|
United States7483 Posts
On January 26 2012 09:34 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +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) Nothing makes carriers more vulnerable than colossus other than their speed. If they had a better capacity to pull in and out of engagements, there would be no difference. As of right now, they struggle to keep themselves alive, but this would be true for any air unit with their speed. As I said in the op, Brood Lords are commonly assisted with infestors, which is how they manage to stay alive. All they need is a little speed!
They're more vulnerable due to worse DPS than a colossus (splash is pretty good), and the ability to have all of their interecepters destroyed in a second or two flat so they can's even fight back.
Not to mention when you go carriers in the game, they're just a huge mineral sink assuming they live through a fight, constantly draining your pool of money.
|
On January 26 2012 12:28 Zato-1 wrote:
Carriers get wrecked so hard by Corruptors and Marines (both requiring a lot less tech than the Carrier), that with your proposed changes, the unit will still suck, no one will get it, and therefore the value of the unit to the Starcraft franchise will keep on being very low.
I will accept your points only if you provide a plausible numerical solution for the Carrier, such that the unit is good enough that progamers will sometimes use it, while still being balanced; if you cannot suggest a plausible numerical tweak, then the assertion that it's not hard to make it fit into the game because "it just needs to be rebalanced" loses quite a bit of credibility, IMO.
If you're getting carriers you should also have a mothership and archons, carriers are extremely good versus Zerg in extreme late game scenarios. Corruptors are pretty terrible if they can't focus fire a carrier down.
|
Without carriers I cannot call this "game" STARCRAFT!
|
Have you ever seen Brown vs. LosirA? Carriers are pretty strong already, and just another component in that 1 dimensional "protoss deathball". Sure, we don't see them a lot in games, but we don't see a lot of stuff in games that we KNOW is good (burrowed banelings, ravens, etc). I don't have strong feelings about the carrier making it in one way or the other in HotS, but it certainly doesn't need a buff.
|
I say keep it, if not for any other reason than manner. Best feeling in the world is pwning with carriers....
|
Dude, half the joy I get in watching a PvX in which the game is already won is seeing whether or not the Protoss builds a fleet beacon and stompin' down with some CARRIER ACTION!@!@!@!
Add this to my BW nostalgia and maybe the existence of a meta-game where carriers could be used as a siege unit, and I really hope it makes it to HotS.
|
10,000 people occupy Anaheim with signs:
Carrier has arrived.
|
I also have a soft-spot for the carrier. Mass carrier+cannons was my favourite noob-strat back in BW, 8 stargates all warping in carriers ftw!
For SC2 just give it a long-range, long cooldown blink with a cast-time, call it some kind of hyperdrive. Problem solved.
Can even give it a cool animation when its warping out ala star trek, could be a really cool way to engage in a battle "Annnnd here come the carriers warping in!!!" Rather than "Here come the carriers crawling over..."
|
i believe carriers are not only completely balanced, but also extremely powerful and recently they have become a staple in all of my matchups (even PvP). i pretty much never get collossi in PvZ or PvT anymore.
Soon i will start winning tournaments with carriers. then people will see that this game is far from being figured out.
|
I think the Carrier is a very good unit. I played TvP where the guy i played against actually used carriers very nicely. I did make vikings, but he had solid control and used his blink stalkers to pick off the vikings if his carriers were endanger. I feel like carriers don't really fit the death ball style, but he used them to pick off bases and stuff. and with the ability to mass recall with his mothership any time they were in danger he pulled them back....wish i had the replay of this as this was awhile ago. He played really well and I think he thought out how he wanted to use them nicely.
|
While ur at it bring back the Guardian...
We will get something better as replacement for the Carrier, something which hopefully can stand in for being an "emblem" of the protoss race.
My thoughts on the Colossus: Super awesome flashy unit, with sick much synergy with all other protoss units. This is a good thing!
It's the super unit, which is needed to defeat massed units in engagements, while still being able to cliffwalk and being targeted as air. This is super protossy.
It requires a lot of attention, if it needs to do it's job at full potential, lots of micro needed/good forcefields/target fireing as it hits in a line.
My problem with it is that, what makes it so good in a death ball. Is that it sits ontop of your other units.
I already hate the fact that air units can bunch up like they do, but a stalker/colossus/voidray ball that only have the radius of that of the stalkers, is just a bit silly and perhaps too powerful.
|
There is a thread called the future of the carrier... if you guys need further intel... would link it but I am only on my phone atm.
I find the movement speed of the carrier to be its main problem as well.
Also I think the collossus does belong into this discussion as well... I believe it is forcing a way too strong response from either races because if you dont have Vikings or Corruptors or Collossi yourself you will be decimated most of the times. Seems bad for the game to and I believe even most toss agree with me on that.
If the Carrier would be used more we could possibly fix the deathball issue by adding a unit to the arsenal of Protosses (the carrier) which could do what the Collossus was actually meant to do in the early stages. Raiding bases with some speed added to carriers they could be used for harrassment as well as adding pure attack power to the Protoss army.
