EPTBut you MUST NOT remove the carrier, because it was included in the 8 Bit version of Starcraft!
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 28
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Big-t
Austria1350 Posts
But you MUST NOT remove the carrier, because it was included in the 8 Bit version of Starcraft! | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:03 xccam wrote: I can't myself think of a building that attacks using another unit that it produces and keeps with it as part of itself, its a completely different thing. Your post is one of the dumbest there is. that's not what he said. He said a unit that builds other units (that's what a building does) and launches other units (when a building unit is complete, it gets launched). If you dumb his post down to "a unit that can build other units, store them, launch them, move, attacks by using it's stored units", then I simply have to disagree with bittman's post. There is no "power of the Carrier's design concept". It is simply a constriction to a carrier or 'original tempest' like unit. There is not a lot of things left to design. You can alter the units it launches, you can alter the stats, you can give the carrier an attack itself. That's about it. If you leave it with "builds and launches other units to attack for it", I agree. It's a strong concept with a lot of cool possibilities, that we see in various production facilities of the game. | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:38 Big J wrote: that's not what he said. He said a unit that builds other units (that's what a building does) and launches other units (when a building unit is complete, it gets launched). If you dumb his post down to "a unit that can build other units, store them, launch them, move, attacks by using it's stored units", then I simply have to disagree with bittman's post. There is no "power of the Carrier's design concept". It is simply a constriction to a carrier or 'original tempest' like unit. There is not a lot of things left to design. You can alter the units it launches, you can alter the stats, you can give the carrier an attack itself. That's about it. If you leave it with "builds and launches other units to attack for it", I agree. It's a strong concept with a lot of cool possibilities, that we see in various production facilities of the game. Why be a douche and not address what the poster clearly meant? The SC2 Carrier is a lot worse than it was in BW, it can't repair its interceptors, it has less armor, it can't stack or be micro'd to attack and move at the same time (its greatest utility). So then you can just fly around cliffs and the outskirts of the map without risking harm to the carrier and take out bases. The replacement, the Tempest, is a 100x more boring in comparison. Face it, Blizzard just wants its own cool unit rather than make the Carrier viable which quite frankly can't be that hard. Corsair/Carrier/Reaver is pretty scary vs Zerg, there's no reason we couldn't have (although a lot lamer) Tempest/Carrier/Colossus. Carrier really just needs a support unit with an inexpensive version of Disruption Web and it will be completely viable. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 05 2012 23:56 sluggaslamoo wrote: Why be a douche and not address what the poster clearly meant? The SC2 Carrier is a lot worse than it was in BW, it can't repair its interceptors, it has less armor, it can't stack or be micro'd to attack and move at the same time (its greatest utility). So then you can just fly around cliffs and the outskirts of the map without risking harm to the carrier and take out bases. The replacement, the Tempest, is a 100x more boring in comparison. Face it, Blizzard just wants its own cool unit rather than make the Carrier viable which quite frankly can't be that hard. Corsair/Carrier/Reaver is pretty scary vs Zerg, there's no reason we couldn't have (although a lot lamer) Tempest/Carrier/Colossus. Carrier really just needs a support unit with an inexpensive version of Disruption Web and it will be completely viable. I'm not him, but in my opinion the poster did absolutly not mean something as specfic as "I want Carriers to work exactly like in BW", like you said. As far as I can read, he was talking about the great design possibilities that evolve from a unit that can build units. Would be a pretty cryptic version of "I want to play BW", if he meant what you interpreted. And you absolutly have no clue if the Tempest will be "boring" or not. As it stands, one of the most boring units by design is the siege tank, as it basically says: "siege me and I kill stuff before it can interact with me". Yet due to how the stats are balanced, and due to Terran production not guaranteeing that you will always have enough of them, it might be one of the most interesting units in the game and the tempest could introduce interesting dynamics as well. And no, you will never be able to fly around at the outskirt of the map with a carrier, unless it counters vikings and corruptors, because those will be there and hunt them down. Unless Protoss gets a antiviking anticorruptor unit, but that's exactly the unit the Carrier will be replaced with, as it seems like blizzard fears that a Capital antiair + Capital antiground ship together will be too hard to balance; | ||
