|
On March 05 2012 16:18 corpuscle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 16:06 Goldfish wrote:
I don't like the (new) Tempest because it seems like a boring a move unit. Unlike the current carrier, which is intentionally designed to punish any attempt at microing it besides just a-moving and sitting there like an idiot? o__O
The current Carrier does have some limited micro potential - It can attack move but the interceptors return immediately once the target is gone (unlike BW where it auto tracks). Depending on the target, this can used against high HP targets like Corruptors, Void Rays, etc. Obviously the Carrier can't actually outrun those air units but if you have Stalkers or so nearby to retreat to or some other unit, then there is definitely micro capability.
|
On March 06 2012 00:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:56 sluggaslamoo wrote:On March 05 2012 22:38 Big J wrote:On March 05 2012 22:03 xccam wrote:On March 05 2012 20:54 Big J wrote:On March 05 2012 19:25 bittman wrote:
A unit that builds and launches other units to attack for it? Endless potential from design standpoint.
Instead, it's unfortunately a poor a-move unit with little applicable micro. And they wanted to replace it with another a-move unit with little applicable micro? =/
Please Blizzard, use the power of the Carrier's design concept and do some freaking game design. Please oh please. I might have an aneurysm if they flat out replace with the Tempest or leave Carrier as is. yeah, and there are plenty of them in the game. They are called buildings. 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. 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;
Actually no. A boring unit by design would be for example the colossus. It has comparable range to a siege tank but doesn´t need to setup. Also it has about twice the hp.
One could argue that it is only attackable as air unit because they thought "No ground unit will ever beat this thing"
|
the carrier and mothership are becoming so crucial to PvZ (and mothership to PvP) that removing either would be a MASSIVE nerf to protoss with the current way of gameplay rather they should buff the carrier to respond well to micro and switch the mothership out with the arbiter so that way stargate play is on par with terran's starport play and zerg's BL Infestor
one can dream right xD
|
On March 10 2012 03:42 unit wrote:
the carrier and mothership are becoming so crucial to PvZ (and mothership to PvP) that removing either would be a MASSIVE nerf to protoss with the current way of gameplay rather they should buff the carrier to respond well to micro and switch the mothership out with the arbiter so that way stargate play is on par with terran's starport play and zerg's BL Infestor
one can dream right xD
well the carrier has alot of micro, but its probably to hard to pull of for most, so making it easier is one solution (like they did with the immortal... cool unit became an a move unit ;_; ). But if the carrier/ms stays we have to thank the zerg players lol.
|
On March 10 2012 03:42 unit wrote:
the carrier and mothership are becoming so crucial to PvZ (and mothership to PvP) that removing either would be a MASSIVE nerf to protoss with the current way of gameplay rather they should buff the carrier to respond well to micro and switch the mothership out with the arbiter so that way stargate play is on par with terran's starport play and zerg's BL Infestor
one can dream right xD
I'm not saying this is wrong. Personally, I find it hard to believe broodlord range isn't going to be a problem once we have nothing that shoots air with a similar range. But we don't know much about the tempest yet - if the air splash damage turns out to be okay... *looks at wiki*... alright well that's not good, but it could be better eventually - maybe it'll be a fast unit....
I guess all I'm saying is don't assume that what is the go-to build now will continue to be so when HotS is released - though honestly, I barely see anything a Protoss should be excited about in the previews. Still though...
Edit: Looking more at the previews... I'm really not liking their current design for Protoss in HotS.
|
carrier takes too long to build even in the late stages with full chronoboost
|
Progamers try to use it, especially in Korea. However everytime they built it they lost also 
I think if they want carrier to be available they shouldnt have so god damn long building time on it.
|
4713 Posts
How the hell is the carrier becoming a crucial part of the PvZ meta? Last time I checked going carriers was like signing your own death sentence, they build slowly, are easy to counter, the counter to them is part of the standard zerg late game lineup and the carrier doesn't add any benefit to the army that a Colossus or HT won't add.
I agree that carriers should be kept, but they really need some buffs before they become viable.
As for Mothership, I'd say just remove it because its a stupid hero unit. Yes Vortex is needed to counter zerg late game, but its lame and broken how a late game composition that costs more then 10k resources can be destroyed in less then 10 in game seconds. It might be better for the game if they nerf or tweak late game zerg so it can be handled by late game protoss without mothership then to keep the stupid vortex and hero unit.
