EPTInterceptors are also too fragile. I think it would be cool if carriers had energy that either repaired interceptors or acted as a shield battery for them so they could live longer.
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 31
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SnipedSoul
Canada2158 Posts
Interceptors are also too fragile. I think it would be cool if carriers had energy that either repaired interceptors or acted as a shield battery for them so they could live longer. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
Also this is an old preview from 2008 + Show Spoiler + The old Tempest (which was the cooler, more hip version of the Carrier that fired shurikens instead of interceptors). (The shurikens look really neat actually when they attack.) The sad part is that the (old) Tempest was removed in favor of the Carrier (the reason was because Blizzard thought the Carrier was too iconic to remove/be replaced by the Tempest) but despite saying that, Blizzard has not modified the Carrier in anyway since beta I think? I like the new Tempest model too but disappointed that we never got to try out the DT Carrier (old Tempest) and disappointed that Blizzard hasn't attempted BW style Carrier. (See my previous post on the previous page if anyone is interested in trying out BW style Carriers.) On March 10 2012 23:18 MajorityofOne wrote: What I've yet to understand is why any units are being cut at all. Why can't the Tempest and Carrier coexist in the Protoss arsenal? Why is the Mothership getting axed when recently it's becoming an important part of the endgame in PvP and PvZ? Why can't Zerg keep it's Overseer, which while useless as a caster is highly useful as mobile detection and scout? It's not like giving the races more options is going to break the fundamentals of the game. I say keep not just Carriers, but Overseers and Motherships (and I'd say Thors too, but at least those will still exist in some capacity). At the end of the day you get 200 supply no matter how many options you have on how to use it. Yes, having more units creates redundancy and makes the game harder to balance, but those things have a funny way of working themselves out over time if the foundation is good. Wings of Liberty (and more indirectly, Brood War) is a great foundation...keep what you've given us thus far, and give us new toys to play with. Don't take things away from the game just as people are finally starting to work them into high level play! I agree. Look at DotA. DotA keeps getting more and more heroes added but game is still played competitively. There are certain exceptions though but there's no reason for the Carrier to be removed. Same with Overseer. | ||
|
Sinedd
Poland7052 Posts
hands OFF !!! | ||
|
Flix
Belgium114 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:24 Tppz! wrote: The problem is that the Carrier was only used in BW because of PvT. There was no Voidray or Phoenix that could have lifted Tanks. Terrans didnt need Antiair until the opponent goes for Carriers. The only real Flying Air-Ground Threat. Nowadays in SC2 we have sick DPS and every Race has a longrange Air-Air Counterunit. Carriers melt like they are flys. And they arent even a big threat to Terrans cause Terrans cant go mech. And if they go Voidrays, Immortals, Chargelots, Blinkstalkers etc are a lot better at dealing with mech. So there is no Unitrole where the Carrier fits. The Colossus is also a longrange siegeunit but has AoE, doesnt depend so hard on upgrades, is faster, you can micro him, and benefits on the same upgrades as your gteway units do. There is no place in SC2 for Carriers. Its sad but its just a decorative element of the game. There are a lot units taht do a lot better than the carrier in its "role" in the game. You cant save something that isnt used AT ALL. IF Blizzard wants to keep the Carrier they have to remove the Voidray, remove the Viking and nerf Terran Bio A LOT. So if you look at it you could a) edit the game while removing at least 3 units and break the whople game or b) remove a unit that isnt needed and hasnt had a use in nearly 2 years of SC2 (beta included) Completely disagree with you for a couple of my own reasons: - Carriers can be a viable tech switch although they're maybe not SUPER uselful in the current metagame they are are certainly not total dead wood. We all have seen a game won somewhere at high level of play with a smart carrier switch. Probably more vs Zerg. - Your view on how to solve the problem is quite limited. Why not issue creative buffs to the unit instead of eliminating other units or nerfing units, why does that have to be the only solution? Open your eyes Blizz to being creative. Nerfing makes strats go away whereas buffing/adding abilities can open doors to new strats (think warp prism buff). I know which of the two I prefer... - Also it's my opinion that it's too early to dismiss the unit completely. The meta game is constantly changing, remember when Marines were OP? | ||
