EPTKILLING TREES IS UNACCEPTABLE and the carrier too ofc
We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 39
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fortheGG
United Kingdom1002 Posts
KILLING TREES IS UNACCEPTABLE and the carrier too ofc | ||
|
jpak
United States5045 Posts
yes. He should burn for his blasphemy  | ||
Olli
Austria24417 Posts
| ||
|
Shkudde
Netherlands709 Posts
On May 31 2012 01:53 Zanno wrote: why is there an argument about zerg's mechanical requirements in a thread about the carrier My thoughts exactly. On topic, I've always felt that if the build-time for carriers was decreased slightly they would be much more practical to include in your army mixture, right now it just takes SO long to get carriers up in numbers where they start to be worthwhile. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On May 31 2012 02:03 fortheGG wrote: Seems to me like they want HOTS to be sufficiently different so people won't complain they're pulling a modern warfare. Sad that its at the expense of the carrier. Problem is, that the Tempest has become a long range siege unit, ala the Brood Lord, but it can hit and ground apparently. That is exactly the role the Carrier fills. Basically Blizzard has realized that Protoss needs a long range siege unit, but instead of buffing Carriers so they are viable, they just create a new viable unit? Seems dumb, especially since the Carrier is loved. | ||
|
IPA
United States3206 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On May 30 2012 20:26 Eiii wrote: If a unit, ability, building, or whatever has an application-- no matter how rare-- then that's justification enough for its existence right there. That makes absolutely no sense. If you can replace something that only gets used once every 4 months with something that gets used every game and is an integral component of competitive play, that makes the game better. And making the game better is far more of a justification for changing something. On May 30 2012 20:26 Eiii wrote: What happened to not making design decisions based on 'what if's? I don't see how you could argue that the carrier is hurting the game right now. Adding a new unit specifically to replace the carrier could easily be more harmful to the game than keeping the current underused one in place-- so why the need to toy with things? By that logic, you shouldn't change anything at all. Any change could be more harmful, so change nothing. Whether the Carrier is replaced with a better unit is entirely up to Blizzard. It would be better for the game overall if it were replaced with a better unit. It would be worse for the game overall if it were replaced with a worse unit. The latter is less likely than the former, considering the Carrier's current performance. | ||
|
Psychonian
United States2322 Posts
The tempest is the new protoss capital ship, replacing the carrier. It has very long-ranged ("siege") weapons, for both anti-air and anti-ground. It was originally designed to handle masses of air units, but is also an effective ground support unit. The tempest launches an orb of energy with area-of-effect damage at airborne targets, and fires a beam of energy at ground targets. However, the anti-air splash was removed, as it was overlapping with the phoenix. This does not replace the carrier! This...thing....is meant for a completely different task! | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
 Zerg's can pop 20 corruptors because of the queen and Terran can just switch add ons and make 8-10 vikings well before the carrier can do its needed damage. The only time i have personally seen carriers work is when its a secret tech-switch and 4-6 carriers fly across the map killing everything. With the long build time and its costs that rarely happens of course. | ||
|
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
On May 31 2012 03:01 DreamChaser wrote: Carrier just isn't viable in SC2 Zerg's can pop 20 corruptors because of the queen and Terran can just switch add ons and make 8-10 vikings well before the carrier can do its needed damage. The only time i have personally seen carriers work is when its a secret tech-switch and 4-6 carriers fly across the map killing everything. With the long build time and its costs that rarely happens of course. Carriers are not exactly the thing you go for in BW either. Its very situational,highly map dependent,only used in PvT and its not even that good of a transition if you get scouted in time. The thing that kills of the carrier in SC2 is the root of all problems for protoss,the mother fucking colossus. You can't just transition into carriers ever really because the colossus is just too good and after you get them the terran is already pumping out vikings so it auto counters the carrier. If the colossus wouldn't exist I'm convinced the carrier would be viable to the same extent it was in BW.I don't know if you have ever seen it but a 4 carriers transition with templar and zealot support destroys fucking everything if the terran isn't making preemptive vikings.But you don't need that because LAZORS ZIUUUUUM ZIUUUUUM MASSS DANAMGZ OMGZZ exists. I swear as soon as my exams are over I'm going to make a thread like this one "We must fight for the removal of the colossus." | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On May 31 2012 02:35 IPA wrote: Starcraft 2: where everyone plays the weakest race with the highest mechanical difficulty. I see you understand the game now! If only everyone on TL did. Of course, BW was the same way, right? =) | ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
On May 30 2012 05:29 e945x01 wrote: Remove the colossus and buff carriers. ANYONE WITH ME? ADD IN THE REAVER 2.0 AND IT'S PERFECT. Call it a Revaer and give it like a tempest aoe attack against ground with a high cooldown. | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11047 Posts
On May 31 2012 03:08 TheKefka wrote: Carriers are not exactly the thing you go for in BW either. Its very situational,highly map dependent,only used in PvT and its not even that good of a transition if you get scouted in time. The thing that kills of the carrier in SC2 is the root of all problems for protoss,the mother fucking colossus. You can't just transition into carriers ever really because the colossus is just too good and after you get them the terran is already pumping out vikings so it auto counters the carrier. If the colossus wouldn't exist I'm convinced the carrier would be viable to the same extent it was in BW.I don't know if you have ever seen it but a 4 carriers transition with templar and zealot support destroys fucking everything if the terran isn't making preemptive vikings.But you don't need that because LAZORS ZIUUUUUM ZIUUUUUM MASSS DANAMGZ OMGZZ exists. I swear as soon as my exams are over I'm going to make a thread like this one "We must fight for the removal of the colossus." Fundamentally their design in sc2 has been flawed. There's ample reason to believe carriers could be adjusted to be more worthwhile in PvZ and maybe even with the right health tweaks viable in PvT. | ||
|
TheKefka
Croatia11752 Posts
| ||
|
DoctorPhil
Netherlands168 Posts
| ||
|
e945x01
United Kingdom10 Posts
On May 31 2012 07:25 DoctorPhil wrote: If any unit should be removed it's the damn colossus. Such a boring a-move-everything-dies unit and you see it every single damn game. Couldn't agree more, it's a ridiculously good unit but so easily countered which imo is bad unit design. especially in lower leagues. late-game PvP just comes down to who has the most colossi (which happens to be one the units with the biggest damage output) therefore we then a really anti-climatic jerky battle that last 10 seconds which happens to be really lame to watch as a spectator. | ||
|
PlacidPanda
United States246 Posts
| ||
|
Eiii
United States2566 Posts
On May 31 2012 02:37 NicolBolas wrote: That makes absolutely no sense. If you can replace something that only gets used once every 4 months with something that gets used every game and is an integral component of competitive play, that makes the game better. And making the game better is far more of a justification for changing something. I don't understand why adding one unit necessitates the removal of another. The carrier arguably has some uses right now, and it might see play in the future-- why take that away when the unit's hardly been explored yet? On May 31 2012 02:37 NicolBolas wrote: By that logic, you shouldn't change anything at all. Any change could be more harmful, so change nothing. Whether the Carrier is replaced with a better unit is entirely up to Blizzard. It would be better for the game overall if it were replaced with a better unit. It would be worse for the game overall if it were replaced with a worse unit. The latter is less likely than the former, considering the Carrier's current performance. Again, you're obsessed with replacing the carrier and I just don't see why that's something that absolutely has to happen. | ||
|
Zerum
Sweden348 Posts
| ||
|
Coolness53
United States668 Posts
| ||
| ||
