|
On June 17 2012 19:16 raga4ka wrote:
I think if Browder keeps them , Carriers will be better in HOTS in TvP , because of mech . Carrier was never ment to stop bio , but with the mech buff i think they would be viable against it . Carriers could also be good vs Zergs who turtle with a lot of static defences . It's not any different from the Tempest , but their attack is more interesting and i think overall will be better then the Tempest will , but we will see .
This.
I can't believe Blizzard is even considering to remove the carrier.
They have multiple times stated that they want to make TvP mech viable in Hots.
In TvT and TvZ mech play will inevitably transition into air. This is how TvP in BW also transitioned with protoss going carriers.
In which world would they think it would be any different if mech was made viable in TvP ?
The Carrier needs to be tweaked a little bit. Blizzard probably knows all this, but for whatever reason they want to replace it with the Tempest. It is pretty obvious since they remade the Tempest completely after adding the Phoenix range upgrade.
The Tempest is going into Hots whether we want it or not.
|
On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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").
I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.)
On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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.
This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough.
The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.)
|
On June 18 2012 17:50 one-one-one wrote:
The Carrier needs to be tweaked a little bit. Blizzard probably knows all this, but for whatever reason they want to replace it with the Tempest. It is pretty obvious since they remade the Tempest completely after adding the Phoenix range upgrade.
The Tempest is going into Hots whether we want it or not.
They scrapped so much artwork during the development that it doesn't look they need to include the tempest since the artwork is already there.
The carrier has no useful role in SC2. A fixed carrier probably would either not be a carrier anymore, or it would require many changes for other units, re-creating a large part of the balance.
|
On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.)
Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind?
For me and many people it is the Carrier.
Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity.
Nothing you can write will change that.
|
On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that.
Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL.
Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available?
What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution?
|
On June 18 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that. Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL. Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available? What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution?
I don't know what GSL you watch but I see Carriers pretty frequently. They aren't as bad as people say, they are just a little worse than they need to be.
And what is this mindset of "if something doesn't work right away declare it worthless and ignore it"
Why not try to get the Carrier up to where it should be?
|
On June 18 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that. Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL. Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available? What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution?
Another good point that can hardly be stressed enough is the fact they nerfed the carrier immensely from BW and have refused to touch it ever since. It's obviously not going to play a big role when it's simply not viable.
...Or just buff the carrier to the point it's slightly OP, just as theybuffed the infestor to encourage more use. Let it play out for a month or two, then tweak it within balanced.
Pretty sure the real protoss executor is dead. He wouldn't field stalkers over dragoons. God I hate stalkers.
|
On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:
I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) Why should these foot soldiers be kept while the carrier shouldn't, according to your logic? Marines, zealots and zerglings are also a "glorious memory from a distant past", and a wise commander should be ready to discard marine and siege tanks should these units prove unsuitable to modern warfare.
The carrier is exactly the same: an iconic unit that should be kept in Starcraft 2. The only difference is that, as you said, basic units were modified for used while the carrier wasn't - he was removed from the game instead. Things like "they created a game where there is no way to make a useful carrier" are wind: you don't know. With HotS still in the alpha, I'm fairly confident that even Blizzard employees couldn't make that claim.
|
On June 18 2012 18:19 rEalGuapo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that. Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL. Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available? What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution? I don't know what GSL you watch but I see Carriers pretty frequently. They aren't as bad as people say, they are just a little worse than they need to be. And what is this mindset of "if something doesn't work right away declare it worthless and ignore it" Why not try to get the Carrier up to where it should be?
Because some things are more important than to keep a specific unit in the game. If the tempest can fill the role of the protoss capital ship, it is a worthy replacement for that role. Sometimes it's better to stop walking one path and try a new one.
SC2 Carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger. Currently carriers are used as a surprise, but with the improved scouting in HotS, it gets even harder to surprise your opponent.
|
On June 18 2012 17:55 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:50 one-one-one wrote:
The Carrier needs to be tweaked a little bit. Blizzard probably knows all this, but for whatever reason they want to replace it with the Tempest. It is pretty obvious since they remade the Tempest completely after adding the Phoenix range upgrade.
The Tempest is going into Hots whether we want it or not. They scrapped so much artwork during the development that it doesn't look they need to include the tempest since the artwork is already there. The carrier has no useful role in SC2. A fixed carrier probably would either not be a carrier anymore, or it would require many changes for other units, re-creating a large part of the balance.
