|
On July 14 2012 12:54 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 06:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 14 2012 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2012 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 13 2012 22:34 Plansix wrote: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. 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. 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.
Oh, so now we're judging units based on how they perform against their direct hard counters? That makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? Maybe we should remove mutas too because they are also really bad against marines? I mean sure, carriers have uses in PvZ, PvT when mech is played, even PvP on occasion, but clearly since they're bad against marines they're not viable in any other matchup against any other units, right?
|
On July 14 2012 19:03 DidYuhim wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 16:10 Mohdoo wrote: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. 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.
Exactly, BUT Blizzard even screwed up here by switching the iconic looks from BW - which also made sense, having three curved side shields as protection for the ship - for some stupid "Andromeda-lookalike" which doesnt make sense and offers no protection.
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/b/b7/Carrier.png/200px-Carrier.png)
![[image loading]](http://desmond.imageshack.us/Himg403/scaled.php?server=403&filename=andromedathumb.jpg&res=landing)
|
On July 14 2012 20:19 HelioSeven wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2012 12:54 NicolBolas wrote:On July 14 2012 06:44 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 14 2012 02:33 Plansix wrote:On July 13 2012 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 13 2012 22:34 Plansix wrote: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. 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. 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. Oh, so now we're judging units based on how they perform against their direct hard counters? That makes a ton of sense, doesn't it? Maybe we should remove mutas too because they are also really bad against marines? I mean sure, carriers have uses in PvZ, PvT when mech is played, even PvP on occasion, but clearly since they're bad against marines they're not viable in any other matchup against any other units, right?
People always seem to argue for Carriers from the standpoint of PvT. That was the only matchup anyone ever used them on in SC1.
|
they were used occasionaly in pvz.
|
Blizzard wants to take out the carrier because it became obsolete. The only way I can think of that happening is if the gameplay got dumbed down to satisfy less capable players, resulting in some tactics becoming too cost effective to incorporate the carrier as a feasible option. In BW, the carrier was fine, making it into top tier play. If players find the carrier obsolete, it's not because they genuinely don't like it but because Blizzard can't seem to make the unit beneficial in light of other strategies. This, to me, is Blizzard's fault that they must take out an innovative unit because it fails to deliver with respect to newer units; when looking at the carrier's place in the metagame, they really didn't think it through.
|
On July 15 2012 04:59 durtdawg wrote:
Blizzard wants to take out the carrier because it became obsolete. The only way I can think of that happening is if the gameplay got dumbed down to satisfy less capable players, resulting in some tactics becoming too cost effective to incorporate the carrier as a feasible option. In BW, the carrier was fine, making it into top tier play. If players find the carrier obsolete, it's not because they genuinely don't like it but because Blizzard can't seem to make the unit beneficial in light of other strategies. This, to me, is Blizzard's fault that they must take out an innovative unit because it fails to deliver with respect to newer units; when looking at the carrier's place in the metagame, they really didn't think it through.
Really? Masses of units in one control group is "high skilled gameplay"? Starcraft 2 already has the dumbed down gameplay compared to BW because every single fighting unit is gathered on one screen for a big battle and in the end one of them wins. That isnt how it worked in the old game where you had to be multitasking at several fronts quite often.
More explosions, more deaths =/= better and more interesting gameplay.
Some of the improvements in SC2 have been good, but not all of them are truly beneficial.
The good
- Being able to select multiple buildings in one group is good.
- Not having to rally your workers to the minerals is good.
The bad
- The tight formations of ground units and such things like Blink really make air units rather weak ... unless they are supported by another unit which can lock down those ground units OR if it creates multiple free attacking units on the ground which block the path to it (roughly 3 Broodlings per Broodlord on the ground at the same time I think).
- The tight formations of ground units make them rather vulnerable to AoE damage and consequently these had to be nerfed to near-uselessness. As a Terran you have to have most of your Siege Tanks at the front to have at least a chance of winning a battle, which leaves you with next to nothing at home and if you lose your Tank army (easily possible) you most likely lose the game because Reactors dont speed up Tank production.
- The different methods of "burst production" for the three races may seem interesting, but they really cause problems on larger maps where Zerg have a clear advantage in the late game which forces Protoss and especially Terrans to be aggressive early on.
These are general design differences which make SC2 the worse game to balance and the worse game to watch. SC2 is simply too fast and allows for zero mistakes while playing it and this probably makes it very hard / frustrating to play at lower levels of skill.
|
i really just think that blizzard is doing whatever they can to salvage the tempest at all costs just to they have something to sell in HoTS.
