|
On June 26 2012 02:05 willoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 19:25 Rabiator wrote:On June 25 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2012 22:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War. Blizzard is still responsible for keeping WoL as a Starcraft game; if they scrapped all of the most iconic units, it wouldn't be much of a Starcraft game. The most iconic units are still present. Terran kept units: Marines, Siege Tank, Battlecruiser, Ghost deleted/replaced units: Medic, Firebat, Vulture, Goliath, Valkyrie, Wraith, Science Vessel Protoss kept units: Zealot, Carrier, Observer, High Templar deleted/replaced units: Dragoon, Reaver, Shuttle, Arbiter, Dark Archon, Scout, (Shield Battery) Zerg kept units: Zergling, Hydralisk, Ultralisk, Overlord deleted/replaced units: Devourer, Guardian, Queen, Lurker, Defiler "Most iconic still in the game"? That should rather be "most built" since the tier 1 basic units of Marine, Zergling and Zealot are still there, but A LOT of other very iconic units are gone. Defiler, Scouts, Vultures, Science Vessels and more are really as iconic as your basic run-of-the-mill Marine/Zergling/Zealot AND they have special abilities and are higher tier units which are EXCITING due to the fact they are rarer than those mass troopers. The units we got instead sometimes dont really perform as well and even though the Raven was fun in the TLOwnage, they seem to be pretty much useless from a progamers point of view. Science Vessels were pretty much necessary for Terrans against Zerg (who were less mobile back then). I seriously doubt you understand the definition of iconic when you bring the scout into this argument...
I wasnt making a list of iconic units ... just a "more or less" complete list of units to show how much of BW is already gone and that there is not much left.
On June 26 2012 01:46 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2012 19:25 Rabiator wrote:On June 25 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2012 22:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War. Blizzard is still responsible for keeping WoL as a Starcraft game; if they scrapped all of the most iconic units, it wouldn't be much of a Starcraft game. The most iconic units are still present. Terran kept units: Marines, Siege Tank, Battlecruiser, Ghost deleted/replaced units: Medic, Firebat, Vulture, Goliath, Valkyrie, Wraith, Science Vessel Protoss kept units: Zealot, Carrier, Observer, High Templar deleted/replaced units: Dragoon, Reaver, Shuttle, Arbiter, Dark Archon, Scout, (Shield Battery) Zerg kept units: Zergling, Hydralisk, Ultralisk, Overlord deleted/replaced units: Devourer, Guardian, Queen, Lurker, Defiler "Most iconic still in the game"? That should rather be "most built" since the tier 1 basic units of Marine, Zergling and Zealot are still there, but A LOT of other very iconic units are gone. Defiler, Scouts, Vultures, Science Vessels and more are really as iconic as your basic run-of-the-mill Marine/Zergling/Zealot AND they have special abilities and are higher tier units which are EXCITING due to the fact they are rarer than those mass troopers. The units we got instead sometimes dont really perform as well and even though the Raven was fun in the TLOwnage, they seem to be pretty much useless from a progamers point of view. Science Vessels were pretty much necessary for Terrans against Zerg (who were less mobile back then). Since SC2 is a new game and not BW in high-res, one can expect new units. The most iconic units are still present, though. SC2 will hopefully establish new higher-tier iconic units for each race. It's understandable that long-time SC1 players/viewers are attached to their old units, but it's also understandable that SC2 doesn't consider itself an SC1 remake.
Who are you kidding here? "Most iconic" is more than "most built". Iconic is something more along the lines of "game defining" and the lurker, scourge, arbiter, reaver, science vessel were all VERY important and are iconic units which are lost. For some of them it was necessary to be scrapped (arbiter was necessary for example due to the overlord-non-detection and the MULE change). You make it sound as if we still are playing Starcraft just because there are still marines, zealots and zerglings, but since the rest has changed sooo much (IMO too much) it doesnt feel like a true sequel anymore.