I'm not talking about the artwork.
It is not like they must include it since they already went through all the trouble drawing pictures of a 22 range flying beast of a ship.
They want it in there for some reason, just some reason.
And the carrier very much has a useful role, namely in massive lategame air vs air battles.
I don't know about you, but sometimes I go mech in TvP and my opponent tries to transition into voidrays and then carriers.
And this is in master league.
|
On June 18 2012 18:43 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:19 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that. Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL. Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available? What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution? I don't know what GSL you watch but I see Carriers pretty frequently. They aren't as bad as people say, they are just a little worse than they need to be. And what is this mindset of "if something doesn't work right away declare it worthless and ignore it" Why not try to get the Carrier up to where it should be? Because some things are more important than to keep a specific unit in the game. If the tempest can fill the role of the protoss capital ship, it is a worthy replacement for that role. Sometimes it's better to stop walking one path and try a new one. SC2 Carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger. Currently carriers are used as a surprise, but with the improved scouting in HotS, it gets even harder to surprise your opponent.
A very bold assumption, based on nothing. Pretty sure since beta before they got buffed, infestors were considered garbage and useless other than for massing in team games for fun.
|
So far no feedback on my suggession:
1-Carrier shared range boost: If a target is in range of one carrier, all other carriers have +10 range vs this target.
2-Carrier speed boost ability.
The trick is combining these two. The shared range is meh alone because the carrier ahead can be shot down easily and the threat will be nullified. However with the speed boost, the "scout" carrier is not dead, it can kite and then escape with the speed boost. Some interesting micro and tircks can be pulled with these two. What do you think?
|
On June 18 2012 18:39 Telenil wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:
I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) Why should these foot soldiers be kept while the carrier shouldn't, according to your logic? Marines, zealots and zerglings are also a "glorious memory from a distant past", and a wise commander should be ready to discard marine and siege tanks should these units prove unsuitable to modern warfare. The carrier is exactly the same: an iconic unit that should be kept in Starcraft 2. The only difference is that, as you said, basic units were modified for used while the carrier wasn't - he was removed from the game instead. Things like "they created a game where there is no way to make a useful carrier" are wind: you don't know. With HotS still in the alpha, I'm fairly confident that even Blizzard employees couldn't make that claim.
We need a bit more nuance here. If you want to keep any iconic unit, we also need the goliath for terrans. In the end there is little room left for a new game.
Some things like zerg creep, liftable terran buildings and protoss warp-ins for buildings are core. And the basic soldier summarizes the entire race philosophy. Even those thiings were not left untouched (creepspread works differently, engineering bay is no longer liftable, all foot soldiers were modified, too) but they are more or less still there.
The game with no role for the carrier was WoL. It would maybe possible to design HotS in a way that the carrier fills a role. But the expansion should not be made to make a single unit finally work.
Basics like foot soldiers and building mechanics (larva use for zerg, repairable structures for terrans, shields for protoss) are the foundation for the Starcraft races. The carrier is just an iconic tier 3 unit. Still important to many gamers, but not part of the foundation.
On June 18 2012 18:55 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 18:43 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 18:19 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 17:57 rEalGuapo wrote:On June 18 2012 17:50 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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"). I think, it depends. For example the foot soldier (ling, rine, lot) should be kept, and thankfully, Blizzard kept those core units (but modified it for the use in WoL.) On June 18 2012 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:
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. This is a good point which hardly can be stressed enough. The multiplayer part doesn't reflect the full power of the race (no vulture or diamond back for terrans.) Still, if you think of Protoss, what Unit comes to mind? For me and many people it is the Carrier. Taking it away would take away a big part of Protoss' identity. Nothing you can write will change that. Time can change it, though. The carrier is a glorious memory from SC1. In SC2 the carrier never played a big role, we hardly saw him ever. There were a few games but I guess we saw more motherships (even though just one can be build) than carriers in the GSL. Blizzard not just failed to design a useful carrier, the team around Dustin Browder created a game where it is hardly possible to include a useful carrier. What now? Change the carrier so much that he just has the name in common? Re-create many units from the ground to allow for a useful carrier? Just keep the carrier in the game even though it doesn't fill a useful role and another capital ship is available? What would a real protoss Executor do? Just field some carriers because he is used to it from battles years ago, or bring some new stuff which is acutally useful considering the changes within the terran war machine and the zerg evolution? I don't know what GSL you watch but I see Carriers pretty frequently. They aren't as bad as people say, they are just a little worse than they need to be. And what is this mindset of "if something doesn't work right away declare it worthless and ignore it" Why not try to get the Carrier up to where it should be? Because some things are more important than to keep a specific unit in the game. If the tempest can fill the role of the protoss capital ship, it is a worthy replacement for that role. Sometimes it's better to stop walking one path and try a new one. SC2 Carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger. Currently carriers are used as a surprise, but with the improved scouting in HotS, it gets even harder to surprise your opponent. A very bold assumption, based on nothing. Pretty sure since beta before they got buffed, infestors were considered garbage and useless other than for massing in team games for fun.
