|
On January 26 2012 10:36 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 10:32 erazerr wrote:
so the question is: how do you make it good? because its actually the worst unit in the entire game Its currently too vulnerable. Other flying units are either faster than the carrier or have fungal growth to slow down pursuers. Increase carrier speed. It is currently too costly or takes too long to build. Reduce those numbers. Interceptor upgrade also too costly, as only then are carriers remotely decent. Make it no longer require an upgrade. These things can all be tweaked and changed as needed. As I said in my most recent post, its not a choice between imba and garbage. Tweaks can be made, as they have been to other units. Just look at the Archon and Ultralisk. The Infestor didn't even always have infested terran as a spell. If they are willing to make such big changes to other units, they should do the same for the carrier. They haven't even tried ;_;
I agree the carrier is iconic, but no more iconic than lurkers or dark swarm, or medic+marine (not medivacs). Personally, I would love to bring all of that back, but blizzard never listened even when the whole community called for lurkers (in the beginnings of sc2).
Also another issue is currently zerg has no answer to mass carriers. The answer is currently that it is impossible for protoss to get mass carriers without dying first. But if you do the changes you suggested, it wouldn't be all that hard. If you bring back a super powerful carrier, you need better zerg aa in my opinion.
|
I don't play a lot of sc2 but playing for 1-2 years now. Carrier is a rare thing. I see them in 2-4 matches during my 1-2 years. A unit that no one use.
|
On March 05 2012 06:33 DrowSwordsman 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. 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.
But you won't know if there is an opportunity until the future... queens weren't used in ZvT (or any matchup) until 10 years later, and they became a VERY important unit for combating the TvZ mech craze
|
for people saying "well jsut balance it" they literally cant, the fundamental design idea of the idea is what is broken, its not that it costs too much or it takes too long to build or it cant micro (were talking about Protoss here if a carrier is sitting on top of there deathball, thats the safest place for it) its becuase the fundamental idea of the Carrier as a massive capital ship that launchs small fragile units is fundamentally broken
both Terran and Zerg have access to massible high DPS units that attack air and would jsut absolutely love to see tons of fragile units flying around for them to shoot down (Hydralisks and Marines) and Zerg also have the corrupter which loves nothing more then a massive flying unit for it to munch
the only possible way to fix the carrier is drastically reduce the number of intercepters it fires and increase the health, which would be removing the carrier and replacing it with a different unit becuase there would be jsut as much outrage, and then people ask "well if theres only a couple intercepters anyway why not jsut give it an attack" the only way to make the carrier viable is to do a complete unit rehaul on it
|
On March 05 2012 03:29 Forikorder wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 03:22 NeonFox wrote:
The fact that they want to take it out baffles me. It does not show any balance problems, at worst just leave it in there, if only 5 players out of 100 use it, where's the problem? Just leave it there and see how people figure out ways to use them. Removing it brings no benefits. if its no benefit in the game and its no benefit to remove it from the game then the benefit of following there design idea by having the most compact game possible overrules the lack of any benefit by having it in the game besides according the Lore the protoss are working on replacing the carriers completely with void rays anyway
For the most part, the lore is just a way to try to make sense with the changes in units.
There used to be a unit called the "Twilight Archon". Basically it was supposed to replace the Archon (lore wise anyway). However that didn't happen, so here we are with just the regular Archon.
Also, lore wise, the Zerg (at least not stated) never lost any of their units (the Lurker, the Defiler, the Devourer, Guardian, Scourge, etc). (The Scourge at least is seen in single player.)
(Defiler and Lurker may return in single player in HotS.)
So, yeah. The current lore is actually based on what Blizzard wants to try with gameplay rather than the other way around. (The lore doesn't actually dictate which unit stays or not rather the lore itself is made to go along with gameplay changes Blizzard thinks of.)
|
I really don't mind the carrier in the game. Although i feel its kind-of overpowered when it gets about 10+ Carriers it starts to snowball in strength and micro capabilities are easy because of the high HP of the unit and low unit count.
Also they are extremely strong when used in unison with Mothership. I'm so glad the Mothership is getting removed in HOTS i think Carriers + Mothership is almost unbeatable. Watch Hongun play you'll see why.
|
the "carriers is a iconic symbol" argument does not work. lurkers, defilers, reavers, and etc were also all iconic units. infact most BW units were iconic... the corsair, the science vessel, templars, etc.
but i do agree that BUFFING carriers instead of removing the unit altogether is a better idea. give interceptors a small splash radius or something. also i think the carriers launch range is lower in SC2. in BW i remember the range being 9 SC2 it doesnt seem as long, but maybe that has to do with carriers not having there move and shoot ability anymore.
if a unit has to be removed from the toss race it should be mother ship and colossi without a doubt IMO. M ship is just there for the "OMG ITS A M SHIP! LOL BM BM BM! ARCHON TOILET TIME!" factor and colossi is just a boring A move unit that takes no micro whatsoever to use. reavers in BW atleast needed heavy microing and babysitting to use, but colossi? u just make them, get the range, and then they do the rest of the work for u.
broodlords, carriers, and Battle cruisers are all capital ships, so they all should be on par with each other. broods are the best and most used capital ships in the game because they provice immense back up/support for the main zerg army. carriers, also a capital ship, does not provice that kind of support unless u are already winning the game. u do not make carriers to turn the game in ur favor like broods do, u make carriers if ur already winning usually as a BM tactic. battle cruisers you dont see at allexcept in rare instances lol.
|
For the most part, the lore is just a way to try to make sense with the changes in units.