Also, along the lines of buffing the carriers in some way to make them more useful, integrate gravitic boosters into the carrier, and add another upgrade to interceptors. Make interceptors "warp" on a 3-5 second cooldown. Warp is used when the interceptor is hit by a spell or damaging attack and causes the interceptor to ignore the attack. That way they won't get fungaled which is utterly stupid, and they could have a bit more survivability seeing as how easy they get destroyed now a days.
|
United States15580 Posts
On March 10 2012 05:54 eYeball wrote:Progamers try to use it, especially in Korea. However everytime they built it they lost also I think if they want carrier to be available they shouldnt have so god damn long building time on it.
Inca vs Monster was an extremely good and close game. Very clutch and Inca totally could have won.
|
On March 10 2012 06:20 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 05:54 eYeball wrote:Progamers try to use it, especially in Korea. However everytime they built it they lost also I think if they want carrier to be available they shouldnt have so god damn long building time on it. Inca vs Monster was an extremely good and close game. Very clutch and Inca totally could have won.
I think it was a great excample of how bad carriers actually are. I would say, in any realistic situation 2 voidrays are better than 1 carrier (while they cost the same and take the same supply). And that is the big problem of the carrier. If Inca would've gone voidrays instead of carriers in this game, he would've won it.
|
United States15580 Posts
If he went voids instead of carriers, he would have ended up getting fungal'd. Carriers have the advantage that Infestors are basically useless. Carriers were the reason he was able to pull off a brief supply lead despite being down a couple bases.
|
The problem is that Blizzard (and many here) think that all balance 'problems' shouldn't be there. There should be some problems, just like there were in BW (eg maxed terran mech almost invincible). Some things should be very difficult for some races to deal with. Complex micro needed to make units imba at the highest level should be difficult.
|
United States15580 Posts
On March 10 2012 08:05 0neder wrote:
The problem is that Blizzard (and many here) think that all balance 'problems' shouldn't be there. There should be some problems, just like there were in BW (eg maxed terran mech almost invincible). Some things should be very difficult for some races to deal with. Complex micro needed to make units imba at the highest level should be difficult.
Are you arguing against the idea that carriers need their BW'esque micro back? I can't tell what position you're taking. As far as I know, its not that the micro is difficult in SC2 as much as the mechanics of the the carrier make it no longer happen.
|
|
|
On March 10 2012 08:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:05 0neder wrote:
The problem is that Blizzard (and many here) think that all balance 'problems' shouldn't be there. There should be some problems, just like there were in BW (eg maxed terran mech almost invincible). Some things should be very difficult for some races to deal with. Complex micro needed to make units imba at the highest level should be difficult. Are you arguing against the idea that carriers need their BW'esque micro back? I can't tell what position you're taking. As far as I know, its not that the micro is difficult in SC2 as much as the mechanics of the the carrier make it no longer happen.
I'm arguing for more micro mechanic potential for units that is only exploitable by top players, and marginally exploitable by decent players.
I'm arguing against 1A units (the new immortal, the tempest, etc)
I'm arguing against players who think the game would be more fun if all the dynamic balance relationships would be 'solved' for all races, at early, mid, and late game, for all matchups.
BW was great because of all the race/unit dynamics that were almost impossible to be solved, but with good enough micro they could be (like breaking HUGE tank lines without a siege unit).
I'm arguing for less attack lag on more units, not just the marine.
I'm arguing for real moving shot micro that allows crap units (hellion) to become more useful.
I'm arguing that you shouldn't have all solutions to all problems on all branches of your race's tech tree.
|
I agree with the sentiment that carriers are iconic to SC, much like zerglings and siege tanks. I'm also confused with the notion to remove the carrier only because it hasn't found any situational use yet. The scout was never used, but wasn't removed. It turned into a "you need to leave the game."-unit, which is incredibly entertaining to see. (And they also turned out to solve some very specific situations, look for VODs in the "cool unusual starcraft" thread.) But removing the carrier is far worse than removing the scout!
I wager the only reason for its removal is to introduce the tempest in its place -- the tempest being a grotesque ad-hoc unit to deal with the mass muta currently tormenting protoss. Which might be fixed with the phoenix upgrade buff. I truly hope this decision is revised.
