EPTWe Must Fight For The Carrier - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 13 2012 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote: 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. The “Make it work like BW” solution does not hold a lot of weight with me. The differences between BW and SC2 on a programming, code and processing level are so vastly different that the two are barely comparable to each other. Comparing them is like comparing Dead Space 2 and to the original Half Life. Just because they both have suites, horror themes and guns does not mean you can put the code from the marine AI into Dead Space 2. Things that worked in games of that era of design simply will not work on more modern, powerful systems. AI and pathfinding barely existed in games and most RTS games ran off scripted events. Smarter targeting priority is the main thing that has made the interceptors less effective, regardless how they are controlled. The idea that someone could simply mod in the AI from BW is not practical or reasonable. Even if the carrier could be controlled similar to the way it was in BW(which the mod above may do), there is not guarantee that the unit would be effective. A unit that makes other units that can attack both air and ground may not be reasonable without significant limitations(see swarm lord). And those limitations that may need to be added will likely make the carrier less “carrier-like”. Once again, as a player, I am more interested in a flying unit that has crazy range just does damage, straight up. The tempest does something no other unit in SC2 does and has a far better chance of being effective and useful. | ||
|
tediz
Iceland3 Posts
They make the other person have to choose: do I target the interceptors or do I target the carrier. They also bring a thing that is currently missing in starcraft 2:micro (obviously you need to make them micro-able like in BW). In broodwar you saw these amazing micro battles with goliaths and carriers where the carriers were abusing things like cliffs and dead air space and the terran player trying to target the carriers. Althougth there are no goliaths in sc2 the terran either has to go marines or vikings and I think either match-up would be fun to play and watch. I also think that both the tempest and the carrier can be in the game because they have different roles. The tempest is there to force the ofther player to move out or have their army or economy slowly killed and the carrier is a unit that is there to abuse cliff and dead air space or to tech switch into when the enemy has limited anti-air. It also makes sense that protoss have more than one capital ship because in the lore the protoss destroyed planets that were infested with giant air fleets . I also think that if the carrier is to stay in the game it needs some buffs. To make them micro-able is a must and I think blizzard also has to make the build time less and make it harder to kill the interceptors. | ||
|
Mordanis
United States893 Posts
One last thing that I want to say: I don't like either iteration of the tempest compared to the carrier. As a purely anti-muta unit, it was supremely boring and situational. As a low dps/ high range siege unit, I just don't understand it. Protoss has traditionally been the race that turtles, that waits for the perfect engagement, instead of a race that tries to force favorable engagements. If the tempest is able to make a T player ditch a defensive spread to attack headlong into a P deathball in a defensive area, it will make it virtually impossible to lose with P. If it can't do that though, its dps will have to be so low as to be completely ineffective in any role. On the other hand, Blizz could completely redesign the races such that a maxed army from any race is equally strong. The carrier on the other hand could be used to poke at an army constantly, except that interceptors cost too much and take too long to build. The carrier could be a very interesting way to break a defensive position (T/Z/P waits till most of the interceptors are dead, then tries to run under the carrier to kill it before the carriers retreat behind the rest of the army). There is simply much more strategy and control possible with the design of the carrier than the design of the tempest. | ||
|
smokeyhoodoo
United States1021 Posts
On July 14 2012 01:11 NicolBolas wrote: 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. We could just do X's and O's on a 3 by 3 grid. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On July 14 2012 02:33 Plansix wrote: The “Make it work like BW” solution does not hold a lot of weight with me. The differences between BW and SC2 on a programming, code and processing level are so vastly different that the two are barely comparable to each other. Comparing them is like comparing Dead Space 2 and to the original Half Life. Just because they both have suites, horror themes and guns does not mean you can put the code from the marine AI into Dead Space 2. Things that worked in games of that era of design simply will not work on more modern, powerful systems. AI and pathfinding barely existed in games and most RTS games ran off scripted events. Smarter targeting priority is the main thing that has made the interceptors less effective, regardless how they