|
On May 31 2012 03:08 TheKefka wrote:Show nested quote +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."
Even if you removed the colossus so that terran wasn't preemptively making vikings they will definitly have a reactored starport from about 10:30 for medivacs anyway. With the carrier movement speed terran can just fall back while making vikings 2 at a time and then win.
|
The big issues with the Carrier are it's build time, the fact that Interceptors evaporate under fire from just a handful of Marines, and that both Zerg and Terran already counter it by building the counter to the Colossus. A buildtime reduction, an increase to the armor of both the Carrier and the Interceptors are obvious solutions, with things like changing the range of the Carrier or increasing Interceptor health all additional options depending on how the changes affect balance. The issue with the Colossus is trickier. Now, the Colossus isn't going anywhere, it's one of Blizzards new units and there is no way they are removing it for a unit they never wanted to have in SC2 in the first place. So I suggest a way to re-tool the Colossus (much like the Thor is getting changed) to try and keep it while eliminating the counter overlap they share with Zerg and Terran.
Decrease the Colossus' health and make it a normal ground unit (no longer vulnerable to AtA attacks), but keep it's cliff-walking ability. Replace the shield of the Colossus with a version of the Hardened Shield that only works on GtA attacks, so the Colossus retains a weakness to air (now AtG attacks). With Banshees and Mutas being the new units to counter the Colossus that opens up the viability of Protoss Air, while allowing you to tech to Colossus.
|
On May 31 2012 09:48 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 03:08 TheKefka wrote: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." Even if you removed the colossus so that terran wasn't preemptively making vikings they will definitly have a reactored starport from about 10:30 for medivacs anyway. With the carrier movement speed terran can just fall back while making vikings 2 at a time and then win.
The same things goes for the colossus,ofc there is a way for a terran to get back in the game.But if your sitting on carriers and he is just starting to make vikings you aren't going to sit around and wait till he has 12 of them.You go siege his shit.
We are just talking out of our ass here but tweaked carriers would work and they would have their place.
|
The more and more I think about it — the more I love my originally crazy idea of a carrier-reaver hybrid.
Be it Kamikaze-able interceptors on a more-or-less regular carrier, or a super reaver that can build interceptors in addition to scarabs.
I think it would be great for giving the carrier more skill requirement, allowing it to be kept, while also great to replace the rather stupid colossus unit, so that it can be ditched.
|
I use to say : get rid of the carrier. because I never use it anyways. but then i thought, who cares if I dont use it. Its been a unit in my favorit game for over 10 years now. blizzard needs to make it more accessible, that is all
|
On May 31 2012 01:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2012 21:05 Destructicon wrote:
So your argument is invalid for several reasons, and you didn't even post numbers, if you want us to believe Zerg is more mechanically demanding, post a compilation of statistics gathered over 100 + games, because your argument holds no weight or substance. The APM and relative mechanical requirements of each race are well-known. It's ridiculous that Terran players are so insecure about their skill level that they have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands is the end of the world or something. Feel free to read this thread, and use the search button or Google to easily find more discussions like it. On average, most people have higher APM with Zerg. Aside from the data, it's also pretty intuitive: there's more stuff to do as Zerg than there is as Terran, and more stuff to do as Terran than there is at Protoss. You can also find replays of higher level Random players, and you'll quickly see that most people conform to this trend.
"It's ridiculous that Terran players are so insecure about their skill level that they have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands is the end of the world or something."
Actually you know what the ridiculous thing is? The fact that you are dont reading your personnal messages(i wanted to continue this "discussion" there) and instead still blabbering the same retardness here in the carrier topic. What insecurities? I honestly think that Terran is more MECHANICALLY demanding then zerg and not just me but many other people in the Race Switching(i already said twice to check it out) topic but ofc dont check it out at all just ignore what other people say and spout your own biased nonsense like a 9 year old zerg fanboy.
"
You can also find replays of higher level Random players, and you'll quickly see that most people conform to this trend.
"
O rlly? Just read what i said above.
And here is your own sentence right back at you:
It's ridiculous that you are so insecure about your skill level that you have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands(Zerg) is the end of the world or something.
------------
Oh btw Carriers ftw! :D
|
What stills shocks me is that no attempt has been made to fix any single issue in the carrier; not even a small one like build time decrease. I have a bad feeling that Blizzard don't want the carrier in the game; maybe to get rid of all those interceptors which strain their servers?
|
Hey Sazbak do yourself a favor and just ignore him. Talking to him is like talking to a brick wall.
On topic:
I just played around with the carrier in the unit tester. Basically its a cool unit. I just don`t really like the way the interceptors work. If you attack a unit the carrier lunches its interceptors at range 8 and the interceptors will continue to attack that one unit until the carrier is at range 14(?). To switch targets you need to be within range 8. This means: To attack multiple small targets you have to be at range 8 and stay there. It also means that the interceptors will chase fleeing units. The carrier could be such a cool unit when you change just a few numbers. They could increase the carrier attack range to 10. They could allow the carrier to switch targets up to range 14 without the interceptors returning to the carrier. There is a lot of potential in the carrier. All they have to do is change a few numbers. Especially the building time, the building time of interceptors and the cost of interceptors are unnecessary high if you look at the current state of the carrier. There is no need to remove a unit if you can just change a few numbers and have a very cool unique and useful unit.
And slightly off topic just because i noticed that right now: Why does the air armor of all races cost more then every other upgrade? It makes no sense. The requirement of the Fleet Beacon for the toss air upgrades above level 1 is something else that makes a air switch more difficult. There are quite a lot of requirements and upgrades in the game that were put in place in early beta to balance something and really seem to be no longer necessary if you look at the current game. (Raven upgrades, Hydra range, certain energy upgrades, carrier inceptor lunch upgrade..)
|
On May 31 2012 09:48 Kharnage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 03:08 TheKefka wrote: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." Even if you removed the colossus so that terran wasn't preemptively making vikings they will definitly have a reactored starport from about 10:30 for medivacs anyway. With the carrier movement speed terran can just fall back while making vikings 2 at a time and then win.
Well, removing the collossi would mean that you could nerf the viking and the corruptors, because, let's face it, the biggest reason why they are as strong as they are now is to fight the collossi.
|
carrier ftw ! please, blizzard, keep it and tweak it !
|
On May 31 2012 08:23 Eiii wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 02:37 NicolBolas wrote:On May 30 2012 20:26 Eiii wrote:On May 30 2012 18:38 NicolBolas wrote:
And most of all, you shouldn't leave something around just because it might, one day be used in a worthwhile game. Maybe once ever year. Or something.
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. 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?
You don't understand that because you ignored the important part of my post. I'll quote myself:
On May 31 2012 02:37 NicolBolas wrote:
The more units you have, the harder it is to balance the game. Either something's going to be useless due to role overlap, or something's going to be over-powered. Every change you make potentially affects every unit in the game. The more units you have in the game means that it's harder to make balance changes. Giving a unit an extra +5 vs Armored means that it must be balanced against every Armored unit in the game. If there are 40 Armored units it could shoot at, then you have a much greater chance of screwing something up. Worst-case, a useless unit goes from useless to OP, because the thing that made them useless was nerfed.
It's already hard enough to balance SC2 as is. They don't need to make it harder, which is all that having useless units will do.
So there is a cap on the number of different units the game is going to have. A useless unit is a unit that is taking up valuable space. Therefore, if they want to add something, they also need to remove something.
|
On May 31 2012 20:03 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 09:48 Kharnage wrote:On May 31 2012 03:08 TheKefka wrote: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." Even if you removed the colossus so that terran wasn't preemptively making vikings they will definitly have a reactored starport from about 10:30 for medivacs anyway. With the carrier movement speed terran can just fall back while making vikings 2 at a time and then win. Well, removing the collossi would mean that you could nerf the viking and the corruptors, because, let's face it, the biggest reason why they are as strong as they are now is to fight the collossi.
Removing colossus would also mean that terran will immediately go for ghosts. It removes the only insecurity in the mid game that terran has which is 'are they getting templar or colossus first'.
Plus it would be super hard to nerf corruptor / viking without breaking TvZ and PvZ
|
I wish Blizzard would replace mothership with arbiter. Hero units suck.
|
On May 31 2012 19:21 Sazbak wrote:
Actually you know what the ridiculous thing is? The fact that you are dont reading your personnal messages(i wanted to continue this "discussion" there) and instead still blabbering the same retardness here in the carrier topic.
I have better things to do than respond to PMs from 3 post sockpuppet accounts.
|
All I want is that the Carrier returns with better interceptors.
