|
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.
Personally, I think of a Zealot when I think of the Protoss. I still remember my first playthrough of SC1's singleplayer and that first mission you encounter the Protoss. I saw a single Zealot coming and figured, "hey, those two Marines I built can handle this."
No. No they couldn't.
The sheer durability of that bastard (compared to anything I could build or had encountered from the Zerg) forever etched that into my mind as being what the Protoss are all about.
And note: I would be OK with them replacing the Zealot with something else. Something still Protoss-y, but something else nevertheless.
On June 18 2012 17:37 rEalGuapo wrote:
What I do not understand is why they never tried to change the main problem with the carrier.
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.
Corruptors are supposed to kill Carriers. If they can't kill Carriers, then what exactly should the Zerg do about them?
|
On June 18 2012 23:39 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 20:14 Tyrant0 wrote: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.
It's not delicate at all. Blizzard treats their balance patches like a playground. They come up with an idea they like, and they'll toss it out there to see how it plays out so they can tweak it later. They just want their own unit in over the Carrier. Theres literally no other way to explain why with how much they lament over the failure of stargate use when given two years to do something about it.
Among the many issues of removing a unit we've been given no opportunity to see develop, the Tempest represents everything that is terrible about how WoL units are designed. Tempest will only replace the carrier as the carrier is now in it's current form: a big starship to add on to your ball because it can't be defended otherwise. They just slapped 22 range on it because it's previous form was an air colossus. It's infuriating how much they want to justify putting in new units for the sake of new.
|
From what I see is that Blizzard team is trying to avoid the carrier because buffing it will make mass carrier viable; a think they are trying to avoid. We can argue about the Carrier and Blizzard all day and night but the bottom line is that if we don't come up with an idea that makes the carrier viable with a solid role without being massable we have nothing to argue with against Blizzard. I urge all those who want the carrier in the game to try and make or comment suggessions for the Carrier. We should start having suggessions and put them into votes in a different thread and maybe try the best these in a custom/edited map. We can sit here all day nagging about Blizzard or we can start doing some work.
|
I can't understand the philosophy on the carrier either. I mean if they tried to fix it, it would surly be easily possible for them. But in fact i get the impression they don't want to. They are actually happy with the carrier in its current state, because it is not used very often and therefore will not be missed as much when they replace it with something else.
However if you look at the units that made their way from BW to Sc2, you have marines, zealots and zerglings, you have tanks, mutalisks, hydralisks and dark/high templars, and you have battlecruisers and carriers. They took the most iconic units for every race and kept them in.
Every race got one air unit from BW and why would you want to change that? It helps to keep the identity of the race. The carrier with its unique design and mechanics is a prime example of asymmetric game design. One of the determining factors that made the whole game unique and so successful.
It will be a very sad day when one of the coolest and most impressive units in the whole franchise gets replaced by something as uninspired as the tempest.
|
On June 19 2012 06:02 rollAdice wrote:
I can't understand the philosophy on the carrier either. I mean if they tried to fix it, it would surly be easily possible for them. But in fact i get the impression they don't want to. They are actually happy with the carrier in its current state, because it is not used very often and therefore will not be missed as much when they replace it with something else.
However if you look at the units that made their way from BW to Sc2, you have marines, zealots and zerglings, you have tanks, mutalisks, hydralisks and drak/high templars, and you have battlecruisers and carriers. They took the most iconic units for every race and kept them in.
Every race got one air unit from BW and why would you want to change that? It helps to keep the identity of the race. The carrier with its unique design and mechanics is a prime example of asymmetric game design. One of the determining factors that made the whole game unique and so successful.
It will be a very sad day when one of the coolest and most impressive units in the whole franchise gets replaced by something as uninspired as the tempest.
Its because Blizzard have become lazier and lazier.
"Nothing last forever" and neither does the throne of a gaming giant.
|
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 .
Carriers only need 1 change. The ability to be microed like in BW. With that change Carriers can be a stable unit in TvP HOTS against Mech. Carriers were never good against Bio, the answer to 2 base Carrier was MM Tank Timings! No wonder Carriers sucked so bad in WOL.