Please refrain from repeating your "the most iconic units are still in the game"-mantra again. You fail to prove your point by not arguing your point that the tier 1 units are "iconic". You might deceive yourself as much as you want to, but I for one totally disagree with such stupidity. The carrier has been featured in a few of the VERY EMOTIONAL cutscenes in BW and should stay. Personally I was already offended by the new - and IMO ugly and stupid (because the curved sideplates of the BW carrier work as a shield of sorts for the ship and thus make sense) - graphics of the unit in SC2.
|
Change Interceptor repair/build dynamics so that they're more survivable and/or replenish faster, increase Interceptor movement range to Tempest range, and then make the Graviton Catapult upgrade increase Interceptor movement range to upgraded Tempest range.
Carriers would simply assume the role of the current Tempest, they'd retain their place as an iconic staple of the Protoss fleet, and they'd finally be strong enough to contribute to lategame compositions. I can dream, right? :D
|
On July 05 2012 06:45 wcr.4fun wrote:
browders has already said, they are inclined to keep the carrier if someone can come with an argument of why they should keep the carrier besides 'it's a cool unit'.
Which role should the carrier fulfill? This is the question we have to answer. If we can, they might change their minds about buffing the carrier and keeping it instead of removing it.
Blizzard is not completely open for reason, we have to answer it on their terms. If we don't, they'll just cover their ears and put the tempest in the game. Even though I think the tempest has a pretty cool model and is a nice concept (not saying it's going to be good or w/e I just like the model with the lightning ball and the fact that it has 22 range is pretty cool in one way).
In my eyes the carrier is good in besieging bases from places unaccessable to ground units. It can be great at putting pressure on a player and forcing the player to attack under not ideal terms or suffer immense damage to bases/units. Right now toss doesn't have such a unit besides collussi, but they get picked off too easily by infestors/corruptors/... if you don't pay attention for one millisecond. Whereas the addition of more airspace (but not ground, I mean cliffs which are unaccessable to ground units) behind expansions and in key center places of the map, could reallly give the carrier a nice besieging role. Pushing the enemy back through constant interceptor fire.
Now all we need is to get some buffs on the carrier so it can fulfill this role decently imo.
If you think the carrier has a different reason please type it out. I listened to the interview of browder and from what I made up from it, this is the only way we can change their mind.
If that really is what DB said, it goes to show how much of a moron he really is if he honestly expects the community to be able to predict the neiche the carrier MIGHT be able to fill in the metagame of HOTS without having
A) Played HoTS for several months
B) Know what potential unit buffs to the carrier have already been tabled and which he would realistically go through with
At the end of the day, it's sounding to me more and more like its the case of being easier to dump the mistake than fix it, what he doesnt seem to realise is that the unit chosen to replace the carrier from the footage i've seen would probably be built even less and with the gap between attacks could be sniped before getting a single shot off.
Carriers should be filling the neiche of aerial siege, the fleet should be able to slow push and lock down certain areas of the map (bases/expansions) complemented by the faster moving units whom would be pressuring/scouting nearby e.g. blink stalkers, phoenix, etc.
I like to this of it as the cannons you place at you're expansion which you can take with you when you decide to push up the map, like spinecrawlers but far far more versatile
|
Pretty sure blizzard knows how to fix the carrier, or ALMOST fix it, completely. they just can't decide if it will work and is worth keeping for the old fans or making something new to cater to the new crowd for their NEW game. Just like the damned colossus.
|
What if they got rid of the collossus and improved the carrier? Sounds like a win situation to me.
|
MC vs Nerchio G2 in HSC V, yet another game showing the viability of carriers in late game PvZ. Though MC seems to be getting rolled in the rest of the series, oddly enough...
|
On July 09 2012 01:30 HelioSeven wrote:
MC vs Nerchio G2 in HSC V, yet another game showing the viability of carriers in late game PvZ. Though MC seems to be getting rolled in the rest of the series, oddly enough...
