edges of the battlefield with MASSIVE damage potential on a single target. It moved the Terran around and kept them off balance for your ground army. In SC2 this is complicated because of the bio-centric TvP. However, with the fire on the move ability, and better range it can force the terran to either leave large numbers of marines around their bases or switch into a viking heavy force. Also, when people say "fire on the move" we don't mean it in the stupid way phoenix fire on the move, but rather as a part of the micro as in BW. Not sure if that needed clarification or not.
In BW, terrans went mech vs. protoss, not bio. You didn't really see carriers vs. marines much (marines with stim shredded the interceptors in BW too), but rather you saw carriers vs. mech, because mech was the standard (and terrans had the goliath then).
|
I disagree i think the carrier is easily killed, it is a fragile unit and can be easily negated for its dps with armour upgrades
|
On March 04 2012 14:17 Kimaker wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:04 Forikorder wrote:
why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings? The marine bit is true. I've never actually known the exact reason Carriers worked so well against marines in BW relative to SC2 that it's always interested me.
One major reason is that Carriers had 4 base armor in BW while they only have 2 armor in SC2.
A second reason is that interceptors regenerate health and shields while in Carrier hangar (they don't in SC2).
That means if interceptors are too damaged, you just press stop, have them return, then attack again after they are fully healed.
Of course being able to attack move move is a bonus too (Carriers vastly outrange marines).
Overall, besides starting with 4 interceptors, Carriers were much more superior in BW than in SC2. They had 2 more armor, interceptors could regenerate, and they could attack move move (interceptors would automatically acquire new targets even if the Carrier is out of range, unlike SC2).
|
Pretty sure most units revolving around SC2 are actually really fine, but what makes it difficult to use is that the AI for SC2 is significantly better than it was in SCBW. This means that the infamous marine has the better tendency to shoot the right targets, and altogether where micro probably isn't as high as it would be in SCBW.
I would love to see them put a fix into the carrier without altering the AI of the game units themselves, but I think that's the biggest trouble for most units in SC2 at the moment. Units with range benefit more from the better AI than those that have to be much closer, or even melee as the pathing is different. This is also why we have that deathball that we see in SC2 as well.
I just hope they don't sincerely put in the Shredder for Terran, or for any race. I really feel like it isn't necessary and doesn't provide any initiative for players to actually have a more active game.
|
On March 04 2012 16:42 Goldfish wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2012 14:17 Kimaker wrote:On March 04 2012 14:04 Forikorder wrote:
why do people want "fire on the move carriers?" you expect them to kite corrupters or stimmed marines or vikings? The marine bit is true. I've never actually known the exact reason Carriers worked so well against marines in BW relative to SC2 that it's always interested me. One major reason is that Carriers had 4 base armor in BW while they only have 2 armor in SC2. A second reason is that interceptors regenerate health and shields while in Carrier hangar (they don't in SC2). That means if interceptors are too damaged, you just press stop, have them return, then attack again after they are fully healed. Of course being able to attack move move is a bonus too (Carriers vastly outrange marines). Overall, besides starting with 4 interceptors, Carriers were much more superior in BW than in SC2. They had 2 more armor, interceptors could regenerate, and they could attack move move (interceptors would automatically acquire new targets even if the Carrier is out of range, unlike SC2).
Marines completely counter carriers in BW because the interceptors die too fast. That's the same reason that you don't see carrier in BW PvZ, because hydra dps just rapes them (goliaths have amazing range but not nearly as much dps).
|
Long long long ago, I played protoss, and I use carrier  . So strong. Just Attack.
That is my childhood memory.
|
so sounds like the only reason carriers were ever used is because Terran didnt go bio VS toss
|
Imho the carrier would see way more play if it just build faster.
That´s what helped the Ultralisk.(From 70 down to 55)
Just seeing how a colossus is 75 seconds and a carrier is 120 seconds should make you facepalm. Nearly all units in SC2 build in 25 seconds to 60 seconds(w/ chronoboost). Even the fucking Thor builds in 60 seconds, and those were as big as a baracks in beta.
There are only 2 units that are so far out there with building time they are almost never used. You have 2 guesses:
Carrier and Battlecruiser.
Before you try any shenanigans with "BC speedboost" or other HoTs shit(it´s funny bc its similar to horse shit), they should just make the units buildable in less than a lifetime.
|
How about every Carrier you train you train 2 at once? Just double the price on everything and with chrono you can mass 6 of them in only a couple minutes!
|
On March 05 2012 02:17 Mataza wrote:
Imho the carrier would see way more play if it just build faster.
That´s what helped the Ultralisk.(From 70 down to 55)
Just seeing how a colossus is 75 seconds and a carrier is 120 seconds should make you facepalm. Nearly all units in SC2 build in 25 seconds to 60 seconds(w/ chronoboost). Even the fucking Thor builds in 60 seconds, and those were as big as a baracks in beta.
There are only 2 units that are so far out there with building time they are almost never used. You have 2 guesses:
Carrier and Battlecruiser.
Before you try any shenanigans with "BC speedboost" or other HoTs shit(it´s funny bc its similar to horse shit), they should just make the units buildable in less than a lifetime.
Absolutely agreed. Blizzard just haven't attempted to make the Carrier more viable. Decrease build time to the same as Ultras, or the same as Colossus, and then we'll talk about Carriers.
|
When anyone thinks of Starcraft, they instantly think of a few key units. Zerglings, marines, zealots, siege tanks, and Carriers.
And, of course, DRAGOONS ^^
First time I saw SC1 being played at my friend's house back in the day, I was like ehh what is this, and then... "I HAVE RETURNED."
[quote][I disagree i think the carrier is easily killed, it is a fragile unit and can be easily negated for its dps with armour upgrade/quote]
This, unfortunately. Burst DPS is so much more widespread in SC2 that the investment for carriers isn't worth their low-ish survivability.
|
fuck the carrier, its the mothership that needs saving. I cant imagine winning against late game Z without mothership. How do you stop brood/infestor/corruptor
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
