|
On January 26 2012 17:51 ceaRshaf wrote:
3) Is to give the carrier a chance vs Air and clumped units. Also to make the Tempest useless because that's a one hell of a boring unit and we don't want it. Also after all the interceptors are killed at least the carrier is not completely useless since it can still kill air with the AOL wave that has cool down. So you spread your carriers and make the AOL waves with each carrier, and maybe broodlords can be countered with something else than a mothership and it's actually more skill dependent.
This is just a suggestion. There are many ways to make this unit work. They just don't want to. The tempest is one boring unit that will bring more AOL and less micro. Buuuuu!
Yea I've been saying this all along.
Give carrier some kind of anti air AOE spell...
It would solve everything
|
Keep the Carrier, kill the Colossus and think about a replacement for that unit.
I would like to know who and why at Blizzard is exactly so in favour of the Colossus. Who likes that unit!?
It just breaks my heart when I see potential beeing replaced for another slow, fat, no-micro unit. That's just Blizzard making it clear that they decide what should be a micro unit and what not. Instead of making every unit interesting.
|
On January 27 2012 00:01 Jayson X wrote:
Keep the Carrier, kill the Colossus and think about a replacement for that unit.
I would like to know who and why at Blizzard is exactly so in favour of the Colossus. Who likes that unit!?
It just breaks my heart when I see potential beeing replaced for another slow, fat, no-micro unit. That's just Blizzard making it clear that they decide what should be a micro unit and what not. Instead of making every unit interesting.
I don't think many think of the Colossus as good game design. However, Blizzard will probably never remove it - I think they are afraid that doing so will hurt PvT and PvZ too much.
Long live the Carrier! Death to the 120 second build time!
|
I'll chime in. Keep the carrier, get rid of the Colossus, tweak balance and voila, a much better game!
|
On January 27 2012 00:01 Jayson X wrote:
Keep the Carrier, kill the Colossus and think about a replacement for that unit.
I would like to know who and why at Blizzard is exactly so in favour of the Colossus. Who likes that unit!?
It just breaks my heart when I see potential beeing replaced for another slow, fat, no-micro unit. That's just Blizzard making it clear that they decide what should be a micro unit and what not. Instead of making every unit interesting.
Colossus probably will never be removed because it's a darling of Dustin Browder. I still remember when he revealed it and it was supposed to be cool as hell because it has no path resistance for ground units and can cliff walk.
|
Agreed. I'm not sure why blizzard seems to want to make sure that every unit in the game is only there if it is used regularly. Brood war had so many units people almost never used, and it gave the game diversity and provided exta excitement when players used these units.
|
Protoss is having an enormous troube lategame with broodlord/infestor
Hongun is dominating that with carrier/voidray.
Carrier in its current form sure has functions, its just not explored enough. However it still needs a buff, but it sure isn't as useless as people think it is, they are just too bad to use it.
|
fuck the carrier
it has no place in the current game
to make it good, they would have to spend just as much work on it as it would take to balance a brand new unit
sometimes for fun i go carriers in team games. they get destroyed by so many different unit compositions. even if i am trolling 2 or 3 leagues below my 1v1 league (masters)
|
|
|
Protoss should have TWO viable siege options: Collosus, and Carrier. There should be more than one way to solve a problem.
No, the carrier should not have its movement speed increased. That should be an inherent weakness of any siege-based weapon. Let's make a run down:
- Siege tank
- Brood Lord
- Collosus
- Carrier
Proper siege unit design should adhere to at least 2 out of 3 rules:
- requires setup time and is vulnerable/defenseless during this time
- slow moving; lags behind the army during A-move; hence limited mobility
- easily countered when caught out of position, requiring other units to guard it; any counter which can close distance will easily take it down
The Collosus does not adhere to 2 out of the 3 rules. This makes the Collosus an easy, no brainer choice and as a result far more effective than it should be, with little to no risk. It is a mobile, cliff-walking siege tank with speed comparable to the rest of the Protoss army and requires no setup time to use.
IMO the Carrier should be tweaked in this fashion:
- Bring back the interceptor AI from BW. In SC2, we never see the awesome "fan" of mass interceptor launch which is one of the defining micro traits of the carrier. The interceptors are supposed to return for repairs...I'm not sure if they even do that in SC2. Maybe it does, but so few of us even care to use the Carrier soooo...
- Tweak the Collosus so that it does not completely outshine the Carrier. Protoss should not be punished for going Stargate; on the contrary it should be rewarded if not on-par with going robo tech. More choices is a good thing.
|
if the carrier sux in sc2 get rid of it. You only see it in tvp in BW. Its mostly a unit that is iconic as something that noobs mass in fastest games.
|
2 changes needed would be build time decrease (really important imo) and preferably more micro-able. The suggestion of free interceptors is also interesting and would be good to try out.
|
The Carrier has inherent advantages over the Colossus; it's an air unit, is more micro-able, has a totally different attack mechanic, etc. The key thing to do, I think, is to heighten these already-existing strengths of the unit, by making it perhaps faster, more micro-able (attacking on the move is a MUST here), decreasing cost and/or buildtime of interceptors, and the like. If all that's not enough, then the next step would be to try to compensate for some of its weaknesses, perhaps by giving it an anti-air AoE spell (detonate Interceptor comes to mind).
The Carrier HAS a role in the game. Fiddle around with it a little, and it becomes (at the least) a key situational unit in the Protoss arsenal, with lots of uses.
Do it, Blizzard. Pretty please?
|
On January 26 2012 09:52 Acayex wrote:
Really hoping for the Carrier to stay and maybe Blizzard would look at the Colossus and the general Deathball style of Protoss instead so the Carrier can maintain its role, instead of having it overlap. It's extremely dull and uninteresting to both players and viewers IMO.
Here's hoping for the Colossus to get replaced with a non-Deathball AoE unit. (/prays for Reaver-style unit)
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=295709
|
|
|
Agreed, given some small control and balance changes the carriers would play a far more fun role in the game and removing them altogether without even touching them for near on a year is shortsighted.
|
On January 26 2012 10:32 erazerr wrote:
so the question is: how do you make it good? because its actually the worst unit in the entire game
1.- Modify Colossus, or remove them
2.- reduced build time
3.- and just like in BW be able to move the carrier withount taking out the interceptors off the figth...
|
I don't think the carrier should be removed even if it's not viable. If the carrier is bad and only noobs use it but still have fun with it then why remove it? It's an iconic unit, it won't affect the progaming and some people really enjoy it. I don't see any good reason why blizzard should remove it
|
carriers dosen't add anything and is never used
they simply diden't get remade well enough into sc2 (they are like the same, but new units like infestors, corrupters, voidrays, vikings, and stuff like unit clumping made them change alot)
carriers do not create a new playstyle no matter what the op says
throw out the flying garbage bat hive
|
Carrier will stay. Just play Wings of Liberty and not Hots, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
