EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 48
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nyarly
France1030 Posts
| ||
|
Zoraque
Canada120 Posts
| ||
|
Durp
Canada3117 Posts
Colossi unscouted? You probably win. High Templars unscouted? You probably win. Dark Templars unscouted? You probably win (this one is a little tighter in PvT due to scans, but if you get DTs that your opponent is unprepared for in PvZ/P you will usually do enough damage to secure an easy win) Carriers unscouted? You probably win. The difference between the Carriers and these other 3 units is that it's almost useless otherwise. If your colossi are scouted, they will still serve a purpose. The same is true for DTs and HTs. Due to the colossus being so effective and the various templars being warped in immediately, they can serve a function immediately when scouted. The carrier, conversely, takes so long to build that if scouted, it will be countered faster than it can be built. A small number of carriers, unlike DTs, HTs, and Colossi, are useless. So, once you are scouted, your investment is a waste. You can't transition back to them later, it's just dead tech. This is not true of the rest of Protoss t3, which works very nicely as a back and forth play. The Carrier is too costly in both build time, game time (as in time required for it to be unscouted), and resources relative to the other tier3 units. Archons are better in conjunction with a mothership- and the HT/DT are useful units- so even if you have a fleet beacon it's not often in your best interest to make carriers. I don't necessarily have a suggestion to make them more viable, but as long as they are so exceptionally cost ineffective there will never be a legitimate reason to play them at the higher levels. addendum: The Void Ray is as devastating if unscouted, builds faster and is cheaper. If you're trying to hide 5 minutes of stargate tech, you might as well mass voidrays. | ||
|
A.Delicious.Yoghurt
127 Posts
| ||
|
i)awn
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
vs Terran: Marines kill Intercepters. A lot. This was quite true in SC1 (though not quite as much, since SC2 Marines have +15 HP), but there was one big difference: going bio in SC1 TvP was suicide. Reavers kill Marines so much faster than Colossi it's ridiculous. Reavers effectively hard-counter Marines to the point that no sane Terran could ever use them past the 10-minute point. And a Terran can't tech-switch into Marines from Mech just because they see Carriers; the timing window that opens up would leave them dead. So SC1 Carriers never had to worry about Marines. SC2 Carriers do. So long as Carriers have Intercepters, they will be vulnerable to Marines. And as long as Marines are viable against the Protoss, the Protoss will never be able to use Carriers against Terrans. Ironically, the things that would make Carriers more viable against Terrans are coming in HotS. Terrans will be more able to go Mech. But going Mech will make them increasingly vulnerable to Carriers. Sure, Vikings still exist and have stupidly long range and high damage (which is almost certainly why the new Tempest has ludicruous range). But Carriers would be able to do something, unlike currently where their Intercepters just evaporate against Bio-balls. vs Zerg: Here, it's a combination of factors. Roaches have lots of HP and decent armor, thus mitigating the utility of Carriers. Infestors exist, which can turn your Carriers against you. And Corruptors can push your Carriers back. Oh, and any Zerg playing against Protoss will be using all of these regardless of whether you have Carriers or not. In short: the Zerg doesn't have to counter Carriers; the standard Zerg army is already fairly Carrier-proof. Irony strikes again, as HotS introduces several units that won't be Colossus-proof. Swarm Hosts are basically begging to be killed by Carriers. Hydralisks, a natural pairing to Swarm Hosts, also aren't as successful against Carriers. They're expensive and, while they do good damage, they can't really take it. Of course, the Carrier can become prey to the Viper's Abduct ability, so it's not as clean as the vT situation. Though Carriers under Oracle cloak would be less able to be stolen, especially if you swat any Overseers in the area. Yes, the Carrier needs a production time increase, and it could certainly do with more microability. But ultimately, what is needed to make them work is to change other parts of the game to allow them to be functional. On June 13 2012 15:45 xPrimuSx wrote: Widow Mine. Stalker. An independently produced Spider mine that can attack air and doesn't immediately detonate? Tell me more. Similarly, a durability and damage nerfed Dragoon that learns how to teleport? Amazing. It's not like Blizzard hasn't or does not continue to reskin SC1 units and add some new quirk to them for SC2. The point is whether or not the changes made actually make the unit better than it was before or are simply changes for changes sake. I never said that Blizzard hadn't already succumbed to