EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 58
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TAMinator
Australia2706 Posts
| ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On July 13 2012 04:50 XxVenem94xX wrote: Haha, yeah.If we started removing every unit that gets countered by marine/medivac the only units left in the game would be marine/medivac. But still we don't see enough carriers in standard games. I think they should change a little carriers so it would have better roles. Tempest is just bad design and i wouldn't be surprised if it was completely changed again in beta. | ||
|
InfusedTT.DaZe
Romania693 Posts
| ||
|
Fragile51
Netherlands15767 Posts
On July 13 2012 22:02 InfusedTT.DaZe wrote: im just saying, making carriers able to use intercepter micro like in starcraft brood war should do the trick for the unit! Also, interceptors costing money makes zero sense. The build time is a big enough limitation as it is. Also, the build time is far too long. In fact, there are very little things that the carrier actually has going for it. | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
On July 13 2012 21:55 TAMinator wrote: DB said there hasnt been any good arguments for the carrier to remain in the game apart from being cool and iconic. And i think he's right. GG Well, ye, first you render the unit useless and then you remove it from the game. You can change the carrier so it would be actually a really fun and strong unit, if you decide to, but DB would rather add more flying potatoes. I'd rather remove DB and let the carrier stay in game. | ||
|
TehRealSulfur
United States21 Posts
| ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
Gameplay-wise I don't think the carrier ever was a big issue. We have seen some cool games with them, but most of the games don't have carriers. The bigger problem is still the Colossus, a unit that sees the daylight all the time yet is extremely boring to watch and dumbs down gameplay. If anything, you guys should focus on getting the Colossus replaced by the Reaver. That would be such a major improvement in gameplay, skill required and suspense (reaver drops, etc.). Keeping the Carrier against the unplayed Tempest will never be such a big change. Then again, I'm a Zerg player and I still miss the T1 hydras  | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 13 2012 22:15 DidYuhim wrote: Well, ye, first you render the unit useless and then you remove it from the game. You can change the carrier so it would be actually a really fun and strong unit, if you decide to, but DB would rather add more flying potatoes. I'd rather remove DB and let the carrier stay in game. This. The man has no fucking clue how to design a dynamite and exciting game. His arrogance and hatred for all things BW is going to run competitive SC2 into the ground. Suppose the carrier will be changed by another unit that sees the daylight more often... why wouldn't you trade the carrier then? Gameplay-wise I don't think the carrier ever was a big issue. We have seen some cool games with them, but most of the games don't have carriers. The bigger problem is still the Colossus, a unit that sees the daylight all the time yet is extremely boring to watch and dumbs down gameplay. If anything, you guys should focus on getting the Colossus replaced by the Reaver. That would be such a major improvement in gameplay, skill required and suspense (reaver drops, etc.). Keeping the carrier against the unplayed Tempest would never be such a big change. We already went down that avenue for months before the game actually came out and during the first year or so of the game. The Devs have some weird obsession with the Colossus and actually think it's a cool unit, so they won't remove it. Besides that, we don't even necessarily need to add in the Reaver again (I'm kind of so-so about that idea), we just need something more interesting than the Colossus. As a side note, does anyone besides me feel like it's horrible game design to start removing units or changing their tiers after the game has been made? I don't know why, but something seriously bothers me about having this philosophy towards the game. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2012 21:55 TAMinator wrote: DB said there hasnt been any good arguments for the carrier to remain in the game apart from being cool and iconic. And i think he's right. GG I also agree that the unit has problems and likely would need a complete rework to function. At that point, they might as well make a new unit that isn't hampered by the mechanics held over from broodwar. A unit that make other units is always going to be hard to balance and simply may not have a place in the game. Personally, I have a much easier time think of ways to make the Tempest useful, rather than the carrier. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 13 2012 22:34 Plansix wrote: I also agree that the unit has problems and likely would need a complete rework to function. At that point, they might as well make a new unit that isn't hampered by the mechanics held over from broodwar. A unit that make other units is always going to be hard to balance and simply may not have a place in the game. Personally, I have a much easier time think of ways to make the Tempest useful, rather than the carrier. To make Interceptors mimic the BW AI (BW Carriers)- Go to Unit Tab > Interceptors > Combat Tab > Set the "Default Acquire Level" to "Offensive" instead of None. Then click on the Carrier's Interceptor Weapon in the "Weapons" section of the map editor - Set the "Minimum Scan Range" to 16. Now Interceptors will stay out and continously attack and acquire new targets in range until you press stop (which works similar to BW). You can now attack-move with interceptors out most of the time. Yep, that's it. The carriers will function closely to BW carriers in micro potential. Now, there are other stuff that can be done too (like Interceptors healing in cargo which is possible). Point is, it's not too hard to return Carriers to more BW style. I copy-pasted this from another post that I found in a different thread. This and changing the build time of the Carrier can be changed in the map editor. This is an incredibly simple change that would immediately make the Carrier a viable unit again. It would NOT be that hard to make the Carrier viable. DB and the rest of the Devs have absolutely zero excuse for the Carrier failing except for their laziness and arrogance/hatred for BW units. | ||
