We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 5

Saiton

Sweden467 Posts

January 26 2012 07:23 GMT

#81

Carriers are the reason i loved protoss in BW, they have a cultural representation for all protoss players and i hope it's not going to be removed just because Blizzard sees no use for it.

Demicore

France503 Posts

January 26 2012 07:28 GMT

#82

Sorry if I'm not contributing to the debate, just +1ing in favor of the carrier staying in SC2. Removing it makes kittens sad

+ Show Spoiler +

Igaryu85

Germany195 Posts

January 26 2012 07:34 GMT

#83

There should be more people just stating there opinion. As most stuff was allready mentioned in the older "the futute of the carrier" thread.

epi

Canada115 Posts

January 26 2012 07:42 GMT

#84

I said this in the other thread, but look at the list of things required to make carriers work in SC1. It's not a short list. To make a long story short, the only way it ever managed to work in SC1 was because it was a Terran mech-killer and Terrans had to mech against Protoss. No such strategic vulnerability exists in SC2, and it's arguable whether we even want such a thing.

bgx

Poland6595 Posts

January 26 2012 07:48 GMT

#85

carriers were as iconic as the reaver for me if not even less, i dont really care anymore, carriers in sc2 environment are boring, no move/attack micro makes it really boring unit, even if it would be good, it would still resemble corruptor vs collosus "just kill this unit and be done with it". Capital ships vs zerg in BW were rarity, but when it happened it was something that was aweosme, carrier, corsair, dark archon vs scourge, devourer, plague, ensnare were awesome because it was micro battle. Corruptor vs collosus/capital ship is just kill this unit ASAP. If there was no corruptors or vikings i would agree. Wraiths were more interesting because they were fragile and the strategy dependend on killing all observers which were tricky. Devourers were hive tech unit. So in fact zerg first needed to try scourge/burrowed hydra defense which was interesting and than transition into heavy hitting units.

Rybaia

Italy213 Posts

January 26 2012 07:50 GMT

#86

The other day I had to play a bo3 for a clan war. My opponent went for a thor, blue flame, banshee composition with alot of rines during match 3. My Immortals and Colossi got smashed during the 2nd engagement due to banshee focus fire and the thor strike cannon ability. I barely hold.
I decided to tech to Carriers and Archons to counter that situation.Even with the vikings my opponent couldn't handle my new composition.
If it wasn't for the Carrierrs I would've lost game 3.
The Carriers won me the series <3
Blizzard you can't do that to us =(

EchelonTee

United States5262 Posts

January 26 2012 07:53 GMT

#87

I completely agree; another suggestion, maybe give it a spell akin to the tempest's attack, to give carrier defense against clumped mass AA?

GLLuvz

Norway25 Posts

January 26 2012 07:55 GMT

#88

+1, Please do not remove the carrier.

Zvenn3n

Sweden1196 Posts

January 26 2012 07:55 GMT

#89

I don't want to see Carriers go =( What about Tassadar's sacrifice? The Zerg Overmind hadn't been kill-able if it wasn't for his Carrier!

+1 for Carriers staying!

Shock710

Australia6097 Posts

January 26 2012 07:57 GMT

#90

I dont mind the carrier speed, i personally feel that in bw u could stack up the carriers on top of cliffs and u could mirco to keep all intercepters outside and fighting,(so they dont return to the carrier) and the cliffs where such a big deal as the tech paths of standard builds didnt really allow for air-air units (ofc there are some exceptions) but when u have 1 port and like 7+ fac and an armory when u scan the carrier tech u just go for golitahs, it becomes reduant to switch to wariths just too avoid cliffs.
But i feel in sc2 becasue the colossus tech means terran have to have port tech ready (medivacs also duh ^^) so the vikings are a good option (especially with the reactor)
Alto carriers are awesome i just dont feel like they are ever gonna be common they they were in bw like the final tech was arbiters(templar casue of the arbiter tech) or carriers and u could chose, but i feel sc2 its templar and colossus over them. Dont really seeing them playing too much usefulness in the game even with buffs

Emnjay808

United States10666 Posts

January 26 2012 07:59 GMT

#91

Something about massing Carriers and watching all the Interceptors wrecking havoc (BW and SC2) puts a big smile on my face.

