|
The problem with carrier is that it's countered too easily, thus even in SC1 you only saw use in TvP.
For example, in sc1, carriers weren't really valid in PvP because:
Arbiters/archons/dragoons/Storms would destroy a late-game carrier army cost for cost.
In analogy with SC2, we see that carriers would get destroyed cost-for-cost no matter the positioning by archons, stalkers, and especially mothership.
In sc2, carriers werent really used in ZvP because:
Toss struggles to get 3rd base and can only do so with storm -> analogy (need mass stalkers/sentry, colo). Therefore, can't 2base->3base carriers. Carriers off multiple bases were easily countered by t2 units (scourge), and even t1 hydras. In anology to sc2, carriers are even countered even harder by hydras and corrupts (which basically RAPE carriers and since zerg can tech switch faster with injects producing extra larva, carriers are weaker). Also, once you hit t3 in sc1, you have plague. While there is no anology in sc2, corruptors own carriers hard enough.
In terms of corruptors, we see now in PvT also that there is a terran "corruptor". In sc1, there really wasn't an anti-air air unit for terran like a viking. THe problem with carriers is that vikings and corruptors will easily and reliably counter you to death. In sc1, the effectiveness of carriers was that there was no air counter to them, and thus they were using in TvP on cliffs, where the carriers were not accessible. Imagine, for example, if goliaths were flying units which did ~20% less dps, and built from the starport. While it be harder to tech switch from something like mech ground/bio to mass vikings, reactors also help in the tech switch.
Lastly, BW TvP was mech only, and thus, lots of times you could catch a terran off-guard with a 2-base 4 carrier surprise. But in Sc2, since the core of the terran army is marines, which soft-counter carriers, you're never going to surprise terran without antiair.
In terms of sc1, one of the things about carriers in TvP was that there was plenty of support for the carriers. Since the primary counter to carriers were goliaths, dragoons served as a perfect compliment to making sure the carriers succeed. Due to the fact that vikings are long-ranged air units now, there is no way a protoss can support his air army. Yes, you can make stalkers with your carriers to snipe vikings but any viking/marine composition will just destroy you.
Carriers arent support units. They're core units. If you want supporting dps dont make carriers.... make colossus...
|
On March 05 2012 06:10 NicolBolas wrote:
I've always wondered what would kill SC2. It turns out that it's likely going to be the memory of SC1.
Icons. I hate icons, in games, comics, etc. Wherever they are, they always make things worse.
Blizzard had a potentially interesting unit in the Tempest (no, not the HotS Tempest, the original one). It's shields didn't work on air attacks, which focused it into a GtA role, and probably meant that it wasn't very expensive. But no, fan outcry said, "We want Carriers!" So they converted a potentially good unit into Carriers.
SC2 needs to be its own game, with its own iconography. It needs to stand on its own, not ride the coatails of something else. I would have loved to see Zerglings, Hydras, Mutalisks, Zealots, Siege Tanks, Marines, and yes Carriers all get the axe. No returning units except workers.
A new dynamic for a new game. They could have taken each race back to first principles and shown us how those concepts worked with a different tech tree and a different set of units.
But no, Blizzard wanted "iconography." So they kept Siege Tanks, when Thors offered an interesting alternative (again, pre-alpha Thors, not the crap we got in beta and release). They kept Hydras despite the Zerg having a completely different dynamic from SC1 that left Hydras in a wierd place. And so forth.
So what we have is a horrible half-state. The old units keep getting in the way of different ideas, while the new units are constantly railed against for not being ones that were removed.
As for the Carrier's "iconic" status, I don't see it. My abiding memories of SC1 Protoss matches are, in order:
1. Shuttle/Reaver micro murdering workers
2. Dragoon micro around mines
3. Sexy Arbiter usage
4. Storm blankets
These are the things that I consider "iconic" about Protoss in SC1. That's what I think of when I think SC1 Protoss.
Carriers and Carrier micro were always "meh" to me. They always felt like a gimmicky strategy, something you use on the few maps that allow it. Not something solid or standard.
Wow. Absolutely brilliant. Too bad the people rallying in the first few pages won't see this and reflect on it.
|
On March 05 2012 06:10 NicolBolas wrote:
I've always wondered what would kill SC2. It turns out that it's likely going to be the memory of SC1.