Viability? Nerchio didn't scout the 8 carriers and died because he invested too much in broodlord and didnt have enough infestor/corruptor. Carriers are still shit..
|
On July 09 2012 01:33 OutOfMyMind_pro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:30 HelioSeven wrote:
MC vs Nerchio G2 in HSC V, yet another game showing the viability of carriers in late game PvZ. Though MC seems to be getting rolled in the rest of the series, oddly enough... Viability? Nerchio didn't scout the 8 carriers and died because he invested too much in broodlord and didnt have enough infestor/corruptor. Carriers are still shit..
Not sure you understood what happened there. He didn't win with the carriers, he won with his stalkers. He built the carriers because he had no other answer to the mass of Brood Lords that Nerchio had, and he built just enough. Every single carrier died, but they reduced the BL count just enough that the remaining stalkers were able to take the game. If Nerchio had more infestors and corruptors, he would have had less BLs, and the stalker/HT that MC already had would have been hugely more effective. Nerchio didn't over-invest in BLs, he invested correctly in BLs to counter MC's entirely gateway-based army. MC correctly appraised the opportunity of a sudden carrier transition and did it exactly how he needed to.
Just saying "carriers are shit" not only belies your complete lack of experience with them, but totally ignores the fact that they're the only Protoss counter to tons of Brood Lords that isn't an archon toilet.
|
he did but do you think he would of done even better with 14 void rays instead? I guess it comes down to micro verse infestors but 14 voids can handle all those corrupters that came up
|
On July 09 2012 03:15 SuperYo1000 wrote:
he did but do you think he would of done even better with 14 void rays instead? I guess it comes down to micro verse infestors but 14 voids can handle all those corrupters that came up
Yeah, that's one of those compositional things that's really kind of player's choice more than anything else. Void rays are generally better at killing corruptors and BLs because of it's bonus damage against armored and massive, but their mid-tier health and meh range make them difficult to use when infestors are already out. The other thing to remember is that void rays reach peak damage output several seconds after the engagement begins (when they are charged up), where as carriers' peak damage output is instantaneous (as all the interceptors are being launched w/ graviton catapult). Though carrier dps is lackluster after the initial 1.5 seconds, dps at the beginning of the fight is obviously hugely more important than dps at the end of the fight.
In short, there is a balance to be found between the two. Whenever I play the Skytoss style against Zerg, I usually opt for mostly carriers, as they are more effective against infestors, queens, and hydras, but I always mix in at least a few voids for that crucial damage output against the armor of corruptors.
|
Poll: Which tier-3 Protoss unit would you rather see replaced?Colossus (43) 81% Mothership (6) 11% Carrier (4) 8% 53 total votes Your vote: Which tier-3 Protoss unit would you rather see replaced? (Vote): Carrier
(Vote): Colossus
(Vote): Mothership
|
On July 06 2012 13:25 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 02:05 willoc wrote:On June 25 2012 19:25 Rabiator wrote:On June 25 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2012 22:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War. Blizzard is still responsible for keeping WoL as a Starcraft game; if they scrapped all of the most iconic units, it wouldn't be much of a Starcraft game. The most iconic units are still present. Terran kept units: Marines, Siege Tank, Battlecruiser, Ghost deleted/replaced units: Medic, Firebat, Vulture, Goliath, Valkyrie, Wraith, Science Vessel Protoss kept units: Zealot, Carrier, Observer, High Templar deleted/replaced units: Dragoon, Reaver, Shuttle, Arbiter, Dark Archon, Scout, (Shield Battery) Zerg kept units: Zergling, Hydralisk, Ultralisk, Overlord deleted/replaced units: Devourer, Guardian, Queen, Lurker, Defiler "Most iconic still in the game"? That should rather be "most built" since the tier 1 basic units of Marine, Zergling and Zealot are still there, but A LOT of other very iconic units are gone. Defiler, Scouts, Vultures, Science Vessels and more are really as iconic as your basic run-of-the-mill Marine/Zergling/Zealot AND they have special abilities and are higher tier units which are EXCITING due to the fact they are rarer than those mass troopers. The units we got instead sometimes dont really perform as well and even though the Raven was fun in the TLOwnage, they seem to be pretty much useless from a progamers point of view. Science Vessels were pretty much