EPTReally loved the carrier in BW. Would like to see blizzard show it some love instead of scraping it in HoTS.
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Rorschach
United States623 Posts
Really loved the carrier in BW. Would like to see blizzard show it some love instead of scraping it in HoTS. | ||
|
lost_artz
United States366 Posts
Ground Attack: 5(+1)(x2) Air Attack: 5(+1)(x2) of Interceptors to Ground Attack: 10(+1)(x1) Air Attack: 10(+1)(x1) Blizzard would also need to half(?) the fire rate of Interceptors to keep the same DPS. -edited to further explain concept In other words, 10 damage and 1 shot vs 5 and 2 that way Interceptor damage doesn't get reduced so heavily by armor upgrades. So, for instance 10 dmg shot reduce by 1 armor = 9 dmg vs 5 reduced by 1 = 4x2 (2 shots that is) = 8. Which translates into more damage being dealt vs units with armor without changing the actual DPS of Carriers. Keeping them just as effective vs light units and making them actually better vs armored. | ||
|
ChinhchinH
Australia9 Posts
On May 29 2012 13:41 lost_artz wrote: All that needs to be done to make Carriers viable is change the Ground Attack: 5(+1)(x2) Air Attack: 5(+1)(x2) of Interceptors to Ground Attack: 10(+1)(x1) Air Attack: 10(+1)(x1) In other words, 10 damage and 1 shot vs 5 and 2 that way Interceptor damage doesn't get reduced so heavily by armor upgrades. Wow that's the exact same thing I've been thinking about for awhile but I thought I would be the only one who thinks that is a viable idea. I also believe they need to reduce the production time as the time it takes to build the carrier + intercepters is too long. | ||
|
KingofGods
Canada1218 Posts
| ||
|
lost_artz
United States366 Posts
On May 29 2012 13:51 ChinhchinH wrote: Wow that's the exact same thing I've been thinking about for awhile but I thought I would be the only one who thinks that is a viable idea. I also believe they need to reduce the production time as the time it takes to build the carrier + intercepters is too long. Changing production times can be tricky business. Make them to short and it opens up new timings for protoss to abuse. As is there are already some decent air builds with Carriers that are quiet good vs Zerg. WhiteRa in particular is good with these builds. I think a better option to this would be making Carriers move at 2.0 instead of 1.875 allowing them to retreat faster. Examples of WhiteRa using Carriers.+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Jumbled
1543 Posts
On May 29 2012 14:17 lost_artz wrote: Changing production times can be tricky business. Make them to short and it opens up new timings for protoss to abuse. As is there are already some decent air builds with Carriers that are quiet good vs Zerg. WhiteRa in particular is good with these builds. I think a better option to this would be making Carriers move at 2.0 instead of 1.875 allowing them to retreat faster. Examples of WhiteRa using Carriers.+ Show Spoiler + That's really not an issue. Carrier rushing is about as viable as one-base broodlords. A decrease in production time isn't going to change that. | ||
|
lost_artz
United States366 Posts
On May 29 2012 14:01 KingofGods wrote: Than you must also double the interceptor hp because if you start targeting interceptors (which is automatic) you kill them twice as fast and actually reducing dps. I think you misunderstand. Carriers would still have 8 Interceptors, the Interceptors would simply fire 1 shot worth 10 dmg vs 2 shots (at the same time) that deal 5 dmg each. So killing Interceptors now vs changing them wouldnt change the DPS at all. On that note though, I would like to correct a mistake I made in saying that the Interceptors attack speed would need to be halved. It could be kept the same as all you're doing is taking 2 shots fired at the same time and combining them into 1. I made the mistake of thinking about the way BC's attack in rapid succession whereas Interceptors attack twice but in 1 go, if that makes sense. | ||
|
lost_artz
United States366 Posts
On May 29 2012 14:26 Jumbled wrote: That's really not an issue. Carrier rushing is about as viable as one-base broodlords. A decrease in production time isn't going to change that. I think you underestimate Carriers when used in the early-mid game especially vs Zerg who don't have any strong anti-air until Lair tech. If you still think I'm wrong I would encourage you to watch WhiteRa's stream he uses Air play fairly often. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On May 29 2012 13:41 lost_artz wrote: All that needs to be done to make Carriers viable is change the Ground Attack: 5(+1)(x2) Air Attack: 5(+1)(x2) of Interceptors to Ground Attack: 10(+1)(x1) Air Attack: 10(+1)(x1) Blizzard would also need to half(?) the fire rate of Interceptors to keep the same DPS. -edited to further explain concept In other words, 10 damage and 1 shot vs 5 and 2 that way Interceptor damage doesn't get reduced so heavily by armor upgrades. So, for instance 10 dmg shot reduce by 1 armor = 9 dmg vs 5 reduced by 1 = 4x2 (2 shots that is) = 8. Which translates into more damage being dealt vs units with armor without changing the actual DPS of Carriers. Keeping them just as effective vs light units and making them actually better vs armored. This wouldn't really effect much. This will only really change carriers vs corruptors. If you're planning on going carrier vs zerg you should be getting +2 attack researching before you start building your first carrier. Most zerg won't get armour upgrades for their corruptors, and with +2 attack the current carrier does exactly the same amount of damage as your version vs an un-upgraded corruptor. It have 0 effect on PvT where the carrier is trash because the interceptors die so fast to stim marines and vikings can be produced so quickly. In PvP it would provide a slight advantage in killing upgraded stalkers, but honestly if you are keeping immortals are zealots under your carrier fleet stalkers are terrible vs carriers anyway. VR are a terrible answer to mass carrier if the carriers have upgrades and the voids don't so stalker / archon / HT is your only hope (in other words you're screwed unless the carrier guy messes up) Notice that everything I've said assumes you have a bunch of carriers on the field, most people die before then anyway because of the cost of carriers and how crap they are until you have critical mass. | ||
|
Exia0276
Hong Kong62 Posts
We need carriers and interceptors retrofitted with thermal lances. | ||
|
foxmulder_ms
United States140 Posts
| ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On May 29 2012 14:56 Exia0276 wrote: So they're gonna get rid of the mommaship and the tempest? Who's gonna take down dat BL Infestor? We need carriers and interceptors retrofitted with thermal lances. Tempest hasn't been removed. Last I heard it's been changed to be a long range (siege) flying unit that can hit both ground and air instead of AOE. Turns out critical mass of colossus plus air AOE was pretty strong....  | ||
|
lost_artz
United States366 Posts
On May 29 2012 14:51 Kharnage wrote: This wouldn't really effect much. This will only really change carriers vs corruptors. If you're planning on going carrier vs zerg you should be getting +2 attack researching before you start building your first carrier. Most zerg won't get armour upgrades for their corruptors, and with +2 attack the current carrier does exactly the same amount of damage as your version vs an un-upgraded corruptor. It have 0 effect on PvT where the carrier is trash because the interceptors die so fast to stim marines and vikings can be produced so quickly. In PvP it would provide a slight advantage in killing upgraded stalkers, but honestly if you are keeping immortals are zealots under your carrier fleet stalkers are terrible vs carriers anyway. VR are a terrible answer to mass carrier if the carriers have upgrades and the voids don't so stalker / archon / HT is your only hope (in other words you're screwed unless the carrier guy messes up) Notice that everything I've said assumes you have a bunch of carriers on the field, most people die before then anyway because of the cost of carriers and how crap they are until you have critical mass. While it wouldn't drastically alter gameplay it would change things a bit more than you're letting on. One last comparison and then I'll be getting off for the night - you can have the final word =). Interceptors dealing 10 damage vs a Marine with +2 Armor would have it's damage reduced by 2 per attack. Whereas Interceptors dealing 5 damage (x2) vs a Marine with +2 Armor would have it's damage reduce by 2 (x2) or 4 in total per attack. That adds up over time, especially with 8 Interceptors per Carrier. In essence 32 more damage would be reduced vs a Marine with +2 arm if Carriers stayed at 5 dmg (x2) vs being changed to 10 dmg. Of course that example is kinda flawed since the Marine would more than likely die before all the Interceptors could attack, but over time this difference in damage reduction would result in units dying faster = stronger Carriers = more viable. | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On May 29 2012 15:25 lost_artz wrote: While it wouldn't drastically alter gameplay it would change things a bit more than you're letting on. One last comparison and then I'll be getting off for the night - you can have the final word =). Interceptors dealing 10 damage vs a Marine with +2 Armor would have it's damage reduced by 2 per attack. Whereas Interceptors dealing 5 damage (x2) vs a Marine with +2 Armor would have it's damage reduce by 2 (x2) or 4 in total per attack. That adds up over time, especially with 8 Interceptors per Carrier. In essence 32 more damage would be reduced vs a Marine with +2 arm if Carriers stayed at 5 dmg (x2) vs being changed to 10 dmg. Of course that example is kinda flawed since the Marine would more than likely die before all the Interceptors could attack, but over time this difference in damage reduction would result in units dying faster = stronger Carriers = more viable. I assume we're talking late game, since we're discussing how armour upgrades effect carriers so I'll stand by my points. If there are a pile of marines, your interceptors are all dead. It doesn't matter how much damage they are not doing after the stimmed marine ball has killed them all. If they are countering carriers