It was originally designed as a aoe anti-light-air (mutas) but lost its purpose after the phoenix upgrade. They basically just changed it into something that fits the same roll as the carrier (single target sniping) but gave it an upgrade to justify its existence over the carrier.
Imo bliz could have just given the carrier the range upgrade and we'd have the same results. I mean, aircraft carriers are suppose to be long range support units. The problem with the sc2 carrier is that, unlike the battlecruiser, it isn't built to take abuse, yet has to stay fairly close to begin launching its intercepters; this combined with its low speed makes it a very niche unit. It is suppose to be sitting behind the army launching intercepters. However, with the colosi range upgrade, the colosi has a longer engagement range (9) than that of the carrier (8) voiding its purpose.
no one would get the tempest without its range upgrade, it would be worse than the carrier without the range upgrade. instead of just giving the range upgrade to the carrier (like they are giving the battlecruiser the jump drive or whatever to get in or out), they are trying to recycle the design for a unit that is no longer needed just to have something to sell in HoTS imo.
|
MC using Carriers in the 3rd place match vs LiquidRet right now http://www.teamliquid.net/video/streams/NASL.tv/popout
Not a single battlecruiser seen the entire tournament.
Edit: To elaborate:
Game goes to mega late game cross map
Zerg masses spines, corrupters, broods and infestors.
MC gets a lot of carriers, mothership, archon, stalker
Ret forced to make a ton of corrupters in order to deal with the carriers or else he loses the whole army
During the fight, MC spams a shit load of stalkers to take advantage of all the corrupters that were forced
MC wins due to Carriers allowing for such a key Stalker transition
BOOM, Carriers were instrumental in a pro level match used by the best Protoss in the world.
|
Hm . I'm really curious to know which unit has been used more in tournaments. The answer is probably battlecruisers, but lately I think the carrier has had more appearances. Blizzard decided to buff BC's in HOTS, but they stick to that lame excuse of Carriers being underused and just an iconic unit.
|
MC used it really well, hope blizzard noticed.
|
Not only MC using Carriers. Have you seen GSTL or GSL? At least 4-5 mass Carrier late games, all of them won by the Protoss player. Right now even Day9 said that Carriers are late game transition for Protoss. And it's not only PvZ. In PvT they are viable as well, or even more than in PvZ, because:
a) Terran has no Fungal or Neural Parasite
b) EMP can hit maximum 1 Carrier (if not clumped up)
c) Vikings have the same DPS as Corruptors, but they have a lot less health + no one upgrades them to 3/3 in TvP, while 3/3 Corruptors are standard in PvZ.
d) Terran has no Corruption spell
In PvP they might be not a good transition, because of Stalkers, but if you can get them really amassed... Then they won't be counterable unless you storm all the Interceptors.
Carrier has to stay. It's much, much better than Tempest. And if Blizz still thinks that Carrier is too weak - increase it's range and give hardened shield for attacks coming from the ground (as Tempest in Alpha version had). Less damage from Marines, Hydras, Stalkers = more usage in the game.
On July 16 2012 07:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Not a single battlecruiser seen the entire tournament.
Enough said, Terrans had 0% win ratio in the playoffs of NASL3 (excluding one TvT).
|
The carrier could easily stick around instead of the tempest. Just now, in NASL s3 finals, MC used carriers to comeback in along pvz on daybreak against ret, and this is just one of a handful of pro examples.
The carrier does still have problems. Namely, the attack move differences that were lost in transition from SC1 to SC2. In my personal experience, this is where I often lose with carriers, in low numbers building off a late 2 or 3 base economy and not having sufficient upgrades, or HP to hold off mid game pushes.
Finally, the shields on the carrier are too low. The direct competition for going carriers would be the colossus based armies, often used to push or secure a third or fourth base.
300/200 for a colossus and 350/250 (+100) for interceptors for carrier; however, colossus have 200/150 s/hp and carriers have 300/150.
The comparisions carry over with upgrades as well, with colussus being more effective with lower amounts of upgrades while carriers only shine with alot of upgrades; again in my own viewing and playin experiences.
I believe blizzard can fix some minor issues, as they are doing with the hydra, to keep the carrier a cornerstone of SC! I <3 dem guyz
|
Goodbye carrier. Hopefully the tempest will fill the role you couldn't fill in late game superiority air tech.
|
On July 16 2012 07:26 Frozne wrote:
Goodbye carrier. Hopefully the tempest will fill the role you couldn't fill in late game superiority air tech.