But with the added viability of mech in TvP HOTS, Protoss will need the carrier to pick apart the Terran mech. Personally I find the Tempest to be a very boring unit.
DB keeps talking about how the Tempest is also a Gold Ship. Yeah its gold, but that's not what made the carrier great. What made the Carrier great was its legacy, and its badassness in Fastest Possible Money Maps!
|
There was an interesting game in GSL not too long ago with Genius pulling a win with carriers against some zerg, and i think he wasn't a no-name zerg player bye any means.
However, i don't use it, but i don't get the point of removing it, ..... really, ...... senseless.
|
On June 19 2012 02:22 NicolBolas wrote:
Corruptors are supposed to kill Carriers. If they can't kill Carriers, then what exactly should the Zerg do about them?
While corruptors are pretty good against carriers, they melt to the combination of carriers and void rays. Infestors, in my opinion (as someone who plays Skytoss a lot), are the best answer Zerg currently has to heavy stargate play from a Protoss. Even without the speed upgrade planned for hydras in HotS, fungals and infested terrans with some hydras in the back absolutely wreck a Skytoss composition. Problem is that hydras aren't good for much else and infestors are pretty squishy in their own right, so Zerg has some serious problems in late game ZvP at the moment. If Protoss can get out a sufficient number of carriers, Zerg has practically no tier 3 answers (though HotS will almost certainly change this).
|
On June 16 2012 16:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 15:29 xPrimuSx wrote:
My position assumes nothing except that Overload works like all other projectile attacks in the game. That version of Overload would suck. It simply cannot be useful if all you have to do is back up 2 range units to avoid it. Therefore, your position implicitly assumes that Overload is a worthless ability. My assumption is that abilities are designed such that they actually function in some way, rather than having obvious and easily achieved ways of completely negating them.
How generous of you to grant the Phoenix Overload ability an additional benefit (that cannot be reasonably assumed to exist based on all available evidence) to make it not suck then, for truth a pseudo anti-air specific psi storm that has stackable damage (unlike the regular psi storm), fills a circle of radius 4 as opposed to 2 (and currently 1.5), requires no energy (making it immune to feedback and EMP), and deals no damage to friendly units truly is truly a sucky ability. No wonder Blizzard was nerfing this truly awful ability in every iteration of it that they showed to players.
On June 16 2012 16:18 NicolBolas wrote:
My point isn't that all of the numbers from those builds meant that Protoss air was certainly strong. My point is that it had potential, given the right balance. After all, Phoenixes used to be able to attack the ground. Maybe Vikings would need a slight damage nerf, or Tempests would need 150+ Hp, or their Shurikens would need to do lots of damage or whatever. The point is that it could have worked; all the pieces were in place. Blizzard just decided to cut and run instead of trying to make it work.
You realize that everything you say about the OG Tempest applies to the Carrier right? Anything that would make the OG Tempest more viable would also make the Carrier more viable. More to the point, Blizzard did not "cut and run" as you put it, they gave in to the desires of the fans when they saw the monumental outcry at the loss of the Carrier. However, from your newer posts it looks like you think Blizzard respecting the desire of the fans is a terrible thing. Keep in mind that it's because of the fans that there is still a market for SC2 considering SC1 is more than a decade old. Considering that most AAA titles try to come out with a new game every 3-4 years to ensure that there is a market for them, that's truly some dedication that deserves some show of loyalty, especially when it is with something as easy to do as this. Additionally, since Starcraft is also a competitive game, Blizzard is further constrained in what they can do with SC2 because a drastic change in the nature of the game will threaten its adoption, which is bad for Blizzard. Heck, even with the relatively benign changes introduced in SC2 there was still a significant row over the choices made. Blizzard had to walk a fine line in designing SC2.
On June 16 2012 16:18 NicolBolas wrote:
The Stalker fits pretty well into the idea of DTs not really being about the whole open warfare kind of thing. It feels like a DT solution for building a line-unit. It's massable, but not very strong per-unit-cost. But, it can use its mobility and other features to maximize it's potential. The DTs don't want to use Stalkers as line units. But they don't have a choice, they're being pressed into the fight, so they make the most of what they have. Like a good nomad does; if you're forced into a stand-up fight, you use your skills and knowledge to fight dirty.