are controlled. The idea that someone could simply mod in the AI from BW is not practical or reasonable. Even if the carrier could be controlled similar to the way it was in BW(which the mod above may do), there is not guarantee that the unit would be effective. A unit that makes other units that can attack both air and ground may not be reasonable without significant limitations(see swarm lord). And those limitations that may need to be added will likely make the carrier less “carrier-like”. Once again, as a player, I am more interested in a flying unit that has crazy range just does damage, straight up. The tempest does something no other unit in SC2 does and has a far better chance of being effective and useful. It's not about "making it like BW". It's about making it microable (like it was in BW). All that requires is what I posted; some changes in the map editor. Do we know that this will make the Carrier viable? No, but it's worth a shot, since Blizzard hasn't tried once yet. | ||
|
Perdac Curall
242 Posts
| ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
On July 14 2012 07:30 Perdac Curall wrote: Just my two cents, as a Protoss player, if Carriers could attack while retreating, as they could in Brood War, I think they would be a viable late game unit, and no other changes to their cost or build time would need to be made. It only makes sense that Carriers can attack while retreating. They are massive carrier ships that launch other independent ships to do the attacking. Why can't the interceptors continue attacking as the Carrier retreats? That was my point: if Blizz worried about lore or continuity, they should think about this: Carrier is only unit of the type that spawns other units but cannot control those units it spawns. BroodLord, Infester, Sentry(hallucination), Overseer, and new SwarmHost create units that are separately controlled from the unit that spawns them. The dev team says "the carrier is weak and without a role," but changing this logically dissonant behavior between the carrier and other units of its type actually fixes their proposed argument about it being weak and without a role. A change to this behavior which is unnatural for a unit of its type anyway would make the carrier a bit more of a seige air unit than this floating "roleless" unit (as if lacking a defined role is even a problem). | ||
|
YyapSsap
New Zealand1511 Posts
Solution A: Make it behave like the BW carrier, i.e. you and attack and retreat. (I think this is a must) Number one issue with carriers is that the colossus which is part of MOST P compositions forces corrupters/vikings which makes transitions to carriers difficult and pointless.t. Solution B: Replace colossus with a different unit. Everybody knows this unit is probably the most boring unit ever to see the light of this world. It requires literally no micro. Replace it with a unit that takes skill to use because it does not do justice to the unit it replaced ala the reaver. If that doesn't work, then we have the chance to make corrupters tier3 units. Instead of making them spawn-able straight from larvae, make them spawn from mutalisks just like Devourers from BW. This actually gives zergs an incentive to keep mutalisks alive for the whole duration of the game instead of just throwing them away once they become useless. It also makes Z players think how many mutalisks should be spawned to BLs or corrupters instead of simply deciding from a whole bunch of corrupters. This would actually slightly nerf the Z deathball in TvZ also. Solution C: Make corrupters spawn from mutalisks at T3 ala greater spire. Cant deal with the cols? you now get vipers in HOTS. Vikings on the other hand are actually easier to deal with because they are paper planes. Far easier to deal with then corrupters due to the HP/armor difference. Carriers with HT/stalker support should easily deal with vikings. Plus with HOTS, if the T goes Mech in the matchup then carrier transitions could actually make sense again. | ||
|
NicolBolas
United States1388 Posts
On July 14 2012 06:44 Stratos_speAr wrote: It's not about "making it like BW". It's about making it microable (like it was in BW). All that requires is what I posted; some changes in the map editor. Do we know that this will make the Carrier viable? No, but it's worth a shot, since Blizzard hasn't tried once yet. I'm curious. How do you know that they haven't. Oh, they haven't had any public builds of this in there. But how do you know that they didn't do any internal testing with these changes? It's not like they're going to throw something like that into a balance patch, considering how dangerous it might be. Personally, I don't think they did test this (they don't seem to think in these particular terms), but I also don't think that this change, making it "microable," will fix the fact that Intercepters die fast and bloody to Marines. | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 14 2012 02:33 Plansix wrote: The “Make it work like BW” solution does not hold a lot of weight with me. The differences between BW and SC2 on a programming, code and processing level are so vastly different that the two are barely comparable to each other. Comparing them is like comparing Dead Space 2 and to the original Half Life. Just because they both have