There used to be a unit called the "Twilight Archon". Basically it was supposed to replace the Archon (lore wise anyway). However that didn't happen, so here we are with just the regular Archon.
Also, lore wise, the Zerg (at least not stated) never lost any of their units (the Lurker, the Defiler, the Devourer, Guardian, Scourge, etc). (The Scourge at least is seen in single player.)
(Defiler and Lurker may return in single player in HotS.)
So, yeah. The current lore is actually based on what Blizzard wants to try with gameplay rather than the other way around. (The lore doesn't actually dictate which unit stays or not rather the lore itself is made to go along with gameplay changes Blizzard thinks of.)
way to focus on the wrong part of my post i just added in the lore part as a bit of a joke
but i do agree that BUFFING carriers instead of removing the unit altogether is a better idea. give interceptors a small splash radius or something
carriers already have the highest DPS output in the game it would be like giving Thors ground attack splash it would make Carriers rip through absolutely everything and be uncounterable
colossi is just a boring A move unit that takes no micro whatsoever to use.
carriers are literally an Amove unit that require no micro
Collosi you have to micro, micro them to stay way from corrupters, up and down a cliff to survive or make sure there hitting the right units
Collosi dont need mcuh micro, Carriers are only microd by amoving and retreating
broodlords, carriers, and Battle cruisers are all capital ships, so they all should be on par with each other. broods are the best and most used capital ships in the game because they provice immense back up/support for the main zerg army.
there used because a Zerg generally has 2 or more geysers going then the opponent and have the gas count to afford high tier units and are maxed quickly so ahve more time to bank
thats the only reason
carriers, also a capital ship, does not provice that kind of support unless u are already winning the game. u do not make carriers to turn the game in ur favor like broods do, u make carriers if ur already winning usually as a BM tactic. battle cruisers you dont see at allexcept in rare instances lol.
exactly, Carriers and Battlecruisers are the same,if it wasnt for TvT sky terran and Terran not missing any roles (like for instance AoE anti air)the cattlebruiser would get scrapped except it does sometimes see play (and be effective) so theres no reason to scrap it
the carrier sees games even less and is less effective then the BC
|
How often were carriers used in the first year or so of pro bw?
|
On March 05 2012 12:33 scarper65 wrote:
How often were carriers used in the first year or so of pro bw?
You can't really compare the first year of BW with the first year of SC2, since SC2 had a massive foundation of progaming to build upon. If carriers were actually viable in SC2, progamers would have discovered it by now.
|
I don't care about logic or reasons. Long live the fucking Carrier.
|
On March 05 2012 11:42 Ballistixz wrote:
the "carriers is a iconic symbol" argument does not work. lurkers, defilers, reavers, and etc were also all iconic units. infact most BW units were iconic... the corsair, the science vessel, templars, etc.
but i do agree that BUFFING carriers instead of removing the unit altogether is a better idea. give interceptors a small splash radius or something. also i think the carriers launch range is lower in SC2. in BW i remember the range being 9 SC2 it doesnt seem as long, but maybe that has to do with carriers not having there move and shoot ability anymore.
if a unit has to be removed from the toss race it should be mother ship and colossi without a doubt IMO. M ship is just there for the "OMG ITS A M SHIP! LOL BM BM BM! ARCHON TOILET TIME!" factor and colossi is just a boring A move unit that takes no micro whatsoever to use. reavers in BW atleast needed heavy microing and babysitting to use, but colossi? u just make them, get the range, and then they do the rest of the work for u.
broodlords, carriers, and Battle cruisers are all capital ships, so they all should be on par with each other. broods are the best and most used capital ships in the game because they provice immense back up/support for the main zerg army. carriers, also a capital ship, does not provice that kind of support unless u are already winning the game. u do not make carriers to turn the game in ur favor like broods do, u make carriers if ur already winning usually as a BM tactic. battle cruisers you dont see at allexcept in rare instances lol.
None of those units were anything like the Carrier in terms of being a SC cultural icon. "Carrier has arrived" is a line that damn near every SC player ever could quote, and it's probably the first one for most. A lot of very casual players probably didn't even know what Defilers, Reavers, Corsairs or Science Vessels were.
|
The carrier will probably see more use once terran mech gains popularity. Sadly, that most likely won't happen until HOTS is released (new mech units incoming...!).