necessary for Terrans against Zerg (who were less mobile back then). I seriously doubt you understand the definition of iconic when you bring the scout into this argument... I wasnt making a list of iconic units ... just a "more or less" complete list of units to show how much of BW is already gone and that there is not much left. Show nested quote +On June 26 2012 01:46 [F_]aths wrote:On June 25 2012 19:25 Rabiator wrote:On June 25 2012 18:14 [F_]aths wrote:On June 15 2012 22:36 Stratos_speAr wrote:On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War. Blizzard is still responsible for keeping WoL as a Starcraft game; if they scrapped all of the most iconic units, it wouldn't be much of a Starcraft game. The most iconic units are still present. Terran kept units: Marines, Siege Tank, Battlecruiser, Ghost deleted/replaced units: Medic, Firebat, Vulture, Goliath, Valkyrie, Wraith, Science Vessel Protoss kept units: Zealot, Carrier, Observer, High Templar deleted/replaced units: Dragoon, Reaver, Shuttle, Arbiter, Dark Archon, Scout, (Shield Battery) Zerg kept units: Zergling, Hydralisk, Ultralisk, Overlord deleted/replaced units: Devourer, Guardian, Queen, Lurker, Defiler "Most iconic still in the game"? That should rather be "most built" since the tier 1 basic units of Marine, Zergling and Zealot are still there, but A LOT of other very iconic units are gone. Defiler, Scouts, Vultures, Science Vessels and more are really as iconic as your basic run-of-the-mill Marine/Zergling/Zealot AND they have special abilities and are higher tier units which are EXCITING due to the fact they are rarer than those mass troopers. The units we got instead sometimes dont really perform as well and even though the Raven was fun in the TLOwnage, they seem to be pretty much useless from a progamers point of view. Science Vessels were pretty much necessary for Terrans against Zerg (who were less mobile back then). Since SC2 is a new game and not BW in high-res, one can expect new units. The most iconic units are still present, though. SC2 will hopefully establish new higher-tier iconic units for each race. It's understandable that long-time SC1 players/viewers are attached to their old units, but it's also understandable that SC2 doesn't consider itself an SC1 remake. Who are you kidding here? "Most iconic" is more than "most built". Iconic is something more along the lines of "game defining" and the lurker, scourge, arbiter, reaver, science vessel were all VERY important and are iconic units which are lost. For some of them it was necessary to be scrapped (arbiter was necessary for example due to the overlord-non-detection and the MULE change). You make it sound as if we still are playing Starcraft just because there are still marines, zealots and zerglings, but since the rest has changed sooo much (IMO too much) it doesnt feel like a true sequel anymore. Please refrain from repeating your "the most iconic units are still in the game"-mantra again. You fail to prove your point by not arguing your point that the tier 1 units are "iconic". You might deceive yourself as much as you want to, but I for one totally disagree with such stupidity. The carrier has been featured in a few of the VERY EMOTIONAL cutscenes in BW and should stay. Personally I was already offended by the new - and IMO ugly and stupid (because the curved sideplates of the BW carrier work as a shield of sorts for the ship and thus make sense) - graphics of the unit in SC2.
I didn't watch much pro BW but i played SC1 and BW alot both singleplayer and multi. To me SC2 feels just like a sequel should, it's close enough but not a carbon copy. I think it's mostly about how invested you are in pro BW and how much you love those units.
For me Hydras, zerglings, marines, siege tanks, zealots, and dragoons are the iconic units and they are still there with the exception of stalkers instead of dragoons. "best" or "most iconic" is all opinions anyways.
|
Colossus are the most ugliest units, same with corruptors and stalkers T.T
|
On July 09 2012 01:33 OutOfMyMind_pro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:30 HelioSeven wrote:
MC vs Nerchio G2 in HSC V, yet another game showing the viability of carriers in late game PvZ. Though MC seems to be getting rolled in the rest of the series, oddly enough... Viability? Nerchio didn't scout the 8 carriers and died because he invested too much in broodlord and didnt have enough infestor/corruptor. Carriers are still shit..
that actually reminds me of games in BW where protoss would hide their carriers, so terran wouldnt make enough goliaths in time and just flat out be screwed.
|
It makes alot more sense to give 22 range to the Carrier rather than the Tempest, Interceptors can be destroyed offering the player a chance to defend themselves from this long distance bombardment.
