EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 51
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
| ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8094 Posts
 | ||
|
Random_Guy09
Canada1010 Posts
On June 17 2012 06:12 refmac_cys.cys wrote: And we now observe JYP vs. Dimaga game 1 in the recent collection of 'Carrier useful' games. Makes me smile! I think the carrier does a lot to help fix late late game PvZ, makes it much less vortex focused and a lot more entertaining to watch. Being toss and all I was cheering for JYP to win. He honestly outplayed dimaga really badly that game and was able to pretty much contain Dimaga and starve him out until he got the tech switch to Carriers and was able to just poke until he was maxed upgrades. Dont think in all situations a zerg would let that happen. So its kind of iffy but if blizzard fixes them like some people have been saying they'd be fine. Just right now if protoss opens stargate and they're stuck forcing late game zerg you get a bit of an advantage over another toss that would have to get both air tech structures up and hoping they're able to hold zerg off long enough to get the upgrades and amount of carriers to actually deal with zergs late game comp. | ||
|
Sumadin
Denmark588 Posts
The carrier just seems to be the longest to find its use. But protoss has historically been the worst offenders with not finding the place for their units. For the longest time it was all about 4-gate warp gate timings, until Blizzard wrecked it. After the removal of amulet protoss players simply forgot how to use templars for months. Don't get me started on warp prisms. Oh and the idea to use Vortex to counter Broodlord/infestor? Less than 9 months old. Before that mothership was so underused that Blizzard was treating it the same fate as the carrier, and was joking that it was only meant to be a unit for lower leage players. It is not that carriers are easy to use. To sum up the requirements for succesful carrier usage: Needless to say you need a good economy. You need to be ahead or on even footing with your opponent. You simply cannot go carriers from behind. Nothing wrong here through. Ultralisks and Battlecruisers works exactly the same way. Until you got maximum attack upgrade those carriers got nothing to do on the battlefield. This is one of the biggest blunders i see from pros. Carriers loses 16 dps per missing attack upgrade. Seeing a pro try carriers and not instantly go for Maximum upgrades is hard to watch. | ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
 | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 16 2012 15:43 NicolBolas wrote: Why not? I don't consider being prominent in SC1 to be special. SC2 is a new game, and it must stand on its own. So why isnt SC2-WoL called "The adventures of Raynor's Raider's" then ... and the expansions get other names? Because it continures THE STORY. It ISN'T a new game but a SEQUEL in a very popular franchise. On June 16 2012 15:43 NicolBolas wrote: That would not make the Carrier good. The Tempest is not shit because it's taking the Carrier's spot. The Tempest would still be shit if the Carrier never existed. The Tempest is shit because it's mechanics are shit. Turning the Carrier into the Tempest would just make the Carrier shit. I don't see how that's helping. How can you claim to love the Carrier so much, to feel that it is iconic and must remain in the game, yet then say that you want to turn it into a unit that you agree is crappy? Do you really just want to point at some unit in the game called "Carrier" and say, "Look! SC2 has a Carrier!"? Its part of the story ... and it was fun in BW. Throwing it out would break the story and continuitiy of the game. On June 16 2012 15:43 NicolBolas wrote: What gives continuity to games is gameplay. StarCraft stands for a certain kind of RTS play experience. Not the only kind of course, but a certain, specific kind. You do not need these 3 particular races and these particular units to create that kind of gameplay. ROFLMAO ... continuity in gameplay could only be achieved if not much was changed. We do have cliff walkers, destructible rocks (which were simulated by map makers through neutral buildings), lowering supply depots, recyclable bunkers, creep tumors, larva injects, chronoboost, .... in SC2 and those didnt exist in BW. The unlimited unit control and ability to mass units much easier creates a totally different gameplay. Did you ever play BW? What really gives continuity to a sequel - especially a Blizzard game - is THE STORY and it doesnt make sense to suddenly not have an iconic unit in the game anymore. Thats not really how any military works; if you are facing new threats you will adapt your equipment instead of starting from scratch. Just watch the "Death of the Overmind" cutscene and you know why the Carrier is sooo deep in the story that it shouldnt be taken out. ---- The point is that the Carrier can be made viable soo easily that it is a shame they dont do it. There are even several ways to do so and sadly Blizzard doesnt do it. | ||
|
VTAzz
Australia21 Posts
| ||
|
SCMothership
United States187 Posts
| ||
|
covetousrat
2109 Posts
| ||
|
Mjolnir
912 Posts
I honestly think the people in charge of design decisions for SC2 are just too goddamn stubborn to admit when they're wrong. They'd rather introduce new units that perform similar tasks to units they took out prior. While people have been screaming for lurkers and defilers (for example) Browder and company refused to acknowledge their place in the Zerg arsenal. Saying stuff like "you won't miss them" or "we have better units" etc. etc. So now, HotS is coming out and we've got... Swarm Host - remarkably similar to lurkers Viper - remarkably similar to defilers I swear to God, they're just too fucking stubborn to go "Yeah, OK, so we see you all really like X & Y units, and perhaps dropping them wasn't a good idea. We're going to add those for you and also for gameplay because we think there's a role they fill." Rather, they'd just prefer to blindly carry on, ditching units that are core to certain races and give us cheap-ass replacements that do (roughly) the same task. lulz. Viper has potential; but I predict swarm hosts suck ass. | ||