My assumption is based on the observation that the carrier wasn't fixed. Why should Blizzard care about other units but not try to fix the carrier? If another previously underused unit got fixed, it only means that it was possible to fix that unit. It does not mean that it is possible (without re-creating large parts of the balance) to fix any other unit.
I also consider the possible loss of the carrier in HotS kind of tragic. I still remember the first time I built carriers in SC1. It was at a LAN with friends and I just OWNED them.
|
but the carrier is certainly one of the most iconic for players, especially those that start at the bottom. One of the first units that come into my mind with protoss is the carrier. All new protoss players attempt to try the mass cannon and carrier build when they play the game. The carrier is just so iconic and I really hope they don't remove it.
|
On June 18 2012 19:08 [F_]aths wrote:
My assumption is based on the observation that the carrier wasn't fixed. Why should Blizzard care about other units but not try to fix the carrier? If another previously underused unit got fixed, it only means that it was possible to fix that unit. It does not mean that it is possible (without re-creating large parts of the balance) to fix any other unit.
I also consider the possible loss of the carrier in HotS kind of tragic. I still remember the first time I built carriers in SC1. It was at a LAN with friends and I just OWNED them.
Referring to the second line. "SC2 carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger." It's far too difficult to predict a metagame shift when the right mind takes a crack at it. There are tons of units that no one could foresee the use they seen now. Some flipped match-ups entirely. Which is why SC2 is great. And to assume that a buffed carrier couldn't see innovation either is really arrogant.
You're also assuming Blizzard is actually able to foresee the consequences of their changes beyond the impact on the current meta game. They likely had little idea as to how the infestor buff would play out. They just wanted it to be used more. You're just making it up as you go at this point. You've also again managed to interject your arrogance.
|
On June 18 2012 19:27 DropTester wrote:
but the carrier is certainly one of the most iconic for players, especially those that start at the bottom. One of the first units that come into my mind with protoss is the carrier. All new protoss players attempt to try the mass cannon and carrier build when they play the game. The carrier is just so iconic and I really hope they don't remove it.
SC2 – if it wants to be successfull – has to cater to a wider audience than old SC1 players. If SC2 can be made better with the replacement of an iconinc SC1 unit, so be it.
I would be enraged if Blizzard would let go of the protoss capital ship alltogether. In my opinion, the sons of Auir need capital ships to fit into the fantasy of this extremely powerful race.
The planned change even plays alsong with this fantasy: The protoss noticed that their old battle ship doesn't has too much use anymore. They need to adapt and put their resources into the development on a ship which provides a strategic advantage again.
|
On June 18 2012 19:31 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 19:08 [F_]aths wrote:
My assumption is based on the observation that the carrier wasn't fixed. Why should Blizzard care about other units but not try to fix the carrier? If another previously underused unit got fixed, it only means that it was possible to fix that unit. It does not mean that it is possible (without re-creating large parts of the balance) to fix any other unit.
I also consider the possible loss of the carrier in HotS kind of tragic. I still remember the first time I built carriers in SC1. It was at a LAN with friends and I just OWNED them. Referring to the second line. "SC2 carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger." It's far too difficult to predict a metagame shift when the right mind takes a crack at it. There are tons of units that no one could foresee the use they seen now. Some flipped match-ups entirely. Which is why SC2 is great. And to assume that a buffed carrier couldn't see innovation either is really arrogant. You're also assuming Blizzard is actually able to foresee the consequences of their changes beyond the impact on the current meta game. They likely had little idea as to how the infestor buff would play out. They just wanted it to be used more. You're just making it up as you go at this point. You've also again managed to interject your arrogance.