|
Deadler
3 Posts
| ||
|
DeekZ
Australia235 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:04 Deadler wrote: A new role for the carriers could be the air tank, with lots of hp, low dps, with a passive skill like aura, like a paladin air or some skill to share shields to protect other units. ..maybe keep the unit design to Blizzard :p Seriously though, I don't really like the Tempest, but the Carrier is pretty useless, it's either good in massive numbers or it's just bad, even using them feels gimmicky. They need to either be changed drastically or removed the completely like is planned, I'd prefer removed. | ||
|
Destroyr
Germany299 Posts
| ||
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
headdesks | ||
|
Deadler
3 Posts
On March 06 2012 01:13 DeekZ wrote: ..maybe keep the unit design to Blizzard :p Seriously though, I don't really like the Tempest, but the Carrier is pretty useless, it's either good in massive numbers or it's just bad, even using them feels gimmicky. They need to either be changed drastically or removed the completely like is planned, I'd prefer removed. Yes, but Toss need more units for more variety at last game, not always colosi + storms/archons. Stargate is the best way for be creative. | ||
|
Goblinoid
United States55 Posts
As for balancing the Carrier, any of the suggested changes to the Carrier would be great. But I also feel that other air units are min-maxed in a way that makes capital ships moot, but still allows those units to suck. Vikings' insane range/bonus v armored and corrupter's bonus v massive lets them counter capital ships hard for cost, but each is relatively useless if there aren't large ships/colossus on the field. The viking is too slow/is very weak on the ground and the corrupter can't do jack shit. So, I'll admit these balance thoughts are just how I feel and I don't have the knowledge to back them up. But in any case, I'd suggest: shorten viking range, speed up viking flight slightly, empower their ground mode somewhat; cut corruptors entirely, bring back the scourge (a much more micro friendly AA); and of course, cut/overhaul the colossus. But whatever you do, don't cut the gorram Carrier. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On March 06 2012 00:33 Big J wrote: I'm not him, but in my opinion the poster did absolutly not mean something as specfic as "I want Carriers to work exactly like in BW", like you said. As far as I can read, he was talking about the great design possibilities that evolve from a unit that can build units. Would be a pretty cryptic version of "I want to play BW", if he meant what you interpreted. And you absolutly have no clue if the Tempest will be "boring" or not. As it stands, one of the most boring units by design is the siege tank, as it basically says: "siege me and I kill stuff before it can interact with me". Yet due to how the stats are balanced, and due to Terran production not guaranteeing that you will always have enough of them, it might be one of the most interesting units in the game and the tempest could introduce interesting dynamics as well. And no, you will never be able to fly around at the outskirt of the map with a carrier, unless it counters vikings and corruptors, because those will be there and hunt them down. Unless Protoss gets a antiviking anticorruptor unit, but that's exactly the unit the Carrier will be replaced with, as it seems like blizzard fears that a Capital antiair + Capital antiground ship together will be too hard to balance; It didn't have anything to do with BW, but I was answering your post. And yes the Carrier is the only unit in BW, LOL. If the SC2 Carrier is unviable, why was it nerfed? that's stupid. It also cannot be stacked or microed or repair interceptors which makes a huge difference to keeping them and interceptors alive. I have no clue that the Tempest is boring? you probably think the Colossus, Thor and Marauders are the coolest units in the game by that standard. How is the Siege Tank boring, wtf? If the Tempest had two modes of function and had ways of doing either extreme amounts of damage or none at all with good micro and timing, and opponents could exploit its minimum range with drops and make it splash its own units (although that has been dumbed down) then yes it would be interesting. As it stands the Tempest has no other function than a-move and no method of exploiting a way to kill it. People have had similar thoughts on state of the game, and most of the community thinks this. If you think otherwise you just have a huge ego and just want to win the argument