On July 18 2012 01:47 i)awn wrote: I really think some generic buffs should be considered before dissmissing the carrier: +2 Armor; +2 Range -reduce interceptor cost to 10 minerals; increase mineral cost of the carrier to have the same initial costs (now that interceptors are cheaper); -decrease interceptor build time -decrease carrier build time -increase speed to match void ray speed -allow attacking on the move
I'm pretty confident we'll see the carrier more often with these small fixes.
These buffs will affect not only the end game; and you know them progamers... the will exploit the shit out of it. And I don't think its worth making a memorable unit viable at the cost of changing the meta game.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsover. There is no value in the metagame; there is no reason to try to keep it intact. There is value in making another unit viable; it adds variety and possibility to the game.
On July 18 2012 01:47 i)awn wrote: I really think some generic buffs should be considered before dissmissing the carrier: +2 Armor; +2 Range -reduce interceptor cost to 10 minerals; increase mineral cost of the carrier to have the same initial costs (now that interceptors are cheaper); -decrease interceptor build time -decrease carrier build time -increase speed to match void ray speed -allow attacking on the move
I'm pretty confident we'll see the carrier more often with these small fixes.
These buffs will affect not only the end game; and you know them progamers... the will exploit the shit out of it. And I don't think its worth making a memorable unit viable at the cost of changing the meta game.
That attitude just seems.....wow. You could say the hydralisk is an iconic unit, as it is used to signify the zerg more often than not and they're changing it to possibly make it viable. Will it change the metagame? Very possibly, so you might want to go argue against that too. Also don't forget battlecruisers being buffed, it's iconic but why should it be changed? The metagame might change too, oh no!
I don't see anything wrong with the metagame changing from where it is now seeing how the metagame seems to be in a bad position right now, and more viable units for a race with incredibly low diversity? Yes please!
Hydras were like the backbone of zerg in brood war and those have sucked for like 2 years sooo.. I'm guessing Blizzard isn't to preoccupied with preserving the past splendor of Brood War units and more preoccupied with balancing the game we have now.
On July 18 2012 01:47 i)awn wrote: I really think some generic buffs should be considered before dissmissing the carrier: +2 Armor; +2 Range -reduce interceptor cost to 10 minerals; increase mineral cost of the carrier to have the same initial costs (now that interceptors are cheaper); -decrease interceptor build time -decrease carrier build time -increase speed to match void ray speed -allow attacking on the move
I'm pretty confident we'll see the carrier more often with these small fixes.
These buffs will affect not only the end game; and you know them progamers... the will exploit the shit out of it. And I don't think its worth making a memorable unit viable at the cost of changing the meta game.
And how can you be sure without even trying it.
The metagame will motherfucking explode when HotS commes out anyway.
Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
Yout got my vote, its timeless its one of the units you think of when you hear the name Starcraft, and blizzard are fools if they think their new air unit/s will make the game better plz.. Long live the Carrier!
On July 30 2012 07:46 azuRe_ wrote: Hydras were like the backbone of zerg in brood war and those have sucked for like 2 years sooo.. I'm guessing Blizzard isn't to preoccupied with preserving the past splendor of Brood War units and more preoccupied with balancing the game we have now.
I don't want to stray too far from the topic, but the hydralisk is getting a decent buff in HotS. In fact, your argument considering that point gives even more credence to the notion that they should buff the carrier in HotS or now in WoL.
As to the topic, the Carrier is finally seeing play in PvZ. It's time for DB to take notice.
On July 30 2012 08:04 shockaslim wrote: Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
This is also a good point. If their goal is to make mech more viable in HotS, why take out the best answer to late game mech that protoss has?
On July 30 2012 08:04 shockaslim wrote: Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
I'll bet this has been mentioned, but what if a carrier can initially carry 8 interceptors with a max of (10? 12? 16?) after an upgrade? Is that too imba or too underwhelming?
On July 30 2012 09:10 Jrocker152 wrote: I'll bet this has been mentioned, but what if a carrier can initially carry 8 interceptors with a max of (10? 12? 16?) after an upgrade? Is that too imba or too underwhelming?
On July 30 2012 09:10 Jrocker152 wrote: I'll bet this has been mentioned, but what if a carrier can initially carry 8 interceptors with a max of (10? 12? 16?) after an upgrade? Is that too imba or too underwhelming?
Just emulate BW micro....
Not that hard Blizz....
It's not that hard, but as soon as you mention the term "Brood War", the entire SC2 development team has a visceral reaction that is akin to the Knights Who Say "Ni!" hearing the word "It".
On July 30 2012 09:10 Jrocker152 wrote: I'll bet this has been mentioned, but what if a carrier can initially carry 8 interceptors with a max of (10? 12? 16?) after an upgrade? Is that too imba or too underwhelming?
Easily too imbalanced, Carriers are already really powerful but seem to need really high numbers to be effective, and even then in the time it takes you to get those numbers the enemy can take every base ever and then plan a perfect mix of counters.