|
VTAzz
Australia21 Posts
| ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
| ||
|
nucLeaRTV
Romania822 Posts
| ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
| ||
|
phodacbiet
United States1739 Posts
On June 17 2012 07:06 Sumadin wrote: It is honestly not a new story that a unit takes long time to find it's place in the game. It took a while for terrans to figure out the use of the Ghost. Hellions openings didn't see much use until Blizzard buffed the icon of the upgrade... yea i know. Battlecruisers still only see serrios use in the mirror. Infestors was overlooked by Zergs until the buff which then meant it later had to be nerfed... twice. Ultralisks too was severly underused for a good while compared to Brood lords. Ultralisks started seeing some use because blizzard made them come out 30 seconds faster. | ||
|
Fahnsen
Germany5 Posts
On June 17 2012 19:08 Umpteen wrote: Why not just give carriers the Tempest attack when there are no interceptors launched? Maybe it would be nice if you could build some kind of "heavy bomber" instead of interceptors depending on the situation. The bomber would have 22 range and an awesome ground attack, of course! | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On June 17 2012 12:49 Rabiator wrote: So why isnt SC2-WoL called "The adventures of Raynor's Raider's" then ... and the expansions get other names? Because it continures THE STORY. It ISN'T a new game but a SEQUEL in a very popular franchise. Sequels are new games within a franchise. A sequel must be able to stand on its own, even in the context of the franchise. The elements used from prior installments must fit within the current installment. Otherwise, they should not be used. At no time should a sequel feel so constrained and enslaved to the prior installments that it breaks its gameplay. If you want an example of that, look no further than WarCraft 3. By all rights, StarCraft is more of a sequel to WC2 than WC3 was. This blind dedication to previous installments is exactly why mainstream games are becoming stale. Time once was you could pick up a sequel and get something that felt bold and new, but still worked within the franchise. Just about every Ultima game had significant mechanical departures from prior installements (sometimes good, sometimes bad). Nowadays, you might get a couple new mechanics. Maybe. But most of it will be warmed-over gameplay that the developers shove down your throat again and again. No game developer would ever try the radical nature of gameplay change that WC3 had compared to WC2. And that's sad. On June 17 2012 12:49 Rabiator wrote: Its part of the story ... and it was fun in BW. Throwing it out would break the story and continuitiy of the game. Bullshit. Removing the Carrier does not uncreate it. There will sill have been Carriers before; there still can be Carriers within the story. Whatever story elements that exist around the Carrier will be completely unaffected. It just won't be in the multiplayer. And you didn't answer my question. Are you truly saying that a shitty unit that just happens to be called "Carrier" is better than not having Carriers at all? On June 17 2012 12:49 Rabiator wrote: ROFLMAO ... continuity in gameplay could only be achieved if not much was changed. We do have cliff walkers, destructible rocks (which were simulated by map makers through neutral buildings), lowering supply depots, recyclable bunkers, creep tumors, larva injects, chronoboost, .... in SC2 and those didnt exist in BW. The unlimited unit control and ability to mass units much easier creates a totally different gameplay. Did you ever play BW? It is only "totally different" from within the competitive gaming view of the game. If you ask a lay-person, SC2's gameplay is virtually identical to SC1's gameplay. There are no major mechanical changes. Oh sure, some units can cliff-walk, and there are different powers. But as far as most people are concerned, the game was just a pretty version of SC1. There are no squads or other automatic unit control; even auto-casting only works on certain abilities. You still have workers going back and forth to mine minerals. Zerg still use Larva. Every race's tech tree is virtually identical to their SC1 counterparts. And so forth. There is a lot more that is the same about SC2 with respect to SC1 than is different. Just compare it to any other RTS not made by Blizzard. If SC2 had come from someone not Blizzard and was called "Jimmy's Neato Unit Game," people would be wondering why they ripped off StarCraft. And yet, nobody accuses SC2 of ripping off, for example, Dawn of War. Because they're stylistically very different games. As far as the game as a whole is concerned, SC2 has the same gameplay characteristics of SC1. On June 17 2012 12:49 Rabiator wrote: What really gives continuity to a sequel - especially a Blizzard game - is THE STORY and it doesnt make sense to suddenly not have an iconic unit in the game anymore. Thats not really how any military works; if you are facing new threats you will adapt your equipment instead of starting from scratch. Just watch the "Death of the Overmind" cutscene and you know why the Carrier is sooo deep in the story that it shouldnt be taken out. As previously stated, remvoing the Carrier from the multiplayer doesn't affect "THE STORY" in any way, shape, or form. It simply removes the unit from the multiplayer. Hell, even if they removed it from the singleplayer, it doesn't change the story that already