Maybe interceptors that drop/launch scarabs instead of shooting beams?
|
On May 31 2012 19:21 Sazbak wrote:Show nested quote +On May 31 2012 01:03 sunprince wrote:On May 30 2012 21:05 Destructicon wrote:
So your argument is invalid for several reasons, and you didn't even post numbers, if you want us to believe Zerg is more mechanically demanding, post a compilation of statistics gathered over 100 + games, because your argument holds no weight or substance. The APM and relative mechanical requirements of each race are well-known. It's ridiculous that Terran players are so insecure about their skill level that they have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands is the end of the world or something. Feel free to read this thread, and use the search button or Google to easily find more discussions like it. On average, most people have higher APM with Zerg. Aside from the data, it's also pretty intuitive: there's more stuff to do as Zerg than there is as Terran, and more stuff to do as Terran than there is at Protoss. You can also find replays of higher level Random players, and you'll quickly see that most people conform to this trend. "It's ridiculous that Terran players are so insecure about their skill level that they have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands is the end of the world or something." Actually you know what the ridiculous thing is? The fact that you are dont reading your personnal messages(i wanted to continue this "discussion" there) and instead still blabbering the same retardness here in the carrier topic. What insecurities? I honestly think that Terran is more MECHANICALLY demanding then zerg and not just me but many other people in the Race Switching(i already said twice to check it out) topic but ofc dont check it out at all just ignore what other people say and spout your own biased nonsense like a 9 year old zerg fanboy. " You can also find replays of higher level Random players, and you'll quickly see that most people conform to this trend. " O rlly? Just read what i said above. And here is your own sentence right back at you: It's ridiculous that you are so insecure about your skill level that you have to dispute this, as if being the race with medium mechanical demands(Zerg) is the end of the world or something. ------------ Oh btw Carriers ftw! :D
Fastest player in the Gsl is puzzle. Just sayin. He already looks like a fool there's no reason to keep replying ^^
|
On May 30 2012 16:26 ppshchik wrote:
Fight for Terran Mech if you want the Carrier back, no mech = no carriers.
Which is funny, because Terran mech vs Protoss is very slowly making it's way into the meta game. It's insanely difficult, because all of the usual reasons that Terran mech is difficult are magnified several times over against Protoss, but it's been done a few times recently with mixed results. MKP smashed White-Ra with it at IPL4, but by the same token Jinro completely failed with it against Tassadar last night in the GSTL, so... not saying it's completely viable yet, but it's shown to at least be a possibility. I would keep my eyes on PL and GSTL, as those are the places you are most likely to see experimentation like that.
But I do agree that carriers will definitely start to see a lot of use when Terran mech becomes a viable option against Protoss.
On May 30 2012 16:31 lorkac wrote:
Imagine if carriers had 14 range
They do, sort of. A carrier needs to get within range 8 of it's target before it will launch all it's interceptors, but once the interceptors are out, the carrier can pull away to range 14 and the interceptors will continue to engage that unit.
|
On June 01 2012 13:12 HelioSeven wrote:They do, sort of. A carrier needs to get within range 8 of it's target before it will launch all it's interceptors, but once the interceptors are out, the carrier can pull away to range 14 and the interceptors will continue to engage that unit.
No. As far as I remember interceptors have a leash of 8 and a range of 3. Aparently liquipedia says a range of 2, so that makes 10 total.
|
On June 01 2012 18:08 Xapti wrote:Show nested quote +On June 01 2012 13:12 HelioSeven wrote:On May 30 2012 16:31 lorkac wrote:
Imagine if carriers had 14 range They do, sort of. A carrier needs to get within range 8 of it's target before it will launch all it's interceptors, but once the interceptors are out, the carrier can pull away to range 14 and the interceptors will continue to engage that unit. No. As far as I remember interceptors have a leash of 8 and a range of 3. Aparently liquipedia says a range of 2, so that makes 10 total.
"Attack range
The Carrier's range is 8, meaning that the enemy unit must be within range 8 before the Carrier will launch Interceptors at it. But after launching Interceptors, the Carrier can move back to a range of 14 before the Interceptors disengage and return to the Carrier. This allows Carriers to effectively harass mineral lines, and with careful micro, the Carrier can even effectively engage air superiority fighters like the Viking. "
From the liquipedia article you didn't read. The numbers are right. The harassment part is debatable^^. Its also important to note that the interceptors will return to the carrier if the unit they attacked dies and the carrier is not at range 8. To switch targets the carrier has to be at range 8.
|
One major problem which has been outlined in detail in the past (and I've tested it myself, cause of course we never see it in a real game,) is that if you move the carrier back into the 8-14 distance range, the interceptors won't acquire a new target, and will only remain until they've killed the one they are attacking. So you can't micro the carrier away and still keep attacking which apparently you could do in BW (which honestly I should know as I turtled into carriers on BGH plenty of times.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