rather than discuss the future of the game. The problem with Blizzard's team right now is that they love huge units with no application other than to just stroll into someones base and kill everything without any real effort. We used to only have one of those units and in top tier, because by that time the game really needed to finish and everything built up to that with really interesting gameplay and units. Now we have them in a much lower tier, its like having Lair tech Ultras or Factory tech Battlecruisers, its... just... stupid. Macro is made to be piss easy, and army sizes are tiny because of their huge cost and supply, and you just have stupid moments like turtle into 1a deathball huge clash gg. The Tempest only exacerbates this. Yes the Tempest would make the Carrier more viable which I implied in the last paragraph. But I would much rather a more interesting support unit, like a Phoenix with the Overload ability. Also vikings won't kill your carriers if you do the carrier build properly. You just need to make sure you have enough gateway units keeping Terran occupied while you fly around with Carriers and not do a Colossus build so it makes mass Vikings unviable. There's a reason Terran often doesn't go Wraiths/Valkyries vs Protoss in BW either. The Carrier would need to be buffed at least back to BW levels if not more though if it were to be an actually viable tech choice over the Colossus or Void Ray. | ||
|
greenknight999
69 Posts
It needs to be split up into countering support vessels and capital ships. That is why the carrier is broken at the moment. Because I build 1 unit as counter to all your air units. The solution is to broaden air units on the same level ground units are, the game actually needs a lot more air units, not them getting removed. It's not a simple case of give the protoss (insert something from BW) as well as the carrier. Each race needs 2-3 more air units and then all the air units need to be split into two classes (similar to how we have armored units for ground). | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On March 06 2012 09:08 greenknight999 wrote: The problem is the counter units are just labelled "anti-air". So your terran/zerg counters...just counter all air. It needs to be split up into countering support vessels and capital ships. That is why the carrier is broken at the moment. Because I build 1 unit as counter to all your air units. The solution is to broaden air units on the same level ground units are, the game actually needs a lot more air units, not them getting removed. It's not a simple case of give the protoss (insert something from BW) as well as the carrier. Each race needs 2-3 more air units and then all the air units need to be split into two classes (similar to how we have armored units for ground). The bigger problem is that the Carrier just sucks versus its alternatives (which are also countered by anti-air), so why build them? Colossus are hard-countered by Vikings too, but Protoss still builds them. Carrier intererceptors will also die too easily against Marines, which is why you need a disruption web ability, which is what made them viable against Zerg mass Hydra. | ||
|
dmasterding
United States205 Posts
On March 05 2012 22:38 Big J wrote: that's not what he said. He said a unit that builds other units (that's what a building does) and launches other units (when a building unit is complete, it gets launched). If you dumb his post down to "a unit that can build other units, store them, launch them, move, attacks by using it's stored units", then I simply have to disagree with bittman's post. There is no "power of the Carrier's design concept". It is simply a constriction to a carrier or 'original tempest' like unit. There is not a lot of things left to design. You can alter the units it launches, you can alter the stats, you can give the carrier an attack itself. That's about it. If you leave it with "builds and launches other units to attack for it", I agree. It's a strong concept with a lot of cool possibilities, that we see in various production facilities of the game. Well they'll be adding the Swarm Host so idk. | ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
On March 06 2012 00:33 Big J wrote: I'm not him, but in my opinion the poster did absolutly not mean something as specfic as "I want Carriers to work exactly like in BW", like you said. As far as I can read, he was talking about the great design possibilities that evolve from a unit that can build units. Would be a pretty cryptic version of "I want to play BW", if he meant what you interpreted. And you absolutly have no clue if the Tempest will be "boring" or not. As it stands, one of the most boring units by design is the siege tank, as it basically says: "siege me and I kill stuff before it can interact with me". Yet due to how the stats are balanced, and due to Terran production not guaranteeing that you will always have enough of them, it