Carrier just served that role like 5 minutes ago in an extremely solid fashion. Watching NASL?
|
On July 16 2012 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 07:26 Frozne wrote:
Goodbye carrier. Hopefully the tempest will fill the role you couldn't fill in late game superiority air tech. Carrier just served that role like 5 minutes ago in an extremely solid fashion. Watching NASL?
They were a distraction that Ret overreacted to, the Templars with storm and 25 gates churning our blink stalkers vs a mostly corruptor army is what won the game, plus the archon toilets, they made the real difference.
|
On July 16 2012 07:37 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2012 07:28 Mohdoo wrote:On July 16 2012 07:26 Frozne wrote:
Goodbye carrier. Hopefully the tempest will fill the role you couldn't fill in late game superiority air tech. Carrier just served that role like 5 minutes ago in an extremely solid fashion. Watching NASL? They were a distraction that Ret overreacted to, the Templars with storm and 25 gates churning our blink stalkers vs a mostly corruptor army is what won the game, plus the archon toilets, they made the real difference.
Without the Carrier threat, Ret wouldn't have made 20+ corrupters. The Carriers served the same purpose that Voidrays serve when trying to force hydralisks. Once Ret had all those corrupters, MC was able to overwhelm Ret's army with tons of warped in stalkers. Without the carriers, no reason for nearly that many corrupters.
|
On July 16 2012 07:37 TheFrankOne wrote:
They were a distraction that Ret overreacted to, the Templars with storm and 25 gates churning our blink stalkers vs a mostly corruptor army is what won the game, plus the archon toilets, they made the real difference.
One could argue that if Ret didn't make those corruptors, MC wouldn't have had the ability to win late game by warping in plenty more stalkers. Carriers are currently the best way to beat lategame BL inf spine armies.
|
On July 14 2012 02:33 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 22:39 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 13 2012 22:34 Plansix wrote: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. 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.
Actually the Tempest seems like more of a gimmicky unit more than anything else. It's one of these things that will teeter back and forth between being too powerful and being too expensive, there will never be a middle ground. Unlike the gimmicky, poorly designed Tempest, the Carrier is a unit that does something that no other unit does and it does it in a way that you can easily balance, change, and make it fit into the game. It has not found a home yet in StarCraft 2 for the sole reason that Blizzard has completely neglected to change it.
Let's think about it like this: the Tempest was originally designed to fill a small niche and since then that niche has been filled by Blink Stalker/High Templar. Capital ships should not be a niche unit or a unit that you build in response to something your opponent has, Capital ships should be the really expensive backbone of your army that you get after securing five bases and have a bank of thousands of minerals and gas and you and your opponent are at a standstill. That is what the Brood Lord is. That is what the Battle Cruiser is. But that is not what the Tempest is. That is what the Carrier is.
Blizzard should not make StarCraft 2 into StarCraft: Brood War 2.0. However, their resistance against cool, innovative units and ideas that worked in Brood War is atrocious. Nobody is going to get excited about the Swarm Host. They basically gave Terran back the Goliath, but then refuse to call it that, give it some weird attack that will make mech even harder to play with in TvT, and have a model that honestly looks worse then the original BW Goliath sprite. I would rather have a 2D Goliath running around then use the War Hound because it looks like an SCV on stilts. Also it is not nearly as exciting as getting the nostalgic feel of having Goliaths, but it's not like non-BW players will be more excited about it because it is NOT the Goliath. I'm not even a BW player (W3 all day), but there is a reason that is was so successful for so long, and Blizzard needs to accept that.
|
MC utterly crushed Ret, playing on a whole different lvl. Nothing to do with Carrier's being usefull atm
|
United Arab Emirates439 Posts
Ret DID over-react to the Corruptors, we can see that now. But there was still something to learn from MC's Carrier usage. They, when escorted by HT to protect from Fungal + Corruptor snipe, allow the Protoss to break up the monotony of stale-mate super late game PvZ. You can pick off units at the edges of their army, and you can fight back the slow Spine + Creep push. You don't have to just catch the Zerg off guard with the Tech Switch.
Would love to see a 'proper' PvZ where the Protoss plays like MC but the Zerg doesn't over-react with corruptors and over-commit with an attack. I would like to see how the Zerg slows the Protoss from chipping away, and how the Zerg can do the same thing to the Protoss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