intellectual bankruptcy. It'd just be nice if they didn't go further down this road. Though I think there's a difference between a unit that is inspired by SC1 concepts (like the Widow Mine) and a unit that is basically a carbon-copy of SC1 stuff (like the older Warhammer, which was just a Goliath with a different name and stats). You can't say that Blink doesn't make the Stalker a drastically different unit. On June 13 2012 15:45 xPrimuSx wrote: Also, I wouldn't call the Colossus attack similar to the Void Ray at all. It was a channeled ability, more like the Thor's Strike Cannons, except that instead of the damage being constrained to 1 unit like the Thor, the Colossus would always move to a new unit if it still had damage left to deal in that attack cycle (and of course it wasn't a spell but a straight up attack), It's like the Void Ray in that they are beams that hide the fact that it's really doing multiple packets of damage, rather than a truly continuous attack (as a beam would suggest). On June 13 2012 15:45 xPrimuSx wrote: nothing Carrier like about it, especially considering the Carrier immediately stops its attack and will not engage a new target with the Interceptors if outside of the 8 release range (unlike BW). It's very much like the Carrier. The SC1 Carrier. It fires at a particular range, but it will keep attacking a unit beyond that range. It does small blocks of damage over time. It will transfer this damage to other targets within range if one target is dead. The only differences are that you can't weaken the Colossus's attack the way you can by destroying Intercepters, and the Colossus's attack wasn't continuous the way the Carrier was. On June 13 2012 15:45 xPrimuSx wrote: As to the Phoenix, it was still a range 4 unit, it would still be outranged by the Viking (Range 5 as of 2008), and the Overload ability was already headed towards nerf city. By the time of the great "reveal" where Blizzard started posting unit info on the SC2 site (mid-2007), the Phoenix Overload had a set number of targets it could engage and was no longer truly AOE, but rather massively single target (like the Colossus would eventually become), although the unit did do more damage than it currently does. Still, the OG Tempest would outrange Vikings by a bit, however it would be too slow to actually run away, and Vikings can safely attack outside of the range of Phoenices, honestly, a bunch of Phoenices going Overload would be a good thing for Vikings since they could just up and sit back and fire while the Phoenices were stuck in place. That all basically assumes that Overload never worked. If all you have to do to avoid Overload is to back up slightly, then it would never have worked against anything, Mutalisks, Vikings, etc. Yes, the Mutas couldn't shoot them, but they'd live. So obviously, Overload would need to be able to continue hitting even if the target moved out of range. That's why it wasn't truly AoE: it just picked a number of targets and shoot at them. Such an ability would work just fine on Vikings. Phoenixes were still very fast and could close range easily. They get close, fire their Overloads, and the Vikings die. Also, don't forget: the Terrans had the Predator, which was a dedicated AoE AtA unit that could turn into a PDD. So Vikings probably were a lot less effective against light air than they are now. Predators were what were supposed to be anti-light air units for Terrans. It seems to me that in such an environment, Phoenix+Tempest+Zealots could be a pretty strong combination. Obviously this depends on the exact cost and stats of these units, but it's certainly something that could be viable, depending on balancing and so forth. On June 13 2012 15:45 xPrimuSx wrote: Not the point, the point is that DT units in BW were purposefully both OP and UP in that they had some amazing strength balance out with some terrible weakness that was only mitigated through the use of some trick. It was that feel of the units which made them stand out from the regular Protoss arsenal of "I'm expensive and awesome, fear me." The SC2 DT units do not have that same feel to them. Also, if the DT still retained its cloak, you really wouldn't see too much of a health boost since passive cloak is so powerful. I don't really buy that. Corsairs aren't particularly OP-seeming. They're not that good against air; they're good against certain air, but otherwise, no. Furthermore, there's not a lot of room to play within the DT box as you describe it. If Blizzard was going to have the Protoss become a real mix of DT and HT units, then they had to have real line-DT units, things you built a lot of. And you can't give such units crippling weaknesses that you avoid via some trick. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 14 2012 09:37 A.Delicious.Yoghurt wrote: Carrier is a no go. Dustin does not want it in the game, he thinks it's a fan service unit. (According to slasher on LO3) I'm glad the lead designer for SC2 thinks just giving a unit ridiculous range is better than an interesting combat dynamic. Ugh... | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On June 15 2012 00:54 0neder wrote: I'm glad the lead designer for SC2 thinks just giving a unit ridiculous range is better than an interesting combat dynamic. Ugh... I think adding units like the Tempest will improve the game. There is nothing else with such extream range in SC2 and adding it will create new styles of play. One of the reasons the deathball happens so much in SC2 is that all the units are designed with such short ranges(with the execption of the siege tanks). Long range units with reasonable support are a key to controling space in an RTS. And hopefully, with controling space, players will be forced to slip up their units. The carrier is nice, but I don't think it is useful in the current game. It is a cool idea, but I don't want a use to be in the game because it is cool. | ||
|
bhfberserk
Canada390 Posts
*While we are not talking about Balance Issues, but the mechanic of the units: A siege tank is short in range in general, but once deployed it will gain 13 range and splash damage. The concept of the Terran's siege unit is really simple, but generates a strategic goal on your opponent. "I must catch the tanks un-siege" Whereas the Colossus does not create a new dynamic in such way. (Not whining about imbalance issue here.  )However, the Carrier is different, it has a this mechanical weakness, where your opponent must shoot down the main ship or the interceptors will continue to damage. Or, you main focus to shoot down the interceptors and reduce its effectiveness. The Tempest is a extreme long range air siege unit. Like, DB have stated, it will create a dynamic goal on your opponent. "I am killing you slowly, you better kill this ship soon." So in that sense, the Tempest has a role in the game. Out of all 3 units the Carrier, Colossus, Tempest. I think the most boring unit, A-move friendly, death ball unit, is truly the Colossus and because of it we have such a Death Ball play style. Of course, taking out the Colossus now would mean making the robo completely useless. But I am not here to talk about how they should balance the games, but just about what the heavy siege units in the games should generates dynamic decision-making moment. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 15 2012 00:50 NicolBolas wrote: It's very much like the Carrier. The SC1 Carrier. It will transfer this damage to other targets within range if one target is dead. Forgive me for being ignorant of Brood War (I was an AoE2 guy up until WoL), but didn't the BW carrier automatically target new units within the extended range? That's my my whole gripe with the SC2 carrier, is that in order for a carrier to prioritize new targets for the interceptors to shoot at the carriers have to be within the standard range of 8, and the extended range of 14 is only in effect as long as the current target is still alive. If a carrier had to move into range 8 to launch newly made interceptors, but could still engage at the extended range by prioritizing new targets for the interceptors currently in battle, that would give a) the Protoss player a chance to micro and b) the opponent an incentive to kill off interceptors (in order to force the carrier back in close to launch reinforcements). How would that not fix like everything? | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On June 15 2012 01:24 Plansix wrote: I think adding units like the Tempest will improve the game. There is nothing else with such extream range in SC2 and adding it will create new styles of play. One of the reasons the deathball happens so much in SC2 is that all the units are designed with such short ranges(with the execption of the siege tanks). Long range units with reasonable support are a key to controling space in an RTS. And hopefully, with controling space, players will be forced to slip up their units. The carrier is nice, but I don't think it is useful in the current game. It is a cool idea, but I don't want a use to be in the game because it is cool. You don't get it. BW was the same in terms of range, but deathballs didn't clump so much, because the units were spaced out to look more interesting and dynamic. That, along with the interface limitations, are what made the combat spacing so good. Browder could give the Carrier 22 range tomorrow before introducing the Tempest. To be honest, I don't really care if the Carrier stays or goes, because the new model isn't that great and it can't really be microed anymore anyway, so the SC2 unit called the 'carrier' means nothing to me. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 15 2012 10:04 HelioSeven wrote: Forgive me for being ignorant of Brood War (I was an AoE2 guy up until WoL), but didn't the BW carrier automatically target new units within the extended range? That's my my whole gripe with the SC2 carrier, is that in order for a carrier to prioritize new targets for the interceptors to shoot at the carriers have to be within the standard range of 8, and the extended range of 14 is only in effect as long as the current target is still alive. If a carrier had to move into range 8 to launch newly made interceptors, but could still engage at the extended range by prioritizing new targets for the interceptors currently in battle, that would give a) the Protoss player a chance to micro and b) the opponent an incentive to kill off interceptors (in order to force the carrier back in close to launch reinforcements). How would that not fix like everything? Because it does nothing to change the fact that Marines devour Intercepters, regardless of whether the Carriers happen to be nearby or not. It does nothing to change the fact that Vikings still have ridiculous range and can fly over terrain to shoot the Carriers. The most it might do is make a Zerg build more Corruptors, since it will be more difficult for Infestors to deal with Carriers. Though Infested Terrans can still put a good hurting on Intercepters, and Roaches still have good armor and enough HP to just take it to some degree. The Carrier is simply not favored by the rest of SC2's units. It's just not going to be viable until that changes. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On June 15 2012 01:24 Plansix wrote: I think adding units like the Tempest will improve the game. There is nothing else with such extream range in SC2 and adding it will create new styles of play. One of the reasons the deathball happens so much in SC2 is that all the units are designed with such short ranges(with the execption of the siege tanks). Long range units with reasonable support are a key to controling space in an RTS. And hopefully, with controling space, players will be forced to slip up their units. The carrier is nice, but I don't think it is useful in the current game. It is a cool idea, but I don't want a use to be in the game because it is cool. It would be interesting if the tempest required seige mode, but it doesn't. Its basically an Airborne Siege Tank with no siege mode required. Not interesting at all because there was skill in siege tank positioning and siege timing, and siege tanks did friendly fire, but with this unit, it doesn't require skill to use it effectively or in-effectively. | ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
"Oh but bittman, Carriers do sick DPS so 21 range will make them OP". The response is: Carriers only fire interceptors which could be shot down. There could be a great chance to have a dynamic unit which can strike at ridiculous siege range with 15-mineral units (not even free thanks for asking swarm host) that can be countered with good AA placement. Could even do a sick thing where all interceptors can have rally paths of 21-range in length. Meaning the attack direction can be thrown out by a micro-intensive Protoss player. Fuck, carriers could be so exciting. Read tonnes of ideas in this thread which are awesome also. Blizzard's design team for sc2 is like so half-inspired. They throw out things that are super interesting like the Oracle, Viper and battle hellions, but then show off a boring (a-move) carrier replacement with a sort of interesting niche (super range). | ||
|
Vansetsu
United States1454 Posts
| ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 15 2012 01:24 Plansix wrote: I think adding units like the Tempest will improve the game. There is nothing else with such extream range in SC2 and adding it will create new styles of play. One of the reasons the deathball happens so much in SC2 is that all the units are designed with such short ranges(with the execption of the siege tanks). Long range units with reasonable support are a key to controling space in an RTS. And hopefully, with controling space, players will be forced to slip up their units. The carrier is nice, but I don't think it is useful in the current game. It is a cool idea, but I don't want a use to be in the game because it is cool. You did notice the rate of fire of the Tempest and the supply needed for it? It is quite ridiculous and probably the next useless unit in the Protoss arsenal. If they increase the rate of fire it will be bad by making Protoss able to kill others efficiently without actually engaging them, so that wont happen, OR they reduce the damage at the same time (but then the graphics of charging up a deadly ball of energy is off) ... which doesnt change much. The carrier has several problems: - Interceptors are easily shot down AND - they cost minerals to build AND - they take ages to be built. The last two should be compared to the broodlings for the Broodlord and the necessary change to the Carrier is clear: 1. Interceptors are free 2. they build at the rate of 1 per second (or maybe 1 per 2 seconds, but not slower) If that happens the Carrier will stop being dead weight after his tiny interceptors have been shot down. Another way to "fix" the Carrier is to give the super long range attack of the Tempest to the Carrier ... since the Interceptors are shot down soo easily. One last personal comment: Please get rid of the "new SC II graphics" and give us the good old BW Carrier graphic!!! THIS is what embodies the Carrier for me and makes the new graphics rather pathetic and stupid. | ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 15 2012 13:58 NicolBolas wrote: Because it does nothing to change the fact that Marines devour Intercepters, regardless of whether the Carriers happen to be nearby or not. It does nothing to change the fact that Vikings still have ridiculous range and can fly over terrain to shoot the Carriers. The most it might do is make a Zerg build more Corruptors, since it will be more difficult for Infestors to deal with Carriers. Though Infested Terrans can still put a good hurting on Intercepters, and Roaches still have good armor and enough HP to just take it to some degree. The Carrier is simply not favored by the rest of SC2's units. It's just not going to be viable until that changes. Haha, some things of note as someone who has used carriers in PvT at times. Vikings are not so good against carriers. While they seem like the obvious anti-air of choice, their range is still negated by the extended range of carriers with good micro. That along side with vikings low armor and mid-tier health means they melt against the opening salvo with graviton catapult. Marines are the much bigger problem (BCs in the late game but that's another story). Bio is the reason carrier rarely work in PvT. I'm still adamant that carriers will be more viable when mech TvP becomes viable, but it does sometimes work against bio if your opponent gets to marauder heavy, or goes mech heavy leaving him with not enough marines. But marines were the anti-carrier in BW too, weren't they? In PvZ though, I think it would make huge improvements to the late game situation of infestor/BL/corruptor/crawlers. Carriers are the natural answer, they're just difficult to use at the moment because they constantly have to be within range 8 (and are thus really susceptible to anti-air). It would make them better at hit and run, it would make them better in large engagements, and it would make them more interesting and useful units in the long run. You don't really seem to understand how good late game Skytoss VR/carrier w/ HTs comp is against roaches and corruptors. Neural parasite and fungal are the real problem. Re-targeting is a serious need for carriers. Especially if it is to play against the new viper (which, sadly, it probably wont T.T). | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On June 15 2012 15:00 HelioSeven wrote: Haha, some things of note as someone who has used carriers in PvT at times. Vikings are not so good against carriers. While they seem like the obvious anti-air of choice, their range is still negated by the extended range of carriers with good micro. That along side with vikings low armor and mid-tier health means they melt against the opening salvo with graviton catapult. Marines are the much bigger problem (BCs in the late game but that's another story). Bio is the reason carrier rarely work in PvT. I'm still adamant that carriers will be more viable when mech TvP becomes viable, but it does sometimes work against bio if your opponent gets to marauder heavy, or goes mech heavy leaving him with not enough marines. But marines were the anti-carrier in BW too, weren't they? In PvZ though, I think it would make huge improvements to the late game situation of infestor/BL/corruptor/crawlers. Carriers are the natural answer, they're just difficult to use at the moment because they constantly have to be within range 8 (and are thus really susceptible to anti-air). It would make them better at hit and run, it would make them better in large engagements, and it would make them more interesting and useful units in the long run. You don't really seem to understand how good late game Skytoss VR/carrier w/ HTs comp is against roaches and corruptors. Neural parasite and fungal are the real problem. Re-targeting is a serious need for carriers. Especially if it is to play against the new viper (which, sadly, it probably wont T.T). forget it. I'm trying to picture carriers vs speed hydras and failing miserably. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 15 2012 15:09 Kharnage wrote: forget it. I'm trying to picture carriers vs speed hydras and failing miserably. The only way that could reasonably work is with less-than-open-terrain and the Carriers attacking from an angle where the Hydras cant follow. You would have to whittle down the Zerg slowly but steadily, but even then the new Viper unit basically kills that concept with their - IMO really stupid - ability to drag a unit to them and into the range of other units. That ability basically counters EVERY "expensive but tough" unit for any opponent (in its current form). If the Viper was "unique" and expensive as the Mothership it might work, but as this? | ||
|
Fueled
United States1610 Posts
One last personal comment: Please get rid of the "new SC II graphics" and give us the good old BW Carrier graphic!!! Yes! I hated the new carrier model the day I saw it. Bring back the BW Carrier model and keep the Carrier unit! | ||
| ||