|
PauseBreak
United States270 Posts
Either Blizzard just fixes it or gets rid of it. I would rather they choose the latter, because everytime they try to fix something they only break it more. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On July 13 2012 22:20 Stratos_speAr wrote: As a side note, does anyone besides me feel like it's horrible game design to start removing units or changing their tiers after the game has been made? I don't know why, but something seriously bothers me about having this philosophy towards the game. Why? That's good game design. That's being willing to get rid of stuff that doesn't need to exist. A game should be as simple as possible, but no simpler. And if there are superfluous units, they should be removed. | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
On July 14 2012 00:33 PauseBreak wrote: After skimming 58 pages of theory-crafting and lamenting the yesteryears, DB was right, the only arguement you people have is the Carrier is "cool" and "iconic". Its basically a useless, non-role-filling unit and only makes an appearence in team games. Pro's have used the Carrier on several occasion's and have shown that its utterly cost inefficient. Either Blizzard just fixes it or gets rid of it. I would rather they choose the latter, because everytime they try to fix something they only break it more. That's what you get for skimming, go back and read. In fact, the post right above yours explains why there is no reason to remove the carrier. | ||
|
GT350
United States270 Posts
| ||
|
NeonFox
2373 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
Solution: Make it a separate entity like Stratos_speAr explained, and the carrier can be micro'ed out of danger. While still going to take damage, it doesn't need to stay in it's original attack range (to be demolished by any staple air unit) like it did before this change took place. | ||
|
PauseBreak
United States270 Posts
On July 14 2012 01:12 tehemperorer wrote: That's what you get for skimming, go back and read. In fact, the post right above yours explains why there is no reason to remove the carrier. Tell me, if its that simple. Why does Blizzard refuse, yes, refuse to fix the current SC2 Carrier? Blizzard has stated that SC2 isn't BW and they do not intend to make it so. We are arguing something that isn't going to happen; such as LAN. They have specifically said that it won't happen. So why not remove a useless unit that they won't fix (refuse to fix) and try and replace it with something that is viable? We should try this exercise. Instead of saying, "The Carrier would be great if... We should try to provide a reason why "The Carrier is great now because... *If they make the AI of the Carrier interceptors like that of BW, great! Awesome! But its not just the AI that is hurting the Carrier. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 14 2012 01:58 PauseBreak wrote: Tell me, if its that simple. Why does Blizzard refuse, yes, refuse to fix the current SC2 Carrier? Blizzard has stated that SC2 isn't BW and they do not intend to make it so. We are arguing something that isn't going to happen; such as LAN. They have specifically said that it won't happen. So why not remove a useless unit that they won't fix (refuse to fix) and try and replace it with something that is viable? We should try this exercise. Instead of saying, "The Carrier would be great if... We should try to provide a reason why "The Carrier is great now because... *If they make the AI of the Carrier interceptors like that of BW, great! Awesome! But its not just the AI that is hurting the Carrier. This is a terrible argument. Blizzard has shown that they are ready to knee-jerk react and change units significantly at the slightest hint of a metagame change, so there's absolutely no reason that we should argue for the Carrier in its current state. That is probably one of the dumbest things posted in this entire thread. The entire argument is that the Carrier can be viable if Blizzard put the least amount of effort into actually trying to make it viable. Instead, they don't, not because it's hard, but because they just refuse to; we have yet to see a single attempt at actually making the Carrier more viable. When the community can find out ways for the map editor to alter several things in the game that we've all been asking for for almost two years now, there is no excuse but arrogance. Arrogance keeps them from using BW units. Arrogance keeps them from scrapping units that are poorly designed and trying another brand new idea separate from BW or SC2. Arrogance keeps them from admitting that the fanbase has been right for the past two years about several things in this game. It's as simple as that. | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
PauseBreak that is a great question, "Tell me, if its that simple. Why does Blizzard refuse, yes, refuse to fix the current SC2 Carrier?" I feel like an idiot to say this, but the answer is, "exactly." Blizz is probably in a situation where it knows that the expansion demands new units, but they have no new ideas for Protoss (scrapped some from beta, scrapped replicant which in itself was a hint that they had no good ideas but to replicate other units). So they have to scrap an existing unit and replace it with another that is basically the same unit with minor tweaks to it (large, armored, flying, long range, expensive, requires fleetbeacon, etc.) but without any legacy or originality that the first unit had. If they tweaked the carrier, the expansion would come out and no one would use the tempest, right? That's likely the reason for not even trying anything on the carrier, no tweaks, no stat changes, because they know they have to replace it. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
On July 13 2012 21:55 TAMinator wrote: DB said there hasnt been any good arguments for the carrier to remain in the game apart from being cool and iconic. And i think he's right. GG That is total bullcrap. He picked the worst arguments from the community and flat-out ignored the good ones when discussing it, and then rebutted the bad argument. If you heard him describe the Tempest's role, it could also describe the carrier to a T. The tempest has no layers of depth in it's design, the carrier has several. He could give it more range/moving shot and it would instantly be awesome. | ||
| ||