I am Zerg btw. so no bias here at all
|
On January 26 2012 14:53 Arisen wrote:
Have you ever seen Brown vs. LosirA? Carriers are pretty strong already, and just another component in that 1 dimensional "protoss deathball". Sure, we don't see them a lot in games, but we don't see a lot of stuff in games that we KNOW is good (burrowed banelings, ravens, etc). I don't have strong feelings about the carrier making it in one way or the other in HotS, but it certainly doesn't need a buff.
I don't think Carriers were the reason he won that. Archon toilet basically killed all the broods.
SC without Carriers wouldn't be the same. I hope they don't remove it. T_T
|
the role the carrier could have eventually had disappeared when ka was removed from the game
|
Whenever I read analysis that makes a specific point to mention the 'deathball' I sort of stop considering it credible. Every race operates in much the same way with how they engage. That is straight up, all my units balled up against all of yours save for the few I dedicate to harass. Theres nothing intrinsic to protoss and their 'deathball' variant except for a long past time when people couldn't deal with a 200/200 protoss army. That hasn't been the case for a loooooong time. Carriers have no potential to change the way army engagements in SC2 work IMO and you certainly haven't outlined any. They can certainly be buffed to be useful but that isn't necessarily a desirable thing over replacing the unit wholesale with something more interesting.
|
On January 26 2012 16:09 Elwar wrote:
Whenever I read analysis that makes a specific point to mention the 'deathball' I sort of stop considering it credible. Every race operates in much the same way with how they engage. That is straight up, all my units balled up against all of yours save for the few I dedicate to harass. Theres nothing intrinsic to protoss and their 'deathball' variant except for a long past time when people couldn't deal with a 200/200 protoss army. That hasn't been the case for a loooooong time. Carriers have no potential to change the way army engagements in SC2 work IMO and you certainly haven't outlined any. They can certainly be buffed to be useful but that isn't necessarily a desirable thing over replacing the unit wholesale with something more interesting.
Watched any TvZ lately? Spread out tanks controlling large areas of space while the zerg looks for the perfect way to flank the formation. Meanwhile you have smaller skirmishes of marines vs mutalisks going on, and eventually the painstaking micro battle that is ghost/viking vs infestor/BL. There's a lot of unit trading going on with each player trying to find an edge, get more bases and get more ahead. Protoss doesn't operate this way: you want to trade as little as possible so that your army can eventually overpower your opponent with one big attack. It's simply because their units are weak in small numbers but great once you have enough splash damage (colossi) and plenty of meatshields, and its makes for very uninteresting gameplay. I do agree that carriers probably wouldn't fix this.
The only time you ever see a "deathball" in TvZ is when the terran masses thor/hellion, but thats a horrible strategy to begin with.
|
On January 26 2012 15:59 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 26 2012 14:53 Arisen wrote:
Have you ever seen Brown vs. LosirA? Carriers are pretty strong already, and just another component in that 1 dimensional "protoss deathball". Sure, we don't see them a lot in games, but we don't see a lot of stuff in games that we KNOW is good (burrowed banelings, ravens, etc). I don't have strong feelings about the carrier making it in one way or the other in HotS, but it certainly doesn't need a buff. I don't think Carriers were the reason he won that. Archon toilet basically killed all the broods. SC without Carriers wouldn't be the same. I hope they don't remove it. T_T
Carriers were absolutely the reason he lost that game. LosirA spread his broods to minimize the toilet and you need to focus down carriers with corrupters, and with vorte,that's not possible, because they're just going to get toilet'd. Carriers are really strong; I'm not saying they need a nerf, but they do not need a buff.
|
You have my vote. Carriers are awesome.
Carriers have not been patched at all since release. Carriers could be plenty useful, just give interceptors a few armor or more HP. Please Blizz, don't kill the Carrier. (no pun intended)
Save our Capital Ship!
|
At the very least, I hope they just bring the carrier back into HOTS in its current state. We still see players like WhiteRa bust out the carrier once in awhile and the games are so much fun to watch... and it would still be a unit that we could always use in 4v4s or FFA for fun. If they just remove it and say that it will still be in custom games/single player, that won't be good enough imo. Units like the goliath being in the single player means nothing to me.
That all being said, I really hate the argument that they play similar roles. Their role is as similar to the collosus as the HT is to collosus, if not less.
On top of all that, they are a more fun unit. Making them more microable, or giving them an ability might bring life back into the unit.
All things said, I really don't know why Blizzard would remove the carrier as a unit from the final product. The bottom line is, the SC2 community has been very clear that they want the unit to remain in the game and many were not happy with it being removed. I hope they will listen to their customers and make us happy (again... even if they leave it in as a weak unit at the least).
|
Elwar if you were referring to me, then dont get me wrong I am not saying the Collossus is unbeatable just that it promotes boring play as it kinda turns all match ups containing Collossus into a AA vs Collossi battle. If you like your Collossi thats fine but as I mentioned alot of Protoss dont and I guess alot of nonetoss dont either ;-).
Deathballing is certainly a problem that occurs too much and kinda is as you say the concept of most battles in SC2 but giving units to the players that could actually be used for harrassment more easily might help progress the game towards a more multifront attack game on all skilllevels not just the higher levels.
Bagi thanks for bringing up he TvZ was gonna mention it but decided I would mess up the explaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