I admit that I am on quite thin ground here. Still I assume that the SC2 team tried to fix the carrier. I think it would be harder to explain why they would not have tried to fix it. I also think that the designers are well aware of the outcry when the carrier actually gets cut from the expansion and tried to avoid it. They even tried to avoid the previously announced cut of the overseer (which is far less iconic) and it seems they succeded.
In general, an expansion should expand and not replace. It's harder to sell an expansion which don't offers a unit which was available in the vanilla game. Why should Blizzard do it anyway? Considering their ability to balance a game, I assume serious balance reasons.
|
On June 18 2012 19:49 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 19:31 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 18 2012 19:08 [F_]aths wrote:
My assumption is based on the observation that the carrier wasn't fixed. Why should Blizzard care about other units but not try to fix the carrier? If another previously underused unit got fixed, it only means that it was possible to fix that unit. It does not mean that it is possible (without re-creating large parts of the balance) to fix any other unit.
I also consider the possible loss of the carrier in HotS kind of tragic. I still remember the first time I built carriers in SC1. It was at a LAN with friends and I just OWNED them. Referring to the second line. "SC2 carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger." It's far too difficult to predict a metagame shift when the right mind takes a crack at it. There are tons of units that no one could foresee the use they seen now. Some flipped match-ups entirely. Which is why SC2 is great. And to assume that a buffed carrier couldn't see innovation either is really arrogant. You're also assuming Blizzard is actually able to foresee the consequences of their changes beyond the impact on the current meta game. They likely had little idea as to how the infestor buff would play out. They just wanted it to be used more. You're just making it up as you go at this point. You've also again managed to interject your arrogance. I admit that I am on quite thin ground here. Still I assume that the SC2 team tried to fix the carrier. I think it would be harder to explain why they would not have tried to fix it. I also think that the designers are well aware of the outcry when the carrier actually gets cut from the expansion and tried to avoid it. They even tried to avoid the previously announced cut of the overseer (which is far less iconic) and it seems they succeded. In general, an expansion should expand and not replace. It's harder to sell an expansion which don't offers a unit which was available in the vanilla game. Why should Blizzard do it anyway? Considering their ability to balance a game, I assume serious balance reasons.
I'm not so sure they tried fixing the carrier (or maybe they did?). Or if they did, they simply aren't telling us. In all of the recent HotS interviews, when the Carrier is brought up Dustin mentions nothing of trying to fix it. Only that he wants to replace it and the -only- reason it's being debated is because Dustin appears entirely unaware of discussion of the Carrier outside of wanting to keep it for nostalgia, and I'm not sure if he's entirely ingenuous when he says it. It's really unfortunate that none of the interviews were able to press him on whether or not they considered buffing it. It IS difficult to explain why they haven't tried to fix it.
The only thing I really have to go off of is speculation based on the limited exposure to what Dustin describes as his design process. The carrier was removed in the beginning of WoL by an early version of the tempest, but they ultimately decided to scrap it and keep the Carrier. I can only conclude that he REALLY wants to replace the carrier for the sake of creating a new unit. The overseer comparison falls short though. In all of the interviews he mentions how boring of a unit it was, giving its role to the viper -- which didn't work out in testing thus bringing back the Overseer. (and I'll be biased by saying I feel like DB is a little biased cause the overseer is his creation).
If it's for balance reasons they've withheld a ton of information from us for years. And even then, I wouldn't trust them entirely on balance as much as I'd trust the players to balance the metagame through innovation/map creation.
|
4713 Posts
Blizzard has really never tried to fix the Carrier.
They at least tried with the BC by buffing its speed, reducing build time and in HoTS adding the Red-Line reactor.
The buffed the Ultralisks by reducing build time from 70 seconds to 55 seconds.
They even buffed the fucking mothership by increasing its acceleration.
They have not attempted to change 1 single stat from the Carrier. If they really wanted to fix it they could have implemented a couple of small little changes, like they did with Ultras and BCs. A build time reduction at first, later on a interceptor AI tweak, maybe later on even a upgrade cost change etc.