Carriers fightiiing!
|
United States15580 Posts
On March 10 2012 08:23 sapht wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that carriers are iconic to SC, much like zerglings and siege tanks. I'm also confused with the notion to remove the carrier only because it hasn't found any situational use yet. The scout was never used, but wasn't removed. It turned into a "you need to leave the game."-unit, which is incredibly entertaining to see. (And they also turned out to solve some very specific situations, look for VODs in the "cool unusual starcraft" thread.) But removing the carrier is far worse than removing the scout!
I wager the only reason for its removal is to introduce the tempest in its place -- the tempest being a grotesque ad-hoc unit to deal with the mass muta currently tormenting protoss. Which might be fixed with the phoenix upgrade buff. I truly hope this decision is revised.
Carriers fightiiing!
Yeah, I feel like the muta situation has for the most part, subsided. You don't really see Protoss losing to mutas at the high level any more. Lower tier master league guys like me still struggle since I have a hard time taking a 3rd with only blink stalker and well micro'd storms.
|
On March 10 2012 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:23 sapht wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that carriers are iconic to SC, much like zerglings and siege tanks. I'm also confused with the notion to remove the carrier only because it hasn't found any situational use yet. The scout was never used, but wasn't removed. It turned into a "you need to leave the game."-unit, which is incredibly entertaining to see. (And they also turned out to solve some very specific situations, look for VODs in the "cool unusual starcraft" thread.) But removing the carrier is far worse than removing the scout!
I wager the only reason for its removal is to introduce the tempest in its place -- the tempest being a grotesque ad-hoc unit to deal with the mass muta currently tormenting protoss. Which might be fixed with the phoenix upgrade buff. I truly hope this decision is revised.
Carriers fightiiing! Yeah, I feel like the muta situation has for the most part, subsided. You don't really see Protoss losing to mutas at the high level any more. Lower tier master league guys like me still struggle since I have a hard time taking a 3rd with only blink stalker and well micro'd storms.
It makes one worry, though. Blizzard considering the tempest a good idea because of such a simple balance problem... I really can't see it being interesting or useful in any other way than this single-matchup, single-unit situation. How did it ever get approved? Will similar ideas be approved in the patches and expansions to come? I'm worried, I feel with most patches, they're taking the Starcraft out of Starcraft 2.
|
The carrier is just iconic and I feel, it can be kept in the game. why not? It has it's place. It's not that we see BCs in every game. So why not keep the carrier option?
|
On March 10 2012 08:56 sapht wrote:Show nested quote +On March 10 2012 08:39 Mohdoo wrote:On March 10 2012 08:23 sapht wrote:
I agree with the sentiment that carriers are iconic to SC, much like zerglings and siege tanks. I'm also confused with the notion to remove the carrier only because it hasn't found any situational use yet. The scout was never used, but wasn't removed. It turned into a "you need to leave the game."-unit, which is incredibly entertaining to see. (And they also turned out to solve some very specific situations, look for VODs in the "cool unusual starcraft" thread.) But removing the carrier is far worse than removing the scout!
I wager the only reason for its removal is to introduce the tempest in its place -- the tempest being a grotesque ad-hoc unit to deal with the mass muta currently tormenting protoss. Which might be fixed with the phoenix upgrade buff. I truly hope this decision is revised.
Carriers fightiiing! Yeah, I feel like the muta situation has for the most part, subsided. You don't really see Protoss losing to mutas at the high level any more. Lower tier master league guys like me still struggle since I have a hard time taking a 3rd with only blink stalker and well micro'd storms. It makes one worry, though. Blizzard considering the tempest a good idea because of such a simple balance problem... I really can't see it being interesting or useful in any other way than this single-matchup, single-unit situation. How did it ever get approved? Will similar ideas be approved in the patches and expansions to come? I'm worried, I feel with most patches, they're taking the Starcraft out of Starcraft 2.
This is what kinda bugs me about the whole tempest thing. It seems like Blizzard is throwing it in there solely to counter mutas, because so many Protoss are having problems with that. But I feel like that element of Protoss play is just a meta game thing, and should be left alone as Protoss players are slowly getting better at countering mutas with cannons, blink stalkers, and phoenixes. Especially phoenixes, which I think are highly underutilized in the current meta game, because they outrange mutas even without the range upgrade and are much faster. Keeping phoenixes in the sweet spot where they outrange mutas and kiting them into oblivion is a micro skill every Protoss should have, because it completely nullifies the muta harass and you can chase them down afterwards to boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