Those that follow bw know that the carrier is one of protoss' late game solutions for terran mech. It's a pretty niche unit.. that's the reality. That's also why fans go crazy when they see carriers being built. I know sc2 is not bw, but there are enough similarities between the two games to predict future trends for sc2 based on bw history. The reason why carriers aren't being used now is because terrans are relying on biocentric strategies. We won't get to see the sc2 carrier's true potential until HOTS... which is when blizzard is planning to remove the unit. It makes absolutely no sense. As of right now, the carrier is completely unproven. Simply put, it's far too early to tell whether or not the carrier is an obsolete unit in sc2.
|
On March 05 2012 13:06 flyingnimbus wrote:
The carrier will probably see more use once terran mech gains popularity. Sadly, that most likely won't happen until HOTS is released (new mech units incoming...!).
Those that follow bw know that the carrier is one of protoss' late game solutions for terran mech. It's a pretty niche unit.. that's the reality. That's also why fans go crazy when they see carriers being built. I know sc2 is not bw, but there are enough similarities between the two games to predict future trends for sc2 based on bw history. The reason why carriers aren't being used now is because terrans are relying on biocentric strategies. We won't get to see the sc2 carrier's true potential until HOTS... which is when blizzard is planning to remove the unit. It makes absolutely no sense. As of right now, the carrier is completely unproven. Simply put, it's far too early to tell whether or not the carrier is an obsolete unit in sc2.
no its late enough
theres no reason for Terran to go mech at all ever
in HoTS assuming Terran do start going mech toss will still have the Immortal to rip mech apart
|
On March 05 2012 12:33 scarper65 wrote:
You can't really compare the first year of BW with the first year of SC2, since SC2 had a massive foundation of progaming to build upon. If carriers were actually viable in SC2, progamers would have discovered it by now.
Brood War's meta-game is not going to carry over into Starcraft 2; each game has a completely separate meta-game. Starcraft 2 is still young, compared to Brood War. I imagine that it will take a long time for Starcraft 2 to reach its full maturity.
|
On March 05 2012 13:23 wongfeihung wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 12:33 scarper65 wrote:
You can't really compare the first year of BW with the first year of SC2, since SC2 had a massive foundation of progaming to build upon. If carriers were actually viable in SC2, progamers would have discovered it by now. Brood War's meta-game is not going to carry over into Starcraft 2; each game has a completely separate meta-game. Starcraft 2 is still young, compared to Brood War. I imagine that it will take a long time for Starcraft 2 to reach its full maturity.
but alot of BW was maturing the players, getting people to take the game seriously and practice seriously
from Beta people were palying SC2 seriously the carrier has been extensively practiced with and every time it simply fails so noone pulls it out in a tournament aside from some crasy blindside build
dont think that pro gamers have gone "well what im doing is working so i dont see a reason to build the carrier" Protoss get mothership in rpetty mcuh every late game PvZ, you really think they didnt try some carrier builds to go with the mothership?
one and a half years pros have been trying to find a use for the carrier, noone has EVER gotten close
|
On March 05 2012 12:33 scarper65 wrote:
How often were carriers used in the first year or so of pro bw?
Up until around 2008-2009, ever since broodwar was Carriers were ALWAYS the lategame PvT unit.
|
The Carrier removal might not so bad if it wasn't for the abomination of a replacement that is the tempest.
Not only do we have no-skill siege units, we now have FLYING no-skill siege units to go with it. Fuck yes Blizzard! now I can fit my stalkers underneath my colossi and then fit that underneath my tempests and press A and left-click, fuck that was hard. I don't think I could handle any unit that can do anything more than attack in a straight line.
I'm getting max income on my 3 bases so I guess the only thing I can do at this stage is go make myself a sandwich and maybe a cup of tea while I contemplate strategy, when I come back I can just macro really hard a 200/200 army that consists of 10 units total because the only good protoss units are 20 supply each, costs over 1000 minerals, and is bigger than a Battlecruiser.
|
On March 05 2012 14:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
The Carrier removal might not so bad if it wasn't for the abomination of a replacement that is the tempest.
Not only do we have no-skill siege units, we now have FLYING no-skill siege units to go with it. Fuck yes Blizzard! now I can fit my stalkers underneath my colossi and then fit that underneath my tempests and press A and left-click, fuck that was hard. I don't think I could handle any unit that can do anything more than attack in a straight line.
I'm getting max income on my 3 bases so I guess the only thing I can do at this stage is go make myself a sandwich and maybe a cup of tea while I contemplate strategy, when I come back I can just macro really hard a 200/200 army that consists of 10 units total because the only good protoss units are 20 supply each, costs over 1000 minerals, and is bigger than a Battlecruiser.
collosus have air collision so no your tempest will not fit overtop your collosus
also, go see if any top tier Terran sieges all his tanks in the same spot and clumps his amrines
oh wait he doesnt good tank spread is extremely important, sieging at the right time is extremely important
there is nothing at high level that doesnt need micro at high level its ALL about fighting at the right spot and using the right units at the right time in an efficient manner
also, we rarely see more then 2 or 3 collosus in a standard game now we wont see massed collosus and tempest if that was at all possible people would mass carriers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