might be one of the most interesting units in the game and the tempest could introduce interesting dynamics as well. And no, you will never be able to fly around at the outskirt of the map with a carrier, unless it counters vikings and corruptors, because those will be there and hunt them down. Unless Protoss gets a antiviking anticorruptor unit, but that's exactly the unit the Carrier will be replaced with, as it seems like blizzard fears that a Capital antiair + Capital antiground ship together will be too hard to balance; I am him, so let me tell you what I mean =P Firstly, yes you are correct: I don't care if carriers work anything like BW Carriers at all. The mechanics and metagame is far too different to really simply point at how BW did it as the staple of good design. Sorry BW fans, I don't simply want the BW carrier because from all my understanding all it does it replace the current a-move unit with an a-move unit that does a poor stutter step. That's dull, a lot of dull units already do that and they're dull. And you're on the money when you explore the notion that a Carrier can "build and launch other units to attack for it" over simply incorporating it as an "a-move unit that needs to build its one decent-ish attack". What if the Carrier had interceptors and some buildable splash-type unit to choose between building? What about a big tanky unit that takes a lot of hits to die? What if it could build units with vastly different abilities and attacks? What if Carriers doubled as a big fat armoured drop ship? What if Carriers could do more than launch, at random, their interceptors, but rather control them also? Set distanced rally points? Repair or upgrade interceptors? What if the interceptors didn't die instantly when the carrier did but rather hung around until they "ran out of fuel"? I can make a list of at least 100 questions of "what ifs" for the carrier without even looking at it's movement (or micro ability) or combat stats (armour, attack damage). Sure some of you might look at all of these questions and think "Well that won't work", but if the only thing required for the carrier was micro ability then it's still an a-move unit and I then honestly don't care if it lives or dies (Sorry to say). This is what I mean by a design concept that's been under-appreciated. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On March 06 2012 14:41 bittman wrote: I am him, so let me tell you what I mean =P Firstly, yes you are correct: I don't care if carriers work anything like BW Carriers at all. The mechanics and metagame is far too different to really simply point at how BW did it as the staple of good design. Sorry BW fans, I don't simply want the BW carrier because from all my understanding all it does it replace the current a-move unit with an a-move unit that does a poor stutter step. That's dull, a lot of dull units already do that and they're dull. And you're on the money when you explore the notion that a Carrier can "build and launch other units to attack for it" over simply incorporating it as an "a-move unit that needs to build its one decent-ish attack". What if the Carrier had interceptors and some buildable splash-type unit to choose between building? What about a big tanky unit that takes a lot of hits to die? What if it could build units with vastly different abilities and attacks? What if Carriers doubled as a big fat armoured drop ship? What if Carriers could do more than launch, at random, their interceptors, but rather control them also? Set distanced rally points? Repair or upgrade interceptors? What if the interceptors didn't die instantly when the carrier did but rather hung around until they "ran out of fuel"? I can make a list of at least 100 questions of "what ifs" for the carrier without even looking at it's movement (or micro ability) or combat stats (armour, attack damage). Sure some of you might look at all of these questions and think "Well that won't work", but if the only thing required for the carrier was micro ability then it's still an a-move unit and I then honestly don't care if it lives or dies (Sorry to say). This is what I mean by a design concept that's been under-appreciated. I probably should have put a space in between that first sentence and my response. They had nothing to do with each other lol. My point is it doesn't make sense to say a unit is un-viable in SC2 because of the SOTG, when the Carrier is not even the same unit in SC2 as it was in BW. Extra armor, and healing interceptors and micro-ability will make a huge difference to the viability of a unit, when you consider the tiny changes Blizzard often makes that drastically change the gameplay. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On March 06 2012 14:41 bittman wrote: I am him, so let me tell you what I mean =P Firstly, yes you are correct: I don't care if carriers work anything like BW Carriers at all. The mechanics and metagame is far too different to really simply point at how BW did it as the staple of good design. Sorry BW fans, I don't simply want the BW carrier because from all my understanding all it does it replace the current a-move unit with an a-move unit that does a poor stutter step. That's dull, a lot of dull units already do that and they're dull. And you're on the money when you explore the notion that a Carrier can "build and launch other units to attack for it" over simply incorporating it as an "a-move unit that needs to build its one decent-ish attack". What if the Carrier had interceptors and some buildable splash-type unit to choose between building? What about a big tanky unit that takes a lot of hits to die? What if it could build units with vastly different abilities and attacks? What if Carriers doubled as a big fat armoured drop ship? What if Carriers could do more than launch, at random, their interceptors, but rather control them also? Set distanced rally points? Repair or upgrade interceptors? What if the interceptors didn't die instantly when the carrier did but rather hung around until they "ran out of fuel"? I can make a list of at least 100 questions of "what ifs" for the carrier without even looking at it's movement (or micro ability) or combat stats (armour, attack damage). Sure some of you might look at all of these questions and think "Well that won't work", but if the only thing required for the carrier was micro ability then it's still an a-move unit and I then honestly don't care if it lives or dies (Sorry to say). This is what I mean by a design concept that's been under-appreciated. If you look at the development of SC2, your idea isn't all that far off from their original plans: http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/Escort Carriers had interceptors and Escorts: interceptors were as normal, and you could spend a good chunk of minerals to give the carrier a temporary powerful fighter that was gone for good soon even if it didn't die, but significantly boosted the carrier's power for a short time. | ||
|
rOse_PedaL
Korea (South)450 Posts
| ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On March 06 2012 14:41 bittman wrote: I am him, so let me tell you what I mean =P Firstly, yes you are correct: I don't care if carriers work anything like BW Carriers at all. The mechanics and metagame is far too different to really simply point at how BW did it as the staple of good design. Sorry BW fans, I don't simply want the BW carrier because from all my understanding all it does it replace the current a-move unit with an a-move unit that does a poor stutter step. That's dull, a lot of dull units already do that and they're dull. And you're on the money when you explore the notion that a Carrier can "build and launch other units to attack for it" over simply incorporating it as an "a-move unit that needs to build its one decent-ish attack". What if the Carrier had interceptors and some buildable splash-type unit to choose between building? What about a big tanky unit that takes a lot of hits to die? What if it could build units with vastly different abilities and attacks? What if Carriers doubled as a big fat armoured drop ship? What if Carriers could do more than launch, at random, their interceptors, but rather control them also? Set distanced rally points? Repair or upgrade interceptors? What if the interceptors didn't die instantly when the carrier did but rather hung around until they "ran out of fuel"? I can make a list of at least 100 questions of "what ifs" for the carrier without even looking at it's movement (or micro ability) or combat stats (armour, attack damage). Sure some of you might look at all of these questions and think "Well that won't work", but if the only thing required for the carrier was micro ability then it's still an a-move unit and I then honestly don't care if it lives or dies (Sorry to say). This is what I mean by a design concept that's been under-appreciated. Well, I'm not saying you are wrong with all the potential of such a unit, but at some part it has to be integrated in the game, and I think the more variations you can do with a carrier, the more it will be balanced to be a flying building that launches different/limited amounts of stuff. As it stands, the Carrier had a rather clear role right now, but what if you could build various units? Wouldn't that open up it's role to a point, where it was a capital ship that could be too hard to counter/too versatile? I'm not sure if there is really a lot of room for experiments, as a lot of the concepts will either just overlap with other units (like the colossus in a strong AtG Carrier concept) or too hard to balance. As it stands, I would say that they are doing something similar like that (by adding the Tempest) already. They changed the concept (to strong AtA, weak AtG) and renamed it, because it was not a carrier anymore. (and therefore changed its attack 'animation' as well) | ||
| ||