|
Faiz Ali
Canada8 Posts
The BC gets as little play as the Carrier, maybe marginally more, and it's getting an upgrade in an attempt to make it more playable - I'm referring to the "Redline Reactor" upgrade which temporarily increases the movement speed. As a community I think we can agree that Blizzard should at least have the decency to try making changes to the unit, and test these changes through patches and new expansions, before removing it in it's entirety. These are some changes I propose: Change: At least +1 armor, I think it should be +2. +50 heath (BC got +50 from BW to SC2, why not Carrier, why was Carrier armor decreased from 4 to 2 in the first place from BW to SC2?) Reason: I disagree with the point that the carrier is too slow and it's speed should be increased, rather I believe it should be a more durable unit. This is a way to create a role for the carrier that the colossus doesn't already fill (colossus is high damage, medium speed + maneuverability, low health, carrier is high health + armor, medium damage, low speed + maneuvarability) Change: Removal of the "Graviton Catapult" upgrade Reason: The investment in tech, and the cost (resources and time) to build the carrier is enough to justify the removal of this upgrade. Upgrades like this are present so a unit isn't awesome right after it is built, but Carriers come out relatively late and therefore don't need their awesomeness monitored in this way. If Colossus started with 9 range, or Zealots started with charge: T_T, but if Carriers start with whatever the heck Graviton Catapult even does, it's not a big deal. Now for some crazy, out there proposals: Change: Give the Carrier energy-based abilities. The Arbiter's "Stasis Field" is one I think would be good. Reason: Even with the changes I mentioned above, I still don't think the benefit to Protoss players for investing in Carriers is enough. The Colossus is a siege unit, that deals heavy splash damage, the Carrier is a siege unit that deals high single-unit damage. Giving the Carrier higher health and armor as I mentioned above are minimum requirements in my opinion, ultimately the only way the Carrier will be used over the Colossus is if it provides some other benefit(s). Argument for Stasis Field: Assuming the removal of the Mothership (which is a good thing in my opinion, there should be no hero units in SC, that includes the B345T-Thor!), Protoss will need something to replace Vortex (not saying Vortex is balanced, am saying Protoss need a way to remove key units from late game battles). This is an opinion I'm basing off of pro games I've seen, where it seems like Protoss are dead to the Zerg's BL + Infestor combination without an awesome Vortex, so a more balanced way to "Vortex" such as Stasis Field, could work. Change: Add some sort of passive(s), I don't know what. Regenerate army's shield faster in a radius under the carrier? Maybe always have a warp-in field under the Carrier? I don't know how difficult to implement, or practical these are so I'm not going to give reasons. It will be completely unacceptable if the Carrier is let go without being given a chance, I know 95% of SC fans agree, so we should keep this issue as hot as possible so Blizzard doesn't forget about it. David Kim should wake up every morning, with the first thought in his mind being: Frack, how do I fix the Carrier... | ||
|
vicml21
Canada165 Posts
On March 12 2012 00:23 Faiz Ali wrote: This is my first post on TL, hi everyone. This is an issue that's very important to me, so I decided to create an account and actually get my ideas out there (which are great in my head, let me tell you). The BC gets as little play as the Carrier, maybe marginally more, and it's getting an upgrade in an attempt to make it more playable - I'm referring to the "Redline Reactor" upgrade which temporarily increases the movement speed. As a community I think we can agree that Blizzard should at least have the decency to try making changes to the unit, and test these changes through patches and new expansions, before removing it in it's entirety. These are some changes I propose: Change: At least +1 armor, I think it should be +2. +50 heath (BC got +50 from BW to SC2, why not Carrier, why was Carrier armor decreased from 4 to 2 in the first place from BW to SC2?) Reason: I disagree with the point that the carrier is too slow and it's speed should be increased, rather I believe it should be a more durable unit. This is a way to create a role for the carrier that the colossus doesn't already fill (colossus is high damage, medium speed + maneuverability, low health, carrier is high health + armor, medium damage, low speed + maneuvarability) Change: Removal of the "Graviton Catapult" upgrade Reason: The investment in tech, and the cost (resources and time) to build the carrier is enough to justify the removal of this upgrade. Upgrades like this are present so a unit isn't awesome right after it is built, but Carriers come out relatively late and therefore don't need their awesomeness monitored in this way. If Colossus started with 9 range, or Zealots started with charge: T_T, but if Carriers start with whatever the heck Graviton Catapult even does, it's not a big deal. Now for some crazy, out there proposals: Change: Give the Carrier energy-based abilities. The Arbiter's "Stasis Field" is one I think would be good. Reason: Even with the changes I mentioned above, I still don't think the benefit to Protoss players for investing in Carriers is enough. The Colossus is a siege unit, that deals heavy splash damage, the Carrier is a siege unit that deals high single-unit damage. Giving the Carrier higher health and armor as I mentioned above are minimum requirements in my opinion, ultimately the only way the Carrier will be used over the Colossus is if it provides some other benefit(s). Argument for Stasis Field: Assuming the removal of the Mothership (which is a good thing in my opinion, there should be no hero units in SC, that includes the B345T-Thor!), Protoss will need something to replace Vortex (not saying Vortex is balanced, am saying Protoss need a way to remove key units from late game battles). This is an opinion I'm basing off of pro games I've seen, where it seems like Protoss are dead to the Zerg's BL + Infestor combination without an awesome Vortex, so a more balanced way to "Vortex" such as Stasis Field, could work. Change: Add some sort of passive(s), I don't know what. Regenerate army's shield faster in a radius under the carrier? Maybe always have a warp-in field under the Carrier? I don't know how difficult to implement, or practical these are so I'm not going to give reasons. It will be completely unacceptable if the Carrier is let go without being given a chance, I know 95% of SC fans agree, so we should keep this issue as hot as possible so Blizzard doesn't forget about it. David Kim should wake up every morning, with the first thought in his mind being: Frack, how do I fix the Carrier... I agree with the first 2 changes. Not sure how a carrier spell would do, I'd just rather have the carrier ability to micro a little better. But that last change, seems like a really good idea, but maybe not for the carrier, as that would probably encourage more deathball play.I'd REALLY like to see a skill like that for the mothership though lol. That kind of stuff would definitely be possible to test in the editor right now, that thing is a beast. | ||
|
Faiz Ali
Canada8 Posts
Another thing I want to point out is, Blizzard is creating a whole new unit to deal with Mutalisks (Tempest) when they could rework the Carrier to deal with Mutalisks, giving the Carrier 4 armor would by itself make it that much better vs. Mutalisks. I wonder how well having 1 Carrier, 1 HT w/ Storm, and 2 Cannons at each expansion would protect againt a flock of 20 Mutalisks, and how much the Carrier would actually contribute to the defense in that setup. | ||
|
BeeNu
615 Posts
Lurker has been just as an iconic unit for me as Carrier ever was. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On March 12 2012 02:35 Faiz Ali wrote: Another thing I want to point out is, Blizzard is creating a whole new unit to deal with Mutalisks (Tempest) when they could rework the Carrier to deal with Mutalisks, giving the Carrier 4 armor would by itself make it that much better vs. Mutalisks. I wonder how well having 1 Carrier, 1 HT w/ Storm, and 2 Cannons at each expansion would protect againt a flock of 20 Mutalisks, and how much the Carrier would actually contribute to the defense in that setup. Carrier + storm is actually a terrible combination, because storm deals splash to interceptors, which usually don't survive as a result. I do agree that the carrier should be more viable against muta balls, but I don't think extra armor would do it. Maybe the ability to spawn a secondary unit similar to the interceptor but with air splash? That way it wouldn't be totally imba by giving Zerg a chance to split his mutas to avoid damage. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
| ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
ooozer
Germany231 Posts
| ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