As is, the Tempest is effectively a weak 22 range, flying reaver without splash. If you can imagine a last ditch defence were your army simply isnt able to engage toe to toe with your opponent, where you need to buy time. I cant see what any race could do about +5 Tempests knocking at their door
If this was the Carrier at least they would have to think twice about where they attack i.e not on top of mass marines.
|
On July 06 2012 13:44 MidnightGladius wrote:
Change Interceptor repair/build dynamics so that they're more survivable and/or replenish faster, increase Interceptor movement range to Tempest range, and then make the Graviton Catapult upgrade increase Interceptor movement range to upgraded Tempest range.
Carriers would simply assume the role of the current Tempest, they'd retain their place as an iconic staple of the Protoss fleet, and they'd finally be strong enough to contribute to lategame compositions. I can dream, right? :D
Yeah since they are willing to have a 22 range unit it the tempest, I wish they had instead increased the carrier range to something like 12 instead, and just made it so that you can also move the carrier without all the interceptors coming back right away. It would make it such a cool and microable unit.
Let us all dream. 
|
On July 09 2012 01:33 OutOfMyMind_pro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 01:30 HelioSeven wrote:
MC vs Nerchio G2 in HSC V, yet another game showing the viability of carriers in late game PvZ. Though MC seems to be getting rolled in the rest of the series, oddly enough... Viability? Nerchio didn't scout the 8 carriers and died because he invested too much in broodlord and didnt have enough infestor/corruptor. Carriers are still shit..
I'm not sure you understand what viable means. If it worked, it's viable. If Nerchio was bad enough to not see it coming, that's his own fault, and they are viable.
|
Carriers are really good with Archons underneath for support against the always clumped corrupters.
Stormers, Archons with (+3) Carrier, Mothership is actually a much better end game army for Toss.
|
They could make the carrier viable by giving it longer range and making the interceptors much more resilient which would make it pretty similar in role to what the tempest is: a weak combat unit with exceptional range.
Keeping units around because of iconic status is a lame reason though.
Carriers have some fringe playability now against massive broodlord armies, when the zerg overmakes broodlords so much that he doesn't have corruptors to clean up the carriers. This use has been relatively new and I haven't really made up my mind about it's effectiveness. THe nerchio vs mc game was a bad example in many ways because a) nerchio rushed for hive tech super fast with crappy economy he could have been killed in tons of other ways b) nerchio was completely surprised by the tech switch and thus hardly had corruptors. If the zerg doesn't overmake broods when seeing the carriers i think zerg still steamrolls, it's possible that making mass carrier + stalker could work since the corruptors would have to kill the carriers after which the stalkers just clean up, zerg can however just fly back the corruptors and remake broods easily whereas protoss can't quickly replace the carrier army.
|
On July 09 2012 21:22 Markwerf wrote:
zerg can however just fly back the corruptors and remake broods easily whereas protoss can't quickly replace the carrier army.
This is a "basic flaw" in the design of SC2 ... allowing one race to remax with whatever unit they choose in one production cycle while the other two races cant do it or can only do the same in a limited fashion. Terrans have been annoyed about it forever and the "stockpile larvae" ability should be changed a little bit. This is beside the point of the thread however and is only one nail in the coffin of the Carrier.
A way to make Carriers useful would be to change maps and to include more impassible (for Colossi) cliffs in them which could make this "siege unit" viable for ambushing an advancing army from an unreachable (for ground forces) position. This kind of "limited invulnerability" would help a lot to make the unit useful without fiddling around with the Carriers stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