Icons. I hate icons, in games, comics, etc. Wherever they are, they always make things worse.
Blizzard had a potentially interesting unit in the Tempest (no, not the HotS Tempest, the original one). It's shields didn't work on air attacks, which focused it into a GtA role, and probably meant that it wasn't very expensive. But no, fan outcry said, "We want Carriers!" So they converted a potentially good unit into Carriers.
SC2 needs to be its own game, with its own iconography. It needs to stand on its own, not ride the coatails of something else. I would have loved to see Zerglings, Hydras, Mutalisks, Zealots, Siege Tanks, Marines, and yes Carriers all get the axe. No returning units except workers.
A new dynamic for a new game. They could have taken each race back to first principles and shown us how those concepts worked with a different tech tree and a different set of units.
But no, Blizzard wanted "iconography." So they kept Siege Tanks, when Thors offered an interesting alternative (again, pre-alpha Thors, not the crap we got in beta and release). They kept Hydras despite the Zerg having a completely different dynamic from SC1 that left Hydras in a wierd place. And so forth.
So what we have is a horrible half-state. The old units keep getting in the way of different ideas, while the new units are constantly railed against for not being ones that were removed.
As for the Carrier's "iconic" status, I don't see it. My abiding memories of SC1 Protoss matches are, in order:
1. Shuttle/Reaver micro murdering workers
2. Dragoon micro around mines
3. Sexy Arbiter usage
4. Storm blankets
These are the things that I consider "iconic" about Protoss in SC1. That's what I think of when I think SC1 Protoss.
Carriers and Carrier micro were always "meh" to me. They always felt like a gimmicky strategy, something you use on the few maps that allow it. Not something solid or standard.
This post is awesome. I'm not terribly opinionated on the carrier but feel if it is to be removed because it holds no purpose - that is one thing. If it is removed because people merely aren't using it, I don't like the idea of that.
If it is kept because there is an opportunity for it to be used in the future - that seems like a good idea to me. If it is kept because people on the Internet will be mad if it isn't - that does not seem like a good idea.
|
On March 05 2012 06:18 frozenrb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:14 DreamChaser wrote:
Will i now need new outrageous builds for when i team? No more carrier rushes?
Personally blizzard should keep the carrier in imo, its a unit that is rarely seen. If anybody ever tries to go carriers you know everybody in the crowd is getting excited. Even if they lose it was like when people thought the mothership sucked. HuK tried to mothership rush and it worked once in an MLG game. Never had i seen Day9 and the crowd so excited, thats what the carrier brings. Its not a "winning" strategy but its something that is just exciting and fun to watch no matter how bad the unit is. People get excited because carrier usage is so much risk, that it isn't funny. People don't think " o shit BW unit... carrier so good so rarely seen", people think... " he can't be serious, if that works I will eat my shirt", they are hoping carrier to work for the same reasons that many people want to have it in Hots... it's just a symbol.
There have been other units that fit such a description. Then Blizzard patched them to make them useful. This isn't a new practice by any means, but the carrier has yet to be patched.
|
On March 05 2012 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:18 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:14 DreamChaser wrote:
Will i now need new outrageous builds for when i team? No more carrier rushes?
Personally blizzard should keep the carrier in imo, its a unit that is rarely seen. If anybody ever tries to go carriers you know everybody in the crowd is getting excited. Even if they lose it was like when people thought the mothership sucked. HuK tried to mothership rush and it worked once in an MLG game. Never had i seen Day9 and the crowd so excited, thats what the carrier brings. Its not a "winning" strategy but its something that is just exciting and fun to watch no matter how bad the unit is. People get excited because carrier usage is so much risk, that it isn't funny. People don't think " o shit BW unit... carrier so good so rarely seen", people think... " he can't be serious, if that works I will eat my shirt", they are hoping carrier to work for the same reasons that many people want to have it in Hots... it's just a symbol. There have been other units that fit such a description. Then Blizzard patched them to make them useful. This isn't a new practice by any means, but the carrier has yet to be patched.
I'm sure they tried. I can't find solution to improve it and still have balance.
|
Corruptors do counter carriers.
But vikings actaully gets eaten alive by carriers against popular belief.
