|
On August 04 2012 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 07:13 HappyTimePANDA wrote:On August 04 2012 06:41 Mohdoo wrote:On August 04 2012 06:37 HappyTimePANDA wrote:
Lot's of BW units people wanted didn't come. Carrier came, it saw, it failed. Majority won't even know the carrier is gone. If they could make it fit in balance and make it usable at same time, then I see no problem. But as things are and with HOTS coming, the carrier seems to have phased itself out. Did you see NASL finals? Carriers are how MC took out Liquid`Ret. Been watching ASUS ROG? Liquid`Hero took out EG.Suppy in the final game using Carriers. Carriers are used way more often than Battle Cruisers ever are. A hand full of matches they were used out of hundreds. And the reason they worked is because they were so unexpected. Comparing to BC is pointless, since both are never used and only work as a surprise. (Although I would say BC is more viable since Terran needs a late game unit while toss is fine without carrier) My point is that while BCs are able to never be used, Carriers are not. And not only that, but Carrier/Void combination is becoming a go-to option in super late game PvZ. Carriers have a greater presence in Protoss strategies than BCs do in Terran strategies. This is relevant because Dustin Browder has said the reason the Carrier is being removed is the fact that it is not used enough. If that is the reason, BCs should also be gone. But in my eyes, neither should. And if one were to be removed by that logic, it would indisputably be the BC, judging by the past 6 months of professional games, both foreign and the GSL.
I am fine with Carriers staying. I was just saying if they want to take them out then so be it, I am more worried about HoTS balance than which units stay. *Of course I would ask for scourge back *
|
|
|
Oh wow, big news for the carrier; though if they did keep it what would they do with the tempest; obviously it couldn't be a long range siege unit, because Blizzard hates overlapping roles.
|
On August 04 2012 07:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2012 07:13 HappyTimePANDA wrote:On August 04 2012 06:41 Mohdoo wrote:On August 04 2012 06:37 HappyTimePANDA wrote:
Lot's of BW units people wanted didn't come. Carrier came, it saw, it failed. Majority won't even know the carrier is gone. If they could make it fit in balance and make it usable at same time, then I see no problem. But as things are and with HOTS coming, the carrier seems to have phased itself out. Did you see NASL finals? Carriers are how MC took out Liquid`Ret. Been watching ASUS ROG? Liquid`Hero took out EG.Suppy in the final game using Carriers. Carriers are used way more often than Battle Cruisers ever are. A hand full of matches they were used out of hundreds. And the reason they worked is because they were so unexpected. Comparing to BC is pointless, since both are never used and only work as a surprise. (Although I would say BC is more viable since Terran needs a late game unit while toss is fine without carrier) My point is that while BCs are able to never be used, Carriers are not. And not only that, but Carrier/Void combination is becoming a go-to option in super late game PvZ. Carriers have a greater presence in Protoss strategies than BCs do in Terran strategies. This is relevant because Dustin Browder has said the reason the Carrier is being removed is the fact that it is not used enough. If that is the reason, BCs should also be gone. But in my eyes, neither should. And if one were to be removed by that logic, it would indisputably be the BC, judging by the past 6 months of professional games, both foreign and the GSL.
BCs are rarely used in TvP late game split map, but they're not 'never used.'
They're pretty crucial in breaking mech vs mech stalemates in TvT and they've also started seeing play in uber-late game TvZ. This is a not a strong comparison. Quite frankly, the best argument is that DB said the Carrier is going to be removed because it doesn't see use, and that's simply proving to not be true anymore. Many protoss are working it into lategame PvZ. The bigger problem (and where the correlation to the BC falls apart) is that's really only viable in one matchup, whereas you can find a situation for the BC in all 3 matchups, even if the likelihood of reaching those gamestates isn't very high.
I want to see what effects the supposed change to the interceptors people have pointed out have on the carrier. It seems like the ability to launch interceptors with the carrier facing any direction may have some effect on making them a microable unit, we'll see after some time.
|
As long as corrupters and vikings exist, carriers will never be used in competitive play. It's too easy to be cost effective vs them in this game. It's the same as in PvZ in brood war, since scourge exist carriers are useless. In PvT, they outranged goliaths and wraiths so they were effective, but only near cliffs.
They need a significant range or health upgrade in SC2 to be viable.
|
Hm, yeah it felt different when I was using carriers recently, they indeed were able to be microed much much easier. I didn't understand what was going on but now I see they buffed them.
On August 04 2012 15:16 Meta wrote:
As long as corrupters and vikings exist, carriers will never be used in competitive play. It's too easy to be cost effective vs them in this game. It's the same as in PvZ in brood war, since scourge exist carriers are useless. In PvT, they outranged goliaths and wraiths so they were effective, but only near cliffs.
They need a significant range or health upgrade in SC2 to be viable.
Nah, carriers work even in high level. For example yesterday I saw HerO vs Suppy in asus rog and in the last game hero transitioned into void ray carrier mothership with hts and archon in the late game and he won the game.
|
Whaaat? No way! OMG CARRIERRRSSS!!!!!1
|
|
|
Hopefully carrier will stay in HotS. I don't see how mass tempests can scare someone.
|
Hoooooooooly shits carriers ninja patch, I'm down with that!! I check it out right now!
|
On August 04 2012 15:16 Meta wrote:
As long as corrupters and vikings exist, carriers will never be used in competitive play. It's too easy to be cost effective vs them in this game. It's the same as in PvZ in brood war, since scourge exist carriers are useless. In PvT, they outranged goliaths and wraiths so they were effective, but only near cliffs.
They need a significant range or health upgrade in SC2 to be viable.
Sure, ignore the NASL and Asus ROG. And GSL games. Its used...
|
Fungal growths seem to take out a lot more interceptors now because of the ninja patch, though by the time you have carriers, you usually have excess minerals anyways. We'll just have to wait until they get used even more!
|
If you have seen it in the game, now the interceptor flying area is extremely small, for 4 carriers, one fungal can capture most of the interceptors
|
Any videos of the new carrier in action? I cant wait to see the hero vs suppy game
|
Did I read that right?? Is this the 1st patch that the carrier has had in SC2?? Time to rejoice :D :D
|
why would u fight for a boring a move unit of wich toss has certainly enough
|
I would rather have carriers changed and stay in the game than have the tempest added in. 22 range + splash damage is just insane, there is no way for zerg or terran to deal with that lategame. At least carriers can be defeated with some good micro.
|
dat carrier was patched. rejoice folks
|
On August 05 2012 01:47 Garoodah wrote:
I would rather have carriers changed and stay in the game than have the tempest added in. 22 range + splash damage is just insane, there is no way for zerg or terran to deal with that lategame. At least carriers can be defeated with some good micro.
Uneducated comments like this plague TL, and could easily be avoided if people just did their research.
You are wrong on so many levels. First off, you claim imbalance before even playing the game in it's current state. Secondly, the 22 range is only after an expensive upgrade on the Fleet Beacon that adds 12 additional range to the original 10, which simply can't be left out of the calculation. The third fault you make is to claim that the Tempest has splash damage, which is simply wrong.
Not to mention the immense cost of a unit that requires good micro to be effective, ie. targeting key units, while requiring vision of the target. Look at the stats, 22 range, 49 dmg +17 vs massive with a 6 second cooldown is 8.17 +2.83 vs massive, compared to the 26.7 of the Carrier. It's hardly a dps monster.
Please do your research.
|
The carrier is not long range anyway... in my opinion, it's sole use is as DPS, as protoss has no other good DPS option that is not splash  So it does not compete with tempest, there is room for both.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