Most of this should be in the interceptor AI, so that you can send them out and slowly retreat while having them out. E.g.: Interceptors will check after every 2nd volley if the carrier is still engaging. If the carrier has an attack command (not attack move) they will stay out and combat target in the area they were originally launched at. Else they will return. This allows carriers to move while keeping their interceptors out and also to pull them back if needed by using the move command. One could think about an ability that sacrifices interceptors to negate 50% on the incoming damage as soon as the shields are down. This would significantly increase the longevity of carriers. | ||
|
Fueled
United States1610 Posts
I don't know how they would change the Carrier to be worth getting, but it should atleast be given a look at. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15391 Posts
Carriers don't need to be removed! They made that game amazing! | ||
|
topschutter
Netherlands93 Posts
| ||
|
Gladiator6
Sweden7024 Posts
On March 12 2012 00:23 Faiz Ali wrote: This is my first post on TL, hi everyone. This is an issue that's very important to me, so I decided to create an account and actually get my ideas out there (which are great in my head, let me tell you). The BC gets as little play as the Carrier, maybe marginally more, and it's getting an upgrade in an attempt to make it more playable - I'm referring to the "Redline Reactor" upgrade which temporarily increases the movement speed. As a community I think we can agree that Blizzard should at least have the decency to try making changes to the unit, and test these changes through patches and new expansions, before removing it in it's entirety. These are some changes I propose: Change: At least +1 armor, I think it should be +2. +50 heath (BC got +50 from BW to SC2, why not Carrier, why was Carrier armor decreased from 4 to 2 in the first place from BW to SC2?) Reason: I disagree with the point that the carrier is too slow and it's speed should be increased, rather I believe it should be a more durable unit. This is a way to create a role for the carrier that the colossus doesn't already fill (colossus is high damage, medium speed + maneuverability, low health, carrier is high health + armor, medium damage, low speed + maneuvarability) Change: Removal of the "Graviton Catapult" upgrade Reason: The investment in tech, and the cost (resources and time) to build the carrier is enough to justify the removal of this upgrade. Upgrades like this are present so a unit isn't awesome right after it is built, but Carriers come out relatively late and therefore don't need their awesomeness monitored in this way. If Colossus started with 9 range, or Zealots started with charge: T_T, but if Carriers start with whatever the heck Graviton Catapult even does, it's not a big deal. Now for some crazy, out there proposals: Change: Give the Carrier energy-based abilities. The Arbiter's "Stasis Field" is one I think would be good. Reason: Even with the changes I mentioned above, I still don't think the benefit to Protoss players for investing in Carriers is enough. The Colossus is a siege unit, that deals heavy splash damage, the Carrier is a siege unit that deals high single-unit damage. Giving the Carrier higher health and armor as I mentioned above are minimum requirements in my opinion, ultimately the only way the Carrier will be used over the Colossus is if it provides some other benefit(s). Argument for Stasis Field: Assuming the removal of the Mothership (which is a good thing in my opinion, there should be no hero units in SC, that includes the B345T-Thor!), Protoss will need something to replace Vortex (not saying Vortex is balanced, am saying Protoss need a way to remove key units from late game battles). This is an opinion I'm basing off of pro games I've seen, where it seems like Protoss are dead to the Zerg's BL + Infestor combination without an awesome Vortex, so a more balanced way to "Vortex" such as Stasis Field, could work. Change: Add some sort of passive(s), I don't know what. Regenerate army's shield faster in a radius under the carrier? Maybe always have a warp-in field under the Carrier? I don't know how difficult to implement, or practical these are so I'm not going to give reasons. It will be completely unacceptable if the Carrier is let go without being given a chance, I know 95% of SC fans agree, so we should keep this issue as hot as possible so Blizzard doesn't forget about it. David Kim should wake up every morning, with the first thought in his mind being: Frack, how do I fix the Carrier... Excellent post, at least this guy comes up with suggestions. I mean Blizzard haven't even tried to patch the carriers since the almost 3 years long WoL. | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
Another thing is that blizzard should listen to the community when there is a problem with a unit and they should look at how dota has evolved thanks to a great relationship between the game designer and the community. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
| ||
|
Orcasgt24
Canada3238 Posts
Oh wait we are taking the thor lol.... | ||
| ||