If you want to counter carriers you go mass marines and stim to burn the interceptors down and u have giant paperweight
floating in the air.
|
On March 05 2012 06:41 frozenrb wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2012 06:18 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:14 DreamChaser wrote:
Will i now need new outrageous builds for when i team? No more carrier rushes?
Personally blizzard should keep the carrier in imo, its a unit that is rarely seen. If anybody ever tries to go carriers you know everybody in the crowd is getting excited. Even if they lose it was like when people thought the mothership sucked. HuK tried to mothership rush and it worked once in an MLG game. Never had i seen Day9 and the crowd so excited, thats what the carrier brings. Its not a "winning" strategy but its something that is just exciting and fun to watch no matter how bad the unit is. People get excited because carrier usage is so much risk, that it isn't funny. People don't think " o shit BW unit... carrier so good so rarely seen", people think... " he can't be serious, if that works I will eat my shirt", they are hoping carrier to work for the same reasons that many people want to have it in Hots... it's just a symbol. There have been other units that fit such a description. Then Blizzard patched them to make them useful. This isn't a new practice by any means, but the carrier has yet to be patched. I'm sure they tried. I can't find solution to improve it and still have balance.
In BW, carriers were able to shoot while moving if you micro'd them right. It allowed you to actually utilize the range of the carrier without putting it in harms way. I believe it also had more armor. Do you really feel like that would make the carrier imbalanced?
|
On March 05 2012 06:59 phame21 wrote:
Corruptors do counter carriers.
But vikings actaully gets eaten alive by carriers against popular belief.
I have no idea what u're talking bout ? Terran one does not simply A - Move vikings and leave it
|
On March 05 2012 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:41 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2012 06:18 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:14 DreamChaser wrote:
Will i now need new outrageous builds for when i team? No more carrier rushes?
Personally blizzard should keep the carrier in imo, its a unit that is rarely seen. If anybody ever tries to go carriers you know everybody in the crowd is getting excited. Even if they lose it was like when people thought the mothership sucked. HuK tried to mothership rush and it worked once in an MLG game. Never had i seen Day9 and the crowd so excited, thats what the carrier brings. Its not a "winning" strategy but its something that is just exciting and fun to watch no matter how bad the unit is. People get excited because carrier usage is so much risk, that it isn't funny. People don't think " o shit BW unit... carrier so good so rarely seen", people think... " he can't be serious, if that works I will eat my shirt", they are hoping carrier to work for the same reasons that many people want to have it in Hots... it's just a symbol. There have been other units that fit such a description. Then Blizzard patched them to make them useful. This isn't a new practice by any means, but the carrier has yet to be patched. I'm sure they tried. I can't find solution to improve it and still have balance. In BW, carriers were able to shoot while moving if you micro'd them right. It allowed you to actually utilize the range of the carrier without putting it in harms way. I believe it also had more armor. Do you really feel like that would make the carrier imbalanced?
do you really believe that it would help, if you could micro your carriers while all the interceptors get shot down by marines?
People argue not without reasoning, that you need splash against Terran as Protoss. The carrier does not offer that.
|
Blizzard took out Guardians and replaced them with Brood Lords. Given this, I feel they're warranted in replacing the Carrier.
|
the brood lord is the new carrier.
That said i'd like to see them at least TRY to do SOMETHING to fix the unit. having them microable, make them build quicker, faster acceleration speed, higher armour, change their attack so that they dont get annhilated by upgrades...
just do something.
|
On March 05 2012 06:32 Crushgroove wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 06:10 NicolBolas wrote:
I've always wondered what would kill SC2. It turns out that it's likely going to be the memory of SC1.
Icons. I hate icons, in games, comics, etc. Wherever they are, they always make things worse.
Blizzard had a potentially interesting unit in the Tempest (no, not the HotS Tempest, the original one). It's shields didn't work on air attacks, which focused it into a GtA role, and probably meant that it wasn't very expensive. But no, fan outcry said, "We want Carriers!" So they converted a potentially good unit into Carriers.
SC2 needs to be its own game, with its own iconography. It needs to stand on its own, not ride the coatails of something else. I would have loved to see Zerglings, Hydras, Mutalisks, Zealots, Siege Tanks, Marines, and yes Carriers all get the axe. No returning units except workers.
A new dynamic for a new game. They could have taken each race back to first principles and shown us how those concepts worked with a different tech tree and a different set of units.