Eh, I disagree. The lore for the Stalker indicates you take a perfectly healthy DT warrior and put them in that mech body, sacrificing them essentially, hardly something a dying race should be doing. Given the Protoss edge in technology it would be better to create a robot powered by DT tech (the energies of the Void) that fulfills the same role. That would make more sense for the Dark Templar. They didn't fight land wars, they were a tribe that held to their nomadic fleet, they didn't even have a home planet until during SC1. They wouldn't needlessly sacrifice their number when they could build a robot, or an exo-skeleton or something. (Honestly that's part of my problem with Zealots simply because they no longer make sense to be fielded when the Protoss are a dying race). These are people so dedicated to maintaining their own individuality they mutilated themselves to forever distance themselves from the Protoss communal mind. Nothing about the Stalker makes sense in that view.
On June 16 2012 16:18 NicolBolas wrote:
This works for Void Rays too. Uncharged VRs get worse if they focus-fire low-HP units. This encourages the idea that DTs are nomadic and don't generally work together.
It seems to me that they just went with a slightly different flavor for DTs this time around. They have the same lore, it just leads to different yet entirely defensible gameplay options.
I disagree again, but I think this is based on you and I viewing the lore differently, so I think we can probably leave it at that.
On June 16 2012 16:18 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2012 15:29 xPrimuSx wrote:
Heck, even if you wanted a DT massabe unit you could still do it. The first idea I had for one was independent Shuriken drones that are low supply, low cost, low durability with high DPS. Obviously the strength is their DPS, low cost, and low supply, while the weakness is their fragility and melee range. Compensate for this with an ability that enhances their survivability, my thought was some kind of shield-interlink would be interesting. All Shuriken drones within a certain radius combine their shields, so you have to break through the combined total shields of all Shuriken drones to damage any individual drone. This would not be without its drawbacks of course since they are all linked now and have to move and attack together, meaning you can't split them, but that's not that big a deal and would be interesting, especially if you let certain spells like EMP deactivate the interlink or say, let them break free of Fungal by dropping the interlink and making themselves more vulnerable. An early game unit that shares shields like this represents an incredibly unstable equilibrium. Too few units and they all just die. Too many and it's way too OP. And if this interlink is an activated ability, then it gets worse, because you're forcing such an early-game unit to survive thanks to an activated ability. That sounds a lot more like a Terran thing than a Protoss one (even DT Protoss).
Not really, the Interlink ability would be researchable for mid game, and the units would be tougher than their early counterparts (say 50/50 shield/hp, but those numbers are of course subject to balance). By the time the Interlink ability comes online, vT you can expect to see EMP since it would disable the interlink and since each individual unit has >100 shields they'd all end up shieldless. vZ all you need is 1 fungal to lock an interlinked group in place. See, as I envisioned it, the Interlink ability still has a cost, when any number are linked, they function as 1 super unit, meaning a single EMP affecting just 1 of any number of linked units affects all of them, same with something like Fungal or even NP. Both spell casters on the other races counter this unit nicely, but the unit also serves an additional protective role by eating the entire ability used against it, saving other Protoss units from the effects. This unit would serve as a solid replacement for the Zealot with its tanking ability. (Obviously vP you'd get into a mass vs mass match at some point until you can field splash damage to quickly drain them and of course there is always forcefield.
|
On June 19 2012 04:56 Tyrant0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2012 23:39 [F_]aths wrote:On June 18 2012 20:14 Tyrant0 wrote: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. It's not delicate at all. Blizzard treats their balance patches like a playground. They come up with an idea they like, and they'll toss it out there to see how it plays out so they can tweak it later. They just want their own unit in over the Carrier. Theres literally no other way to explain why with how much they lament over the failure of stargate use when given two years to do something about it.