suites, horror themes and guns does not mean you can put the code from the marine AI into Dead Space 2. Things that worked in games of that era of design simply will not work on more modern, powerful systems. AI and pathfinding barely existed in games and most RTS games ran off scripted events. Smarter targeting priority is the main thing that has made the interceptors less effective, regardless how they are controlled. The idea that someone could simply mod in the AI from BW is not practical or reasonable. Even if the carrier could be controlled similar to the way it was in BW(which the mod above may do), there is not guarantee that the unit would be effective. A unit that makes other units that can attack both air and ground may not be reasonable without significant limitations(see swarm lord). And those limitations that may need to be added will likely make the carrier less “carrier-like”. Once again, as a player, I am more interested in a flying unit that has crazy range just does damage, straight up. The tempest does something no other unit in SC2 does and has a far better chance of being effective and useful. The idea to ignore something which WORKS and to stick with something which doesnt is sooo stupid that arguments like this are pretty infuriating. Why NOT use a BW method if it works better than the "improved new SC2" one? Just because it has "Broodwar" attached to it and you are a happy disciple of "newer is better"? One simple truth: newer =/= better. Dont fix it if it aint broken! | ||
|
tehemperorer
United States2183 Posts
http://drop.sc/221701 So save the carrier they have a role | ||
|
ReachTheSky
United States3294 Posts
| ||
|
Nyarly
France1030 Posts
On July 14 2012 15:11 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why mods would leave this thread open but they will close a thread like this about the reaper awhile ago saying "post on blizz forums not here". Why does this thread get special treatment. Because the carrier is cutter ? Why would you complain about this, here ? Love the carrier <3 | ||
|
Rabiator
Germany3948 Posts
On July 14 2012 15:11 ReachTheSky wrote: I'm curious as to why mods would leave this thread open but they will close a thread like this about the reaper awhile ago saying "post on blizz forums not here". Why does this thread get special treatment. Because the Carrier gets removed while the Reaper only gets castrated (by removing the anti-building grenades) and the Carrier is an iconic unit from BW while the Reaper is just another "fun" unit which had to be nerfed into uselessness to be "balanced". The Carrier also started out "useless" (without any attempt to fix it) and the Reaper had its moment of glory. Also there have been A LOT of good suggestions on how to make the Carrier work, so this thread isnt as useless as a Reaper whine-thread (as justified as it might be). | ||
|
NOTjak
United States25 Posts
| ||
|
Sumahi
Guam5609 Posts
| ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15391 Posts
On July 14 2012 16:07 Sumahi wrote: I agree with some of the others who mentioned other less used units. Why does the Carrier receive so much attention for its lack of use? Every race has a unit that they rarely ever use. Not to mention the fact that despite being so underused, it is used way more often than BCs in the GSL. If the basis for removing the Carrier is its lack of utilization, BCs should have been gone a long time ago. They have a purpose in late game TvT, but we still see it significantly less than carriers. And no, obviously I am not saying remove BCs. I'm saying that despite lack of use, there's no reason to remove. Its not like we need to save hard drive space or something. | ||
|
Emuking
United States144 Posts
So here we have this unit that is in completely different positions in all 3 matchups; Terrible (PvT), Good but impossible to reach (like mass raven), and Decent if hidden. No other unit in sc2 is in such a crappy position because if you buff it statistically then it will become imbalanced in another matchup even though its barely viable in pvz right now. | ||
|
DidYuhim
Ukraine1905 Posts
On July 14 2012 16:10 Mohdoo wrote: Not to mention the fact that despite being so underused, it is used way more often than BCs in the GSL. If the basis for removing the Carrier is its lack of utilization, BCs should have been gone a long time ago. They have a purpose in late game TvT, but we still see it significantly less than carriers. And no, obviously I am not saying remove BCs. I'm saying that despite lack of use, there's no reason to remove. Its not like we need to save hard drive space or something. Continuing with the Blizzard Logic(tm) they will remove siege tanks so that TvT would become way more interesting to watch. There is one goddamn reason to keep the Carrier in game: it's a unit that actually killed the Overmind on Aiur(for those who played original campaign). It's awesome, fun and interesting unit that could be used in an awful lot of situations back in BW, and even right now Carriers are still really, really good units, and yes, unlike BCs or "New Hydras" they are not a "lose unit". On the other hand we got a new "fun" unit that will transform your minerals into destructible rocks and 22 range unit for a race that doesn't need one, and also more potatoes. | ||
| ||