with marines then you need colossus or HT for storm. Even if you position carriers well the interceptors are fodder to marines and you'll end up spending all your bank on interceptors that can't kill anything. I'll also stand by the fact that with your damage changes (10 + 1 instead of 5+1 * 2) benefits less from upgrades vs non armoured units while having exactly the same damage vs armoured units and only being better for un-upgraded carriers vs armoured units. If you are planning on getting carriers, you should be getting air attack upgrades in advance, in the midgame, so when you start getting carriers they already have the upgrades they require. This is exactly the same mistake terrans tend to make with BCs. At the 25 minute mark they suddenly start getting BCs with no air attack or armour upgrades and wonder why they suck vs 3/3 stalkers. The only race I see consistantly doing it right is zerg. They stay ling infestor until 3/3 is done, and only then do they start making ultralisks. The upgrades are a requirement for the viability of these units in the late game. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
The carrier will always be shit as long as interceptors can be killed by a few fungals/a pack of marines. At the very least, if interceptors remain killable they need to function like broodlings and regenerate for each attack wave. I.e. old interceptors "die" upon returning and are replaced by new ones. Killing interceptors only mitigates the damage for that sortie, it doesn't turn the carrier into an expensive floating paper weight. | ||
|
SCPlato
United States249 Posts
| ||
|
NoS-Craig
Australia3127 Posts
It'll suck seeing it go though as for me it feels like a emblem of sorts like you said for the Protoss. It's their Capital command ship where their leaders fly into battle and such like the Terran Battlecruiser. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
For those of you who might not know: Before the Tempest was the monstrosity you saw in the HotS preview, it was supposed to replace the Carrier in WoL, but it's design was near exact to the Carrier, except a few things were different. The Tempest (earlier idea for Carrier replacement) In comparison to the carrier, the tempest was slightly weaker, cost fewer resources to build, faster build time, faster move speed. The tempest had powerful shields and, while having no armaments of its own, carried a number of small fighter-type drones called shuriken that launched, surrounded and swarmed a target, doing little damage individually but significant damage when combined whilst maneuvering rapidly, making it difficult to destroy. The drones could be auto-built with a right click, a behavior which was carried over to the carrier. The shuriken made melee attacks. Special Shields The tempest was strong against ground targets, but was ill-equipped to handle air-to-air encounters; it had poor air defense as its shields did not activate against air attacks, but the shields took little damage from ground attacks. _____________________ I'm not saying they should change the Carrier to the "Tempest", but traits of the Tempest would surely benefit the Carrier's viability. If they want to remove it, I definitely think Blizzard should try some stuff out before they give one of the most iconic units a boot from multiplayer. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
Protoss air superiority is the weakest of the 3 races. It's true. The Mothership Vortex is the one coin toss against BL/Infestor. Phoenixes get shut down so hard by just 1 Fungal and do not trade cost effectively with Corruptors. Terran have their mobile sky seige tanks and the most broken unit in the game. Even in a mirror where air superiority is matched, Protoss have Stalkers to snipe any Interceptors and the Carriers themselves. It seems like two classes of units (light generalists and anti armor fighters) hard counter Carriers in the current environment and those counters also happen to be extremely common in the meta. You could do two changes to fix each relationship: -For anti-armor, you could make the Carrier not an armor unit. That would balance out the cost ratios between Carrier/Viking/Corruptor/Stalker. The Interceptor is already a light unit, so why not? Its aesthetic is very floaty and light. -For mass generalists, an armor (or shield!) upgrade would disproportionately punish smaller damage values and might actually allow interceptors to live long enough in a marine ball to do any DPS., much like the Ultralisk armor upgrade. Either that or make it an animation like some people have mentioned, because the extra armor might not even be enough. With this whole Tempest thing, if what they say is true about it having the role of being a long-range seige air unit, they're pretty much reinventing the wheel, because that's what the Carrier did in SC1, and that's what it was meant to do here, but in a different way to deal with the times. | ||
|
ryx
Philippines38 Posts
Save the carrier!!! As much as I love the Mothership, I'd be alright with giving her up to keep the Carrier. Protoss capital ships ftw! PS - Bring back the arbiter or something if you just HAVE to remove the mothership hehe. | ||
| ||