But they have really put in no effort. And you can't fix a unit only trough internal tests, sometimes you just need to patch it, release it into the wild and see what the players do with it, sometimes the players themselves just make it work without the devs needing to intervene.
|
On June 18 2012 20:14 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 19:49 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 19:31 Tyrant0 wrote:On June 18 2012 19:08 [F_]aths wrote:
My assumption is based on the observation that the carrier wasn't fixed. Why should Blizzard care about other units but not try to fix the carrier? If another previously underused unit got fixed, it only means that it was possible to fix that unit. It does not mean that it is possible (without re-creating large parts of the balance) to fix any other unit.
I also consider the possible loss of the carrier in HotS kind of tragic. I still remember the first time I built carriers in SC1. It was at a LAN with friends and I just OWNED them. Referring to the second line. "SC2 carriers cannot be fixed by making them a tad stronger." It's far too difficult to predict a metagame shift when the right mind takes a crack at it. There are tons of units that no one could foresee the use they seen now. Some flipped match-ups entirely. Which is why SC2 is great. And to assume that a buffed carrier couldn't see innovation either is really arrogant. You're also assuming Blizzard is actually able to foresee the consequences of their changes beyond the impact on the current meta game. They likely had little idea as to how the infestor buff would play out. They just wanted it to be used more. You're just making it up as you go at this point. You've also again managed to interject your arrogance. I admit that I am on quite thin ground here. Still I assume that the SC2 team tried to fix the carrier. I think it would be harder to explain why they would not have tried to fix it. I also think that the designers are well aware of the outcry when the carrier actually gets cut from the expansion and tried to avoid it. They even tried to avoid the previously announced cut of the overseer (which is far less iconic) and it seems they succeded. In general, an expansion should expand and not replace. It's harder to sell an expansion which don't offers a unit which was available in the vanilla game. Why should Blizzard do it anyway? Considering their ability to balance a game, I assume serious balance reasons. I'm not so sure they tried fixing the carrier (or maybe they did?). Or if they did, they simply aren't telling us. In all of the recent HotS interviews, when the Carrier is brought up Dustin mentions nothing of trying to fix it. Only that he wants to replace it and the -only- reason it's being debated is because Dustin appears entirely unaware of discussion of the Carrier outside of wanting to keep it for nostalgia, and I'm not sure if he's entirely ingenuous when he says it. It's really unfortunate that none of the interviews were able to press him on whether or not they considered buffing it. It IS difficult to explain why they haven't tried to fix it. The only thing I really have to go off of is speculation based on the limited exposure to what Dustin describes as his design process. The carrier was removed in the beginning of WoL by an early version of the tempest, but they ultimately decided to scrap it and keep the Carrier. I can only conclude that he REALLY wants to replace the carrier for the sake of creating a new unit. The overseer comparison falls short though. In all of the interviews he mentions how boring of a unit it was, giving its role to the viper -- which didn't work out in testing thus bringing back the Overseer. (and I'll be biased by saying I feel like DB is a little biased cause the overseer is his creation). If it's for balance reasons they've withheld a ton of information from us for years. And even then, I wouldn't trust them entirely on balance as much as I'd trust the players to balance the metagame through innovation/map creation.
I draw different conclusions. The fact that they still used the carrier in WoL and not the dark carrier ("tempest") shows that they are well aware of the importance of the carrier for the protoss image.
I don't think that we get regularly updated on the internal balance process. We get a blog posting every now and then, but those postings mostly explain the decions made, they are less verbatim when it comes to balance ideas which probably will not make it into an actual patch.
In the weeks and months after the WoL launch, several community ideas were posted in many forums, how to make the carrier useful. But after that it looks like the community widely accepted the niche role of the carrier. So what do we really lose here compared to WoL? Mostly a fantasy. If the tempest gets more actual use than the carrier, Blizzard succeeded. I admit that if the tempest remains an obscure unit, Blizzard failed again; but if the tempest gets used more often, the decision to replace the carrier should be accepted.
I think this is a delicate matter. While the foundations for each race should be kept as easily recognizable, we should also applaud differences in gameplay compared to SC1. SC1 has been explored for over 10 years now. New ideas are maybe worth exploring, too.
On June 18 2012 20:59 Destructicon wrote:
Blizzard has really never tried to fix the Carrier.
We don't know that. Almost no carrier patches were provided, but that doesn't mean that Blizzard didn't try internally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