That is your impression. My impression is that Blizzard very carefully applies any balance patch because it could hurt e-sports when they just play around. I can think of other ways to explain why the carrier is now victim to a replacement, I think I already stated those.
On June 19 2012 04:56 Tyrant0 wrote:Among the many issues of removing a unit we've been given no opportunity to see develop, the Tempest represents everything that is terrible about how WoL units are designed. Tempest will only replace the carrier as the carrier is now in it's current form: a big starship to add on to your ball because it can't be defended otherwise. They just slapped 22 range on it because it's previous form was an air colossus. It's infuriating how much they want to justify putting in new units for the sake of new.
I think you read too much into it. The point I try to address here is that they most probably not "just" do things. They are the guys who develop this game for years now. Even if they have only an opinion about something without hard data, it's a much more professional opinion compared to ours.
|
Dakota_Fanning
Hungary2349 Posts
When the op made the thread I felt the same way about the Carrier. But months have passed without me seeing a single Carrier on battle.net, and the fact is that I don't even miss it. If a unit does so little affect on the game as the Carrier does right now, then it really should be removed/replaced... and a new unit should be elevated to be the symbol of the Protoss race...
|
The thing that bugs me about the Carrier is that for a while Ultras were useless and Blizzard patched them, and in HotS they're getting even more changes to be viable (Hydralisks, too, are getting some love despite being relatively useless) while they're just unwilling to work on the Carrier.
I mean, whatever I guess, it's their game, but it seems like they just don't like the Carrier.
|
On June 19 2012 19:40 Dakota_Fanning wrote:
When the op made the thread I felt the same way about the Carrier. But months have passed without me seeing a single Carrier on battle.net, and the fact is that I don't even miss it. If a unit does so little affect on the game as the Carrier does right now, then it really should be removed/replaced... and a new unit should be elevated to be the symbol of the Protoss race...
I haven't seen many Carriers either, and I do miss them. If a unit isn't having a effect in the game, it probably needs to be buffed, not removed.
|
I would have loved to see the carrier get 23 range :D :D :D
|
I spent the morning before last storm rush into carriers every PvT while shouting JANGBANG! as a subtle hint as to exactly what I was going to do.
Please don't take this away from me.
|
I was thinking something totally random.
What if the interceptors costed a little more minerals but had a some more health and the carrier is able to repair them when they return inside the carrier. But the carrier also has a "leave out" button. Where the interceptors dont need to be launched they are basically just floating around the carrier, but when in "leave out" mode the carrier cant repair the interceptors.
Having the "leave out" function would make the carrier much more microable because you wouldnt have all your interceptors return and have to be launched if you get half an inch too far. At most they would have to return to the area of the carrier but wont have to be launched so would be able to get back into combat quicker. This would make the carrier microable vs corruptors and to a lesser extend the viking.
Then adding the health to the interceptors but increasing the cost. Increasing the cost would make it so you wouldn't want to leave the interceptors out all the time you would want to repair them. Then increasing the health would just have the effect of making hydralisks and marines actually want to target the carrier instead of just melting the interceptors. Which in turn would let the protoss attempt to kite with the carrier thus resulting in more micro potential from both players.
Personally i wouldnt want the carrier to be an all killing death machine. But a unit that scales well with micro is a brilliant unit in my mind.
Honestly i don't even know why i'm posting it here ... its not like blizzard are going to see this lol. I suppose its just 1 of those ideas i have when im half asleep. But alas ... <3 the carrier ... hope it stays i'd be sad to see it go.
|
i hope they change the performance strass caused by the carrier... i can play 4v4 fluently with low to mid settings, but as soon someone starts to mass carriers it goes downhill FAST...
apart from that, keep the carrier blizz, its always fun to watch when someone builds some of those =) (PvZ mainly i guess if at all at prolevel)
|
why keep the carrier? ppl will continue to not use it even if it stays rofl...
|
No one wants to keep the carrier while not using it. What we wish is for Blizzard to try and fix the carrier. I'm all fine if they can make it work in one match up.
|
Dear Blizzard,
Carrier MUST stay ! - Just make it better to micro, That is all.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