happened. The cutscene in question would still have happened; it would simply be that the Protoss now don't use Carriers anymore. Maybe they were all taken out or something. Who knows. More importantly, the whole "Death of the Overmind" cutscene (which I saw back in 2000 or so, BTW) wasn't about the Carrier at all. It was about Tassadar sacrificing himself to take out the Overmind. The fact that he just so happened to use a Carrier to do it is irrelevant; he only used that because it was there and it had a big enough drive core to do the job. It had a Carrier in it. But it wasn't about the Carrier itself so much as a character moment. On June 17 2012 14:09 Mjolnir wrote:I honestly think the people in charge of design decisions for SC2 are just too goddamn stubborn to admit when they're wrong. They'd rather introduce new units that perform similar tasks to units they took out prior. While people have been screaming for lurkers and defilers (for example) Browder and company refused to acknowledge their place in the Zerg arsenal. Saying stuff like "you won't miss them" or "we have better units" etc. etc. So now, HotS is coming out and we've got... Swarm Host - remarkably similar to lurkers Viper - remarkably similar to defilers I swear to God, they're just too fucking stubborn to go "Yeah, OK, so we see you all really like X & Y units, and perhaps dropping them wasn't a good idea. We're going to add those for you and also for gameplay because we think there's a role they fill." Rather, they'd just prefer to blindly carry on, ditching units that are core to certain races and give us cheap-ass replacements that do (roughly) the same task. That's better than declaring intellectual bankruptcy by just putting Defilers and Lurkers in the game. Vipers and Swarm Hosts are in fact different from those units, more tailored to the needs of SC2 than those units. Abduct is a major ability of the Viper and it has nothing to do with Defilers. Blinding Cloud has more to do with Disruption Web than Spore Cloud. And the unit generation from the Swarm Host is very different, micro-wise (from the enemy's part) than the spines from Lurkers. They are similar to what we had before. But they are also different. And that is a good thing. Personally, I would prefer if they weren't so Lurker/Defiler-like. But as long as they do what needs to be done, I'm fine with that. We've had 12 years of Defilers and 11 years of Lurkers. Let's have something new, even if it isn't radically different. If all you want is SC1 with better graphics, just say so. Otherwise, stop this push for "iconic" or "core" stuff (which is essentially code-language for "SC1 with better graphics"). | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 17 2012 14:09 Mjolnir wrote: I honestly think the people in charge of design decisions for SC2 are just too goddamn stubborn to admit when they're wrong. I don't think so. They appear to have a very open-minded game developing discussion. On June 17 2012 14:09 Mjolnir wrote: They'd rather introduce new units that perform similar tasks to units they took out prior. While people have been screaming for lurkers and defilers (for example) Browder and company refused to acknowledge their place in the Zerg arsenal. Saying stuff like "you won't miss them" or "we have better units" etc. etc. So now, HotS is coming out and we've got... Swarm Host - remarkably similar to lurkers Viper - remarkably similar to defilers I swear to God, they're just too fucking stubborn to go "Yeah, OK, so we see you all really like X & Y units, and perhaps dropping them wasn't a good idea. We're going to add those for you and also for gameplay because we think there's a role they fill." Rather, they'd just prefer to blindly carry on, ditching units that are core to certain races and give us cheap-ass replacements that do (roughly) the same task. lulz. Viper has potential; but I predict swarm hosts suck ass. Viper bears only a slight similarity to the defiler, the swarm host has some significant differences to the lurker. They don't seem to "blindly carry on", but instead carefully trying out new units. Some are somewhat similar to older BW units, but the differences are still great. Most core gamers still like BW units and would like to have them all back. Justing developing BW with 3D graphics is obviously not a good idea for a new game. | ||
|
galtdunn
United States977 Posts
On June 18 2012 17:11 [F_]aths wrote: Viper bears only a slight similarity to the defiler, the swarm host has some significant differences to the lurker. They don't seem to "blindly carry on", but instead carefully trying out new units. Some are somewhat similar to older BW units, but the differences are still great. Most core gamers still like BW units and would like to have them all back. Justing developing BW with 3D graphics is obviously not a good idea for a new game. Viper bears bears Oh my god it's worse than we thought... | ||
|
rEalGuapo
Germany832 Posts
Interceptors scale incredibly bad with upgrades, +1 Attack makes them do 2 more damage over two shots. That means that +1 Armor completely negates their Attack upgrade. Corruptors start with 2 Armor, on even upgrades one Interceptor shot does only 6 damage and that is on a 3 second Cooldown. Now I really love Carriers but 16 DPS vs Corruptors simply is not enough. 6/3=2 2*8=16 There are two ways to solve this: 1) Better Upgrades: I think that approach is pretty bad but possible, every upgrade boosts the damage by 2 making them useful in lategame situations only with upgrades. But I am not sure if the Base damage should really be 22 (5+6)*2 2) Change Base Attack: Make it ONE shot that does 10 damage instead of two that do 5. Each Attack upgrade adds 2 damage. The Damage would be the same vs 0 Armor but would be A LOT better vs higher Armors. I think this could simply solve the problem in PvZ. | ||
| ||