Blizzard deciding to remove carriers puts a big frown on my face.

TheToaster

United States280 Posts

January 26 2012 08:01 GMT

#92

The changes in HoTS aren't permanent until the release, no matter what Blizzard announces. I think as Starcraft 2 pros start to shift away from typical strategies, they will discover that Carriers have a proper place in the game that isn't being exploited yet.

For example, a macro Zerg really doesn't have an answer to Carriers in the early to mid stages. White-Ra has proven that Carrier timings hit before any sort of significant Muta numbers arrive. The DPS of a Carrier is also much higher than a Void Ray and even outranges Spore Crawler defense.

Noorgrin

Germany116 Posts

January 26 2012 08:03 GMT

#93

also, do not forget that "making carriers, is a very useful talent toi have" !

AmericanUmlaut

Germany2597 Posts

January 26 2012 08:11 GMT

#94

I've got to support this, if only because the David Kim interview yesterday indicated that Blizzard could be swayed by community opinion to find a way to keep the Carrier.

I love Carriers. They were the reason I played Protoss in BW, and even though they're just not that good in SC2 I still love them. There's got to be a way to give them a role that's not filled by another unit so that they can be kept around. Give their air-to-air attack splash? Give them the Mothership's old projectile-slowing aura? Give them back their BW-style microability?

I'm confident in Blizzard's ability to find a solution that lets us have Carriers fill a useful role in the Toss arsenal. I don't care what it is, just fix Carriers and let us keep them!

K3Nyy

United States1961 Posts

January 26 2012 08:14 GMT

#95

On January 26 2012 16:17 Arisen wrote:

Show nested quote +

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.

What? No. Take out the Vortex in that game, and the game would've still went on. Take out the Carrier and nothing would've changed.

Carriers are really strong when you have a good number of them. Otherwise they don't do too well in my opinion.

Klaas

Slovenia86 Posts

January 26 2012 08:17 GMT

#96

I really dislike the carrier, there's no micro involved, every engagement is a clusterfuck and you can't tell who's winning.

Murdaa

United States32 Posts

January 26 2012 08:22 GMT

#97

Since they are also taking out mother ship and terran is getting a super thor and getting regular thors taken out,maybe there is a slim chance that protoss will get a super carrier

I would rather them not be taken out at all though,its like the main unit we all grew up with

Xacalite

Germany533 Posts

January 26 2012 08:24 GMT

#98

very good post. really like your point. the carrier is deeply intertwined with protoss and its hard to imagine the race without it(although i admit its hard to imagine zerg without lurkers. good they are kinda coming back in hots). I mean, it was Tassadars carrier that destroyed the overmind. I was really sad when blizz announced that the carrier would be out in the expansion. really hope it stays in and gets the buffs it needs to be viable.

As I see it the carrier is kinda like the opposite of a colossus. its a long range "strong-single-unit-sniper", whereas the colossus is long range splash dmg. The Problem is, in TvP there is no such thing as single strong units for Terran. TvP is exclusively Bio. and this in itself prevents the carrier from being useful. Ever seen one carrier vs 5 marines? youll be sad when you see it.

I would suggest to lower the build time of the carrier (atm it has the longest build time of all the units in the game except mothership) and give itself and the interceptors higher base armor.

DrZz

Romania70 Posts

January 26 2012 08:25 GMT

#99

true, i hope the carrier stays! I love to watch them in use.
The same goes to the mothership, which i see a lot used vs Z in lategame, and is not useless at all!

Belial88

United States5217 Posts

January 26 2012 08:27 GMT

#100

Please, let it go. SC2 is not brood war. I loved the carrier too, but it's a new game. I'd hate to see good game design and new units and creativity be stifled simply because people want a unit that has no place in this game.

You'll see carriers again in SC2 when terran starts massing siege tanks in TvP again. That was the reason of the carrier in BW, to break siege tank lines. You don't see mass siege tank lines in SC2, therefore you don't see carriers. Maybe with the new warhound and battle hellion, mech will become viable and therefore carriers become viable again too.

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 92 93 94 Next

Please or register to reply.

We Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming