EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 54
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
fenix404
United States305 Posts
| ||
|
winthrop
Hong Kong956 Posts
go carrier than carrier not get remove its yourselves ruin carrier not blizzard | ||
|
SiroKO
France721 Posts
Only way for them to be viable would be through a buff (invincible interceptors and/or more range) which might be game-breaking in team-league (don't forget that's the reason why blizzard nerfed HSM). | ||
|
sunprince
United States2258 Posts
On June 22 2012 19:02 Ballistixz wrote: why keep the carrier? ppl will continue to not use it even if it stays rofl... The point is to keep it while fixing it. | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On June 23 2012 19:00 winthrop wrote: dont make colossus go carrier than carrier not get remove its yourselves ruin carrier not blizzard Blizzard ruined the carrier by implementing it in a bad state and they're not considering deleting it instead of fixing it for hots, which has been a trending design philosophy for them with this game. If it's broken, don't fix it, get rid of it! | ||
|
Kindred
Canada396 Posts
| ||
|
s4life
Peru1519 Posts
| ||
|
Kindred
Canada396 Posts
On June 23 2012 19:59 s4life wrote: why not just give the 22 range to the carrier instead? the tempest imho is a pretty boring unit. I was taking about this tempest: ![[image loading]](http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080920022356/starcraft/images/c/c3/Tempest_SC2_Game1.jpg) which was promising. You upgrade it at forge since its melee weapons, it has a hardenned shield for AA units. I found it pretty appealing and a worthy replacement for the carrier. Unless you mean the HOTS tempest. in which case I agree. Its slow and shoots every 12 years. lol | ||
|
Squide
Sweden141 Posts
| ||
|
HelioSeven
United States193 Posts
On June 23 2012 19:19 SiroKO wrote: infestors/corruptors and marines/vikings destroy them too hard. Only way for them to be viable would be through a buff (invincible interceptors and/or more range) which might be game-breaking in team-league (don't forget that's the reason why blizzard nerfed HSM). Ugh. People really don't seem to get late game PvT and PvZ. Infestor/corruptor is good against Skytoss, but void ray/carrier actually melts corruptors pretty quick and a few suporting HTs with some well placed feedbacks can completely destroy that comp. Skytoss is very viable in PvZ, it's been seen in GSTL and Proleague. Uncommon, but not impossible. In PvT carriers don't work not because of vikings (they don't have enough armor to live long against carriers), but because of marines. Stim is just too powerful. But that was true in Brood War too, wasn't it? Carriers were the Protoss answer to mech, marines have always been the anti-carrier. But just as Blizzard buffs mech play and makes it viable in TvP, they're gonna take out the carrier. HotS will be terrible for PvT with no carrier, it'll be silly. | ||
|
Vathus
Canada404 Posts
| ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
You upgrade it at forge since its melee weapons FYI: Protoss upgrades don't work that way. It's ground weapons vs. air weapons, not ranged vs. melee. The latter is Zerg. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On June 24 2012 13:47 Vathus wrote: I don't understand why they're replacing the carrier with (imo) a far less interesting unit that basically has the same role. It's not even like the carrier is a bad unit. It's becoming used more and more in lategame PvZ since it's the best unit at dealing with broodlord/corrupter + infestor armies, (the biggest problem is transitioning into them but people are starting to get better at making the transition) and with mech buffs in hots the carrier may have a bigger role in PvT as well. What is the problem of the Carrier? Its damage is based upon the Interceptors on the ship and they - being very tiny units with low hp - can be easily shot down. Terrans have lots of tightly packed Marines to do that, Zerg have Fungal Growth plus a few Hydras / Corruptors / Queens and Protoss can do it with Psi Storm and blinking Stalkers. After these units have been annihilated in about two seconds the Carriers are dead weight in army supply and it might even be wiser for an opponent not to shoot them down (and thus the Carrier's owner has to do it himself). The stats havent changed that much from BW to SC2, so why is the Carrier useless now? That is an easy question to answer. The defending players units in SC2 are packed MUCH tighter together in SC2 compared to BW and this increases the rate at which the Interceptors get shot down. Thus the uselessness could be overcome in several ways: - make Interceptors immune to AoE effects - increase the defensive stats of Interceptors - increase the rate at which the Interceptors are built AND make them not cost any resources (kinda turn the Carrier into a Broodlord), maybe even base the reproduction of Interceptors on energy ... which could be adapted to Broodlords as well - give the Carrier some other attack like the 22 range "once in a blue moon" shot of the Tempest So there are lots and lots of good ideas, but someone at Blizzard seems to have an antipathy against the Carrier. There is nothing we can do against that except for playing custom maps (i.e. no ladder/tournaments) with the Carrier in it OR not buying HotS ... | ||
|
Kbafewx
United States16 Posts
| ||
|
Adonminus
Israel543 Posts
On June 24 2012 19:46 Rabiator wrote: What is the problem of the Carrier? Its damage is based upon the Interceptors on the ship and they - being very tiny units with low hp - can be easily shot down. Terrans have lots of tightly packed Marines to do that, Zerg have Fungal Growth plus a few Hydras / Corruptors / Queens and Protoss can do it with Psi Storm and blinking Stalkers. After these units have been annihilated in about two seconds the Carriers are dead weight in army supply and it might even be wiser for an opponent not to shoot them down (and thus the Carrier's owner has to do it himself). The stats havent changed that much from BW to SC2, so why is the Carrier useless now? That is an easy question to answer. The defending players units in SC2 are packed MUCH tighter together in SC2 compared to BW and this increases the rate at which the Interceptors get shot down. Thus the uselessness could be overcome in several ways: - make Interceptors immune to AoE effects - increase the defensive stats of Interceptors - increase the rate at which the Interceptors are built AND make them not cost any resources (kinda turn the Carrier into a Broodlord), maybe even base the reproduction of Interceptors on energy ... which could be adapted to Broodlords as well - give the Carrier some other attack like the 22 range "once in a blue moon" shot of the Tempest So there are lots and lots of good ideas, but someone at Blizzard seems to have an antipathy against the Carrier. There is nothing we can do against that except for playing custom maps (i.e. no ladder/tournaments) with the Carrier in it OR not buying HotS ... I would also want to note that in sc2 intercepters no longer return to the carrier to recieve healing, this makes them die easier. Also the carrier can't microed the same way it could be in bw. Perhaps there haven't been changes in states, but those minor changes in abilities just made it useless in most cases. | ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
If you think about the perspective of the viewer it's will suck if they just get to see shit get killed without seeing what's causing it cause the Tempest is more then a screen away. Then it would be cooler if the carriers had more range. Seeing the interceptors instead of a random lightning ball would make it much clearer to the viewers what it happening when they view the attacked units. Maybe make the interceptors microable or something. | ||
|
Garmer
1286 Posts
On June 24 2012 20:32 Adonminus wrote: I would also want to note that in sc2 intercepters no longer return to the carrier to recieve healing, this makes them die easier. Also the carrier can't microed the same way it could be in bw. Perhaps there haven't been changes in states, but those minor changes in abilities just made it useless in most cases. do not forget the +4 armor BW's carrier vs +2 armor sc2's carrier | ||
|
Xpace
United States2209 Posts
Anyone remember the most recent Legend of the Fall? Pretty sure every nerd Protoss teared up when Jangbi beat Fantasy with CARRIERS. The commentators were commenting how he had the Autumn Wind carrying the flagship of the Protoss into battle. I like change; and the Tempest might be 'the future', but it really feels like the Carrier hasn't been given the attention it deserves. D: | ||
|
mockturtle
United States220 Posts
Yeah, a tier 3 flying unit that is slow and instead of attacking, sends out little units to do its attacking for it, and is the perfect late game solution to a million siege tanks. They gave it to Zerg. I think they left the current Carrier in the game to make fun of BW players. | ||
|
scsequeL
47 Posts
| ||
| ||