I think I agree with the most basic sentiment. Carriers would instantly be worth a lot more if they just increased the ability to micro them more efficiently. There's a tonne more worth that could be instilled into a capital ship with this design, but just having micro would help a lot. This would only solve one of the four issues I see with the carrier though:
1) Long build times - hard to transition to 2) Poor in small numbers - interceptors for a couple of carriers can be gunned down quickly 3) Survivability - The micro ability for the carrier is non-existant 4) Place in Protoss army - The carrier's role in the Protoss army is currently inferior to other units (void rays, collosus, etc)
Very basically most of this can be fixed with modifying numbers. #4 appears to be what Blizzard is struggling with but I've seen plenty of good suggestions through this thread which update the carrier to be something more than what it already is.
On July 30 2012 09:10 Jrocker152 wrote: I'll bet this has been mentioned, but what if a carrier can initially carry 8 interceptors with a max of (10? 12? 16?) after an upgrade? Is that too imba or too underwhelming?
Just emulate BW micro....
Not that hard Blizz....
It's not that hard, but as soon as you mention the term "Brood War", the entire SC2 development team has a visceral reaction that is akin to the Knights Who Say "Ni!" hearing the word "It".
So no, it's not going to happen.
Didn't realize that the entire SC2 development team is so insecure and whatnot.
But hopefully they'll keep the Carrier though.
"The Tempest has arrived" don't have a nice ring around it.
My take is that tempest will be a different but not necessarily more effective way to defend late-game Zerg. Tempest will be better at killing broodlords, but it will be completely useless against corruptors. On the other hand, carrier is less effective against broolords due to its shorter range (carrier may be fungaled by infestors or sniped by corruptors), but carrier is at least not completely useless against corruptor even though it is countered by corruptor directly.
On July 30 2012 08:04 shockaslim wrote: Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
Great point.
Not really. They've replaced the carrier with the tempest which does high damage to massive targets and specialises at taking out big targets from a distance. Mech is a slow positional composition which relies on massive units for anti-air. Not only does the tempest outrange mech in a way which the carrier doesn't, it also deals sensational damage to the only mech units which can fight back.
On July 30 2012 08:04 shockaslim wrote: Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
This x100. It would be so fun to hit super late game sky-toss vs mech-terran too.
On July 31 2012 05:56 NOOBALOPSE wrote: Wow!!!! Carriers are receiving a lot of use in IPL!! There may be hope! EDIT: To the guy who posted annuyung vs hero there was also ace vs sheth
Forgot about HerO vs Ret aswell at DHS Group Round #3 game 1 with the sick halluc play with Warp Prisms and all the other fun stuff HerO did with halluc units. But of course he did bring out Carriers to beat Ret
Edit: remembered tournament the game was played in.
My take is that tempest will be a different but not necessarily more effective way to defend late-game Zerg. Tempest will be better at killing broodlords, but it will be completely useless against corruptors. On the other hand, carrier is less effective against broolords due to its shorter range (carrier may be fungaled by infestors or sniped by corruptors), but carrier is at least not completely useless against corruptor even though it is countered by corruptor directly.
We should keep a running tab on recent carrier play. If you guys spot them post them here and I or someone else can compile them.
On July 31 2012 05:56 NOOBALOPSE wrote: Wow!!!! Carriers are receiving a lot of use in IPL!! There may be hope! EDIT: To the guy who posted annuyung vs hero there was also ace vs sheth
On July 31 2012 05:56 NOOBALOPSE wrote: Wow!!!! Carriers are receiving a lot of use in IPL!! There may be hope! EDIT: To the guy who posted annuyung vs hero there was also ace vs sheth
Forgot about HerO vs Ret aswell at DHS Group Round #3 game 1 with the sick halluc play with Warp Prisms and all the other fun stuff HerO did with halluc units. But of course he did bring out Carriers to beat Ret
Edit: remembered tournament the game was played in.
Where are the links for those games with Hero vs Ret and ace vs sheth?
On July 30 2012 08:04 shockaslim wrote: Well, I feel that the Carrier NEEDS to stay around because Blizzard is placing a very strong emphasis on Terran using Factory units against Protoss, and the Carrier fills a specific role as a fantastic counter to mech. In BW, Protoss ultimate end game against mech was Carriers, and if they remove the Carrier for HoTS then there could be some really big issues.
Great point.
Not really. They've replaced the carrier with the tempest which does high damage to massive targets and specialises at taking out big targets from a distance. Mech is a slow positional composition which relies on massive units for anti-air. Not only does the tempest outrange mech in a way which the carrier doesn't, it also deals sensational damage to the only mech units which can fight back.
On July 18 2012 01:47 i)awn wrote: I really think some generic buffs should be considered before dissmissing the carrier: +2 Armor; +2 Range -reduce interceptor cost to 10 minerals; increase mineral cost of the carrier to have the same initial costs (now that interceptors are cheaper); -decrease interceptor build time -decrease carrier build time -increase speed to match void ray speed -allow attacking on the move
I'm pretty confident we'll see the carrier more often with these small fixes.
These buffs will affect not only the end game; and you know them progamers... the will exploit the shit out of it. And I don't think its worth making a memorable unit viable at the cost of changing the meta game.
metagame doesnot have value.
we might say it does not worth making a unit viable for cost of amonth of shifts until progamers understands what the changes accually means.
well turst me we have many many months. we dont need to all in for sake of a month, while we can expand and get a carrier.
EPT