But no, Blizzard wanted "iconography." So they kept Siege Tanks, when Thors offered an interesting alternative (again, pre-alpha Thors, not the crap we got in beta and release). They kept Hydras despite the Zerg having a completely different dynamic from SC1 that left Hydras in a wierd place. And so forth.
So what we have is a horrible half-state. The old units keep getting in the way of different ideas, while the new units are constantly railed against for not being ones that were removed.
As for the Carrier's "iconic" status, I don't see it. My abiding memories of SC1 Protoss matches are, in order:
1. Shuttle/Reaver micro murdering workers
2. Dragoon micro around mines
3. Sexy Arbiter usage
4. Storm blankets
These are the things that I consider "iconic" about Protoss in SC1. That's what I think of when I think SC1 Protoss.
Carriers and Carrier micro were always "meh" to me. They always felt like a gimmicky strategy, something you use on the few maps that allow it. Not something solid or standard. Wow. Absolutely brilliant. Too bad the people rallying in the first few pages won't see this and reflect on it.
Done. Conclusion: You can catch me on IcCup playing a different game.
|
Carrier has no role, Protoss stargate is fairly weak, and the carrier is already countered whenever it's available to be built.
Until these underlying problems are addressed, there is no hope for the carrier.
|
sometimes i really wonder what is going in the brain of the designer for sc2...they took away the iconic hydra from zerg and dragoon from protoss but they seem to have no problem on keeping (and improving everything) in terran and of course making battlecruiser the most important element in WoL (you play the whole campaign in that damn ship). and now carrier.
they are doing exactly what they shouldnt do - to mess with the long time iconic symbols of sc. i want my amazing hydra back 
|
The AoE muta killer got nothing on the carrier.
Carriers are in the heart of every SC fan, they shouldn't be removed.
|
On March 05 2012 07:23 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 07:01 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2012 06:41 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:36 Mohdoo wrote:On March 05 2012 06:18 frozenrb wrote:On March 05 2012 06:14 DreamChaser wrote:
Will i now need new outrageous builds for when i team? No more carrier rushes?
Personally blizzard should keep the carrier in imo, its a unit that is rarely seen. If anybody ever tries to go carriers you know everybody in the crowd is getting excited. Even if they lose it was like when people thought the mothership sucked. HuK tried to mothership rush and it worked once in an MLG game. Never had i seen Day9 and the crowd so excited, thats what the carrier brings. Its not a "winning" strategy but its something that is just exciting and fun to watch no matter how bad the unit is. People get excited because carrier usage is so much risk, that it isn't funny. People don't think " o shit BW unit... carrier so good so rarely seen", people think... " he can't be serious, if that works I will eat my shirt", they are hoping carrier to work for the same reasons that many people want to have it in Hots... it's just a symbol. There have been other units that fit such a description. Then Blizzard patched them to make them useful. This isn't a new practice by any means, but the carrier has yet to be patched. I'm sure they tried. I can't find solution to improve it and still have balance. In BW, carriers were able to shoot while moving if you micro'd them right. It allowed you to actually utilize the range of the carrier without putting it in harms way. I believe it also had more armor. Do you really feel like that would make the carrier imbalanced? do you really believe that it would help, if you could micro your carriers while all the interceptors get shot down by marines? People argue not without reasoning, that you need splash against Terran as Protoss. The carrier does not offer that.
Carriers will probably never be effective against stimmed upgraded marines, unless Interceptors are made much more durable against small ground-to-air attacks. But they don't necessarily have to be; they can be viable in other matchups, or in PvT when Terran doesn't focus on infantry, or to harass a Terran and pin him in his base, or perhaps in PvT when the Protoss already has Templars or Colossi that can solve marines. (Especially Templar, since those also mess up Vikings.)
Trouble is, they simply appear to have weak numbers as a unit. Kick the damage up from 5x2 per shot to 6x2 per shot and that alone might give you a competitive unit.
|
I hate the way the carrier works in sc2. I cant wait until its gone personally.
|
If no changes are made to carrier ,it should be removed becuase as it is carrier has no purpose or specific role in the army(not even as an end game unit) , any replacement unit that is useful to certain degree would be a great.
|
Carriers can actually move and attack since the intercepters continue to attack even when moving though you have to stop for a brief second inbetween targets.
|
How can you have a Starcraft game without the Carrier?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
